Compartmentalization

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Satyr, Jan 28, 2007.

?

Do you agree?

  1. YES

    6 vote(s)
    31.6%
  2. NO

    2 vote(s)
    10.5%
  3. UNDECIDED

    3 vote(s)
    15.8%
  4. SCREW YOU!!!

    8 vote(s)
    42.1%
  1. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Is the opposite also true? Is the rational mind horrifying to the irrational mind?

    Baron Max
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    "...when we don’t even know what 1 is."

    1 is the sight of a person on the horizon...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    The irrational mind is horrifying to the rational mind.

    That statement itself is irrational. Horror is an emotional response to a limited perception. The rational mind should not fear the irrational mind, the rational mind if it truly is rational, will learn to master the irrational mind.

    Example, knowing whats in your best interest, and knowing whats in the best interest of your species, and of the earth, is a result of a super rational mindset. This is when the rational mind, is also self conscious of the fact that the rational mind is all that exists, and that the body itself is irrational, along with all the feelings, perceptions and emotions that go with it.

    Most people who reach super rational state, never can fully lose their irrational side. You can be super rational and still for example fall in love, or get sad, or hungry, or be greedy or whatever. The rational mind is simply what allows you to interpret events outside of the physical "Self". Math is rational, because it's numbers and symbols, it can calculate and interpret data from the physical domain without any of the irrationality that would be involved otherwise.

    If for example, every human is a number, you can do more accurate computations, and make more accurate decisions. A computer could manage human resources better than any human can because a computer does not care about race, gender, height, beauty, smell, taste, feel, or any of the bullshit that humans use to calculate. It would just apply 1s and 0s, and calculate the numbers. The computer could be more rational than any human on earth can ever be, and can make the most rational decisions at all times because it won't factor in any of the human perceptions or preferences and would simply do whatever is in humans best interest. It would not take into account anything but the best interest of humans.

    So you see, no human is ever completely rational or irrational, some are more rational than others, but even the most rational people have irrational sides, either they have baises, or preferences, or emotions, or just bad habits, but no one is completely rational without the help of computers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    TheMosaicMan
    You poor, pathetic imbecile.
    If you had the brains to know how stupid you really are you would kill yourself.

    First error, idiot.

    Nobody said anything about ‘bad or ‘good’.
    These are the words of children like you.

    Here comes the “supernatural” baptized and given a new name: “super rational mindset”.

    Notice, from the start, how an insinuation with no supportive evidence is presented as fact and legitimized by using the word ‘rational.’
    You know, just like Christian imbeciles do when they present their fairy tale creationist ideas followed by the word “theory” to make it seem like it’s a legitimate scientific probability.

    Here the imbecile is using duality, a human prejudiced separation of mind from body, to construct his edifice of absurdity on a mound of sand.

    The moron is talking about intellect versus instinct or conscious versus subconscious reasoning, only he invents the “supra…” part to make it seem like he’s thinking on his own.

    Then, perhaps, this moron can explain, rationally, what the number 1 is.

    The idiot begins by describing what objectivity is and then, at the very end, veers off into the selfless tripe of ‘being interested in the well-being of humanity’.

    All that huffing and puffing, and then he concludes by agreeing with my original premises.
    Disappointing.

    What a piece of biased thinking based on outer appearances.

    In other words need forces compromises or weakness submits to necessity.

    Here the moron is using the hypothetical separation of mind and body to construct a myth.
    Here appearance is different from essence.

    In other words it requires training or retraining (meme over gene).
    Humans are not monogamous, but civilization is built on the necessity of incorporating as many individuals within its control as possible. Monogamy becomes a technology of harnessing males and females to a common cart.
    So, in essence, the culture imposes ideals that are meant to suppress and dilute and redirect natural predispositions into socially useful predispositions – this is called, in psychology, suppression.

    What a person says can be made-up. Words can mask intent.

    Furthermore are not words sounds?
    Are they not rhythmic sensual information conveying messages and using symbols to convey thoughts or intents or information?

    Is not color also a sensual conveyor of messages and information?
    Does not the color of a fruit say something about the fruit?

    “More directly” does not necessarily mean more accurately or more honestly.
    A mind can pretend and lie.
    Sometimes the mouth says one thing and the activity another.

    You imbecile. You begin with a stereotypical concept of what racism is, yourself.
    Nobody has said anything about abusing anyone or about treating them with hostility.
    I see my dog is different than me but I still offer it kindness if it reciprocates with loyalty.

    My questions are direct, clear and obvious.
    They do not deal with what you do or how you use the answers.

    Idiot…so far you are using a selfish motive to explain a hypothetical selflessness.
    If your only argument against racism is that it will bit you on the ass, then admit that your motives are hypocritical and self-serving.

    You do not treat ‘green-haired’ people with respect because you think they are like you but because treating them otherwise will have dire consequences.
    Civilization: Institutionalized hypocrisy.

    He returns to the culturally determined language.
    “Superficially”?
    Please tell me how you judge in any other way.

    When you choose vegetables at the market what deep processes are you using to distinguish the good vegetable from the bad or the celery from the carrot?

    If visual information is superficial then why is not any other sensual information similarly so, you pathetic stupid imbecile!!!!

    Why is color superficial when judging human beings but it isn’t when judging animals or rocks?

    “THINK for ourselves”, in this context, means “THINK in accordance to cultural and social norms”.
    This imbecile is preaching socially acceptable, politically-correct double-speaks and then pretends he is THINKING for himself.

    Wow!!! And I didn’t even feel a thing.

    I can’t count the times an imbecile has declared victory by spouting out inanities.

    The questions in the original post are direct, obvious and clear.

    So far this moron has not answered one.

