Knowing ____, she ______. — Lone Wolf

Knowing I'm a weird hamster, she said to stop being a weird hamster :Ö: !!!

That's a nice metaphor for what you do. I've provided two test results which identify me as left-leaning. So far you have provided nothing but prejudice. You don't even know my positions on health care, guns, environment, etc.

You are a self-described constitutional Monarchist, you are not "slightly-left leaning". — Maw

Yeah, constitutional Monarchy can be left-leaning.

More appropriately would "Right-Wing" as a umbrella term encompasses all forms of right wing thought and ideology, within which includes conservatism. — Maw

No. I am slightly left-leaning and I'm a conservative. As was Russell Kirk or G.K. Chesterton for that matter. This thread is horrendously propagandistic, it's not even funny.

You can't argue against such a well reasoned argument. — T Clark

Yeah, a piece of unargued crap like the below deserves no better response:

Contemporary conservatism (or at least what is called "conservatism") is:

Sanctimonious, maudlin, self-righteous, narrow, mean, petty, blustering, cretinous, jingoistic, hectoring, fearful, hateful, stupid, totalitarian and sectarian. — Ciceronianus the White

Sanctimonious, maudlin, self-righteous, narrow, mean, petty, blustering, cretinous, jingoistic, hectoring, fearful, hateful, stupid, totalitarian and sectarian. — Ciceronianus the White

Nope.

What do you think?

Why do I even bother ____, when every time the same thing happens:____. — René Descartes

Why do I even bother with you, when every time the same thing happens: you never listen.

I got mad, so I took out ___________ and had ___________.

Heh. I stopped reading after I found a paragraph to reply to. — Michael

That is not a surprise :rofl:

You’re conscious of your breathing, your heart’s palpitations, your stomach’s peristalsis etc. — CuddlyHedgehog

I can choose to be conscious of some of the things you mentioned above. But not of my stomach's peristalsis. Just like I cannot be conscious of secreting certain enzymes my body needs for digestion, or generating an immune system response to the flu, etc.

You just choose to ignore them because they’re so darn boring. — CuddlyHedgehog

It's good to be boring :cool: Wanna try?

Unless Banno asks it, in which case it inexplicably reaches 100 pages. — Michael

for example - I imagine Banno would be someone who would do this — Agustino

:rofl: I already said that.

What’s wrong with that? — CuddlyHedgehog

It's not a quality conversation, and it doesn't have clear aims, so there is almost no potential for it even to become a quality conversation.

It's okay to start a conversation about the color of the sky if you want to discuss some philosophical issue related to epistemology (for example - I imagine Banno would be someone who would do this), but it's not okay to do so without adequately framing the discussion, such that participants can understand the aim of the conversation and the topic under discussion.

Yeah, but a discussion needs some background. Why are we worried about Matthew comparing Jesus to Moses? Why is that even important? A discussion needs more background framing, so that it can be understood why the issue is being discussed, and what direction the conversation is aimed in.

Otherwise, we might as well start conversations about the color of the sky :s

To tell you the truth, I still don't understand his new thread :lol:

I could rein in my emotions very tightly when necessary, but I tended to give them pretty free rein a good share of the time. One of the theories of mental health (maybe a pop psych idea) is that one shouldn't bottle up one's emotions -- one should let them out. — Bitter Crank

Did you give free rein to your emotions because you had studied that one shouldn't bottle up their emotions, or was it more of an instinctive thing?

On this idea, I would say that I learned from my study of psychology that there are three possible ways to deal with emotions. Repression, indulgence and sublimation. So in my view, "not bottling up the emotions" can refer to either the 'bad' form (indulgence) or the 'good' form (sublimation). I agree with you that it's not a good idea to indulge in (all) emotions. However, when it comes to how to adequately deal with them, I think that repression is just as bad as indulgence. Repression also makes those emotions grow stronger or makes them manifest in different ways. People who repress things often have those things return to them in dreams, etc. Here we have a proverb, that you cannot escape that which you fear.

Repression is when you pretend not to have certain emotions because you don't like them or you don't want them.

Indulgence is when you give in to the impulses received from certain emotions and act on them.

Sublimation is when you remain aware of the emotions, engage with feeling them and accept them internally but refuse to act on them externally.

Take lust. I see a beautiful woman and I feel attracted to her.

Repression would be to pretend that I'm not attracted to her, avoid even seeing her, etc.

