Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Physics. Philosophy.

Recent Profile Visitors

2209 profile views

tylers100's Achievements


Meson (3/13)



  1. I do not know except observe its behaviours and infer assumptions, although that is probably non-scientific thing to do since science makes no assumption as impressed upon on me.
  2. I emphasis the importance of these features because: Awareness - A critical feature of consciousness. Any definition, argument, theory, or something like that has to include this one or else none can be understood or defined without awareness to do so. Interfacing - A point between awareness and body, which an interfacing process occurs in order for an awareness to be aware of and perform expression. Expression - Behaviours that demonstrate or indicate interfacing and awareness. There could be varying degrees in each of these features. I have refined the diagram to include three possibilities: Top-to-bottom Consciousness: Machine-alike or engineering components-alike. Bottom-to-Top Consciousness: Emergence. Altogether is Consciousness: Similar to Bottom to up but without an indication of direction (e.g. up or down, just as it is) TBH, I do not know for certain as which one of these possibility is correct or not, only offer these as possibilities.
  3. Consciousness could be consist of three major parts, each with varying degrees of: awareness interfacing expression All of these could overlap with each other as shown on diagram below.
  4. Good morning, all. I have updated the diagram with some minor improvements for better readability; design and adjustment to some fields' placement. It is a final version. It is attached to this post. It is about understanding and helping ourselves and our interactions with each other in a big picture, based on my current perspective on human psychology so far. There are more psychology-related fields that aren't included in the diagram, and it would be interesting if I could include these and unify these alongside with the existing ones - into an unified framework of human psychology. Maybe another time. Enjoy viewing if you are interested in it. (Disclaimer: Again, I remind you and all that both diagrams on 1st and this one are not official psychology information. And I do not know in depth about human psychology, except putting the relation / relationship between fields together.)
  5. [see attached diagram picture to this post] I developed a diagram of human psychology and its fields in a big picture based on my perspective / perception of human psychology. It shows how each group and / or field relation / entail by or to each other. I personally do not know much about human psychology, tbh. Except the relation / relationship between fields was on my mind for a while now. I felt compelled to develop it in order to see what it looks like in a big picture manner. It is a part of my misc / hobby activity. I thought you guys might like to see it, if not then fine. I figured maybe the goal is to learn or gain a different perspective of human psychology and apply it to ourselves in order to progress better or something like that. The list of psychology branches or fields was obtained from the following website - credit: https://www.verywellmind.com/major-branches-of-psychology-4139786 Disclaimer: Also, the diagram is not an official psychology information. Feedback suggestion or something like that is welcomed.
  6. An Additional Question Is energy dispersal a bunch of "mismatched" puzzles leftover? I asked this question because of the jigsaw puzzles analogy I have on my mind regarding the entropy gist. Jigsaw Puzzles Analogy I presume some of us are familiar with the jigsaw puzzles. The rule is we simply put it together correctly to form a complete picture of something. What would happen if we force putting mismatched jigsaw puzzles together? Of course, we would get mismatch or incomplete picture of something. What if mismatched jigsaw puzzles are entropy?
  7. Borg Without or discontinuing philosophy, then... Borg: "Resistance is futile." As “Borg” we would be completely striving for the perfection according to observed evidences and mechanisms in science outside of inner ourselves, potentially impairing / neglecting / or ignoring our natural course of human development and freewill. That is off-balance. There could be a good reason why the 'Q' character in Star Trek TNG, "introduced" the Enterprise to the Borg.. as written and shown.
  8. I think that the energy dispersal seems to be best answer. It reminds me of decay / decomposition, one of seemingly naturally-occurred states of living things that undergo after death. I wasn't sure because entropy and these first words / meanings (disorder, randomness, uncertainty) as impressed upon me is that scientists still don't understand it so that cause me to be not sure as well at first place.
  9. Some words associated with the entropy definition as looked up: disorder randomness uncertainty energy dispersal I know that the consequence of entropy is irreversible, but which one of these associated words fit the entropy definition best?
  10. This means I think that the Sun could possibly has a type of black hole inside (the core) but not the black hole we ordinarily know of. The black hole takes in light and stuff (to in) while the opposite version of black hole gives light (to out). In (Black Hole) and Out (Opposite version of black hole).
  11. It just seems to make sense since black holes suck in light energy and stuff whereas stars give off light energy.