    Here they are again:
    If color is superficial in judging human essence then why is not any other sensual information, sound carrying language, included?
    If visual information is superficial, is sound, taste, smell, touch no less superficial? If so then what is deep thinking or perception?

    If we use sensual information to categorize and determine species or plant types or rock types or stars then why do they not apply to humans?

    Here the imbecile uses the second catch-word: generalization.
    Typical and predictable.

    Perhaps he can offer us a single instance of a non-generalization.
    ONE.

    Let’s take the number 1.
    What is it?
    Is it specific?
    Is it precise?
    What does the # 1 mean?

    This brought a tear to my eye.

    No…you are pretty much it.

    Baron Max
    If I’m accurately translating your hillbilly, American, drool, you meant to say:
    "The rational mind is horrifying to the irrational mind."

    Obviously, but for different reasons.

    The rational mind is horrified by the irrational mind because it is uncontrollable, it cannot be reasoned with, it is purely emotion and instinct with little to no thought….just like an animal is.

    The irrational mind is horrified by the rational mind because it is mysterious and incomprehensible to it; it senses its superiority and feels threatened and inferior and insecure in relation to it.
    It’s best defense? Combining, with others of its kind, into groups or herd.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    *Sigh*

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Satyr, you accuse others of being childish because they disagree with you, yet you reply with grade 5 quality name calling?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In your opening threads, you made this statement:

    And here you are, the first to do what you have basically accused others of doing. It appears the only one here who is being uncivil is you. Ironic, no? But sadly expected.

    In short, if you cannot reply to someone's criticisms, calling someone an "imbecile", "idiot" or "moron" as your only reply, makes you look like what you accuse them of being.

    Don't make me have to moderate more than I already do. I wish to have a lazy day today. Thank you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Had you been one to buy fruit and vegetables often, you would have come to the realisation that the prettiest and most colourful fruits and vegetables in the supermarket, are bred just for looks and not for taste.

    Go to a farm or orchard and buy your fruit directly from them or from an organic store, and you will learn that colour and looks have nothing to do with taste. Just like a rose is bred to look beautiful, it will be lacking in the perfume that makes it a sensual and stunning flower. Anything bred specifically for colour or looks will usually be bland in every other sense, be it taste, smell, touch and feel.

    What makes you think it is not? After all, if you see a stunning specimen of a human being and you are agog with their colour, looks, how they carry themselves, and they open their mouths and sound like a hillbilly who pronounces 'ask' as 'aks' (as one example), would their perfection seem less perfect to you?

    Visual is superficial for the most part (refer to above regarding bland fruit bred only for looks). But we are socially conditioned to go for looks first and everything else comes second, if at all. I think you would find that most men, who when confronted by the 'perfect' looking woman, would ignore the fact that she might also be dumb as a doorknob and have a laugh akin to a hyenna's bark. The same would apply for women.

    We are all racist, whether we wish to admit it or not. We will judge others on their colour and looks, whether we want too or not. We are socially conditioned to. However for most people, we learn through trial and error to distinguish the good from the bad and will get to the point where we stop judging on mere colour and look deeper before assessing the value of the individual. If we were to select only on colour, the result would be as bland as the shiny red apple that was bred solely to look shiny and red and to appeal to the visual sense.
     
  10. TheMosaicMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    laugh

    It seems that I have made you very mad at me.. That gives me great pleasure for I've a marked sadistic streak in me..

    Your post is littered with insults, which are repetitive and lack both craft and insight. Are your acumen and vocabulary so limited? Do you not possess a more imaginitive arsenal of insults than this? If one is attempting to support a dangerously unjustified position of assumed superiority, then in the absence of any substance, any REASON, one should at least have an exotic collection of vitriol which one can wield with panache and so bewilder and enrage ones' opponent, to hopefully provoke them into such a state of blind fury, they fail to observe the total lack of an argumentative foundation.

    I haven't gone out of my way to insult you, yet it appears that you're flailing about in a red haze already, for you have quoted a number of passages from TimeTravellers post and put them inside of mine, under my nickname. That I don't at all like what he says or how he says it, makes this particular error of judgement unforgivable. If it was an accident, that disparages you in itself. If it was deliberate, then equivocating our positions illustrates an intent to deceive, contrary to the honesty you proclaimed earlier.

    Now, I'm not going to insult you, there are no mistakes I need obsfucate, instead I will simply point out where your words lack substance, where you lack understanding and why you continue to dig yourself into that same aforementioned hole and demonstrate why you fail to 'cut me to pieces.'

    I'll begin with your words. 'First error.' they are apt, but they apply to your words, not mine. Bad and good are general concepts, with near-countless synonyms, many of which you have used in your post. You label the 'modern mind' and so its ideals, as ignorant, sarcastically call it well-meaning and then pseudo-altruistic - also weak, indoctrinated, institutionalized, etc.. These you clearly see as BAD, if only for you. Do not attempt to hide behind semantics - or to differ 'essence from appearance' as you say.

    Next comes my astonishing impersonation of TimeTraveler. No further comment.

    Then, returning to my words on the difference between animals and humans, you call them biased thinking based on outer appearance. Hold on.. are you implying that this wrong or invalidates what I say? I am biased, yes, its rather difficult for me to look through the eyes of an animal.. much the same for you, yes? Or do you really have the head your nickname suggests? The difference I mentioned, as it turns out, is not merely skin deep..

    I'm not sure how you can imply that strength does not submit to neccessity. If it is neccessary, then clearly that 'strength' isn't strong enough yes? The practical notion of strength is, as with all else, relative to your perspective, as neccessity is relative, in turn, to that.

