Then perhaps you didn't ingest enough and you are right, it wouldn't prove String Theory to be anything more than a mathematical model BUT it does say something is going on. There are relationships, correlations that can't be ignored.

It's almost like if a child complains his teeth hurt, there is no evidence but a child's own testimony. Yet we have theories about how at this age a child's teeth hurts because of tooth rot or a double set of teeth or something (hypothetical). Now, you are saying that the child's testimony isn't worth even considering, that it doesn't help us in our quest to scientifically identify the cause of teeth pain in children of that age. Actually, if there were no testimonies we wouldn't have clues to it's importance. And likewise with DMT, if we didn't have so many congruent testimonies about the experience of dimensions and the visualisations of the CGI of these mathematical constructs while under it's influence then we wouldn't have clues to the likelihood of string theory being relevant and more likely to be true.

"If an experience is utterly incomprehensible to us, then it is worthless, and cannot prove anything about anything at all." <- that is not true. The experience is incomprehensible and therefor causes dramatic shifts in perception which in turn causes dramatic changes in a persons life. There is a plethora of people reporting DMT healing their lives after would in ceremonies in south america drinking it in a brew called ayahuasca. Lindsay Lohan being one of them. I hope this shows you the incomprehnsible can change our lives because you are dependent on an incomprehensible system to begin with (the unconscious mind) which is making the decision you think you are making and which is being effected by these drug experiences which you are labelling as "useless" all because you think you aren't effected by the incomprehensible.

yes it was all about "excessive" pc if you want to call it that. What I wouldn't call excessive PC, I would call implicit PC. That is, it is so fundamental to good manners and being a considerate person that it doesn't even need to be stated... the problem is is that the line is VERY easily blured because the people who practise excessive PC will claim that they are practicing implicit PC. That is, it is so fundamental to good manners and being a considerate person that it doesn't even need to be stated...

However, there are some things that have exigency and thus can't be legitimately postponed forever for the sake of discussion. — darthbarracuda

such as?

That's the difference between an open-minded and a close-minded person: whether or not they are willing to have their beliefs changed. — darthbarracuda

That's true I agree. I try my best to do that but it is hard sometimes to know whether it is reason I am listening to or whether it is my own ego I am listening to.

When I try and reform my beliefs from what others have advised it is hard to find the distinction between reason and ego because they are both speaking out of one voice inside your head.

The fact that I'm willing to discuss something means that I'm open to be proven wrong. — darthbarracuda

That is not the same with a Bigot. The Bigot pretends that he is willing to discuss something because he pretends he's open to be proven wrong but really his motive is to prove him self above others. To inflate his ego with the feeling of being right and another wrong.

Perhaps you can't see sarcasm because of the text but I was using capitalization to be ironic. Or maybe you are just so stale and serious that you never bother to reply to humour and turn everything in to a lifeless mush. Either way, your still wrong.

So, the humble person deals with the philosophical bigot by graciously offering him their spade to dig his hole, but steadfastly refusing to join him there — Baden

That definitely solves how to deal with them but how is it performed?

People don't usually enjoy having their beliefs proved wrong, but some people hate it so much that they simply refuse to accept it, regardless of the proof. — jkop

Yes, because of Cognitive Disonance and The Ego.

Have you noticed stuffy people always want to be right? They are usually the most egotistical kind.

I think what might be best is to absolutely agree with them on everything but yet somehow disprove them while still agreeing with them. Sounds paradoxical? Not so, one can agree that he is both right and wrong at the same time.

Then again, perhaps that wouldn't work.

Perhaps we should show aggression and scold them, nay that won't work either.

One strategy would be to not participate in discussion with them in the first place.

Though we have to be careful not to confuse bigotry with exigency — darthbarracuda

From what we have already discussed, it seems everyone is a bigot because people don't usually enjoy having their beliefs proved wrong.

So you would in fact be promoting the death of philosophy. Noooo, no, nope, no no no, I am sorry, that simply won't do darthbarracuda... we need something better... YOUR WRONG!

