Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
quiXilver

When does thought transition to belief?

1,602 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

jmccr8
Just now, Mr Walker said:

Which part?

Hi Walker

You know the part where you're on the field with the ball and your doing math that you can't visualize.

jmccr8

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Finally the truth comes out. :lol:

Well i have always admitted to a healthy ego 

For some that seems to equate to a large ego.

I am strong in the force and both my ego and self esteem are high 

I think more problems and pain are caused by  egos and slef esteem which are too small, than those which are too large.

I've spent my life trying to help young people develop strong, resilient, egos and self esteem, after others ( from  parents to peers,  and other adults) have knocked it out of them.  

Believe in yourself, and you can accomplish almost anything, depending on,your skills and talents. Fail to believe, and you will likely never achieve anything much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Well i have always admitted to a healthy ego 

For some that seems to equate to a large ego.

I am strong in the force and both my ego and self esteem are high 

I think more problems and pain are caused by  egos and slef esteem which are too small, than those which are too large.

I've spent my life trying to help young people develop strong, resilient, egos and self esteem, after others ( from  parents to peers,  and other adults) have knocked it out of them.  

Believe in yourself, and you can accomplish almost anything, depending on,your skills and talents. Fail to believe, and you will likely never achieve anything much. 

Translation: You're a narcissist. Not that we didn't already know.

Those who have a low self-esteem usually got it from people who's egos are too big. So to be frank, the exact opposite of what you said is true. I'd say it's having too big an ego that's the cause of most world problems.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

You know the part where you're on the field with the ball and your doing math that you can't visualize.

jmccr8

yep.

Maths requires no visualisation.

It is numbers,  observing   speed, velocity, spin,  parabolas ,  time, prediction, placement, etc., to get the ball and bat together a t the right angle  to hit it out of the field :) 

I even managed to complete  a full entrance level double -maths, including geometry, algebra, calculus, trigonometry, etc  without being able to visualise a thing in my head  and using trig tables and a slide rule (it probably would have been easier if i could have visualised, but my mind just learned how to work quickly around not being able to see images.

I cant really even understand why anyone would need to be able to visualise to do maths, up to university level  i got B s in both maths in  university entrance exams at the end of 1969 and passed statistics at uni.  

i once shot a mate through the cheek with  a  home made long bow and arrow from a distance of abort 30 yards while he was riding a bike.

  i never really thought i could hit him, given the speed and distances involved, , but my mind constructed the perfect trajectory pull and flight path, to place the arrow right through  his cheek 

it was a weird feeling to observe his trajectory on the bike, and the arrow's  flight coming together to one point.

.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Translation: You're a narcissist. Not that we didn't already know.

Those who have a low self-esteem usually got it from people who's egos are too big. So to be frank, the exact opposite of what you said is true. I'd say it's having too big an ego that's the cause of most world problems.

No I am not a narcissist 

you see that is the problem with some modern perceptions 

A healthy ego is often seen these days as narcissistic c but the y are not the same  Ive done many tests via psychology etc.

i simply  am not narcissistic, in part because i care more for others than for myself  The skils i have are mine only to help others, not for my benefit 

This has become so widespread among children that all Australian  schools had to introduce programmes to develop children s emotional resilience, slef esteem, and inner pride/self worth 

This helps them fight bullying, especially the sort of online psychological bullying prevalent today

Nup peole with healthy egos dont need t prove anything or compete with anyone.

They are slef sufficient and dont have to pull others down to build themselves up.

A FEW people become dangerous with too strong an ego Millions become dangerous because the y do not have a healthy one and behave in ways designed to make themselves feel better or more empowered Statistically most mass shootings are done by people lacking in self  esteem and ego, who feel a need to make something of themselves through acts of violence     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Maths requires no visualisation.

It is numbers,  observing   speed, velocity, spin,  parabolas ,  time, prediction, placement, etc., to get the ball and bat together a t the right angle  to hit it out of the field :)

Hi Walker

When I play pool I visualize the math before I take the shot so I am not getting how you are not visualizing.

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I even managed to complete  a full entrance level double -maths, including geometry, algebra, calculus, trigonometry, etc  without being able to visualise a thing in my head  and using trig tables and a slide rule (it probably would have been easier if i could have visualised, but my mind just learned how to work quickly around not being able to see images.