    And then.. a myth! Perhaps you read my words as saying that the brain is ALL of a person and ALL of a persons behaviour. I said it was the FOUNDATION, behind behaviour. You cannot possibly be implying that differences in skin colour or such racial traits are equally relevant as to be said to be equal FOUNDATIONS behind human behaviour, that is inane.. There is a reason the brain is inside the skin and not vice versa..

    Ah, but wait now. Hypothetical separation of mind and body, you say.. I will make a guess that you've discovered the 'unity of being' concept and thus enlightened, are attempting to flaunt your newfound knowledge by using it to 'invalidate' all generalization, all number, all language, culture etc.. It is a powerful concept indeed and you seem confident that it, or whatever you have that resembles it, will save you, no matter what people say, hence your attitude..

    There is but one problem and it is this: YOU, as in, your PERSPECTIVE does not constitute the whole 'unity of being' of which you are a 'part.' What this means, is that in order to deal effectively (e.g. to live, learn, etc) with this seemingly infinite unity of being, you are required to make generalizations, due to your inability to calculate/know all reality at once.

    The measure of the worth of any generalization, is its _accuracy_ which relates finally to the most base foundation you have to work from: Your perspective, you. For the sake of efficiency, we treat generalizations, where the threshold of error is judged to be far far away, as being 'fact.' If you want to nitpick, get semantic about all this, then be my guest, I expect that if you try to live without generalizations, you'll be going out with a bang soon enough.

    Thats what you're doing by calling my statement about the brain and human behaviour, a 'myth.' You don't even attempt to refute it on any grounds of practicality, you simply try to invalidate it flat out. You don't possess the neccessary knowledge, power or living-capacity to operate at that level of accuracy, you are human.

    Memetics over genetics, sure that works; Where 'memes' allow us greater accuracy than genes, it is a very reasonable arrangement. Humans are not monogamous?? I seem to recall studies confirming that the vast majority, do tend toward monogamy rather than polygamy.. Civilization built on monogamy? On a relationship preference, as opposed to cooperation? Pooling resources? Strength in numbers? As for the culture IMPOSING ideals upon people.. Cultures don't IMPOSE anything, they are emergent, OF people; PEOPLE may (memetically if you wish) impose culture upon themselves and may try to impose it on others. They do so by simply existing, as do you with yours. This is a fact of life, deal with it.

    I don't know what point you are trying to make about appearance and words here.. Appearance can also mask intent, heard of a disguise? And where did I say they were not sounds? That was the reason I mentioned words, you asked why people place more importance on sound or what people say, with humans, over appearance. I first pointed out that that does not seem to be the case and then why language (visual or aural or else) may be considered as a more direct method to dealing with the brain, for it is a powerful means by which you may gain some insight to anothers perspective - WITH their active cooperation.

    I can't understand where you came up with the idea that I don't think colour, appearance are important.. I clearly pointed out near the beginning - and with a working example, of how they ARE useful. What I am NOT doing, is concentrating exclusively on one facet of information, ignoring all others..

    'More directly' I will contend, may not ALWAYS be more accurate or more honest, but is FAR more often the case.. e.g. Speaking in person, as opposed to speaking long distance via medium of phone, internet, etc.. Much added potential for interruption via the latter mediums. Out of this concept of 'simplicity where possible' came Occums razor.

    By saying my apparently'beginning with a stereotypical concept of racism' I assume you're playing semantics again.. Its a general concept, how do you propose that it not be a generalization?

    'Nobody has said anything about abusing anyone or about treating them with hostility.' Hahahaha.... What!!! Reread your original post, for my hostility-detector5000 is picking up faint vibes of contempt, dislike, disgust, not to mention labels of 'stupid' 'ignorant' etc.. Perhaps you weren't talking _about_ it, no.. you were just DOING it, SAYING it.. Forgive me for interpreting the method as part of the message - you seem to think I should not separate 'appearance from essence' after all, eh? Aren't these weak, stupid, ignorant people just 'different'? Why do you not treat them with the kindness you do your dog? Hmmm, seems like some 'compartmentalization' to me.

    Your questions are direct, clear and obvious, yes. What you've done with my answers is not.. If your questions don't deal with how I use my answers what are you asking them for? Are you here to help me out for free?

    And now you call me an idiot, for using a 'selfish motive to explain a hypothetical selflessness' Here you simply lack understanding. I would have thought my last words in my first post had made this point, nevertheless I will make it again: I serve myself, I live for myself, I pursue accuracy, efficiency for myself. It HAPPENS, that cooperation all the way up to civilization, are very useful to ME. That it also benefits others, is fantastic, for that will ameliorate the preservation of my wellbeing further still. As I grow used to this way of living, I then naturally begin to care about those around me, for they are literally a part of my way of life. You see then, that my desire to rid the world around me of racism is not selflessness nor altruism, it is very relevant to me, my life. If you want more evidence of this phenom on a fundamental level, look up game theory.

    And so no, civilization is not hypocritical in this sense, at all.

    I return to the culturally determined language.. culturally determined? See prior comments on culture. Lets say for a moment that it were so: What then, are YOU using? Individually determined language? Why can I understand you? Why would you bother speaking to me if it were not a means of communication grown within people of this culture? This is your cue for a witty retort.

    I've already spoken on judgement and generality; that incorporates 'superficiality' as well. Spoken to on the supposed inequality of sensory data you perceive and also the difference between judging people/nature etc.. Trying to debunk generalizations as effective tools of living seems your only tactic here, apart from the imbecilic insults.