The moment I become perfectly humble I insist the whole world know. — wuliheron

Got anymore oxymoronic statements like that? lol

I don't think your definition is really adequate. Surely it must take account of the fact that the conviction in the superiority of the bigot's views is maintained in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. In other words there is a degree of irrationality required to being a bigot rather than simply a well-informed individual. If one's views are in fact superior then it is entirely right to be so convinced. It isn't egotistical to be correct. It can't be wrong to be right, only to believe you are when you are not. — Barry Etheridge

It wasn't my definition, it was the dictionaries.

I see what your saying but you are missing something. It is not just simply a well-informed individual as it is a well-informed individual who is SO well-informed that he doesn't care to open his mind up to other possible interpretations (with or without evidence).

So it is not just about the bigot's views being maintained in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. I agree that that is a considerable part of it but it is also a smugness that he feels when he is right and doesn't even bother to look for alternative viewpoints.

That is why the definition in the OP includes "close-mindedness"

OK, but the 'greater reality' I had in mind would be a greater dimension of possible experience. And I don't think String theory qualifies; it is nothing more than a mathematical theory. Really the same goes for QM and Relativity. We cannot directly experience, or even visualize, the warping of three-dimensional space-time, for example. — John

Nothing more than a mathematical theory? Is that people who take DMT all report seeing visuals that are akin to the visual computation models of this mathematical theory (see video) as well as report travelling to an extra dimensions.



Now, If there was no correlation between the molecule and higher dimensions or even mathematical models... (as I know you want to say there isn't) then what would be the case is that people would be seeing all sorts of weird, mutated, distorted objects that are not discreetly defined, have no intelligible pattern and bare no resemblance to a highly ordered mathematical theory about multi-dimensionality... errr which is the exact opposite.

What is even more curious is that it is a naturally occurring alkaloid in your brain and among many other animals and trees of which we don't know it's function or purpose in them.

You say that "We cannot directly experience, or even visualize, the warping of three-dimensional space-time, for example." but you forget to take in to account you are working with an operating system within your mind. This is a default state coupled with many years of conditioning via education. Psychedelic substance change the way the brain operates to an extensive and intense degree (multiple areas of the brain disabled and activated coupled with firing rates changed like alpha delta beta etc.) to the point where majority of people are reporting being able to visualize the warping of three-dimensional space-time among many other things. The problem is once their brain returns to baseline function, they can't integrate what they experienced and have no ability to think about it anymore. Similar to how if you install a new operating system you can run programs on it but if you revert the operating system to the old one those programs won't function on it anymore.

I can't really see what DMT has to do with this discussion. What is experienced, according to my own experience at least, under the influence of DMT is strange, for sure, but not incomprehensible. If an experience were really incomprehensible to you, then it would be as nothing, and you could not remember anything about it at all; it would not even count as an experience that is. — John

It has everything to do with the discussion, perhaps you just haven't read enough trip reports yet.
You said:
"but we have no idea what it could be to wake from our reality to some other reality that wasn't either a displacement/ and or extension of our reality or something so incomprehensible that we could not even make sense of it let alone alone deem it to be a reality that would make our ordinary experience a dream."

It would be true of an experiencer to say something like this which is nearly identical to what you just wrote:

"Via dmt we can wake from our reality to some other reality that is a displacement and or extension of our reality. It is something so incomprehensible that we can not even make sense of it let alone alone deem it to be a reality that would make our ordinary experience seem like a dream."

How you can't see the parallels is beyond me. Maybe you have no faith in it's use or feel that because it is outlawed that it is worthless in this discussion.

Uh.... what? — Mongrel

Is it possible to arrive at to the conclusion "I think therefor I am" without using reason alone.

That is like saying to a biologist, why do you need to prove cells use oxygen for ATP, let's just believe it exist because it's a nice theory.

The focus is always on proofs, not just how good the logic seems. It still seems sound to me to say that you can't prove awareness exists by your feeling of awareness existing alone but from what people have said in this forum it makes sense when you use it comparatively with it's contrary state (nothingness or non-existence). I guess at best all my arguments could be proven to say is that awareness may not be what you think it is.

quantum mechanics have already been used to prove life is metaphorical rather than metaphysical — wuliheron

What do you mean by life is metaphorical? Life is a metaphor for what exactly?

