drcomputer

Can anyone please explain how the following

> Try experiencing red without visualizing it, naming it or imagining associated objects.

can be commanded to be done without being able to objectively qualify what exactly is occurring when one 'experiences' red?

How does one know when 'has experienced red' has occurred? How are they able to qualify this as a comparative to 'has not experienced red'? When I read this it honestly sounded like the author was telling me to find god.

Snarky commentary aside, while I think this is an interesting picture for the descriptions of thought, the processes for reasoning about software complexity can develop independently without fitting any of these models, and those heuristics will modulate and mold the adaptive abilities of the developer on a similar scale of overall improvement.

> These phenomena will slowly start to convert from being some “runaway kids”, living in the shadows never lit by consciousness, into “rightful citizens” of the psychical space, with overall balancing and efficiency-improving effects.

This scares the crap out of me and would make me want to run like all hell. You can learn and teach thinking using multiple techniques and you can teach those techniques without enforcing a clear right and wrong. Instead, trust that the experience and influence of the world marching along to the beat of time will help direct people better than an authoritative command on what reduces software complexity and what does not. The summation of a lot of 'wrong' might wind up being one big 'right'.

The funny thing really is that when one uses the a reasoning system to reason about their reasoning, assuming they are reasoning with the correct reasoning, they often wind up contradicting themselves.

The only thing I subjectively see in the value of music is the lengthy amount of time that the formalism of it's language has survived. Otherwise I typically listen to the same songs on repeat until they have turned into a drone like noise for me to block out the rest of the noise in the world. Sometimes I do appreciate variation in music, and I have spent a lot of time devoted to studying classical music. But still, a particularly well known sonata might as well be a recursively constructed formalism of white noise to me, because that is how I remember the piece. It is beautiful in that regard, but I just do not consider myself educated enough in music to understand anything about it otherwise.

I find code and mathematics to be much more delicate, intricate, fundamental; to my own personal comprehension. I remember playing the piano a couple of times to think about how a computer might experience the progression of it's thoughts. The thing with creativity is it has no walls.

I already agree with you and I have from the start. I have no interest in talking, because it is obvious that I can not communicate effectively and fluidly, on the internet. Thank you for the conversation, but this is the same circle of thought as it has always been, and it never seems to change.

What if my belief has always defaulted on silence, no thought?

It's just the opposite of the confidence in always yielding a conclusion. When I work with science, I ere on the side of hesitance, and I always believe that hesitence will be there.

I think some of my beliefs about believing are stronger than my actual beliefs. This conversation has become too overgeneralized to say anything useful aside from the ways the mind simplifies, reduces, and applies pattern derived from observation.

I don't understand the strong reaction in 'knowing'. I always feel like I have to know everything all at once, in order to truly suggest that I know anything, and since I can not know everything, I only have a very vague guess of knowing some things, which are continually subject to the same analytic deconstruction and reconstruction. Ideas are broken down and rebuilt over and over and not a single one of them is a complete picture. That's what I observe in my mind and in dialogue outside of my mind. I don't have to believe anything about it because it's a direct observation. It just comes down to how angry, 'strong', assertive, or authoritative people sound, and I find that ridiculous. It's like being human is a stupid joke.

I wasn't directing that at you, just in general. I really do try to create one part of an intelligent dialogue on these forums, but it is incredibly frustrating to have experienced variations of ways of perceiving information, without having the capacity to express the issue in a way that anyone is willing to listen to, and then be down-voted on top of that, which feels like being silenced.

> insisting that current lack of knowledge means permanent lack of knowledge.

The alternative to that is that there is a limit to knowledge, that it is possible for all things to be known. And even if humanity does hit that point, I think at that point, it becomes a choice to choose whether to believe all things are known, or to believe that some things are not yet known.

I don't understand why you replied to me.

I don't think you understand that you can't control what information and processes are dynamically influenced and what components are static and unchanging. The methodology of science can be subject to the same level of analytical inspection and rigor that the scientific methodology itself upholds.

You hold science as a constant and shape the world around that lens. What happens when science starts to take itself apart, when it starts to redefine itself, analyze itself, study itself?

Keep down-voting me if you like. All I really know is that I have more questions than I have answers, and I don't think that is a bad thing.

Measurements that are qualitative are much more tricky to deal with than quantitative measurements.

When I read words like 'hollow self esteem' I feel like I am reading a poem, not scientific data. Hollow self esteem means 'self esteem that lacks social validation', but when we define self esteem clearly in terms of social validation with relations that show the distribution of 'when the social validation occurs in terms of time' and 'how much social validation is given' versus 'how much social manipulative ability is granted' then people in society start to become definable and moveable like machines. What is the point of existing as a human being when life can be plotted?

If I define my self esteem through a single data point in my past, can you really compare that to someone who defines their self esteem by each day as it unfolds? Can you really measure self esteem when everyone's self esteem is dependent on comparisons of self analysis versus social analysis?

Culture defines culture. Social groups define social groups dynamically as the group is processing and composing information. Data is almost the same as theory when it comes to psychology. I personally find it all ridiculous and believe that people need to have balance between the methods of science and understanding and seeking their own personal truths. People have the potential to be more than what language and mathematics can convey, but this makes many people uncomfortable, because it's not definable. What isn't definable always seems to get filtered through a lens of religious, dogmatic belief in the scientific community. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. But it does exist. The problem is that scientific, mathematical language does not measure the effect of itself.

Have they ever done this study on people who have never drank alcohol and are healthy? It seems biased that the only group of 'non-drinkers' are people that are former drinkers.

We is scientific and mathematical, precious.