On the playing field?:huh: You really should be paying attention to the ball in play.:lol:

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

i once shot a mate through the cheek with  a  home made long bow and arrow from a distance of abort 30 yards while he was riding a bike.

Hmm,..a mate you say and you shot him wow that is real friends for you.:lol:

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

i never really thought i could hit him, given the speed and distances involved, , but my mind constructed the perfect trajectory pull and flight path, to place the arrow right through  his cheek 

it was a weird feeling to observe his trajectory on the bike, and the arrow's  flight coming together to one point.

Why would you even consider shooting a friend in the first place? I am not sure that you have made points here especially when you are trying to tell us what a moral ethical even tempered kind of guy you are.:lol:

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No I am not a narcissist 

you see that is the problem with some modern perceptions 

A healthy ego is often seen these days as narcissistic c but the y are not the same

 

ZomboMeme 15102019031644.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

When I play pool I visualize the math before I take the shot so I am not getting how you are not visualizing.

On the playing field?:huh: You really should be paying attention to the ball in play.:lol:

Hmm,..a mate you say and you shot him wow that is real friends for you.:lol:

Why would you even consider shooting a friend in the first place? I am not sure that you have made points here especially when you are trying to tell us what a moral ethical even tempered kind of guy you are.:lol:

jmccr8

And i cant get how you can picture the shot :)

 i work out the angles  and trajectories using maths/geometry and physics. i dont need to see it in my head i can work out the paths on the table.

yep on the playing field.

There is a lot of time between when a ball leaves the pitcher's hand and when it hits the bat Plenty of time for a mind to work out the trajectories speed angles etc   etc and tell the body when and how hard to swing the bat. (This is of course the second part of getting good a t something Actually doing it again and again to build up not just mental reflexes but muscle ones  so your muscles repond accurtely to the mental commands.  

Ps attention begins before the ball  enters play by observing other variables like  the pitcher's warm up,  body language and placement  of fielders etc.  Once the ball leaves the hand you can observe soin seed trajectory and finalise your predictive movement of the bat to intercept the ball

Of course i never played with professionals just other guys my own age and abilty, but i got pretty good at it  before i  left it to learn another sport . . 

lol we played seriously back then. it was an accident in that i never thought i would hit him at the range and sped he was travelling.   We had friendly  wars involving all sorts of home made weapons up to large catapults which threw a half brick about fifty yards at enemy forts and explosive devices with chemical  timers and small mortars.

  No one ever complained and only where an injury required doctors treatments did parents ever get informed. I was shot in the chest with a slug gun but luckily the pellet  lodged  in my ribs We did have rules about not aiming weapons at faces but tha t was abut it  My most serious injury was a deep cut on my forehead from  chop bone thrown at close range  at me, by a member r of a girls gang/ it left a scar which is still there because i never got it stitched . 

ps this behaviour was not just condoned but encouraged up to a point by parents in the fifties.

And of course the whole point of child hood was to live, and learn by experience  what was a good idea and what wasn't.

  We went out into the wild after breakfast, came home for lunch if we didn't take any with us, then came back again as the street lights came on.

What we did in that time was up to us as long as we didnt break   the law, upset the neighbours or get seriously hurt 

Indeed as long as we didn't get caught, almost any learning experience was considered fair game .We went hunting fishing and trapping as well as playing games.  We explored hills caves, graveyards, forests, streams,  underground pipe systems.  we built and raced billy carts and other contraptions as well as all sorts of weapons  

My life didn't really change all at once, although by the time i went to uni I was known to be a bit  less adventurous than most of my mates  I didn't really become as i am today util into my twenties and even that was a gr dual learning progression

Ps these days i would have a clinical excuse.

"Please sir my amygdala  hasn't fully developed yet, and i am thus unable  to predict consequence, or modify my behaviour due to as yet  to occur consequences. " :)  

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
56 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

 

ZomboMeme 15102019031644.jpg

full meme

 

Final

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Just a general remark about Walkerian claims versus Jay and Sherapy claims. I've posted this before, but meh.

The relevant and dispositive difference isn't as abstract as the famous Hume-Sagan heuristic (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). It's a smaller misstep (which actually is also discussed by Hume, if memory serves).

Jay is competent to testify whom he's built things for and what he built. Sherapy is competent to testify about having a dog and that some image is a fair likeness of that dog.