I'm having trouble defining the differences between them. Examples would help immensely.

making political correctness one of the few peaceful ways people have left to defend themselves. — wuliheron

It seems peaceful in principle but as I pointed out in my OP and further posts it ends up working for the wrong means and becomes a way for people to vent their feelings of inferiority by trying to get one up on everyone else. The constant cycling of replacement words is exemplified by that.

↪intrapersona On your profile page you quote a staunch theist, and two atheists - I'm not sure what to believe!

"Philosophy is to the real world as masturbation is to sex" -Karl Marx

Alas, poor Marx - he always thought philosophy is better than the real world! — Agustino

hahaha, thank you for you interest in me... I am feel so flattered and it really rubs my ego up the right way. Now I can go about my day feeling as if I am important and don't need to rely on political correctness to protect me from peoples insults about my life.

For the record though, atheists and theists can agree on many things, including social dynamics, but never religion.

The repression of such expression, I think will lead to further sublimation, at least for the foreseeable future, or until such time as new norms become foundational (if). — Cavacava

I agree. It will be an ever-cycling loop of swapping out old non-pc terms for PC that end up being used wrongly and so need to swapped out again.

The naturally stronger gangster is powerless against the weak lady, because violence is against the law.

Men are violent, it is part of our nature as men (self-preservation). The expression of that violence is anger, which cannot be expressed physically in most societies without repercussions that may be equally as physical. The sublimation of violence is found in language used by both strong and weak. — Cavacava

Men are violent? No, people are violent! I was saying that all that the law did in that scenario was change the situation around so that the old lady could become passively aggressively violent to the gangster (pointing fingers and raising her voice, scolding etc.) and make herself feel superior to him... yet she walks away without being touched... when in reality that is immoral and if it went down in the jungle she might not be alive.

So in that sense the law works for wrong means and likewise PC does too.

It's impossible though. Self-esteem is something internal, not external. The fact they are seeking self-esteem outside of themselves is the problem, not the solution. — Agustino

Perfect!

The psychological explanation for PC is largely the recognition of the desire for self-esteem among those who would be denied it due to their position in society — Baden

That is a pretty selfish commodity to have. A another function of the egotism the rots our minds in the present day and age. The need to have the feeling of "I am superior", "I am worth something" or even "I am above him, her, that". Yet some of the people on here talk as if it is something desirable in modern society lol, god help them.

And so we had the often totally illogical kind of revisionism that turned 'handicapped' into 'disabled' (despite many people's feeling that the latter was actually less accurate and more disparaging) and 'spastic' into 'suffering cerebral palsy' evolving eventually into the awful blanket term 'special' (a corruption of 'with special needs'?) Negro became black (?) or African American (??) and so on. You'll have your own opinion as to the true value of this but it was not long before PC started going mad! And always at the hands of the wise on behalf of the oppressed (or the seemingly oppressed) who still hadn't really decided whether they needed it or not. — Barry Etheridge

This outlines superbly my statement in the OP about the problem being with the people persecuted and not the people name calling.

I understand what you say about if you are using a term in a perfectly friendly, non-judgemental way, you are still, by definition, wrong. But, that doesn't change the fact the we wouldn't have this absurd and childish problem of just swapping names for other names if they cut the bullshit where it started and that is inside their emotional state.

It is just like Harry Hindu said "the explanation is that the gays that don't take offense have a better self-image than the one's that do take offense." These are the types of people have risen above the bullshit and separated themselves from their negative emotional consequences of being called a name and therefor are exempt. They are above, more developed and superior to the people that take offence

the explanation is that the gays that don't take offense have a better self-image than the one's that do take offense. — Harry Hindu

I'd much rather live in a society where people are free to say what they think than one where we can't say what we really think. People who are easily offended are the ones who were raised in such a way that they end up having a depleted self-image and any speech that affirms that is offensive. — Harry Hindu

That is by the far the most pertinent comment to my OP yet, all the others have been slightly or majorly tangential.