Indulgence would be staring at her and imagining what I would do with her, and maybe go try and act it out, etc.

Sublimation means remaining fully aware that I am attracted to her, and feeling that attraction inside, fully accepting that I am attracted to her and not seeking to escape that attraction, but not acting on it externally, and not actively fantasising about it.

So I remember the joke Osho used to say... the chain-smoker is very troubled by his habit, so he goes to the psychoanalyst asking to be rid of this habit. After 6 years of treatment, he calls his friend and asks him to come over, saying that the psychoanalyst has finally solved the problem. So the friend arrives, and behold the man is smoking 3 cigarettes at once! So the friend asks: "What are you doing?! Didn't you just quit smoking?" and he answers "The psychoanalyst has done a wonderful job. Now it no longer bothers me, there is no more need to quit!" :rofl:

I would say that it's also about how you express those emotions. I had the good fortune to meet a very good psychologist when I was dealing with anxiety, and one thing he told me, which I realised is right, is that it matters how you express your emotions. Let's say that I'm very angry with you for example. I could come to you and be like "you f******* BC, what have you done?! Have you lost your mind? You are sooooo stupid". Clearly that will aggravate the situation for both of us. Or I could come to you being like "BC, I feel very angry inside. When I heard that you did so and so, I started perceiving this tightness in my chest, and just feeling overall anger". You can see how this last form of expression is different - since it doesn't blame you for my emotions, but merely communicates how I am feeling, and opens up the possibility for you to cooperate with me in solving the issue.

But most of the activity is in the unconscious — Bitter Crank

Yes, that is indisputable I think. Breathing, heart rate, metabolism, digestion etc. almost everything is unconscious.

How the brain operates seems to be, as I said, genetically controlled, because everyone's brain seems to operate the same way--different thoughts for sure, but the same mechanisms of delivering thoughts for expression. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, it is no doubt that our biology constrains our modes of expression. If we had three hands instead of two, we would also have different potentials than we do today.

Or, dogs are pretty similar in the way they invite play from us or from other dogs. — Bitter Crank

Hmmmm, mine bites my hand :lol: - or uses its nose to poke me with it and push me.

Do as you wish, but I don't think it will be possible to have a discussion - it will just be a monologue from each of you :lol:

@Maw is the perfect example of an outright propagandist when it comes to politics, so it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with him on this topic (or so I've found). He calls hit pieces and shameful propaganda as "unique articles", "excellent summary", etc. :brow:

The abusive manager, the bad company culture, the 12 hour workday. It's all part of the game so we accept a lot of shit that has an effect on our happiness because everyone around us expects us to just suck it up. — Benkei

Right, I see. Yes, that's definitely bad, but I think it emerges from a psychological weakness - to call it so - where we look up to what others are doing to help us determine what we ourselves should be doing. I would personally never do that, but I have friends who do it quite constantly...

religious, heterosexual guy — Bitter Crank

Yes, I would say so I think.

sociable but fairly formal (guessing about that) — Bitter Crank

Interesting. Why do you reckon I am fairly formal? :P

I would think I'm the opposite of that. I make it a thing to ignore lots of cultural standards and expectations - it's a source of pride for me. I never dress in a suite, regardless of who I'm meeting (although I do dress somewhat formal - long jeans, shirt, nice shoes if I'm meeting someone important). I also dislike talking to people and people talking back to me using formal language like Mr., Sir., etc. I feel like it puts a barrier between people, and we cannot have any sort of communion with each other that way. I am quite free in sharing my things with people - food, etc.

In fact - talking about sharing things... there is this hilarious story back in University. The story was set during holiday time when my flatmates were away, and I was the only one left there, so I invited one of my best friends to come visit me. So at one point, I had to go check out some books over the holidays from the Uni library. So I told my friend - 'okay, now I will go to the Library and be back in 3 hours or so' - so, he said that he will go play tennis in the meantime, so then I said that if that's the case, he will probably finish before me, so he will keep the door keys with him. Anyway, I come back, he's at home, so I ask him what he was up to, he says tennis, ask him how it was, and he says excellent. Fast forward about 1 year, and he visits me again, and we go to this house party of one of his friends - I told him I don't like parties, but he insisted, so I finally said okay, I will come with you. Anyway, at the party, this girl (I had met her once before) approaches me, and says "you have a nice flat :joke: " and I was like " :gasp: How do you know? Are you friends with any of my flatmates?" And she was like "I never met your flatmates!" Me: "That is a mysterious thing then, because I certainly don't ever remember you visiting me! What is going on? :eyes: " She: "Ahhh you don't know? I was there last year with XXXX (my friend), he said you were at the library. You didn't know? :monkey: " Me: "Very goood, he told me he would go play tennis, but I didn't know the court would be my bed :naughty: At least you have to admit that it is a good bed :eyes: !" :rofl: :rofl:

I am probably the least formal conservative you'll ever meet :lol:

There are some social things that I don't like though - I dislike parties, rock and roll concerts, etc. Anything that involves a lot of people at once. I much rather prefer cafes, some bars, and restaurants, where you can engage with only a few people at once. I really like conversation with people, not so much other things like listening to music together, etc.

that you have been, so far, quite "resilient" — Bitter Crank

In certain periods of life yes, in others no. When I was first diagnosed with GAD, hypochondria, and OCD in my late teens, I was definitely not resilient. I mean I'd worry almost continuously about something, ruminate, etc. As a child, I don't remember being very resilient, when I couldn't do something I'd quit quite easily - my parents had to push me. I would say that now I am fairly resilient, though not very resilient. There's a lot of space to improve.

Your resilience allows you to believe that you have successfully sorted out the mind from the nervous system (a flat-out impossibility, IMHO). — Bitter Crank

But is this resilience an inborn thing, or something you develop? Because my experience is that you develop this resilience with time. I certainly had periods in life when I was not resilient. Isn't this also your own experience? I remember you saying that you're a lot more resilient now, a lot calmer, centred, etc. than you were as a young man. So certainly you must have learned something that allowed you to develop this resilience and self-control over time, no?

But most of our mind is not conscious and is largely invisible to the conscious mind. — Bitter Crank

Yes! I have definitely observed this. It is very subtle, and I am sure that certain things I am not aware of. But, for example, sometimes after working a lot continuously, at night I just pace the room and don't feel like going to bed. But I don't actually feel stressed consciously. So it takes some practice and awareness to realise that I actually am stressed in those moments, even though I don't feel stressed on a conscious level. As I become aware of it, I start noticing more clues that suggest that I am stressed.

Indeed, our conscious mind is probably the creation of our unconscious mind, which is actually running things. — Bitter Crank

That is probably so, but is there no alteration of the unconscious from the conscious as well as the other way around? I would say there is - the conscious mind can also shape the unconscious to some extent. For example, when I pace the room and I become aware that I feel stressed, then I might try some mindfulness or prayer, slowly trying to quiet the chattering and restlessness of the mind. And I start releasing muscle tension, which I didn't even know was there before, etc. etc. It does seem that the conscious is able to explore the unconscious and even alter it to a certain extent.

We can learn to suppress psychophysical responses, though. For instance, limburger cheese used to be quite popular in the upper midwest of the US. It's an inordinately earthy, smelly, creamy cheese. It reminds me of the aroma of a dairy barn (which I consider pleasant but definitely "earthy"). Most people find the odor of this cheese revolting and disgusting. It tastes good in a sandwich of rye bread, a sweet onion, liver sausage (braunsweiger), and this limburger cheese. Add beer for an extra plus. I learned to get it past my nose (and lips), suppress the gag reflex, and finally sort of like it. — Bitter Crank

:lol: We say that that kind of cheese is from the peasant's pants here. But yes, see, these are other scenarios where the conscious mind can come to have control over the unconscious to some extent.

I don't think we can do something comparable with our minds. — Bitter Crank

What exactly do you mean?

In terms of making a grand contribution to theoretical physics, or composing a masterpiece of music or art, there's no substitute for having a special talent. — unenlightened

I don't really believe in this 'special talent' stuff. Some people work really hard in certain areas of life for a very long time. They also have somewhat "favourable" conditions that permit them to focus on their work. Take Federer who started learning tennis at 4, and was seriously training by 8. Most kids at that age don't do that kinda stuff. Or take Agassi who started playing, forced by his father, at 3. He went on to hate tennis and his father (according to his own autobiography Open), but it was his father who pushed him and made him into a champion basically. While other kids could play with each other, etc. he had to play tennis. Sure, we can say "woah, they're so talented" - but the truth is they dedicated so much effort to their art, that it would be really strange for them not to be in the top.