What is Mr W's qualification to say that anything or anyone is an alien, an angel, or a god? Conceivably, that question could have an answer, and maybe it'd be an acceptable answer. Here and now, however, there's no responsive answer before us (I recall some brown mush about an angel being what other people at other times and places have called angels - as if Mr W were some kind of authority on that, and on its face, the string concerns the qualifications of other people, not Mr W).

So yes, there's always a risk that somebody else is lying (and that leads finally to the Sagan form of the heuristic, that for some subjects and claims, it is simply more likely that somebody is lying than that what they claim is true. No comment about Mr W in that regard, although I suddenly feel the need to clear my throat).

But with respect to work history and dog ownership, at least the speakers know whether they're telling the truth, while with Walkerian pronouncements, he couldn't know that he was right, even if there were any chance of that.

Given the ratio of interpretation to observation in a typical Walkerism, his stories are not even anecdotal.

That's what's wrong, and why all this backing and filling about what I had for breakfast, or whether he's really married is a waste of bandwidth. The issues in such matters are different in kind from those raised by a Walkerism.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
22 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Just a general remark about Walkerian claims versus Jay and Sherapy claims. I've posted this before, but meh.

The relevant and dispositive difference isn't as abstract as the famous Hume-Sagan heuristic (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). It's a smaller misstep (which actually is also discussed by Hume, if memory serves).

Jay is competent to testify whom he's built things for and what he built. Sherapy is competent to testify about having a dog and that some image is a fair likeness of that dog.

What is Mr W's qualification to say that anything or anyone is an alien, an angel, or a god? Conceivably, that question could have an answer, and maybe it'd be an acceptable answer. Here and now, however, there's no responsive answer before us (I recall some brown mush about an angel being what other people at other times and places have called angels - as if Mr W were some kind of authority on that, and on its face, the string concerns the qualifications of other people, not Mr W).

So yes, there's always a risk that somebody else is lying (and that leads finally to the Sagan form of the heuristic, that for some subjects and claims, it is simply more likely that somebody is lying than that what they claim is true. No comment about Mr W in that regard, although I suddenly feel the need to clear my throat).

But with respect to work history and dog ownership, at least the speakers know whether they're telling the truth, while with Walkerian pronouncements, he couldn't know that he was right, even if there were any chance of that.

Given the ratio of interpretation to observation in a typical Walkerism, his stories are not even anecdotal.

That's what's wrong, and why all this backing and filling about what I had for breakfast, or whether he's really married is a waste of bandwidth. The issues in such matters are different in kind from those raised by a Walkerism.

 

I have the same competencies with gods and angels etc as i do with dogs and wives.

thus while sherapy, jmcr8, and I, share competencies in some areas, we do not in,others, as the y lack the experiential knowldge required for competency 

There are taxonomies for angels and gods just as there are for dogs and women 

First you eliminate the possibility that it is NOT one of the category, then you establish where it falls within the category. Hence a chihuahua is different to great Dane and angels come in different shapes and sizes as do ghosts, and even manifestations of gods But gods and angels DO have quite consistent qualities and characteristics as do dogs.

It is true that more people are familiar with dogs than gods  but the principle remains the same. (  Unless you are seriously arguing that we cannot discern  god from non god, angel from  non angel, or ghost from non ghost, when we run into one :)  If you are arguing tha t, then i would disagree.  We can even discern dragon from  non dragon unicorn form non unicorn and mermaid form non mermaid.  We can  even discern oriental dragon from  European dragon,  despite the fact that  these are probably fictitious beasts.  :) 

Of course i know if i am right. But i always allow that all names are just appellations given, and commonly held, by humans, not fixed attachments to an object which define that object .

  ie a dog is just an English word for one category of animal.  god is just an English word for one category of nonhuman being 

if you spoke another language it would have a different name. We all perceive dogs differently, to a greater or lesser degree.  

Some people eat dogs, some have them as pets, some  use them as a commodity, and to some the y are family. 

The whole point is that no there IS no difference between a claim that i own a dog or tha t oi know a god The only difference is in ones perception and  world view about the existence of each entity 

I dont believe that you believe your own words here. :) 

 It is obvious that any claim, no matter how apparently possible ( Or indeed impossible) has to be proven true, using evidences OR accepted in faith . 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I have the same competencies with gods and angels etc as i do with dogs and wives.