Nice...

I thought that that statement was stupid too, but because a "gangster" is a career criminal... so law is probably not as massive a deterrent as it would be for a non-career criminal one would think... presumably something else must be holding them back, one would hope, even as a thief or even murderer, they would have some sense of the low quality of beating women and children even at their own minor offense or harm.

I don't think it says much that many people would rather not suffer disgrace and affront to dignity even at the cost of their own continued oppression. — Wosret

You have to read on. I said "Likewise, people hide behind political correct etiquette to protect their ego's."

THAT is why I gave the ganster/old women analogy.

You just read it literally, not as an analogy for anything and then thought that I was using that as an example to define political correctness. Maybe you are multi-tasking or something at the moment and that is why you seem to by-pass what was a pretty coherent analogy about how people use systems of either law, social codes and etiquite as a way to defend their ego and not just the rights as a human being.

I will say it loud and clear so you all know, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS...

Lol... NO! I am the humblest one here!

lol that vid


How is the marriage equality debate in australia relating to The Hidden Psychological Causes of Political Correctness and do you have anything to say about that without describing in much length something that while interesting doesn't specifically respond to what I was saying about peoples psychology not political parties?

True, all your comments are true. I guess I must've missed that lol!

I was just trying to investigate if there is not a category mistake with My Experience, Self-Awareness, Myself, Me, I.

Just like in how people confuse ownership of their thoughts with the unconscious mind that IS NOT theirs, I thought perhaps people might be confusing an awareness/consciousness with actually existing but I guess as you all say that doesn't make sense.

We do not need to know the fundamental source or nature of a phenomenon before we can conclude that it "exists" — VagabondSpectre

So how does one know whether hallucinations are real or not? Or real life for that matter?

"Cogito ergo sum" does not give us any useful information about the nature of existence, all it does is confirm that something is there, for certain (purportedly), to begin with. — VagabondSpectre

I never said it gave us info about the nature of existence. I am saying that it does NOT confirm that something is there.

Maybe we're just images flowing from a projector, if so, the images still exist... Cogito ergo sum does not help in solving the hard mind body problem, nor does the hard body-mind problem invalidate "cogito ergo sum". If it did, then the argument would look like "We do not understand how this thinking experience thing works or is created, therefore we/it might not exist at all", which seems to contradict itself. — VagabondSpectre

When you construct an argument, you normally follow through with reasons supporting your claims. So far you have the opening statements but nothing to back it up.

All you have said is that it would seem to contradict itself with no reasoning behind why you feel that way. "We do not understand how this thinking experience thing works or is created, therefore we/it might not exist at all", which seems to contradict itself." It seems totally valid to me, but I am listening to you if you want to continue...

"A picture cannot picture itself, or something along those lines Wittgenstein would say. I think that would be apt in reference to saying anything about that which cannot be said will lead to non-sense." - Question

Only if you'd be a solipsist, but a solipsist does not publish. — jkop

Is that clever? I am sick to death of cleverness. Everybody is clever nowadays. You can’t go anywhere without meeting clever people. The thing has become an absolute public nuisance. I wish to goodness we had a few fools left. But do I hear you ask what do they talk about? about the clever people, of course! What fools!

Descartes proves self existence from extreme skepticism.
He assumes that all he knows is subject to doubt including his own existence.

In order to even doubt that you exist requires that you do in fact exist.
That is to say that if you do not exist then your doubts would also be non-existent.
Therefore if you doubt your existence, you must exist.

This argument got watered downed into "cogito ergo sum."

The hard problem does not say that we can doubt without any existence so the hard problem does not challenge the Descartes method.

You see Descartes argues that the absence of existence would be the absence of doubt as well so that where there is doubt there must also be existence.

So we can be sure we do in fact exist, that is unless you want to argue that non-existent things can have doubt. — m-theory

Fair enough, but I am saying that there is no "you" or "I" to claim exists. There is an awareness that no ownership can be placed over.