I don't know for sure about Hawkins, but I know that at a very young age he was already well-known in the scientific community. All I can think, is that he had a passion for physics early on, and he discovered it early and he had the "favourable conditions" to pursue it, at the expense of other things. Anyway, by the time he was in his late 20s, he was already a 'champion' in physics.

But to be a decent human being involves being 'dragged up proper'. — unenlightened

Yes, perhaps. It's certainly something you need to learn. If you don't learn it from your parents, then you need a boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband/close friend who cares for you and is patient with you.

I don't know, but I predict from his ability to sustain a positive outlook in the face of such an appalling disability that he had a really good sustaining upbringing. If I am wrong about that, then his achievement is even more remarkable. — unenlightened

I don't know much about his early life, but I know that he wasn't on great terms with his parents who didn't treat his first wife well, and never liked her. See here.

Also from here:

Stephen Hawking was born on January 8, 1942, in Oxford, England, to Frank and Isobel Hawking. His father was a medical researcher. He belonged to a family of well educated people. His mother was one of the first female students to have graduated from the Oxford University.
Hawking was born when his family as well as the whole nation was going through a financial crunch because of the ongoing World war II. He was the eldest of the four children.
His father became the head of the Division of Parasitology at the National Institute of Medical Research and went to Africa for research. He wanted him to become a doctor, but Hawking seemed more interested in astronomy.
He attended St. Albans School, but he was never a brilliant student. He was more interested in what happened outside the classroom, and spent his time and energy in inventing new things.
Later, against his father’s wishes, he planned to pursue mathematics as his major but as the subject was not taught in Oxford University at the time, he had to take up physics and chemistry instead.
He still did not pay too much attention to the bookish things and spent his time devising innovative techniques. In 1962, he graduated with honors, and went on to attend the University of Cambridge for a Ph.D. in cosmology.
During his first year, Hawking started to show abnormal physical symptoms; he would suddenly trip and fall, and his speech slurred. He initially suppressed these symptoms, but when his father noticed it, he was sent for a series of tests.
It was diagnosed that he was in the early stages of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, which meant that the part of his nervous system responsible for muscle control was shutting down — a life threatening condition.
With this new found realization of the suddenness of death and the fact that he had only two more years to live, Hawking started concentrating fully on his research work.

So from the quick looks of it, it doesn't seem that his family was super supportive. Sounds to me like quite a dominating, bourgeois family of intellectuals who had clear views of what should become of their child, and he didn't quite agree. But of course, I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get from reading those things.

A hyperinflated sense of self-importance mixed with total disregard for the feelings of others. — CuddlyHedgehog

To a certain extent. But allow me to use a civil engineering analogy for once girl. There exist some materials (like ceramics) which are very strong but very brittle. And inversely, there exist materials which are super ductile, but weaker (steel for example). The first group of materials achieve a lot of strength - theoretically. But practically, very small imperfections tremendously weaken them, and they fracture easily. The other materials - they have a much lower theoretical strength, but they are more ductile and they resist much better to imperfections. We call the former imperfection sensitive.

So take glass fibres with a tensile strength of ~4500MPa compared with steel at 400MPa. Glass fibre is theoretically much stronger, but if there are imperfections, that strength will be severely reduced. Anyway - end of civil engineering lesson :rofl:

The point being the person with a hyperinflated sense of self-importance and a total disregard for the feeling of others is much like the glass fibres - super strong, but easily breaks, brittle.

For instance, if some one is inflexible and easily agitated, is that a (feature of the endocrine system (too much adrenaline aka epinephrine produced) or is it a problem of interpreting sensory information to recognize threat? — Bitter Crank

I don't have much expertise on this, but I can tell you about my personal experience and what this has allowed me to understand. Over time, I've separated the strictly biological (like the nervous system) from the mind/brain. For example, I'm the sort of person who has a nervous system that responds very easily and very strongly to stimuli - meaning I get easily excited, easily anxious etc. It really is a nervous system thing. And then there is the mental aspect. That is how I react to those stimuli. At first, I thought the two were identical, but over time I've learned to separate them and pretty much control things at the higher, mental level. So when I say I overcame anxiety - what I mean is that it doesn't control my behaviour anymore (and doesn't make me ruminate, compulsions, obsessions, you know the whole game), not that I don't feel it - because I still feel it quite strongly. And some symptoms that are more directly related to my nervous & endocrine systems, I still experience - sweaty hands, Raynaud's.