Great. Now we're talking about the real issue. That is what I disbleieve, which disbelief explains the difference in how I receive different claims you make.

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

thus while sherapy, jmcr8, and I, share competencies in some areas, we do not in,others, as the y lack the experiential knowldge required for competency 

You seem not to notice that you're moving in circles. The issue is whether or not you have the competence necessary for you to know what you're talking about. Whether or not some other poster could do better is irrelevant.

Well, almost irrelevant. We happen to agree that sharp people like that can't do it, so tell me again why I'd ever think that you can.

14 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Of course i know if i am right.

No, actually you don't. In contrast to Sherapy knowing her dog when she sees a picture of Zenny.

Sure; brains in a vat. That's not a winner for you either, though.

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Some people eat dogs, some have them as pets, some  use them as a commodity, and to some the y are family. 

But all agree that there are widely available and reliable means of identifying dogs, regardless of what they'd do if they identified one. (So, too, for different kinds of fictional and mythological being-wannabes. However, since one of the attributes of European dragon is that any instance is imaginary, we are drifting away from our actual problem, your competence to identify instances of some specified things even assuming that actual instances existed in the first place.)

26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I dont believe that you believe your own words here. :) 

That is of course your prerogative, but at least I know whether I do or not, forget the smiley face.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Great. Now we're talking about the real issue. That is what I disbleieve, which disbelief explains the difference in how I receive different claims you make.

You seem not to notice that you're moving in circles. The issue is whether or not you have the competence necessary for you to know what you're talking about. Whether or not some other poster could do better is irrelevant.

Well, almost irrelevant. We happen to agree that sharp people like that can't do it, so tell me again why I'd ever think that you can.

No, actually you don't. In contrast to Sherapy knowing her dog when she sees a picture of Zenny.

Sure; brains in a vat. That's not a winner for you either, though.

But all agree that there are widely available and reliable means of identifying dogs, regardless of what they'd do if they identified one. (So, too, for different kinds of fictional and mythological being-wannabes. However, since one of the attributes of European dragon is that any instance is imaginary, we are drifting away from our actual problem, your competence to identify instances of some specified things even assuming that actual instances existed in the first place.)

That is of course your prerogative, but at least I know whether I do or not, forget the smiley face.

 

 

Well I've maintained that all the time. (for at least 14 years on UM ) Again and again and again, I've explained that the same evidences exist for gods as for dogs  (except I've never had to clean up after god) 

How come you are only now identifying what you disbelieve?

Angels and gods  and ghosts manifest in the same way a woman or a dog does, with the same physical  qualities The y just de- manifest more quickly. ie the y are more impermanent  :) 

I wouldnt be on here raving on for 14 years if i was just talking about concepts or imaginary beings 

if i saw a picture of an angel or a god that i had met before i would recognise it.

No my point was that, imaginary or physical, humans catalogue things by identifiers or parameters precisely SO we can identity   what is, from  tha t which is not .

The genus of gods may be diverse  but it is identifiable, as are its species and family members .   

Sherapy recognises her own dog but wouldn't know the many other identical dogs around the world. She would not be able to recognise or name EVERY type of dog found around the world but she knows enough to discriminate dog from  non dog

There are widely known standardised ways of identifying a dragon or a god.  Almost every culture has standardised ways of identifying a god /angel etc. 

Sorry, i might be wrong, but i think you would be able to identify an angel, or a god, or a dragon, if one appeared before you, and spent some time with you.

You are intelligent and widely read enough to be able to do this with comparative ease. I  cant see how you could NOT be able to identify a god or an angel, a ghost, or a dragon, if you encountered one for a sustained period of time .  It is  not hard :) 

However, of course, god is just the name we attach to a being with a certain type of qualities and attributes Thus, any being with those attributes is technically a god, even if it is actually just an ancient and powerful alien being, or a fictional character like Thor or Anubis (both of whom i am sure you would recognise if you encountered them ) 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

And i cant get how you can picture the shot :)

 i work out the angles  and trajectories using maths/geometry and physics. i dont need to see it in my head i can work out the paths on the table.

yep on the playing field.