    And again, no, you do not understand. "THINK FOR OURSELVES" really does mean, everyone think individually. Not a contradiction, unless you have a problem understanding such a pluralized terminology.. Following up here are more insults in lieu of anything relevant to say. Also, I find it amusing that you speak as if to a crowd rather than to me.. clearly you're more interested in your 'performance' than in any practical application of knowledge, here.. Isn't that kowtowing to cultural themes? Are you perhaps putting on a show for the benefit of the very culture you seem to despise?

    You sound like the proverbial broken record, repeating the same things over and over: "My questions are clear, direct and obvious." "Why is colour superficial?" Yes I got them the first time, they're written down for posterity also. Perhaps you're repeating them to convince yourself? Of what? I don't know, I don't much care..

    I've answered every one of your questions, bar the side-note (see 'unity of being' for some of what relates to that) directly or in passing, don't try tell me I haven't addressed them, your lack of understanding may be due to your thought-cloying anger/contempt, your set-in-stone idealistic convictions/'compartmentalizations', your preoccupation with this truly 'enthralling' performance of 'cutting me to pieces' - whatever, its _your_ lack of understanding, you have got to deal with it, no amount of castigation or obsfucation will save you from the jaws of consequence, the juggernaut of reason.
     
  11. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Ah nice frame, using the word baptized to put the religious tint into the arguement. Super-rational is also how the internet works, because without a super rational "mind" you could not take advantage of millions of interconnected computers. If we don't all use similar software, the hardware is useless, but I guess you are unable to figure that out.

    And you respond with an insinuation, with no supportive evidence that you present as "fact", but which is actually opinion, and has no meaning beyond to refute my previous arguement.

    Or just like science does when it uses number theory? Or how about the theory of evolution? Or what about the fact that, everything I said is science, and that numbers come from religion, and science comes from numbers. You see, you use a word like probability, while ignoring the fact that geometry was invented by a religious inventor and numerologist. Before you can invent a science, you first need to evolve the human mind by giving it the software it needs so that it can actually take advantage of and upgrade it's hardware.

    So what philosophers do is work on the software of the mind. What you having is a philosophy of the mnd discussion in a human science section of the forum, which I guess highlights your own lack of judgement because compartmentalization itself is not "science", it's philosophy, it's study of the mind, not the hardware itself. If you want to talk in materialist terms, let's talk about the brain, and which neurons and electrons are involved in these types of thinking patterns, and which genes. Show me some genetic, or neurological, or biological evidence to back up anything you are saying.

    There, you just used the same thing when you seperated philosophy from science, and religion from philosophy, as if they all come from different areas of the brain, but you were unable to tell me the exact physical location and the exact neuro science involved in the equation. So you should show me some sources you can cite on the neuro-science of what you say if you'd like to take it in the direction of pure materialist science. You can disregard the theory of evolution too for the same reason, because hey if the mind is not seperate from the body, then evolution is impossible, and there is no such thing as genetics.

    Look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality

    Superrationality is the basis for game theory. We could not have corporations, or a nation state, if there were no such thing as thinking outside the body in a superrational state. If we can think as one, to run a company, or think as one to run a country, we can think as one in the best interest of our species, and if we can't, a computer can because it's more rational.

    You have 1 and you have 0, yes and no, on and off, right and wrong, plus and minus, direction! Left and right! Up and down! You can basically encode the entire universe into 1 and 0. Your computer is displaying 1s and 0s right now, so don't argue with me.

    Because humanity is self, if you are rational you look out for our best interest. Why? Because a species which has no species level consciousness will not behave in a rational way and will go extinct, so according to natural law, it's in the best interest of the individual, and of the species, to do whats in each others best interest, because if they do they maximize their chances of survival in harsh environments. Why the hell do you think we discovered it was better to cooperate? Why do you think we learned what family is? Why do you think we started building villages? The dogs know this!

    What myth?

    Duh. Do you have X ray vision? Can you look inside a person to see what they feel?

    Stop making generalized statements. Some humans are monogamous and some arent. You can say most arent, but never say "humans arent".

    It's called survival. You expect humans to live like cavemen forever? You want us to live simple? Like monkeys?

    That is why you study behavior. Behavioralism is all the matters. People say bullshit.

    What if someone changes the color of the fruit to trick your eyes? Are you that stupid? If you think with your eyes, you'll be lost in a world of illusion your whole life. Women will start to take your eyes first, in speific, beautiful women will own your eyes. The media will also own your eyes, and over a period of years, you'll be controlled by your eyes.

    So red look's good to your eyes? Stare at this red dot please.. don't blink!

    You need to learn a bit more before you type. While a mind can pretend and lie, a mind can also be tricked into the truth.

    If it has loyalty, and it reciprocates love, it's not really different from you. Somewhere, genetically or chemically, it's the same. In all the places that matter, you and the dog are the same, you just LOOK different. I guess you cannot see that while a child is not a man and cannot talk, it still have human feelings and thus it's the same. A dog might not have human intelligence, but it has human feelings and therefore it can feel pain, love, and emotions just as you can. A dog it not a physical object or piece of animal.

    There is no such thing as selflessness. Those who are altruistic, are actually just rationally selfish. If you understand the connections between different lifeforms, then of course it makes sense to give to recieve. You feed your dog, your dog helps you hunt, symbiosis!

    And there, you reveal how you think for the world to see. You have no compassion. If you cannot love ALL humans races, why should I believe you love any?

    Nutritional value, is it organic or not? What is the chemical structure? Look, you are a pet, you eat like a pet, you go to a super market, how would you feel if you woke up finally and discovered you are a pet to someone higher than yourself? Would you still think this way? If you as a pet, are unable to even understand that if you abuse pets lower than you, that whoever is higher than you is now morally justified in abusing you in the same way, well then you are a fool. Why should anyone respect you if you don't respect those below yourself?

