naitche

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 

No, she never "claimed" anything. She just said: "I think George is dead." or something like.

 

You can't make the claim, with out rational explanation to back it up. I'm well aware of that. Never the less, I believe it to be so and can't dissuade myself.

4 hours ago, Genady said:

Of course, there are many holes in science yet to be filled. Otherwise, scientists would be out of job.

But I want to say a few words about statistics. 

So, you turn switch once and a device blows - coincidence, but if you turn switch 20 times and 20 devices blow is less tenable? No, it is not. If it was 20 out of 20, sure. But if it was 20 out of 1000, not. 2% still mean coincidence. Did it really happen each time? Do you have these statistics?

Another statistical consideration is like this. Let's say that on average it happens 1% of times. This means that there is one person in, say, 100 to whom it happens 2% of times. There is one person in 1000 to whom it happens 3% of times. There is one in 10000 to whom it happens 4%, one in 100000 with 5%, etc. Could you just happen to be that one out of 100000? Somebody is. Maybe this is the explanation why things like this happen to only some people? Straightforward statistics?

There are statistical methods to refute null hypothesis with a desired level of confidence, but they need data.

You think my father would not have understood that very well? We didn't document anything to get statistics. The data was presented. The statistical mind analyzed it, and was forced to accept the results. I don't need to prove anything to myself, just accept it. Understanding it would be better. As for proving evidence for others others, Why? When anything you offer is going to be met with a dismissal of your rational processes or accusations of charlatanism. Either way, a discredit to you.

I don't know of homes where incandescent bulbs are used anymore.  They were affected less reliably.    Electric Jugs and toasters were more often like 30 out of 50. Reliably enough that when challenged on my refusal to put on the jug, because "the element will blow and I'll be blamed  for not covering the it". more often than not I could demonstrate.  I don't own a toaster and won't touch one belonging to anyone else.

The feeling I would never describe as funny. I've had those too, the fear for some one thats some times justified and other times not. This is different. Less a fear or discomfort. Not the same as considering what if...and then worrying about it. Its a knowing.

I understand coincidence and accept a lot under that heading.

7 hours ago, Genady said:

The null hypothesis: coincidence. 

If this was experienced once, sure. Multiple times with similar outcome each time is less tenable. But its the easiest explanation for those who never have, and the logical one for those who turn to science 1st.

For such a person experiencing it 1st hand, the contradiction is pretty unnerving.  

I will go out on limb here, and open myself to the ridicule of science minded people for the holes in our understanding of physics. Yeah, so much for the 'advantage'. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything and have no intention of doing so. 

I experience this, though not restricted to negative out comes, And more measurable effects  witnessed by many others. I can not use electrical items with filaments or elements , like toasters, old filament light bulbs, or old Aussie style electric water jugs(kettle). They blow when I use them. There will be periods where it happens every time, then other periods when I can get away with it once in a while.

I could flick a light on, only to have the whole fixture come crashing down. Not much fun for a kid and not much of an evolutionary advantage, though it did literally save my neck one time at pub with friends when the window i was sitting under came crashing down on my seat. I had been sitting there, involved and occupied fully with the company when I became aware of the frosted window behind me. I felt very uncomfortable with it all of a sudden. Tried to brush the feeling off, ignore or excuse it. after about 2 minutes of failing to do so, I figured it was easier to move seats since there was a spare so did. The pane fell in about 30 seconds later. Many other less dramatic instances, and many more when I could have made use of fore knowledge but had none.

Most recent experience was the death of a long time friend from those early years.  I hadn't seen them for 15 years.  I dreamed I was in a busy  crowd at dusk, facing this person who was slightly turned away from me. There were no words spoken, but I understood they were 'going' . I felt upset, and made myself wake from the dream. They died suddenly two days later.

My father was a mathematician, pioneer of computing sciences and very knowledgeable re; physics. So a huge skeptic. He had to accept there was more he didn't understand. I refused to go near a Computer for years, after constantly being reminded it was a 'sensitive piece of electronic equipment.' before I noted that this effect seems limited to filament type  items.

Since neither of us believe in 'woo' or magic, We could only (and I still only can)  put it down to holes in science yet to be filled.

10 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not sure it does but, the experience makes me wonder if there is a collective energy (for want of a better word) or something that we are all engaged in.

'Energy' for want of a better word, I think there there is some thing to that. What I've no idea.

10 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The only way I can describe it is a bit like when a thought suddenly pops into your head, a realisation of something that takes you by surprise in a way that grips you inwardly. I cant describe it in a way that does it justice in a way that would allow others to understand what I experience.  

It does sound very close though to how I experience it.

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

What do you think of Carl Jung's idea that paranormal experiences may be us tapping into a collective unconscious?  A sort of mental internet.  I've tended towards skepticism but have to acknowledge that cases of phenomena like crisis telepathy seem to be pretty well documented.  

