all it takes for something to exist is...

Jeanie · April 2007

angelica wrote:

You might notice that Ahnimus and I have made a certain peace in the past few weeks. That being after talking on the phone and recognizing that our communication issues on the board are a complete illusion. Ahnimus was awesome on the phone, and for 5 hours and 10 minutes of continuous talking, I didn't hear one hint of condescension, ego, disrespect or anything. The contrary. He was completely calm and reasonable. I think Ahnimus is very misunderstood. I have a lot of respect for him. He can only communicate on the board the way he knows how...that comes naturally to him. Although his communication style seems detached, on the phone he seemed very balanced, and particularly intuitive and sensitive in terms of being very aware.

As for his narrow idealogical views. He didn't seem that way at all on the phone. I spoke about my most out there spiritual stuff, and he did not invalidate me in any way, at all. Same thing on the gabbly chat one morning at 6:00 am. To the contrary, he validated my spiritual stuff.

edit: although Ahnimus and I disagree a lot, and vehemently sometimes, on the phone, or in pms, we're very calm and mutually accepting in our style. And we have some very fundamental basics in common.

I'm happy that you have made this connection and understanding with ahnimus, angelica. For both of you. It's always wonderful to make powerful and respectful connections.

I'm pleased that he has validated your spirituality and is accepting of your point of view.

It's a shame that ahnimus is unable to recognise and develop this level of communication with others.

Jeanie · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

It's all in the interpretation Soulsinging. If I told you that I suffered brain damage as a kid, would that matter to you? My guess is probably not, since that's what I've stressed the most as a factor in decision making. It also affects social skills. Maybe I am psychopathic because I didn't cry when my grandmother died, I didn't flinch when my father had a heart-attack. When my father had a seizure, I didn't freak out, I calmly contacted 911 and took steps to apply first-aid. By choice? No. Do I feel fear or regret? Not really. By choice? No. We've talked a lot on her about how feelings are subjective, well, if we could apply it to a scale, if you are a 10, I'd be a one for most emotions. By choice? No. Does it bother me? No. I accept it and I accept that others subjective experiences are not identical to my own. Do I feel strong compassion for Earthgirl? not anymore than for her stalker, unfortunately, I can't. On the other hand, it enables me to view the situation from a non-bias perspective. I don't like the pessimist/optimist paradigm, but I'd definitely be an optimist. I like to find the advantage to my faults, I may not be good at comforting Earthgirl, but I am good at understanding the stalker. Maybe this is difficult for people to accept and understand, but I've felt what it feels like to want to kill someone without remorse, I've crossed over to the mental set of a psychopath and stepped back. I'm not trying to be condescending, I just come from a different point of view.

Ok, so it's ok for you to explain your behavior away because of your brain damage but not ok for others? Because I can think of several occassions recently when you have been downright cruel to other people here on the board who also suffer from brain damage. If we are all to be accepting of your opinions and behaviours because you suffered a brain injury as a child the least you could do is extend the same common courtesy to others in the same position.

Ahnimus · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Ok, so it's ok for you to explain your behavior away because of your brain damage but not ok for others? Because I can think of several occassions recently when you have been downright cruel to other people here on the board who also suffer from brain damage. If we are all to be accepting of your opinions and behaviours because you suffered a brain injury as a child the least you could do is extend the same common courtesy to others in the same position.

I do. I am not the one attacking people's conditions, occasionally when my barrier breaks down I slip a harsh comment I'm not particularly proud of as a rational entity. I don't attack people personally, I debate their views, if that seems like an attack then I don't know how to debate with you. Best to just ignore my posts because we can't communicate on the same level.

I consider myself somewhat of an academic and I'm putting strong consideration into higher education. Academia is full of arrogance, it's one of the driving factors to scientific discovery. We are cut from a different cloth and that's the issue. I beg you to ignore my posts if you find them offensive to your method of discourse.

lucylespian · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Reductionism isn't a big issue. If you think reductionism is a threat to your perception, then maybe something is wrong with your perception. Both the whole and the sum of it's parts should be equivelant. I don't see a problem with that. Perhaps you can elaborate on your distaste for reductionism.

Perhaps we should define reductionism. Is reductionism saying that 2 is the equivelant of 1 plus 1. Or is reductionism saying that 2 is the result of a singularity, reducing the explanation of a whole to none other than the whole, that to me is reductionism. Like suggesting that all the complexity of the universe is reducable to one all-powerful entity. Or maybe that's exterme over-simplification.