I agree with you that if I didn't exist, I could not doubt anything. So in the same way perhaps I am not doubting at all and it just feels like I am because it feels like I exist even though I don't because there is no I. This is the crux of my argument, that you can't prove you exist just by the fact that you are self-aware. Again, perhaps I am not doubting at all and it just feels like I am because it feels like I exist even though I don't because there is no I.

Here is one hand,
And here is another.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore, an external world exists.

This commonsensical approach negates the need for exact definitions that constitute the entirety of facts that would be required to fulfill epistemological criteria required by skeptics to warrant the truth of a proposition that supposes the existence of consciousness or a conscious entity — Question

Wow, what a mouthful of sentence that is. Let me try and re-word it to make it smaller and see if I still have the meaning correct.

"This approach does not need to be fully defined in order for it to fulfill the criteria that would make valid the proof of consciousness"

Premise 3 doesn't lead to the conclusion. It says nothing of the proof of external world just that there is the perception of two hands in it.

I know that I think because I have no grounds to doubt.
Therefore, I think.
I think asserts that I exist.
I think, therefore I am.

If one doesn't buy into P3, then if one really feels like it, they can assert solipsism; but, that still doesn't negate the fact that to think and existing are not mutually independent. Or rather, there are no grounds to assert otherwise unless you believe in p-zombies. — Question

I have seen no valid arguments against solipsism yet and personally a lot of good evidence for it in my own life (continuity gaps in social environments, undeniably intelligent synchronicities and then some)

Back to the point though, premise one is faulty because we have established there is reasons to doubt it which is that we can't find ownership of our actions, that we seem to just be an awareness stuck in a body and that awareness can't validate its own existence because that would be circular as discussed with wayfarer previously.

All that is logical to say is:

I think or I am aware

but not

I am or I exist

to think and existing are not mutually independent. — Question

If they are not mutually independent then they are dependant on one another. Where is the evidence of this? Where is it found that brain processes are synonymous with self-awareness (ie. sleep walking, the inability to prove self-awareness in animals.)

Awareness and knowledge are indivisible complimentary-opposites and you can't have either one without faith in the other. — wuliheron

Really? so robots can't possess knowledge without being aware? That is not proven yet but forms part of a good argument for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

I hope that theory is TRUE because it would mean all systems in flux are conscious, like your mobile or PC or the internet itself.

A context without any content and vice versa is a demonstrable contradiction, while any context and content will demonstrably transform into one another. I think therefore I am because sometimes I'm unconscious! — wuliheron

Nice post! Are you saying that experience is the context and reality the content or are you saying experience is the content and reality the context? Either way if you only had one it wouldn't be considered a contradiction. Can't you imagine a prehistoric earth with no organisms existing on it? The wind softly blowing, rocks not moving, waves crashing etc. Seems pretty sound to me and that is just purely content.

So your statement becomes "I think therefore I am because I am always acting unconsciously even though I am aware and confuse this awareness with being an agent of will that proves it's own existence by the fact that it is aware itself".

Well, what would? — Wayfarer

Oh right sorry, I didn't see you where actually asking "what would constitute proof of consciousness" and not " what would be considered Apodictic truth.

What would constitute proof of consciousness, as I outline in my OP, would be a full awareness of what self-awareness/conscious is. I assume this is impossible to attain because we are limited to a finite brain and its subjective constraint. Therefor, we must all walk around with acknowledging the truth, that we may not exist at all.

Seems absurd doesn't it? Probably because we use common sense too much for our own good in regards to proving we exist... that is why majority of the population STILL THINKS THEY CONTROL THERE OWN F*CKING ACTIONS!!!

Are you saying this because you have no other argument against what I said? This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur... Chicago is larger than Omaha is apodictic truth, however calling in to question whether chicago actually exists on the basis that it has activity on it's roads and buildings is termed "problematic proposition"

P.S. there are two kind of people in the world, those that can extract information from incomplete data and

Yo, what if, like, we're all one mind haha and it's just like energy dissipating in one string...that'd be awesome... — darthbarracuda

Yes any BAD and UNLEARNED philsophical discussion is bad over dinner... as long as one party is studied in philosophy and the other party is ready to listen then it can work though and can make for good dinner party. Stoners are the worst at this :|