So I would say that it is both. It's both a matter of what biological signals you receive - you may just have a 'nervous' personality like me - and a matter of how you interpret and process that sensory information. I have not found a way (so far at least) to control the biological aspects of it. Meditation, etc. nothing has helped so far. Controlling the mental one, or how those feelings, sensations etc. are processed - that has been possible.

What do you reckon?

Our primate relatives, and I think ourselves, are pretty much quite ready to fear snakes and spiders--because both of them have posed an existential threat for about as long as mammals have been around. Well, polar bears haven't had to worry too much about snakes and spiders. So far, anyway. We have to work hard to learn how to tolerate or like snakes and spiders. Most people don't learn that tolerance. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I think the biological level is a lot more constrained than the mental one with regards to what we can improve. That has certainly been my experience, but then... I've been less than willing compared to other people to try stuff like diet changes, supplements, herbal medicines, etc. I haven't experimented enough with taking control of the biological level to be able to say much about it. I have had this "prejudice" let's say that the mind should be able to control everything, but obviously that is wrong - it only holds for the mental level.

Generally people want to give themselves credit for their successes and blame something else for their failures; but I think success is somewhat dependent on factors one can't control--like having ambition. — Bitter Crank

To a certain extent. Succes is definitely not personal in the sense "I ALONE DID IT". But it is personal in the sense that adopting the right social attitudes, the right work ethic, always learning new things etc. these do play an important role. You also are responsible for the people you associate yourself with, if you learn to earn people's trust and respect, if you value and build relationships, etc. These are very important for success. Also, learning to judge people.

No one can build an airtight case for inheritance at this point, but it seems to me to be tighter than the case for chalking everything up to voluntary characteristics, will power, preferences, learned behaviors, and so on. — Bitter Crank

I agree that it is certainly not all voluntary. But, as they say, we have to focus on what we can control. That's why I'm always more interested in the voluntary, but I admit that the inherited does play a role.

There is a bunch of that stuff, yoga, tantric sex, meditation, and so forth that work because the body has certain potentials which can be called upon. — Bitter Crank

But the potential of the body that you call upon - what is the difference between that and mystical things? Why isn't the potential of the body mystical itself?

It is, though, definitely limited. When a major crisis comes along, I prefer a dose of Ativan, Xanax, or alcohol--whatever is on hand--to meditation. But... if nothing else were available, meditation would probably help. — Bitter Crank

Hmm - depends what you mean by major crisis. If you mean the do-something-or-i'll-kill-myself type of event, then yeah... some Xanax can do wonders :rofl: . But MOST times are not like that I would say. Long-term use of those drugs has side-effects though. I was a lot less motivated when I took them for example, and also less focused and intense. I couldn't feel things as fully as before - didn't like it, that's why I worked towards quitting them and finding other methods. You also get some bad physical symptoms from them over time.

Peterson responded with an entertaining twitter meltdown, where he threatened to slap the author, which is totally not a hyper-masculine response. — Maw

Yah, not a great response to be honest.

I have no doubt at all that a secure, free, and happy childhood is the master key. If one is loved and nurtured and cherished throughout one's formation, then one has the resources to tackle any challenge. — unenlightened

Is it? I did not have a secure & free childhood in many regards (though in others I certainly did), I don't think I was very much loved (it's a big word) by my parents (well materially I was never super deprived or anything, but emotionally my parents were distant), but I wouldn't call my childhood unhappy. There were some good moments in there and some bad ones. I think that's true for most people. Many of the people I've had the opportunity to talk to, work-related or friends, most of them have faced some kind of adversity through their childhood. I would say that for most people, a mixture of bad and good things in their childhood is the common finding.

It's also difficult to say that having a secure, free and happy childhood is a masterkey also because many people with such childhoods end up being quite spoiled and ungrateful for the good things - or break down when and if things turn bad. Personally, I would say that it is from suffering that I learned to be grateful for things in life and not to take stuff for granted.

For want of that, one has to rely on crutches of various sorts, none of which are entirely adequate. — unenlightened

Maybe. Things aren't so clear-cut for me. There's a lot I still have to learn with regards to resilience, and I don't know how far I'll be able to go myself.