Anyway with out the former definition of reductionism, we'd all be dead from an infectious disease. Because all of science is based on reductionism, and science saves lives.

Neither. the reductionsim that I am referring to, is trying to reduce the question, or take it back to the most elementary starting point, eg, like trying to find teh beginnign of a story, when there is always a precedent chapter. If that is the question, that is fone, but in this case, I need to be able to refer to myself, wihout having to argue that I exist.
I'm not saying that reductionism is useless, just that it has it's pplace. For exaple, you can studt phsiology without reducing it to biochemistry, or molocular geneetics or quantum mechanics, which are all possible levels of looking at the same problem.

Ahnimus · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

I'm happy that you have made this connection and understanding with ahnimus, angelica. For both of you. It's always wonderful to make powerful and respectful connections.

I'm pleased that he has validated your spirituality and is accepting of your point of view.

It's a shame that ahnimus is unable to recognise and develop this level of communication with others.

Angelica is wrong on her interpretation of quantum indeterminacy. We do not agree on everything. I do not believe in any ethereal intelligence or cosmic plan. Absolutely no definition of spirituality or God will satisfy me. I use alternate terms to describe functionally the same things. However, Angelica's view is more expansive into unattainable knowledge than mine. I understand Angelica's point of view, as much as I understand yours. I understand they are how you live your lives. They are not for me and in a debate, I will express my viewpoint. Again, I do not communicate well with people of different mind sets. That's the issue.

Jeanie · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I do. I am not the one attacking people's conditions, occasionally when my barrier breaks down I slip a harsh comment I'm not particularly proud of as a rational entity. I don't attack people personally, I debate their views, if that seems like an attack then I don't know how to debate with you. Best to just ignore my posts because we can't communicate on the same level.

I consider myself somewhat of an academic and I'm putting strong consideration into higher education. Academia is full of arrogance, it's one of the driving factors to scientific discovery. We are cut from a different cloth and that's the issue. I beg you to ignore my posts if you find them offensive to your method of discourse.

Ok, well that's fine and I understand. But you have attacked me personally and I do think you know how to debate without doing that. I've seen you do it. While it's understandable that you may do that sometimes in the heat of a debate it is not acceptable to assume a position with someone, then continue on with your assumptions incorrectly and then lay the boots in with personal remarks when the going gets tough, just because you are frustrated and maybe have difficulties. And should you do that then the simple thing to do is understand your contribution and rectify it. Please don't tell me that I am incapable of communicating with academics. Because I've done it plenty of times. I've been doing it since I was a kid. They don't seem to have a problem communicating with me. You need to decide if you want to communicate with me or not and if you do then it's in your best interests to learn how to do that. Academia can be full of arrogance, but you are not an academic yet ahnimus, and you have the opportunity here to utilise all of your skills to become a better human being as well as an academic. And I applaud that. However if you feel the need to attack me or if I think that you need to step back from something, I will contribute my opinion.
But saying something is too hard or beneath you is a cop out.
And we both know it.

Ahnimus · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Neither. the reductionsim that I am referring to, is trying to reduce the question, or take it back to the most elementary starting point, eg, like trying to find teh beginnign of a story, when there is always a precedent chapter. If that is the question, that is fone, but in this case, I need to be able to refer to myself, wihout having to argue that I exist.
I'm not saying that reductionism is useless, just that it has it's pplace. For exaple, you can studt phsiology without reducing it to biochemistry, or molocular geneetics or quantum mechanics, which are all possible levels of looking at the same problem.

I think that's a certain type of reductionism. It's truly unattainable knowledge. But for example if we are discussing physiology, say we are discussing endomorphs and deciphering the cause for their body shape. It would be rational to focus on metabolism and genetics. It would be ridiculous to suggest that theoretically the person doesn't even exist. That kind of reductionism is useless.

Ahnimus · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Ok, well that's fine and I understand. But you have attacked me personally and I do think you know how to debate without doing that. I've seen you do it. While it's understandable that you may do that sometimes in the heat of a debate it is not acceptable to assume a position with someone, then continue on with your assumptions incorrectly and then lay the boots in with personal remarks when the going gets tough, just because you are frustrated and maybe have difficulties. And should you do that then the simple thing to do is understand your contribution and rectify it. Please don't tell me that I am incapable of communicating with academics. Because I've done it plenty of times. I've been doing it since I was a kid. They don't seem to have a problem communicating with me. You need to decide if you want to communicate with me or not and if you do then it's in your best interests to learn how to do that. Academia can be full of arrogance, but you are not an academic yet ahnimus, and you have the opportunity here to utilise all of your skills to become a better human being as well as an academic. And I applaud that. However if you feel the need to attack me or if I think that you need to step back from something, I will contribute my opinion.
But saying something is too hard or beneath you is a cop out.
And we both know it.