There is a lot of time between when a ball leaves the pitcher's hand and when it hits the bat Plenty of time for a mind to work out the trajectories speed angles etc   etc and tell the body when and how hard to swing the bat. (This is of course the second part of getting good a t something Actually doing it again and again to build up not just mental reflexes but muscle ones  so your muscles repond accurtely to the mental commands.  

Ps attention begins before the ball  enters play by observing other variables like  the pitcher's warm up,  body language and placement  of fielders etc.  Once the ball leaves the hand you can observe soin seed trajectory and finalise your predictive movement of the bat to intercept the ball

Of course i never played with professionals just other guys my own age and abilty, but i got pretty good at it  before i  left it to learn another sport . . 

lol we played seriously back then. it was an accident in that i never thought i would hit him at the range and sped he was travelling.   We had friendly  wars involving all sorts of home made weapons up to large catapults which threw a half brick about fifty yards at enemy forts and explosive devices with chemical  timers and small mortars.

  No one ever complained and only where an injury required doctors treatments did parents ever get informed. I was shot in the chest with a slug gun but luckily the pellet  lodged  in my ribs We did have rules about not aiming weapons at faces but tha t was abut it  My most serious injury was a deep cut on my forehead from  chop bone thrown at close range  at me, by a member r of a girls gang/ it left a scar which is still there because i never got it stitched . 

ps this behaviour was not just condoned but encouraged up to a point by parents in the fifties.

And of course the whole point of child hood was to live, and learn by experience  what was a good idea and what wasn't.

  We went out into the wild after breakfast, came home for lunch if we didn't take any with us, then came back again as the street lights came on.

What we did in that time was up to us as long as we didnt break   the law, upset the neighbours or get seriously hurt 

Indeed as long as we didn't get caught, almost any learning experience was considered fair game .We went hunting fishing and trapping as well as playing games.  We explored hills caves, graveyards, forests, streams,  underground pipe systems.  we built and raced billy carts and other contraptions as well as all sorts of weapons  

My life didn't really change all at once, although by the time i went to uni I was known to be a bit  less adventurous than most of my mates  I didn't really become as i am today util into my twenties and even that was a gr dual learning progression

Ps these days i would have a clinical excuse.

"Please sir my amygdala  hasn't fully developed yet, and i am thus unable  to predict consequence, or modify my behaviour due to as yet  to occur consequences. " :)  

 

How do you get the drag of the felt and the elasticity of the cushions?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

How do you get the drag of the felt and the elasticity of the cushions?

Observation,  deduction,  practice, and experience.

  eg if playing for money always play on a table you are most familiar with.

In some places (  even  some good billiard halls with older floors)   there is even a slight tilt to the tables, which must be allowed for.

However the pockets are considerably larger than the ball, allowing for the measure of error that might occur from  variations in  the felt or the cushions..

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
Just now, Mr Walker said:

Observation,  deduction,  practice, and experience.

  eg if playing for money always play on a table you are most familiar with.

In some places even good billiard halls  there is even a slight tilt to the tables which must be allowed for.

However the pockets are considerably larger than the ball, allowing for the measure of error that might occur from  variations in  the felt or the cushions..

So pretty much intuition.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

this section is a debate. That doesn't mean proofs and evidences are required.

The debate goes on at many levels but, as with all things, depends on personal   experiences and what one believes or disbelieves is possible 

If there were transferable evidences, none of these matters would be suitable for a forum called UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES

Yea, that's not true either.  I've seen evidence for Bigfoot posted here, I've seen evidence that 9/11 is an inside job, I've even seen some evidence suggesting that Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper (it wasn't great evidence, but it was far more than you've ever provided).  Thus, there's evidence being transferred all the time here concerning unexplained mysteries.

Quote

The point was that we often do not place things we see or hear into our memory and thus cannot re call them Once they are in there, they remain forever 

What studies show that memory is retained forever?

Quote

Potentially means that the human mind is capable of this and some humans do it 

I played basketball  for a few years and a lot of informal play with teenagers on the school courts   I suspect my dunking days are done  

Agreed, although I don't think you were ever dunking.  Likewise, I suspect your days of perfect, or even above average, memory are done also.

Quote

Sorry It was a week ago  (mon night) on late night ABC.  About 10 pm est.   If i have time i will check  to see if there  is a pod cast

Case in point.  You just happened to be listening to one of Australia's top neurologist recently who just so happens to have said things relevant to exactly what we are talking about and who you say of course supports your position, yet you don't remember his/her name.  Thought it might have been an opportune time to compare what was said to what you remembered being said since this story looks awfully convenient, but nevermind, the point about your memory has been made.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseDancer
Quote

When does thought transition to belief?

