That's because we nerds are boring. Be grateful for the indirectly part and carry on. :smile: — Jake

Let's remember they're the ones taking an interest in me here. Even then they let me know they're attracted to some of my sides but not all of them.

What I've learned in my own experience is that the more philosophical one is, the more one tends to need a partnership with someone who has both feet firmly on the ground of the mundane real world. — Jake

That is a very good affirmation. Ironically, I have met a woman similar to what you have described. She seems to pay me a lot of attention in college and my opinion about her is changing recently. Frankly, most women can fall into this category because of what I have experienced. And many of those who seem interested in me actually make it clear to me that they think I'm boreing. Indirectly of course.

These same women seem to have a thirst for drama and emotion while my partners play by their desires. It's probably the strangest thing I've ever seen.

No but I've understood very early that everything people do is for their own interest. Even the most compassionate people act this way in order to fulfill their need to do good. — FranckFriends

Exactly. To that you can attribute your boredome. Everyone and everything can be traced at some point. Have the cynic find the worst or the hero find honour becomes intuitive with age and observation I assume.

You can still be a hermit by the way. You just have to let everyone close to you know that you wish to have time alone. As a man in your fifties the least they can do is respect your wish.

People's behavior will never change. It's a very sad fact. Nobody really goes around thinking that watching TV, paying taxes and having a relationship to be particulary boring. They find reading books, discussing and analysis to be boring. Most of them out there have exactly the same beliefs with minor deviations towards exactly the same thing. It's part of being sane.

My personal observations convinced me that people aren't unique and even that free will is kind of a myth. As it's quite a depressing conclusion — FranckFriends

Yes, it is. It makes mentally Ill individuals to be way more interesting. But I'm certain that to some level everyone is aware of this. Many TV programs are about psychopaths killing many people and getting away with it or some other drama like that. Cartoons have radical expressions, etc. It's all a primal desire for adventure and conquer.

It's only a matter of time this desire dies as a consequence of evolution. That will be a very long time and none of us here is probably going to see such change in our lifetime.

Well why think it's an illusion? The way I see it you're justifying something that seems to be sense as something else to adhere to your belief that we're unique.

Have you ever heard of game theory? Game theory involves two intelligent players going by their will to have the best of their own position. The outcome always involves each of the players going by their own best interests. Sounds familiar? It's every day.

Yes, I think you're right in almost everything you said.

I guess it all comes down to our definitions and feelings as a society.
We do not like the idea of ​​an innate failure with respect to something as important as intelligence, however, when it comes to a failure that is extremely important, we must take it into account. Down syndrome and other things like that.

With respect to individuals with ADHD and chronic procrastinators, I would say that there is probably a difference. Individuals with ADHD actually have a diminished capacity in certain areas of the brain while the procrastinator does not.

Still though, my point can cover the fact that if we go back in time about a couple of decades and the neuroscience in an ADHD person and a procrastinator would'nt exist. By this time we justify this person with ADHD as a character flaw and give as an example the capable procrastinator. This is where we're wrong and we do not acknowledge the impaired abilities on the ADHD guy - we call it a character flaw.

This could be the same thing we're doing with all the people who lack the three main pilars of a human. "Be intelligent, self-conscious and aware".

Frankly the 13% is sketchy to me. I'm not even living in the US anymore. The place where I'm at is Mexico and here there's rarely any blacks.

I see your point but I still find the assumption to be good reasoning.

We would like to think that we're all different and special in our own ways. But let's think this through.

In a planet with billions of people only a very selective few were the ones to write the future of humanity. There's a handful of people who concluded correctly about gravity. Who did the correct experiments to assess reality in different subjects, etc.

Then there's IQ for example. The spectrum is a bell curve that expands from what is the average IQ. If it's proven that all our brains are different then why did only a few shape history? Why is there even an average to begin with in any cognitive test? Well the answer is because there actually is an average. Thus, no we do not think so differently from one another.

If the average of a certain culture did such action provided the average religious beliefs and cultural preferences, then is it logical to say that we're all special and different and so we don't acknowledge this pattern? No.

I had some black friends in my stance in the US. They're kind of aggressive but they're good. Besides that I also admire some very intelligent black people who are youtubers and speak about women, politics, etc.

Still though, statistics are statistics. If 13% of blacks present 50% of the crime. I'm not going to moralize anyone who believes that using statistics is an accurate way of perceiving circumstances and reality.