I don't consider you a better human being and I do not wish to be like you. I'm happy with who I am and have no intention of changing. Accept it.

Jeanie · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica is wrong on her interpretation of quantum indeterminacy. We do not agree on everything. I do not believe in any ethereal intelligence or cosmic plan. Absolutely no definition of spirituality or God will satisfy me. I use alternate terms to describe functionally the same things. However, Angelica's view is more expansive into unattainable knowledge than mine. I understand Angelica's point of view, as much as I understand yours. I understand they are how you live your lives. They are not for me and in a debate, I will express my viewpoint. Again, I do not communicate well with people of different mind sets. That's the issue.

Well I don't know that I agree that is the issue as both of us understand it, but I understand it is the issue for you. As I see it, if you are capable of the level of understanding of the subjects that you do study then you are also capable of great things when it comes to communication. You just have to decide you want to develop those skills. You will find it an extremely beneficial subject to study.

lucylespian · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I think that's a certain type of reductionism. It's truly unattainable knowledge. But for example if we are discussing physiology, say we are discussing endomorphs and deciphering the cause for their body shape. It would be rational to focus on metabolism and genetics. It would be ridiculous to suggest that theoretically the person doesn't even exist. That kind of reductionism is useless.

It's the degree of reductionism that you were pursuing at that point that I was taking issue with. the post is lost about 10 pages back, but I felt that you took the discussion back a bit too far. Not all science is based on reductionism. The trick is to get your level just right for the problem at hand.
For example, while biochemical changes in the brain are present in a person suffering from depression, it is not helpful to focus on that when the cause of depression is usually something more prosaic , like financial trouble, or conflict at work. You need to identify the right level of complexity at which the problem occurs, and direct your interest and intervention there.

It's one thing for science to discover that disease is caused by bacteria, and then you can look at things like encapsulated vs non-encapsulated strains, and the action of different anntibiotics at a molecular level, but infectious disease is really prevented at a public health level of handwashing and correct food handling and storage.

lucylespian · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Awareness of the self is an interesting thing. We could probably talk for hours about two completely different things. First of all, what is self? If it's our entire being from head to toe, body and mind, then of course animals are self-aware, so are computers. A computer software is written to detect input from it's organs, that makes it a sentient being, and self-aware. We just have a more complex software, far superior than modern computers or any other specie for that matter. I have no doubt that some animals have consciousness' more closely resembling ours, but on the other hand, I don't think chickens are all there. Being that consciousness/self-awareness is dispersed throughout the brain, I believe consciousness is just a function of brain processing. Our brains are aware of what our brains are doing, so it only makes sense that that would be consciousness. It just happens that not everything gets heard as loudly, or due to time constraints things are filtered. I don't know, but there is no doubt in my mind that all living organisms down to bacteria are self-aware.

This was the post that trigegred my comment about reductionism. It was the question "what is self ?". Maybe I overreacted, but I didn't want to get dragged back into a discussion about trying to define self etc, when what I was really talking about was observable behaviour, so a different level of reductionism.
Chickens, I agree, are not really there, neither are sheep. I once saw a sheep at dog trial panic thought the dog was being very calm and patient, and runblindly into a fence post and actually knock itself out in an atempt to escape the danger of the dog. Now, that's stupid !! The dog , on the other hand was demonstrating a sophisticated degree of awareness, cos it could see the sheep was about to bolt, and was trying to calm it by standing off. I swear it damn near rolled it's eyes when the dumb sheep knocked itself out !! LOL!!!!!!

Jeanie · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't consider you a better human being and I do not wish to be like you. I'm happy with who I am and have no intention of changing. Accept it.

Tell me where I wrote that I think I'm a better human being than you?

Tell me where I wrote that I think you should be like me?

And if you a planning to remain static for the rest of your life and not change then I might just hang around to watch you attempt that.
Never seen it done before. Best be staying away from university if you aren't planning on changing.