Could it be something like - we have faith until we believe and we believe until we know? 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

First extraordinary is a vague and subjective term  Every claim requires the same level of proofs A proof is a proof or it is not a proof

No its not vague or subjective. It's clearly defined in the dictionary. 

very unusual or remarkable.

That's not vague or subjective. 

Quote

The only difference is in how ready people are to  accept those proofs and that depends on things like their own experiences and their world view/ level of scepticism etc.

Probability is more influential. That's why people who also have wild claims themselves tend to be your largest audience. 

Quote

It should be clear

Just because you know apples exist goes nowhere to proving a claim that I ate one for lunch yesterday.  That claim requires (to be proven true) the same levels of proof as if i claimed to have  had lunch with a ;little grey man yesterday  Other wise i have not proven it to you. You have accepted the claim in good faith. Probabillty seems (for you)  to influence your faith or belief but it cannot affect the proofs and evidences available or required to meet a claim

There are no absolutes. Everything is accepted on probability. Apples exist. People eat them. If you claimed to eat an apple everyday, and someone cared enough to know if it was true, that question can be confirmed by surveillance. If you lied, well that would just be a stupid thing to do wouldn't it? Fact is that the probability is high that the information is correct. If it is not, and is important to someone, then that can be determined. 

Quote

If something cannot be proven to be impossible then it remains possible. That is the nature of possibility/impossibility 

No that's a rendition of the Holmsian Fallacy. 

Quote

Woo is a subjective term, deliberately used for its value laden content  it infers fantasy and ridicule 

And can put a claim into perspective. 

Quote

I would say that a hollow earth is woo because it is proven not to exist. Same for a flat earth . However it is not woo where it has not been proven false it is still an open question  The presence of aliens on earth, or ghosts, or many paranormal abilities are not woo,  just possibilities which have not been proven false. 

Have you been to the centre of the earth? 

They are not possibilities. They are anecdotes. Physics refutes ghosts, and there's simply no good reason to think aliens have been to earth. 

The probability of those claims being accurately described by superstition and visitation is extraordinarily low. If any of them have any validity, there's every reason to accept that more rational explanations are of a much higher probability. Its even more likely that people imagine or convince themselves of such extraordinary instances are themselves impaired in some way rather than all the gathered knowledge of our species. 

Quote

yes it is logical. Where something is not or cannot be known the logical and safest conclusion is to suspend both  belief and disbelief. Where somethng is known to be ipossible or false then belief should be denied  belief is not required for things we know

No its not logical. That's not how anything works. Remember that there are no absolutes. That doesn't open the door for every overactive imagination on the planet. Consulting probability is what is logical. 

Quote

Maybe this is my humanities background coming out because in every humanities subject from  philosophy to politics,  history geography etc we are taught to suspend beoirf amd disbelief until we can know UNLESS we have another reason for constructing a belief or disbelieving based on personal need or world view.

This helps us in reaching a factual  conclusion because we begin with an open and unbiased mind. 

Then why did you tell your parents that you saw God, instead of truck headlights? 

If they brought you up like that, why wouldn't they suspend belief at your god story? 

Quote

Logic and common sense doesn't help with unknowns eg it cant help you work out if there is other life in the solar system

It depends a lot on knowldge and especially personal knowledge.

Again probability leads us. That's why we consider Europa a good place to start looking. Water offers 'a' higher probability of life existing. A source of potential heat increases that probability. This can lead us to confirm the highest probability. 

A person who thinks they are Napoleon considers themselves in possession of knowledge that to them 'makes it so' but the probability that the claimant is incorrect is high, and the probability that the claimant somehow is the actual figure from history is very low. There's is no good reason to suspend judgement without proof in such an instance. 

Quote

If you have never encountered a ghost, logic might tell you they don't exist, but if you have encountered one, the same application of logic will tell you that the y do   

Thermodynamics says they don't exist. That's real proof against the classic notion at the very least. If people really are seeing ghosts, logically the first place to look at is the individual and their environment. Not default to superstition and offer weak excuses like it doesn't happen when others are around

The probability is high that thermodynamics is correct and low that superstition is correct. 