Thank you both for your replies, very interesting and well-thought out answers! :)

it's adaptability and making your own rules. — Benkei

I think I agree with this, this is certainly part of it. Not being weighed down by the expectations of others, the opinions of others, the expectations of society, and so on so forth certainly frees a lot of mental energy that can then be channelled towards whatever you are interested in.

a) making money as a measure of success — Benkei

Making money is nice, but it's only one of the good things in life, and, I would agree with you, somewhat secondary. I think for many people it's hard to take your own value for granted, and you have the tendency to be approved of by others, to have others look up to you, and so on so forth. You know, the whole game. I personally try to take the Christian approach, that we are all valuable in the eyes of God just by being human beings created in the image of God - regardless of what we do or fail to do. The Stoics recommend a similar approach of situating your value in moral standards which are under your control.

b) hard on themselves to realise that success — Benkei

Yeah, I would say with regards to this point, lack of patience also plays a role, and just the expectation that you will be successful in whatever you're trying to do.

c) accept pressure and stress as part of the game. — Benkei

Can you expand more on what you mean here please?

Meanwhile, a man that works three days a week to be with his family is frowned upon. For a woman it's more-or-less ok although much less so than it used to (why did you have a fancy education to be a stay at home mom?!). — Benkei

Yes, I have seen that quite often, especially with regards to women. I don't really understand that attitude to be honest - as if work was more valuable than raising a family, or a comparison can even be made...

I hope the business stress passes. — Benkei

My attitude is always a bit different than what your statement here suggests to me. I think of stress as something internal, that is there regardless of the external situations that we encounter. So part of my attitude has always been to seek ways to be less stressed, while not eliminating the stressful situations as such. In other words, my point is that it's not the situations or the event that is stressful, but we are stressful. The same person may navigate the same situations or events without being stressed. Stress does not help solve the problem, but many times it is like a shadow which follows you while you're busy solving the problem.

If he was optimistic and resilient, this was perhaps a gift of inheritance. — Bitter Crank

Why do you think inheritance plays such a strong role?

One might add that Hawking had an built-in delay mechanism between a thought and a feeling and its verbal expression. — Bitter Crank

Yes that is true with regards to anger for sure. Many times I have wanted to act a certain way when angry, and then, after calming down, the way I thought completely changed. So for me, it's almost a policy that if I get really angry, then I will not act until I am calm. Of course, there are situations when it's difficult to reign anger in, but over the years, anger has been a less and less significant issue for me. I am a (relatively) calm guy today compared to how I used to be.

He divorced and noted that one of his wives (can't remember which) had been abusive, for instance.) — Bitter Crank

Yeah that is always a problem, and it's difficult to deal with when it is within the family, and you can't act out to stop it in any way.

I know I don't have as resilient a personality as some people's. I am more reactive and am more agitated than some. — Bitter Crank

Oh yeah, that's definitely true for me too. I used to be really bad at resilience, first sign of difficulty almost I would give up. I remember as a child, I was perhaps 5 or so, and when one of my toys broke I had to call my father for reassurance that things are okay :lol:

But it's something you learn with time. I used to be super timid as a child. And I'm not really timid nowadays at all, I border on being rude many times lol. But my personality is definitely more towards the reactive side.

Resilience is also something that I've learned. That was how I overcame anxiety issues and got off the medication at the time, and then of course everything else that I've done. I would say mindfulness has been most helpful towards that - withstanding stress, at least so far. But mindfulness does take some time and patience :P

Suffice to say, I'm not really sure that resilience and mental energy are inherited. I have found that I was able to improve those quite a bit, and I'm not sure how much more I can push things in the future, and what other new ways I will find to improve. But I think that saying that they are inherited and that's that isn't everything. Certain tendencies may be inherited, but I think we can self-regulated, learn new patterns of thought, and ways of dealing with emotions and all the rest.

mediation — Bitter Crank

You must mean medication? Or meditation? (Bitter Crank meditating! I would think you are the sort of person who doesn't believe in meditation instinctively haha :P would I be wrong?)

When I can manage my life to incorporate lots of time alone — Bitter Crank

:lol: - I also like that, but many people find it strange.

Although unenlightened - I have to say that it would be a huge risk / gamble if it is false flag from those two countries. Just imagine that the attack failed, or the attacker got captured - great international scale disaster! On the other hand, if it is true flag, it seems somewhat more plausible to me.