    That's a stupid thing to say. Like I said, this is why the food is so toxic, because people are so stupid they don't even read the packages to see whats in it. They think with their fucking eyes! "oh this apple looks ripe and fresh, it's so red!" so yeah those who make apples can genetically engineer it to be as red as the human eye can handle, and as tasty as the human tongue can taste, but as harmful and addictive to the human body as possible. Next thing you know you'll be addicted to apples, and you'll make other people rich as you apple yourself to death. So go ahead, keep thinking like that, it will open up entire industries to profit from your flawed thinking. And while I do have remorse, some people who run businesses don't have any remorse at all, and will trick you into buying what they want you to buy and doing what they want you to do just by changing the colors and appearances and tricking your eyes.

    Alright, fine, keep judging that way. See what happens. You'll eventually discover in the future, that animals are not objects like fucking rocks, but if you really view yourself as an object, people will start treating you as one, and you'll be just a consumer, a number, an object, to profit from.

    It's stupid to use just ONE type of perception to judge. A person should rationally judge, meaning they should use their brain, and understand human behavior regardless of what they are able to percieve. It's more important to understand how a human thinks, than to listen to what a human says, or pay attention to how a human looks, and this is why we have psychology. At the same time we have the ability to influence human behavior because we do understand how we think, this is why we have capitalism. Human's control other humans, and if you think otherwise, and you follow your eyes, well, good, keep doing that and if I ever start a business, you''ll help me get rich marketing to you. Just follow the girl with the nice breasts, into my store, and buy my product. And if you don't like girls, well then follow the yellow brick road.

    Look, all of us have times where we think simple, but it's not wise to think simple all the time. If you follow just your eyes, what stops a person from tricking you into buying cigarettes? It's sooo cool, and the commercials have good music, and the smoke tastes sooo good, and all these attractive women and men smoke, want some? You know you do.

    We use genetic information now. The age of using our senses to create species is long gone. Look, we discovered DNA, and science, and now you want to ignore all this to simplify us down to modern monkey?

    1 means on. 0 means off. If your small brain cannot figure it out, ask your transistor.

    Animals are trainable and controllable. You for example, are controlled by your eyes!


    Some of the stuff you say makes you seem like a complete alien. The rational mind and the irrational mind are not seperate, they combine to form the human mind. Emotions are not always irrational, and when emotions are rational, they can lead to greater rationality in the long term. Example, when a mother takes care of it's young, thats emotionally right, it's rational, and because of this it is super rational, because it is the only reason a species like ours exists. If humans thought like you did, they'd have the baby, then immediately kill it, cook it up, and eat it, because they can save time hunting for food. Lions do this, it's rational right? Sure it's rational, but it's not super rational, which means the Lion is hurting itself due to it's own flawed thinking, unable to think far ahead.

    Imagine if humans started to cannibalize their kids, and eat them, this is rational enough where we could come to the conclusion that it's an optional move to make, maybe even a correct move in terms of immediate rewards, but the simply problem is, LONG term, there are no sustainable rewards, you just killed yourself by cannibalizing your kid, and you'll eventually die, go extinct and that will be the end of your species. So in this case the super rational thing, which most humans figured out, is to RAISE the kid, and mothers figured this out first, and finally fathers caught on, and these two humans then could build stuff, create farms, and not even have to hunt anymore as food became plenty, and water became plenty. All they had to do, is put their kids to work, and live like king and queen.
     
  12. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Don't say something like we are "all" racist. That's like saying all women judge men by the size of their penis, and all women judge men by the size of their breasts. There is truth to the fact that yes, we might prefer a certain color, we might prefer a certain shape, but we don't all JUDGE based on what we see because some of us have figured out it's all an illusion.

    All it takes to figure out, is this. Date a guy who has a big penis, but who is a complete asshole, who treats you and everyone like crap, and suddenly, you can see clearly now, you now know that your eyes tricked you! Once you come to that conclusion, then you can come to the conclusion that, "alright, maybe these big penis guys are better in bed, but thats about it."

    What this says, and it's super simple. Race only matters if you have a fetish for a certain racial appearance, in the sexual context it makes sense. In the political context it makes no sense at all, and if you are racist in the sexual context you are just as easily tricked as those who are racist in the political context, as if someone knows you have a fetish for a certain look, they can use that information to bait you, or attract you, sorta like how a lot of women know guys like big breasts so they get breast implants.

    Do you understand? So yes, we all have preferences, but some of us learn to ignore whatever the visual preferences are to focus on the more important preferences. Otherwise you'll be seduced by the guy who sings to you at night and has the nicest body.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    *Sigh*

    Re-read what I have written. Again. Slowly. You always seem to take what I say, reword it and then tell me I was wrong, while saying the same thing I was saying. It is a bit annoying. Especially when you attempt to be condescending in the process.

    As I said before, we do judge on looks, at first. However, as you have also said, after a while, those with some level of understanding will come to realise that looks alone mean nothing. Refer to the fruit comments I had made above.

    There are those who have a certain fetish. I know a woman who will only date African American men (and seeing that we are in Australia, she has a bit of an issue to get a date). I don't know why, nor do I want to know. That it is a fetish goes without saying. She is also a bit of an idiot. After all, who in their right mind, living in Australia, would only selectively date African American men?

    Anywho I digress.

    The first sense that is utilised, upon meeting someone, is sight. Some will judge another on sight alone and others will wait until they have gotten to know them a bit better before deciding if they are somehow worth their time or not.
     
  14. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    For me it's not any one sense, it's a calculation. It's a matter of information/data, and calculation.
     
  15. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    TheMosaicMan
    Nice touch of nonchalance and aloofness.