Quote

I am extremely logical and unemotional (with negative emotions)  i have spent most of my life trying to emulate Spock from star trek :) 

I'm not seeing it. Just saying. 

And... 

Spock learned a great many lessons from his human BFF Jim. 

Quote

However I have very different life experiences from you, and I apply logic to them. Thus, i cant conclude that some things do not exist or are not possible because my experience proves to me that the  do or  It is not logical to try to disbelieve things you know to be true.   

Your stories are not logical. I have pointed out that some of your claims defy physics. What would be logical would be to reconsider your interpretation. You don't. You make up future physics that defy what we know to maintain your conclusion. Future unknown physics 9s not as likely as confirmation bias in this instance. This is why I don't see anyone with any credibility (and many without I might add) accepting your conclusions. 

Quote

lol strange  to you 

we are all strangers in a strange land

You seem strange (ie different and a t times incomprehensible) to me.

I agree.  As long as peole are harmless, strangeness is a given, that we should tolerate, and even welcome in,the name of diversity  

I agree that my life has been a little bit different to some others ( although most of it has been quite ordinary. it seems  to me)  but there are many just like me.

If there are so many, why do you differ so greatly from the majority here? 

Quote

My mother had many of the same abilities and put it down to some gypsy ancestry :) 

But wouldn't believe your God nicotine curing story and you had to lie and say truck headlights with her being gifted and open minded? 

Its not just me, that's really contradictory. 

Quote

I wasn't really trying to box in reasons, but to show that there were many. The ones i listed are very common. but not exclusive 

Fear is the most common. Almost every human constructs their world view to eliminate uncertainty and the unknown.

The reason for this is that what we do not know is dangerous  and we fear what is dangerous. Hence our minds are evolved to fear the unknown and to construct explanations for all unknown phenomena We build, in our mind, belief and disbelief constructs which automatically default us to a safe  psychological position.

Thus disbelief (like belief ) is often a default construct to make us feel more secure that there are not unknowns out there which might be dangerous to us.

This is why strangeness and its associated unpredictability is feared, and why  people who are different to a community are often ostracised or poor;y treated  ie if you are not like me i cant predict how you will behave nd tha t makes you a potential threat 

If you say so. However....... 

How do you figure any of that applies to you? 

Quote

  Very simply, belief in gods makes many people feel safer, but  for some, disbelief makes them feel safer. It depends on several variables, including how a person perceives gods and other authority figures, how much the y wish to feel in control of their own lives, and how much  control the y are prepared to place in the hands of others.

LOL that's silly. 

Disbelief is not about feeling safer. It's just getting on with the day without religion. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Excellent and very interesting post.

Nice to have confirmation that others have a similar quality of dream life  and that it is both an integrated pert of, and  a functional adjunct to, the totality of life both waking and sleeping  Ie dreams can heal teach inform our waking selves Our waking selves can have the same effects within our dreams  So our dreams can heal psychological wounds of waking life, and waking life can eliminate fears etc from our dreams and construct the dreamscapes we want.       

Yeah,, this is a field it is called,Psychoanalysis, dreams are explored towards ones healing. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

my point was that i can recall dreams from  any part of my sleep cycle including seconds after falling  asleep, during rem, during deep sleep, or when waking up.

  it is not true that we can only recall dreams from  rem sleep but it does seem tha t we have more dreams then and thus remember more of them   

However when i have more than enough sleep i tend to wake up more often and have a lighter level of sleep Both of thise increase the abilty to recall dreams ie if  you  sleep solidly for 8 hours you are not likely to recall all your dreams  and probably only the last one or two before you wake up. BUT if you  wake up and mentally memorise your dreams every hour or so you may remember most of them.This is easier to do when you are not so tired that you sleep deeply. You can wake yourself up easily for a few minutes from a light sleep,  recall your dreams and then go back to sleep When you wake up in the morning you will have several sets of memories for most of your dreams during the night  You can even train your mind to wake up at regular intervals such as every hour, and this is also easier if you are not deeply tired   

REM cycles run throughout the night, it is the time one can remember dreams due to waking up. 

 Of course, you are going to claim you are an exception. 

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/dream2.htm

It is a lucky break that I happen to work for a Neurologist who encourages questions, 

You very well could remember a lot of your dreams, but you are doing this during the REM stage when dreaming is at it’s most vivid. 