Makes more sense than anything else I've heard. 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, so I recently had another spooky experience. I felt, this word is the only way I can describe my experience, though feeling or thought doesn't really nail what I really experience, its more of a sensation.

I felt/had an overwhelming sensation that something tragic was going to happen to a close friend while I was chatting to him quite recently. I have had this sense before when there has been an imminent death. The following day, his daughter aged 25years was thrown from her horse and died from the injuries. This tragedy has shocked us all, but I now feel guilty that I felt something awful was imminent. I have had this experience happen to me on a number of occasions and it has not always been about friends or family, sometimes just people I have briefly met. 

I know it sounds fantastical, paranormal... I don't understand it and I have no control over it I can't even describe the sensation in words that make sense. It happens every now and then but it is always prior to someone's death. Not always the person directly but always in association, much like this latest experience. 

I truly wish it was for something else far less tragic than death.    

Sorry.

Not the 'evolutionary advantage'  we are told it would give,  if there was any truth to it, is it?

You Didn't do it.

You could not have changed it, with out knowing what 'IT' was.

In that context, the feeling you experience isn't some thing you know what to do with.

Does it 'feel' like the expression of an energy you can't release? A nervous energy with out any context but the certainty of trauma ? 

In similar context, thats the best I can describe it. 

In other contexts, the 'energy' also seems a feature. The negativity of it doesn't always apply in my case, though there is never any sense I have  control or choice in its expression.

I would allow it to dry out between watering, not water on very cold days and avoid wetting leaves or moving again until its recovered . Recovery could be slow if days are still cold. 

If it must be moved, gradual change to conditions it will face will reduce shock.

Has the move out doors been recent? Looks stretched towards light. If the move was sudden and recent, there could be shock and 'sunburn'.

Have leaves been watered in full sunlight? Should be a good chance of recovery for either of those. Maybe a fertilizer boost to help.

Otherwise,

On 4/23/2023 at 12:28 AM, TheVat said:

Pale leaves usually from watering issues.  Either under or over watering.  

One of our Orb spiders.

We get these making webs every night between the fruit trees. If we walk through the web, they rebuild the next night leaving a space for us pass through with out breaking the web. 

On 2/23/2023 at 9:49 AM, TheVat said:

 rooting out all the bad turnips in our heads.  That direction, in my reading of history, seems to run the risk of thought policing.  (which seems to drive the real bigots even further into entrenchment and extremity)

Yes. Those you  speak for, while  un-representative of, are seen as the source of opposition to the legitimacy of individual perspectives. In pursuit of a perfect 'state' of Humanity, Where all peoples are valued equally.   You will not accept the value or validity of any who don't recognize the superior position of your own state, until all are subject to the same. That is bigotry and a gross misunderstanding of what diversity is. It is subjective, as are all experience and relationships,  to the unique perspectives that have been accorded the individual.

About time we re-corrected the language of bigotry as redefined by CRT adherents to better reflect its reality, instead of promoting its bias as a legitimate virtue for the extermination of peoples who are the result of their own subjective realities. 

Look to the causes of bigotry, not the results for your cure.

Change and elimination are not the same.

Totally agree we all want to see more acceptance of our Human environment. I figure a good place to start is by putting it out there.

You assume relationships where none are a given to define your objective, and show bigotry under every other bed.

I agree we all want to see more acceptance of our Human environment. I figure the best place to start is by putting it out there. Subjectively. Not taking it away with misplaced objectives. C.T. catches us up into a double negative.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 

It's when activists from either side conflate the two where problems occur. 

From a behavioral perspective of nature vs nurture.

We learn from patterns and are most receptive to their recognition early in life when they build the foundations  to interpret our reality and the responses that will 'favor' our existence within the reality to which we were born.

Deviation from the patterns  our reality is based on after the more formative years are not as readily received or integrated, unless the psych has also been primed to recognize that patterns vary with environment, and how to navigate and integrate the realities of alternate perspectives. Nurture.

If alternative foundational patterns are missing or not sufficiently re-enforced after the more formative period, and I am working with that animal, I can expect limited adaptation or acceptance to a new set of expectations I am trying to put in place. Thats Nature.

If I'm trying to alter the responses I'm being given (fear, frustration, anger and resistance, maybe disgust?) opposition is seldom my best option, more often re-enforcing the behavior. 

I'm validating opposition. I'm far better off and will proceed much faster by observing where the discomfort or opposition begins and what sets it off, then demonstrating an alternative response that by passes  the dis-ease. New behavioral patterns are more readily integrated once the benefits or reward is clear, but I  have to bring about its demonstration first,  before arousal to states of fear, anger etc because those are not receptive states.