    Yes, you’ve hit a nerve…you matter.
    When a nit makes a horse wince and wave its tail, I bet the nit feels superior to the horse – such is the pleasure of weakness.

    No, I’m just not willing to put too much effort into it.

    I’ll try harder.

    All you retards sound alike.

    Sometimes you can be ‘cut to pieces’ and deny it to yourself.

    Ouch….nice comeback.

    Placing words in my mouth to construct a strawman is telling.
    Modern man is all that, and I like him that way.

    You share an intellectual level…only you hide it behind feigned civility and big words.

    I suspect you have some magical ability to “look through” a human’s eye …or do you imagine it?
    How do you judge what another is thinking or feeling?
    All value judgments are in degree not in absolutes and they are comparisons.

    A “foundation” implying something deeper, mysterious, magical.

    Define “inside”.

    Body and mind are manifestations of the same temporal becoming in another context.
    A body’s physical characteristics are expressions of its essence in no different way than a brain’s abstractions and linguistic transmission of them are expressions of the same essence.
    Furthermore appearance is more honest than verbal expression since it is more difficult to mask and to hide it.
    Words can mislead and lie and pretend, actions never.

    Appearance isn’t a dichotomy. Mind is a product of brain, which is a physical phenomenon.
    Yes.
    You should read up on it.
    I have written extensively on the subject on other forums and in my Blog.

    I am?

    This explains why humans are so disciplined to cultural norms and need to be trained, with morals and through institutions to behave within ”socially acceptable” parameters.
    It explains social harmony.
    The ant is a good example of “emergent” social instincts and their final destination.

    My questions were clear. You fail to answer them. Perhaps you fail to comprehend them.
    This redirection is also telling.
    If you trust on the validity of language, sound expressed through rhythmic continuity symbolizing abstractions, then why do you mistrust other forms of sensual information?
    If you are certain that words mean something then why does not color?
    If color is superficial why is not form?
    Stay on topic.

    So what’s the fuck is your problem?

    I propose that you listen to what is being said before you respond guided by what you think is motivating what is being said.
    Considering something inferior and acting upon it, are two different things.
    Do you treat a dog with kindness because it is your equal?
    In your case it might be.

    You never answer… you dance around like a ballerina, with your tongue out thinking you are pretty or are making a ‘good point’.

    Then we have nothing to disagree about.

    It is when it believes it is selfless or guided by some “higher principle”.

    Civilization is pretense.
    I pretend to like someone so as to avoid confronting him, because the system forbids it.
    I tolerate my neighbor, I do not love him as myself.

    I was referring to your usage of culturally determined catch-phrases.

    I never claimed to be against generalizations.
    Are you reading my words?
    I speak to you as a representative of the crowd.
    You, as an individual, do not interest me at all. It is what you represent that interest me as a social phenomenon.

    Then move on.
    My comments are directed to the feel-good, pseudo-altruistic, liberal, politically-correct, non-generalizing Joe public.
    You know Christians or any religious mind.

    Yuo have?
    I must have missed it in all the clutter of unrelated commentary.

    Wow!
     
  16. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    TimeTraveler
    Duh....

    I tend to respond in kind.
    What were you saying again….?

    Who, pray tell?
    Was he Greek?
    Did Christians invent counting, as well?
    Do the research on your own.
    There is plenty of scientific insight into the working of the brain.

    What is direction?

    The mind Body myth.

    No I have vision which extrapolates.
    Emotions are essence? Emotions are reactions that can be outwardly
    perceived. Where does “X-ray” vision come in, except in your weak brain?

    See this is the type of mind I was addressing in my original post.
    Reread what I wrote. The answer is there.

    Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Thanks for understanding so deeply.

    Here, again, this brain returns to appearances being relevant.

    Here, once more, we see this brain failing to grasp what I’m saying.

    Anthropomorphizing in all its glory.
    A projection of imagination upon another.
    He concludes all this from appearances and yet he might deny the importance of appearances elsewhere.
    It’s like a game.

    “Love”?
    Again a concept left undefined, insinuating something nice and warm and fuzzy.
    Once more the topic is avoided and this brain jumps to its projections of what it thinks I’m saying.
    He wants to fight on a moralistic and emotional level rather than a rational one.
    I ask why does color matter in some instances and not in others or why color does not matter when form does and this brain jumps around from peripheral subject to peripheral subject, trying to establish a foothold on a moral high ground, pretending that I’ve said something about how we treat others.

    Huh?:bugeye: He's debating phantoms.

    The emotional element re-enters the fray.
    The answer is, again, avoided under a slew of moralizing and insinuated threats and the assumption that he more than an “object”.
    What is he then?
    A spirit?

    This guy is exceptional.
    This forum is lucky to have such minds in its midst.

    Here, again, the question is avoided.
    He goes onto a tirade about how your senses might fool you.
    He prefers to imagine instead.

    When he sees a fruit, he is uncertain if the sensual information he is gathering from it are pure and honest and direct. Instead he imagines that the fruit is just like him and he is good…therefore the fruit is good. Then he looks on the packaging where nobody can fool him using words.
    He trusts his feelings more than his eyes and he relies more on what others tell him rather than what he perceives.

    And how do we access this scientific information?
    How do we perceive DNA?
    Do we use magic or some supernatural sensing mechanism?

    What is “ON/OFF”?
    Here this brain replaces one ambiguity with another, believing he’s made a point…he’s solved the riddle.

    Yes, that’s it.
    The imbecile rescues his self-esteem by making a gross assumption about what it thinks is being said.

    Well, thank God that’s over.

    He showed me, didn’t he?
     
  17. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    Bells
    And how does this rebuff what I’ve said?
    How does human intervention deny natural methods of evaluation?