And why do I have to accept it? Clearly you aren't advocating acceptance of me. Oh wait........have I just made an assumption about your thoughts and feelings and opinions? Hmmmmm......................................

angelica · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Neither. the reductionsim that I am referring to, is trying to reduce the question, or take it back to the most elementary starting point, eg, like trying to find teh beginnign of a story, when there is always a precedent chapter. If that is the question, that is fone, but in this case, I need to be able to refer to myself, wihout having to argue that I exist.
I'm not saying that reductionism is useless, just that it has it's pplace. For exaple, you can studt phsiology without reducing it to biochemistry, or molocular geneetics or quantum mechanics, which are all possible levels of looking at the same problem.

Again, very nice, lucy.

I agree with this perspective Ahnimus, and this is much more concise and probably illustrative than anything I'd have come up with.

soulsinging · April 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Maybe if the criticism was more constructive than insulting, progress could be made. I completely see how it's important to be aware of others feelings when communicating on a message board. Everyone here wants to be validated and understood to a certain extent. When people are simply shutting out others and dismissing their views as pointless or silly, it creates so much tension and aggravation (not a healthy environment for learning or opening one's self to new ideas). But at the same time, insulting another for their lack of social skills by ridiculing them is showing the same inability at communication. No one is going to open themselves up to advice when it's filled with negative personal remarks. It winds up being shut out and lost...which makes it just as pointless.

it's my gf's fault... if i was getting laid i wouldn't be so pissed off at the world these days

law school sucks when you have no outlet for stress, hehe.

angelica · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

It's the degree of reductionism that you were pursuing at that point that I was taking issue with. the post is lost about 10 pages back, but I felt that you took the discussion back a bit too far. Not all science is based on reductionism. The trick is to get your level just right for the problem at hand.
For example, while biochemical changes in the brain are present in a person suffering from depression, it is not helpful to focus on that when the cause of depression is usually something more prosaic , like financial trouble, or conflict at work. You need to identify the right level of complexity at which the problem occurs, and direct your interest and intervention there.

It's one thing for science to discover that disease is caused by bacteria, and then you can look at things like encapsulated vs non-encapsulated strains, and the action of different anntibiotics at a molecular level, but infectious disease is really prevented at a public health level of handwashing and correct food handling and storage.

I'm so with you, dude. The part about what perspective to use given your purposes is completely where it's at. And I love your example of the financial trouble, which indicates a subjective experience rather than a brain process, even though they are, of course, related. Beautiful.

And the handwashing thing as well. Great job, lucy.

Jeanie · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

it's my gf's fault... if i was getting laid i wouldn't be so pissed off at the world these days law school sucks when you have no outlet for stress, hehe.

I've heard some folks swear by running!!

Or you could take the easy option like me and drink!!!

soulsinging · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

I've heard some folks swear by running!!

Or you could take the easy option like me and drink!!!

ah, my body's shot from cross country, so i cant run. i do work out 4 times a week now, but it doesn't seem to help. drinking is not an option for me... it's been 2 years since i played with that fire and i REALLY don't want to go back to jail. so ive been stuck with steady and frequent porn use. like i said, until i can find a mistress!

Jeanie · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

ah, my body's shot from cross country, so i cant run. i do work out 4 times a week now, but it doesn't seem to help. drinking is not an option for me... it's been 2 years since i played with that fire and i REALLY don't want to go back to jail. so ive been stuck with steady and frequent porn use. like i said, until i can find a mistress!

damn ss! That sounds like hell on earth!!! :(

Think I'll stick with the drinking. Just enough to get me to nod off to sleep.
Too much and I'm in real trouble!!! :eek:

Yep you need a mistress! Or a blow up dolly!

Good luck! It's a shocker of a situation to find yourself in.

decides2dream · April 2007

catefrances wrote:

...for someone to believe it does. agree/disagree?

i think it depends where this *existence* occurs. to exist in the mind, and/or to exist in the real/physical/3D world......not mutually exclusive by any stretch, and also fully impacts whether i can agree/disagree to this *existence* Q in the first place.

gue_barium · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

damn ss! That sounds like hell on earth!!! :(

Think I'll stick with the drinking. Just enough to get me to nod off to sleep.
Too much and I'm in real trouble!!! :eek:

Yep you need a mistress! Or a blow up dolly!

Good luck! It's a shocker of a situation to find yourself in.

A shank of ham can be nifty.

all it takes for something to exist is...

Comments

Categories