 


 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
12 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

See this is why things get confusing. How do you explain these two statements?

Walker Quote..."if i have more sleep than i need then i sleep lightly and  i remember all my dreams, but if i sleep deeply. due to tiredness. it is often hard to recall all my dreams"

jmccr8 

I saw that too.

I can’t tell you how many times I have  read that he remembers every single dream he has ever had from 3 years old on.

Yet, the brain goes through major prunings and cleans out synapses that are no longer used., with his academics etc., he is trying to tell us he also had the time to tend to keeping his dream memories alive too, it is not accurate pruning happens genetically early in life so he is making nonsense claims, I am not calling him a liar, he doesn’t have any idea what the heck he is talking about, 
 

Perhaps he is motivated to keep with up with his memory is exceptional due to claiming it is photographic. The amount of energy he has to invest in his posts to cover and explain all his claims exhausts me. 

 

”This rapid period of synaptogenesis plays a vital role in learning, memory formation, and adaptation early in life. At about 2 to 3 years of age, the number of synapses hits a peak level. But then shortly after this period of synaptic growth, the brain starts to remove synapses that it no longer needs.

Once the brain forms a synapse, it can either be strengthened or weakened. This depends on how often the synapse is used. In other words, the process follows the “use it or lose it” principle: Synapses that are more active are strengthened, and synapses that are less active are weakened and ultimately pruned. The process of removing the irrelevant synapses during this time is referred to as synaptic pruning.

Early synaptic pruning is mostly influenced by our genes. Later on, it’s based on our experiences. In other words, whether or not a synapse is pruned is influenced by the experiences a developing child has with the world around them. Constant stimulation causes synapses to grow and become permanent. But if a child receives little stimulation the brain will keep fewer of those connections.”

https://www.healthline.com/health/synaptic-pruning

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Yeah,, this is a field it is called,Psychoanalysis, dreams are explored towards ones healing. 

One more thing, I was in Psychoanalysis for a year, I went 3 times a week as part of grief therapy when my sister was murdered.

I had a notebook beside my bed, per my therapists instructions. I wrote my dreams down and took the notebook to therapy and he read and we analyzed my dreams. 
 

This was in the 80’s, (at least 25 years ago ) I still have the notebook full of dreams and I remember 1 dream loosely  and some common symbols at that time that appeared often nota bene: my memory is a bit different then I have it written down. 

How would a guy like him who claims to have never had an upsetting event in his entire life or an emotion, never had an problem other than being to happy and amazing with genius like attributes since he was 3 years old have any reason or need to use Dream therapy for healing? 
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No I am not a narcissist 

you see that is the problem with some modern perceptions 

A healthy ego is often seen these days as narcissistic c but the y are not the same  Ive done many tests via psychology etc.

i simply  am not narcissistic, in part because i care more for others than for myself  The skils i have are mine only to help others, not for my benefit 

This has become so widespread among children that all Australian  schools had to introduce programmes to develop children s emotional resilience, slef esteem, and inner pride/self worth 

This helps them fight bullying, especially the sort of online psychological bullying prevalent today

Nup peole with healthy egos dont need t prove anything or compete with anyone.

They are slef sufficient and dont have to pull others down to build themselves up.

A FEW people become dangerous with too strong an ego Millions become dangerous because the y do not have a healthy one and behave in ways designed to make themselves feel better or more empowered Statistically most mass shootings are done by people lacking in self  esteem and ego, who feel a need to make something of themselves through acts of violence     

My ex boss owns high end board and cares, in fact, she touts herself as the Dementia Whisperer, she is also a narcissist. 

She also micromanages her reputation and spends a lot of time defending herself from the consequences of the choices she makes. 
 

If a person claims they have only helped thousands of people and have never have had anything but perfect outcomes every situation, and when they didn’t it is not any fault of theirs this in and of itself is an earmark of narcissism.  
 

Narcissism is a response, a dysfunctional coping style.

One of the best books written on the subject IMHO is this one, it helps you understand it with compassion.
 

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/586333/you-can-thrive-after-narcissistic-abuse-by-melanie-tonia-evans/

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
9 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

she touts herself as the Dementia Whisperer

She might be a Dementia Whisperer, but at least she's not a Dementia Whisperer. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.