    Who connected looks with only taste?
    I said appearance says something about essence.

    My question, again, was clear and direct:
    Why, if color means nothing, does form mean something?
    Why does color mean something in one instance and nothing in another?
    It’s not difficult.

    And now I retire to deal with my immanent banishment, leaving all you bright minds to ponder the depths of perception and to imagine you are thinking when you are regurgitating.

    Ta...ta...
     
  18. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Are we talking 'qualia' here?
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Vanity and the need for perfection above all else. The result is the loss of the other essentials... taste, smell, feel.

    Hence why going by looks alone will never satisfy all the senses, because looks alone can never satisfy all of one's sense's, nor can colour. If you are a vain prat, then it might on some level, but for others who value, need or want to have all senses 'touched', looks or colour alone can leave one sorely disappointed.

    I am saying all means something. All are important together. You cannot isolate one from the others. Form, colour, taste, smell, etc.. all are essential to tickle the senses (for lack of a better term).

    If you judge on mere colour alone, then you basically sell yourself short.

    And I shall click [Submit], wondering why I ever bother. Reminds me of being a child and picking at that scab on my knee. You will excuse me if I stop basking in your wonder.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Toodles Satty. It has been fun, yet again.
     
  20. TheMosaicMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    Thats ironic, for it seems to me that it is you whom are dodging questions and ignoring points. I am pleased you bestow the unintentional compliment of a such a graceful, aesthetic example upon my words, however.

    The bulk of all your comments, original posts aside, lack any relevant substance and contrive to escape the question/point, attack the question/point or attack the questioner/pointer.. without any supporting reasoning. If these are supposed to support what few lines of actual, substantial reasoning that you do provide, let me remind you that these are then logical fallacies and so do nothing of the sort.

    On top of this, you frequently step outside standards of judgement that you apply to mine and others words, in order to make judgements yourself! This is the hypocrisy of which you are accusing Modern Man and Civilization in general. This inconsistancy is what undoes you more than anything else.

    Before I get to the meat of the discussion - slim pickings that it is - don't mind while I have as much fun with the appetizers as I can - they are much more entertaining than the main course itself.

    laugh.. Looking at this in the context of my words there, this says that you frequently have people pointing out your elementary mistakes. The evidence within this thread certainly suggests that, as do your many "modern man is [many unflattering words go here]" comments.

    Weak. While you search for something better, I might suggest some introspective thought on the topic of 'denial.'

    What feigned civility? Are you suggesting I am treating you civily? laugh again.. I'm not sure how one hides intellect through demonstrating knowledge.. were I merely using big words as a screen for the intellectual weakness you imply, you'd not have such trouble finding substantial problems with what I've written and could make do without all these personal attacks, for simple invocation of words does not ensure contextual accuracy of words.

    Laugh yet again.. Arthur C Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Are you so far behind the rest of us?

    This is an expression refering to the understanding of anothers perspective. The most thematic word here, is empathy. Naturally its harder to empathize with non-humans. It is very clear that you have trouble with this concept, supplanting it with such as "pretenses of liking people, when unable to confront them." I might add that if you have trouble with such judgements, that its flatly ridiculous for you to make any suppositions about me or anyone else that involve how they think or feel. That hasn't held you back though!

    No doubt you will say I am avoiding the question if I fail to RE-address this point: You judge through recognition of behavioural and biological patterns that you have in common with another. Body language, spoken language, etc.. these give indictions as to the emotional/reasoning state of the mind. Indeed, they may be deliberately deceptive signs as you pointed out last time I explained this, however they are more often NOT so, evidenced by the sophisticated cooperation present in almost every field of human/animal life.

    Hahaha.. oh my. Try applying that statement to itself. In fact, why do you try applying YOU to yourself? Or not; The contradictions might make you spontaneously combust.

    Actually no, you're completely wrong and I'm not sure why you choose to interpret that word as mysterious and magical. (perhaps Arthurs annecdote applies again?) I do recall hearing it used in that context, however its very unusual; neither are mentioned in the first 10 definitions of 'Foundation' from dictionary.com. The analogy I had in mind was that of a buildings' foundation which if you look at the whole building (going with your unity of being perspective) it is merely a label. However, in PRACTISE, the foundation is the base upon which the building solidly stands, without it, they tend to collapse/fall over. What I intended with it should now be very obvious.

    For gods sake (har har) man, I just said "IN THIS SENSE" which obviously excludes delusions of selflessness as they are the antithesis of entire paragraph!

    And here you gift me with what looks like a cameo from an 'Examples of logical fallacies' page, only you've expressed it in reverse. Turn it upside and you get.

    I tolerate my neighbour, I do not love him as myself.
    [Silent 'therefore'] I pretend to like someone [him/neighbour] so as to avoid confronting him, because the system forbids it.
    [Silent 'therefore'] Civilization is pretense.

    Haaaaaahaahahaha... thats fantastic, you could submit that as an example for wikipedia. I'm sure you'll object to the sentence-juggling, however it makes much more contextual 'sense' than 'Civilization is pretense' with no valid premise, no proven basis, or as a generally accepted axiom or even some support from personal experience - except in the words that follow it.

    Ah ha! I was waiting for this, as in the absence of a genuine point of debate, you were eventually bound to slip up and speak of the foundation from which your entire performance stems. At this point, I could step back and let this silly statement invalidate practically every substantial statement in your favour that you have made, not to mention all the personal attacks. (which require judgement, believe it or not)

    Er.. wait, wasn't I a representitive of that a paragraph ago? Laugh, what does it matter?

    Dear me, that was fun.. Ok, now for the only statements of substance that you have made, ones a person can actually attempt to have a discussion over.