Retarded? In what way is using evidence as a way of measuring, retarded? Oh yeah, the moment we didn't like the outcome. Gotcha

This is a really stupid assumption. For one, we're technically already in an armed society and clearly it is not a polite one. Secondly, they're not even correlated. Thirdly, if the people aren't polite then having weaponry will simply make things more devastating. It implies a more easy way of execution by people who aren't polite.

'You think that because you have a gun I fear you? Yeah right, check this one out'. You see the point?

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier.

Are you saying an infinite being has some "best" measure of performance?

Is this universe's creation the end of God's supposedly unending power? — VoidDetector

No, I'm saying that by our way of measuring, what he does is of the best performance. We are the ones who evaluate from best to worst, both being relative.

Omnipotent is to behold an absolute power towards all things known and unknown. To the extent that Chistians believe that everything bestowed to them as "known" to be absolutely beautiful.

Everything that God creates is the best and of finest quality. His omnipotence in intellect and preference are invariably undeniable. No such thing as something imperfect from him or his dues.

What I assume makes human the exception to anything else is the fact that they can be aware of God's presence. By his will has been your will and thus your imperfection in thought.

An infinitely worse heaven is impossible because from him everything is of absoluteness.

I'm a deist by the way. I don't necessarily believe in God but in the damn Boolean variables that project our reality and physicality.

The main idea of being dead is to be clear of all preoccupations. You can do that right now:
- Forget about the debt and consider it only when asked or forced upon.
- Forget about the people and remember only when needed.

Do you remember your rejection? Your solitude? I don't.
The ultimate satisfaction that comes from your existence is none at all. To be strong and to endure is to suffer. We can leave that to the idiots. To live in peace is not to be strong nor to endure, but to let go.

That makes sense. Many people simply don't understand it. It is kinda sad though that some people's best argument is that if the individual commits suicide is that it would make them seem like a bad friend, parent, and so forth. — Waya

Yeah so we said that Suicidal thoughts are natural however they're probably not healthy in concerns of 'keeping you alive' but it deepens your thoughts and creates new values.

So when someone of your family blames you for suicide they're just trying to extend their nihilism on to you. If people actually would put some thought on their existance they would comprehend your position and let you free to do whatever you wanted or even better, they'll probably give you a logical reason to why you shouldn't do it. Instead they do this crap which is rather insulting to your intelligence. It's just how it is.

My view on the common sense concerning this topic is that many people stick to primal ideals. They only try to satisfy their physical needs. The intellect is often left to rotten just for the sake of being happy and unperturbed

That does not follow. For one to be larger than the other all that need be true is that one set has a greater cardinality. What this will mean is that when you try to place them in a one-to-one correspondence with each other, it fails to be possible to do so. After all, sets that can be mapped together in this way are the same size. What Cantor showed was that it's impossible to map the naturals with the reals on pain of contradiction, it turned out the reals were larger not that the naturals had an end (in the sense of a final member). That's what makes them different, despite being infinite. They're different levels of infinity. — MindForged

I get the point. The ending member is different in a one to one correspondance from T (numbers on the list) to N (aleph). I would just like to believe that from R to N (naturals) the last member is different because that's how they are defined by themselves. If we make a number out of the difference of a specific number is to state that the former was a number at all, even in regards to the cardinality of a set.

I would like to believe that this up here is sufficient to say that aleph as a set was to just be math dribble. And the last member of the set T never existed in order for it to be different. So the definition of the set aleph is not satisfied.

That's a very good response.
Logically I would state that the reason why aleph-null makes no sense is because like both aleph-null and the numbers on the list are infinity, then to say that aleph-null is in any way different from the numbers on the list is to state that the numbers on the list have an ending. This is because for them to actually be different is for both numbers to end in a difference. Such statement may sound illogical at first glance because no matter what number appears it will always be different, however the point is that if we think about it aleph-null is still impossible to fully become different.

All the notation that comes after aleph-null is to assume the difference. Here is a mathematical intepretation of my reasoning.

j = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ... M }

N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... X }

j = numbers on the list
M = hyperreal of j
N = Aleph-null
X= Statement of difference

however

N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... X },
N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... M ... X2... },
N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... M ... M2 ... X3 ...},

To say that aleph is different from j is to say that j ends at some M for it to become X. It will never do such a thing.

Now, the real numbers are greater than the naturals because they're both defined by themselves to be so. In this case aleph is defined to exist as long as it satisfies the difference it has with j. It doesn't have one because it cannot happen due to the nature of what is infinity.