  12. Questions and Answer Q - "Would you for instance declare that the process of melting is not a natural one ?" Q - "OK so what about processes caried out by (some) living things ?" Q - "Would you say flying is a natural process ?" A - These questions depend on a situation that constitutes what natural and non-natural is within human's scope of knowledge on that. That means a requirement is needed to understand what knowing what ultimately naturalness is. I think that we compare what is natural and non-natural based on our own judgments when the Nature is naturally occurred chaos but not in the disordered or randomized way that some people seem to think. I think the chaos concept need to be refined or approach differently. Because I sometime think some aspects of human's scope of understanding regarding the Nature is an inverse understanding. An inverse understanding = order way, seems how I see that way. Natural Process An example: A butterfly flipping it wings; form (starts) > growth > stable > decay > death (ends) then repeats. I'm referring natural process to be inclusive of both concept and physical, as applicable to any situation. But.. this natural causality hypothesis (especially with the model diagram) is "outside" of the Nature and describing what is occurring in either concept or physical is within the Nature. Yet, it has no observable evidence (especially of actual live interactions) as I already and recently stated.
  13. Specific Observance I see the natural process in snow, trees, etc and I was gonna take a picture of that, but the model diagram or this natural causality hypothesis requires causality at work (being observed as live interactions) and I'm unable to capture that thus this hypothesis is useless without it. Lock or Move to Trash Can From now to future, I will refrain from proposing a hypothesis or theory unless I can capture live interactions. The interactions seemingly "are" there (presumably from microscopic level to macroscopic level or vice versa) as I seem to know that, but I have no technological means to capture or measure that or unless my mind is wrong. Lessons Learnt No hypothesis proposal unless have an observable evidence. No theory proposal unless have an observable evidence, model, and math.
  14. Swansont, since I stated this natural causality to be hypothesis as per definition: Hypothesis Definition as I Understood it The hypothesis is an idea that assumes something that could be true but requires a research, expanding, disprove, or prove - that involves promoting and entailing a discussion. Theory Requires Evidence, Model, and Math The theory on other hand, you are right as I am more aware by now, requires a scientific model of various scientific types, math, and evidence. Yet this natural causality is not a presently theory since I already stated that I changed it to hypothesis because it obviously lacks research, expansion, discussion, scientific model or math etc hence this thread. Conceptual Model The model diagram I attached to my 1st post is a conceptual model, to clarify and depict the natural causality hypothesis. What is New? What is new regarding natural causality hypothesis? Is it could assess how the nature operates and handles the entropy issue in order to understand and how to co-exist with it better. Isn't that what the primary objective of science is (that is if I assumed correctly)? Here is some specific examples of observance: Some trees growing and some decaying to death (at areas nearby my home) Food decaying (ball of lettuce in my case, I frequently forget all about it) leaves on trees regrow in spring time and decay to death in the fall season onward through winter season. The patterns behind these seem to be as follow in an ordered way: form, growth, stable, decay, and death. The natural causality is my way of describing how the Nature operate with these patterns. Of course, that is a hypothesis and have to yield a further discussion and find out an evidence for that.
  15. Just letting you know that you're not alone with that. I'm one of those who performed poorly with math way back in high school and still need to re-learn some basics of mathematics onward to advanced ones if I'm well motive to do so. No Math, Yes Smash "Me no math, me smash!" Green Hulk talk, lol. Just kidding. Normally I don't comment because I don't really know or have a firm grasp of math, as my math knowledge has declined to low since my high school. But I have other comments based on my other strength areas if you don't mind. Conceptualization An ability to conceptualize math in your head and writing down math might will help you. Don't be afraid to make mistakes if practising. If you happen to make mistakes, self-assess your own cognition to find out why. Make sure to have a calculator with you (app on computer or IRL device) - it might could help you with that - to make an inference of your cognitive methods to understand and actualize math answers. Of course, I have to take this to my own mouth. Still, I feel compelled to comment anyway. I think the important thing to understand math is: understand why math (any field) is for find out how (i.e. step-by-step or similar to algorithms) to do a math Website I checked the www.math-only-math.com , it seems decent. I once tried to find some good websites that can get me from basic mathematics (arithematics) to advanced ones (idk termed fields), but I didn't get furthered with that - at this moment for now. Good with Math I hope you will become good at math, because it enables you to develop and be better at self-governance with billings, taxes, etc and / or specialize in fields or something like that.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.