Hmmm... well if you put the problem of false flag, then, well... it could be at least two possible countries. One is from the Orient, and the other is from the other side of the Atlantic...

What do you reckon? True flag or false flag?

I think you’ve added an extra 0 by mistake — CuddlyHedgehog

That is true...

I'm 100 Mr. Curious.

'm actually sceptical, along Humean lines, of one common way of understanding what laws of nature are. — Sapientia

Yeah, Hume's position is what was discredited in this thread. When you contribute, you should at least make an effort to read what has gone before, or if you haven't at least state so openly.

My reply was based on your own opening post which depended on that very concept in order to define miracles. — Sapientia

Yep, and just a few posts afterwards, I claim that the definitions are inadequate and I'm not interested in definitions.

Me too. But the difference is that you think yours is absolute. — charleton

So why does it bother you that I think mine is absolute? Being absolute just means that it applies to everyone, and if someone does not act according to it, then they are being immoral.

You certainly think absolutely that moral values are not absolute.

Wake up to reality. Laws of nature are an incoherent concept, as was adequately proved through the course of this thread already.

That just about sums you up perfectly. Your absurdity is the claim that your narrowly focused and narrow minded moral code is universal in some way. This could not be more funny. — charleton

I follow my moral code for my own sake, not for anyone else's, so I certainly have no anxiety about it if you decide not to follow it. It's your problem as far as I'm concerned.

This perforce is false since the "world" is not created — charleton

Big Bang denier?

'powers', and that would involve some sort of volition. — charleton

So water having the power to become ice involves volition? You're so scared of God that even little things which may indicate the possibility threaten you. Why not address this anxiety? If you don't believe in God fine, but at least be emotionally open, and tackle it head on, not by hiding, repressing etc.

Usually, when someone belligerently clings to absurdity, it means that they are trying to avoid what they perceive as a much bigger danger if they were to let go of absurdity. Moral relativism protects many people in the West from spiritual forms of anxiety - it helps them repress it.

(Y) good analysis.

When you talk about miracles and the supernatural, aren't you references the actions of God? I am not. Chemicals, physics, and time produced life, and in time, intelligent beings, and at some point, just a few seconds ago in geologic time, God. — Bitter Crank

A theist could say that God brought all things into being through physical and chemical processes, and that the principle of life is the hand of God at work. If that's what you mean, fine; but that's not what I am saying. I am saying there was no directive hand, and that the processes of chemistry and physics could have ended up producing only rock. — Bitter Crank

This is precisely the problem. The Universe is suffused with creative energies. Chemicals, forces of physics, etc. - merely labels. This is a tremendous creative force at play, regardless of how you call it, whether you speak of it in poetic or scientific terms, etc.

The problem with such miracles is that what is actually done on a regular basis does not seem to be anything inexplicable. — unenlightened

In what sense? Curing illnesses that are for the most part statistically incurable on a regular basis would certainly count as inexplicable, wouldn't it?

Also, what we call "the placebo effect" is also really the power of the mind no? I mean if you have an illness, and you can't get any real medicine, it's certainly preferable to get the placebo over getting nothing, no?

Where I think there is something much more interesting than all these 'what ifs' is in subjectivity itself; arguably, the everyday miracle is the (potential) freedom of the human spirit from its own conditioning. — unenlightened

That is not an everyday miracle, very few people reach the point where they can do that. It is a potential as you say, but not an actuality for most. And I agree about counting that as miraculous.

Something new and different might work better. Just because things have always been done one way it doesn't mean it is the right or best way. — CuddlyHedgehog

Exactly, so then you need both elements of stability (tradition) and elements of exploration (novelty, new approaches, etc.).

Let's call sequences like: 1,2,3,4,5,6 or 12,13,14,15,16,17 or 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 or 2, 4, 6, 1, 3, 5 etc. as ordered sequences. Let's call sequences like: 1, 43, 12, 23, 28, 7 as unordered. Imagine you write out all the possible results (52! results).

How many of those will be ordered sequences, and how many will be unordered?

The point is that there are many more (by the order of millions at least, but probably more) of unordered possible sequences than ordered ones. So it's no mystery that the ordered ones rarely happen.

If you had a bag with 999 white marbles and 1 red marble, and the probability of picking any one marble was 1/1000, then any white marble is as likely to be picked as the red marble. But overall, since there are many more whites than reds, whites are 999x more likely to be picked.