I won't eliminate those states. They are caused by environment and foundations laid. I can alter perception of the environment, by laying down additional patterns and re-enforcing them, by which to determine its reality against its 'beliefs'. 

I am disgusted by the thought of eating escargot. For all the biological reasons one experiences disgust.  I don't transfer that disgust to people who eat it. Eating it disgusts me. I could likely learn to eat it, or at least moderate my disgust at the thought, but I'm not in a position where there is any clear benefit to try.  As long as there is no expectation I enjoy it too, theres nothing to oppose in those who do.

Extinguishing my disgust is not so simple as opposing it. There needs to be demonstration of the benefits to doing so, and familiarity with  .  I am not going to be receptive to those in any state of arousal to unjustified opposition. 

Opposition seldom results in integration, only  reduction. 

I have researched preparation of Escargot. Familiarity with the subject eases the disgust and and would likely over come it, if I saw the need to re-enforce my familiarity.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

How was that NOT subjective? 

The objective, to achieve a state of being that serves Humanity in pursuit of knowledge.  Its creation is objective, it has margins or boundaries of what is legitimate or valid to its state. The purpose served is Objective.

Property or membership serving that state must adhere to those bonds, for  legitimate or valid recognition. 

Values are/were brought to science subjectively, and influence the directions taken in science. Not the science itself which is an objective state- that should 'Object' to values contrary to its purpose.

So yes, I think all value judgements are Subjective- of the states/beings served or suppressed in their application.

White supremacy is not the purpose or objective of science. Its supporting membership may subjectively support white supremacy, but the science does not- Not if objective and subjective values are correctly applied. A non white person is Objectively not white. No other objective applies. Only subjective values.

On 1/22/2023 at 6:09 AM, exchemist said:

We present this work as an example of a transformative pedagogical model to dismantle White supremacy in Chemistry.

 

Which can only be done through discrediting science of its base, or supporting environment.

C.T is based on Objective assumptions where subjective realistically applies. 

Science is the Objective here, or should be.

Applying a secondary objective to science, such as white supremacist, blurs the line between the reality of science, and its environment.

Definition of its margins by furthering its Objective (elimination white supremacy within) can only reduce its value or property, by excluding environment. Drawing connections where they don't belong.  White supremacy and other bigotries are environmental. They exist in the environment science occupies, so will affect its direction to some extent while those environmental problems remain. They should not be confused with the scientific objective itself.

The value people  people(s) might find in  pursuit of science is subjective. So is the experience and opportunity. 

So yes, there will be evidence of its existence in science, if you assume that connection to be part of its Objective.

But these forms of oppression have nothing  to do with the Objective of Science and no matter how much you try to reduce their influence, you can only reduce the value recognized to science, if its value is to be judged with that double negative. You  introduce a negative bias to the values found within its objective.

Not science. Belief.

Yes. 

The nature of Reality still eludes. We haven't found the language to express it easily, though its in front of us.

If poetry makes it easier to bear-

i believe I have a workable duality. No reality without subjectivity. Property.

The Objective is to state. A single value, subtracted from all relationships beyond its being, as defined.

One. Reality.

Subject to direction. Of the property that  directs its definition in statehood.

A single reality of opposing values in balance.

All value is Subjective. To relationship.

The Objective is beyond relationship.

They exist in balance, or in entropy, depending on which application correctly benefits the 'true' objective  served. Because incorrect application is belief, or cognitive dissonance. Not sustainable reality.

The difference matters, to the reality or Objective you 'Realy' serve.

I haven't found anything to discredit this yet.

My definitions don't seem to negate or contradict anything already understood as far as I can see.

Just expand recognition.

On 12/24/2022 at 2:39 AM, StringJunky said:

I think the closest we can get can be described as 'intersubjective consensus', where we share our findings and agree  as a group such-and-such is the case.

I think there is only Objective, or Subjective.

The identified group is the object/reality to which the value accrues, increasing  its domain in application of positive response to the relationship recognized/achieved, or tipping the balance towards the negative and entropy when value is applied  Objectively.

10 hours ago, Genady said:

I'm afraid it does not answer my question. A previous idea focused on constituent parts: (my emphasis)

My question regarding application of this idea to electron is, what are the constituent parts of electron?

Apologies. You are right of course. Finding the words I need while applying what I see to separate fields doesn't come easy to me.

In this context, I believe its constituent properties would have been more apt. I might find the more inclusive term holds in any context, so thank you.

14 hours ago, Genady said:

How does it apply to, e.g., electron?

Good question. Hope my language skills are up to it.

It has measurable properties inherent to its definition.  Those measurements are subject to the electrons existence. I am assuming those are expressed as an electron due to past actions or value expression attributed subjectively to other phenomena or objective.