    Ok, if you genuinely LIKE people to be weak, institutionalized, stupid, etc etc.. Then I must cede the point, and retract such a generalization, as it applies to you. I'll rephrase using less 'childlike' words: You asked, in essence, why OTHER PEOPLE (you claim) think it is UNACCEPTABLE to judge people by their outer appearances and yet ACCEPTABLE to judge animals/nature just so.

    You think that was a strawman? It is 'telling' that these changes make practically no difference to what follows in my post. Notice that I don't even accept the question summating your post, as self-evidently valid; I don't think the issue is so cut and dried as the on/off logic of the question suggests, hence my extensive explanation. There was no intention to 'set you up' as the strawman here.

    Other good examples of emergent social instincts and their not-so-final destinations are technology, science, philosophy, the internet, etc.. Were you trying to imply emergent effect of social instincts lead to inferiority? Lack of intelligence? If so, yet another logical fallacy.

    Retreating to your unity of being again, rather than saying anything useful. Probably because there wasn't much useful you could say that would support your case. Seriously man, what the hell is this? No I won't define it; this is so obvious and so stupid, so blatant a diversion that you can't even call it a straw man. Its like a crayon-scribbled stick figure on wet newspaper. Haha.. watching you run is highly entertaining.

    And you accuse me of hiding behind words?? laugh again.. Perhaps no surprise that this section holds one of the few SUBSTANTIAL statements you actually make, out of all the above. You're fine with one liners when 'debunking' or insulting other people, yet when it comes to your own stuff, its like the words are coming down from the sparkling firmament of the glorious heavens above and you seem to think they ought appear clear as day.

    I FULLY agree with the first sentence here. That is, until you put it in context of my words, which is where you will find it in your post. For here, it is meant to somehow invalidate or usurp my saying that color of skin is not as relevant to a persons behaviour as is their brain. You can't seriously be intending that.. in which case, I can't understand why you chose to write these words and put them right there.

    As for the comparisons of honesty, there you go again completely missing my point. I'll go off on a tangent too: isn't verbal expression part appearance also? Do a persons lips not move? If you will allow me to borrow your base of 'unity of being' again, aren't all the senses essentially the same thing anyway? Wasn't that your original point? Isn't that implied with your first celestial sentence? Unbelievable, within the space of a paragraph, you're arguing against yourself!

    Actions never mislead????????? What about with an ACTOR? A mime? A charlatan? A salesman? A politician? A lawyer? A -- !!!!! ....Oh man, I have to stop cracking up, this is slowing me down..

    I 'redirected' you to .. the topic. Why is this telling? WHAT is it telling? What YOU appear to have missed, is that the essence of what I said was that colour was NOT _flatly_ inferior as you implied in your questions, but inferior WITHIN the politically correct perspective! And I explained why, and how it is to be used, in great detail.. 'Judgement to a degree' as you say, yes?

    Look, it seems to me the reason you don't get my answers, or seem to think they don't exist, is because you keep interpreting them incorrectly. Let me make this VERY CLEAR:

    I have NOT said and am NOT saying "colour is superficial, full stop." That goes for all other senses/attributes also.

    I have said and am saying that BY WAY OF COMPARISON (degree to use your word) with numerous other aspects of appearance, of body language, of spoken language, etc.. colour is then LESS ACCURATE, to the point where it is superficial, when you are judging a person in terms of their INDIVIDUAL character. (And this is what the 'politically correct bullshit' is fundamentally concerned with, I already described an example of judgement outside of this purpose in my original post, the distinction between the two should thus be clear)

    If this is not enough for you, then I will explain why, also: Skin colour is something that (almost, some exceptions) never changes to any significant extent throughout ones life. One is born with it, one usually dies with it. Not only that, the sheer number of people that have a similar shade of any given colour of skin is staggering.

    Now compare that to things like body language, spoken language, actions, etc.. These are volatile in the extreme. They vary constantly and combine in long strings of human-events that have an incredible array of symbolic and overt interpretation. Obviously, the latter bears far more resemblance to the volatile nature of the brainstrom that we call character and is thereby a far superior tool of judgement.

    The difference is in the 'temporal becoming' if you like.. One is practically (for sake of this comparison) static, the others, fluid.. About the only inherent indications you can draw from skin colour are hints toward a persons ancestry and heritage. There was a time when skin colour was a very reliable, INDIVIDUAL indication of where a person was born.. as this world-civilization evolves, more countries become multicultural, this is beginning to lose relevance and that means that AS WE ADVANCE and further globalize, intermingle, as a civilization, we will need to drop even THAT assumption.

    If that doesn't clear it up, I don't know what will.

    I don't know if that will do you any good, from the myriad sweeping generalizations about the individual character not only of individuals but entire civilizations, etc that you make, you don't seem to have a problem with using such poor measures of a man, perhaps thats why you seem to dislike (sorry; 'hold in contempt') so many people and so much of civilization.

    I do actually like your strength of character and indepedence and I expect there are many things on which we might otherwise agree, however, grossly inaccurate idealistic convictions should never be permitted to cloud ones judgment in an argument and thats what has happened here. I think that this; your performance of argumentative and logical self-destruction executed with such a consumate dignity throughout will stand a lasting testament to that principle.

    Cheers for the entertainment!
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2007
  21. TheMosaicMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    *bloops
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2007
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Who said anything about banning?

    I said "click [Submit]", as in submit reply. Where you got "ban" from is frankly beyond me.
     
  23. TheMosaicMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    Oh, I thought that was in context of his 'imminent banishment' and you were banning him, I wasn't paying any attention

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Saw the toodles part and jumped in, whom is going to ban him?
     

Share This Page