Mathematically you can reduce all this into cardinality but it throws out the window the sense of infinity in any physical and reasonable sense, and so it defines things in a finite way similar to a hyperreal. Stating that it exist if one day M stops growing to become X.

Even then the argument behind a hyperreal is more logical then that of aleph-null. Because the hyperreal is taken into account to never be n. And so, to be able to stay at some n.
The difference X involves taking some n of j to be x. Which is to state that M is an n. No logos my buddies, what the heck is going on?

With this I say that these mathematics are physically inconsistent. So you'll never see anything like this in the physical world. To think this is amazing is to be amazed at 2 + 2 = 3 but in a more complex and sophisticated way

That's a very good damn response.
Logically I would state that the reason why aleph-null makes no sense is because like both aleph-null and the numbers on the list are infinity, then to say that aleph-null is in any way different from the numbers on the list is to state that the numbers on the list have an ending. This is because for them to actually be different is for both numbers to end in a difference. Such statement may sound illogical at first glance because no matter what number appears it will always be different, however the point is that if we think about it aleph-null is still impossible to fully become different.

All the notation that comes after aleph-null is to assume the difference. Here is a mathematical intepretation of my reasoning.

j = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ... M}

N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... X}

j = numbers on the list
N = Aleph-null
X= Statement of difference
M = hyperreal of j

however

N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... X },
N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... M1 ... X ... },
N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... M1 ... M2 ... X ... },

To say that aleph N is different from j is to say that j ends at some M for it to become X. It doesn't and never will become X (different).

Even mathematically, to state that aleph-null is a thing is to reduce the nature of the problem to cardinality. Which is meaningless. The infinity to be reasoned in any physical sense is to acknowledge that impossibility of convergence to some difference.

Also, the reals are bigger than natural numbers because they're defined in terms of themselves. They are not conditioned to exist to something which will never end. In this case aleph-null is conditioned to exist for when M ever becomes X - It will never do such a thing.

Maybe it signals an inability to quantify. — frank

Inability to quantify or a never ending quantity I guess could be considered the same.

1. Infinity is a never ending quantity.

2. Infinity is not a number.

Infinity is a symbol given to an unlimited amount of things.

Btw, countable and uncountable infinity is counterintuitive, insane and nonsensical. Cantor was a lunatic.

In the diagonal proof you have an infinite amount of rows and columns. Supposedly you can make a new infinite number different from the one on the list. How? By taking the first digit and changing it to whatever, then the second digit, and so on. This is nonsense.

First of all the new number has conditioned itself to be infinitely different from the one on the list. In no possible way can the number be the one on the list, however the same can be said by the number on the list ever actually being a quantity. It has and will never end. Thus they're both infinite numbers, and thus they both have the same length. The only difference is the rate at which they grow.

Second of all the rate of growth in infinite numbers is not a valid argument to define N (aleph-null) as an ordinal 'uncountable infinite'. This is because the rate of growth can still be achieved without ever actually having the list to being with. This new number N is in no way different or special from the numbers on the list.

Third of all the rate of growth to infinity does not change at all the fact that they're both infinite. Saying that some N1 is infinite will then have an N2 being infinite proceed from that one makes no sense and is mathematically possible but absolutely irrational, and a waste of time for your brain to acknowledge. But people don't understand these three simple concepts.

I have had some friends who have told me they are afraid to die someday. Personally I never felt that fear. For the most part, I stay focused on the moment and that's why I do not make unnecessary dangers. In fact, I avoid everything that I consider stupid or dangerous. Usually people do the opposite thinking that it does not matter because they will die anyway. Often that does not go well.

I do not believe that all human beings suffer from this. Because suffering implies recognizing and living for this as a burden to bear and endure. Most people simply shrug their shoulders as soon as it arrives. For some it does not even come to mind.

The solution for a carefree life is actually to accept and endure. Do not ignore the idea of ​​dying thinking that it will be better if you only go to the movies with your friends. This action makes you and your reason for living depend on others ... big mistake and weak will too.

Suicidal thoughts are confessed to be bad because at large the people are often considering other things in regards to their own survival; not their death. So usually I come to see that the people at large tend to concentrate on matters that regard their own survival and existance. Anything that goes against this is trash and wasteful. This then causes people with suicidal thoughts to feel even worse about their situation, in all situations to be considered ill-minded when in all reality it is simply a consequence of being an intelligent self-aware individual.

Not to mention the fact that many cannot and will not debate their own existance. Many even here claim that suicide comes from an illness but it is all the contrary. Narcissist fear death the most, next to psychopaths, etc.