11 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think it would. What I'm assuming here is that this notion of self must be acquired based on recursive references in the experience. If nothing repeats so as to form patterns, no construct of self would be possible to build. Arguably, and furthermore, no construct of any other notion or concept would be possible to build. Yet, we can picture this individual as having a stream of experiences. This individual would be a temporal "congruence" of flashes of colour, sound, and other sensorial imput with no cohesion, no correlations, so it would be incapable of forming a construct for itself.

Does that make sense?

Yes, very much. I'm just trying to imagine the lack of pattern or continuity and the effects of that on the mind. Incapable of forming a self construct, yes I can easily imagine that.

I was thinking with out recognition or familiarity with external conditions to maintain integrity of being, the only constant would be 'self'.  Trying to imagine how the subject could possibly respond to that.

No reality with out  constituent parts to express the values relative to its being. Subjectivity is imperative to direct any expression of reality

To observe some thing 'objectively' is to separate your 'self' from  relationship to to the object, not the object from its relationships. It will remain an object while  independently  defined.  The relationships it has or can form, are all subject to its constituents and the values expressed to define its being.

A duality. No reality with out subjectivity- An expression of values, in relationship to something.

A value must be expressed, subjectively. A rock is an object. It does not form or deteriorate independently, but by the subjective expression of its constituent parts. Its being is dependent on subjective values.

Form follows function.

On 12/19/2022 at 5:28 AM, joigus said:

 

It would be very interesting to know if/how people who are constantly on the run, barely trying to survive one more day, with faces and landscapes being forgotten in a matter of weeks, would be able to develop a notion of "I" in a similar way than we do. My feeling is that they wouldn't. They would be far too busy with the "something is happening" aspect of things. I don't know about Brentano and Husserl a great deal, TBH.

An interesting thought. Or  Maybe, the sense of self would be increased with little opportunity to familiarize or recognize place or relationship within their reality or environment. 

I don't believe that consciousness is required for subjectivity, only for its recognition.

ie a computer is an objective reality. Its value is One, reality, subtracted from its realtionships to any other objective reality, Its environment.

Any other measurable value, beyond that existence is subjective. Components, ownership, brand, damage are all relative. The computer is still subject to time, weather, damage, components and use etc. whether or not its conscious of those.

Its objective identification as a computer is independent of all other values beyond its being One.

All beyond self/ identification is relative, external reality. Including the housing. They are conditions of an existence or reality to which the object is subject to. Environment. 

On 11/20/2022 at 3:30 AM, tylers100 said:

When something is correct, wrong, or n/a (or absence / not yet know / etc) with amount level of approximation for a particular situation in address to the standardization of reality is the question.

Other patterns seem to arise from that amount level determination or amount measurement - examples; amount of differentiation, amount of identification / possession, amount of potentiality, and more "amount of (insert anything or word here) and so on...

What do you think, feel, or both about that?

The objective is always and only that. One. Reality. Separated out from all relationship beyond its singularity of being.

Only the Value is Subjective. In relationship. A measure of value accrued in relation to one object,  towards its Objective or purpose.

I'm pretty sure the objective remains just that, and any measurement is always subjective.

It appears to me that this supports and is demonstrated by evolutionary biophysics at all levels, and can account for much of human behavior depending on the perspective assumed in reality. The Objectives provides that.

The Subjective/ Direction, always leads the potential of an objective reality for positive growth.  A value must be recognized, and expressed, for the existence of a measurable state.

Form follows function.

There are no longer clear margins between the objective and the subjective realities. Subjectivity(or direction) is sacrificed indefinitely to 'fix' the state/form into a state of  entropy.

On 11/14/2022 at 7:49 AM, StringJunky said:

An intersubjective position is that where opinions are in concordance with each other as to the evidence and observations presented.

I see that as recognition of an objective reality. Recognition of a state of being that has no value independently.

The values taken and responses given, are given subjectively. Through individual  relationship to the state recognized.

Peoples can respond in concordance, but as an identified collective, the value is still subjectively accrued to that collective.ie humanity, the US or the body affected.

It seems to me there are 2 values to the duality of reality. The value can be to state/form or to purpose/function/direction.  One or the other only, applies at a given time/context. The application of subjective values to objectives provides direction, structure and is = to the familiarity, recognition and responses given in biology. 

The objective has a value  of One. Only one. It has no value independently, only by its subjective recognition as One.

Subjective application of a second value to the objective is reductive. Its belief, or faith- the object is not recognized for the singularity of its being, but by the value or validity of its state in relationship. it reduces recognition of a state of being to its secondary objective.

Hence the 'old' definition of racism or bigotry. Blurs the line between the objective and subjective realities so that deviation from its secondary 'characterization",  is not recognized in any response, but deemed invalid.