Sociopath Community

 I didn't realize you responded.

Turncoat said: 

_Alice_ said: 

Turncoat said: 

_Alice_ said: 

I don't mind your response, it will continue to be the standard.

...why would you mind my response?

By my statement I am merely saying that your response is the typical one and it will assure the problem continues well into the future, and I totally accept that future.

What kind of world would it be if no one leaned on those of superior understanding, only believing that which they've personally tested? 

They'd die before they even get through half of it. Beyond that I disagree with your idea that a paper once published can't be attacked by superior findings beyond the realm of gatekeeping practices and paywalls. Older findings have been debunked and replaced in general, so why not other ones if you otherwise have the means?

 A world full of mathematicians, we'd all starve to death but it'd be so romantic.

...when every person has to test every scientific theory, meaning they need to spend the time becoming educated in it to the point of mastery, alongside doing this with History, Philosophy, Media... 

They would die before they finish, since they need to not only learn all the material, but also it's history, it's terminology, how the process works, and if they were no good at the subject (or otherwise not very smart in general) then they won't be able to believe in any of it. On top of that there's the room for bias through mere exposure, they could end up repeating the same results from learning all the same materials, meaning the replicated results would lack the variation that might serve to find flaws in it in the first place, so how would one even test that beyond not learning the material and starting from scratch caveman-style?

I don't believe that every person needs to study and verify every single experiment ever, rather they need to be equipped with the tools that allow them verify the claimed empirical results in their field.

For Psychology and Social Sciences, especially if you have interest in Experimental variants, you need to be equipped with Statistics at a high level.

My biggest issue is that the field itself promotes results as verified empirical truths while in actuality only 30-40% can stand up to some level of scrutiny while far less can stand up to through probing.

As a layman, there is only the value of novelty in it if I am not bringing any practical applications to it. Rather than have to test everything from a first person view, there's value in taking the shortcuts found from reading a textbook or listening to someone who's taken the time to master the subject I lack it in. It's why sources are so important when making a claim, I can skate by much more streamline by building a catalogue of others points to parrot in other conversations, and if any of it ever ends up disproven then them showing how I was wrong can end up helping me. 

This is the ideal but unfortunately in Psychology and Social Science (plus economics and cog sci) there are hardly any masters you can actually trust. A lay man should be able to read a paper from a reputable publisher or watch a Phd speak in a video and by that authority know that what they are hearing is more or less reasonable. That is not case however because the majority of sources from the fields I have mentioned fail to reproduce, many of which produced by 'masters'.

A more feasible fix would be a change to publishing culture where if something is published you know its almost certainly right, we just don't live in that world for some reason.

Isn't that essentially what the sciences aim to do, hence peer reviews and the like? If a theory is otherwise laughable they will laugh at them, like that one pseudo-psychologist (who's name escapes me right now) who tried to claim that emotions could affect the exterior world by showing how his moods changed the color of paper. 

Doesn't mean it works, but it is the aim.

That's what institutionalized science aims to do and I view it as a noble goal. However, in many fields its been disastrous given low standards. When a paper in psychology is published the idea is that papers explains a hypothesis, an experiment, results, and a verification/inferences of those results. You should be able to trust that the results are verified and the proper inferences have been made. You should be able to trust them because the publisher that's allowed the paper to be published has too verified those results and concluded the inferences as reasonable. Yet, here we are in a timeline where the majority verified results are faulty, inferences nonsensical, and papers unreproducible.

Hence, the culture needs to change.

You mentioned being laughed at. That's the irony. A lot of these fields are being laughed at by those who actually know how to verify results. The hilarity is that the problem has been known for as long as I've been a live with no real change to method.

I want to make clear I think psychology is worth studying as well as the other fields I talk trash on (I also have problems with Physics too). I think, just like certain areas of Physics, Mathematics, and Chemistry, that very speculative and theoretical explorations are positive and should not be limited by empiricism. However, if an empirical result is published and claimed to be verified it should be as rigorous as the times allow.

Blanc said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I've been thinking about the place Physicalism has in my philosophy of science.

We come into contact with something we call the physical world through our perceptions. The physical world is an epistemic or ontological aspect of our perception, but it is unclear which one it is because it is uncertain whether our perception accurately reflects reality. Through our perception, we can make inferences and draw conclusions about the physical world based on observation and plausible reasoning. We can evaluate the validity of these inferences and conclusions through the process of induction. However, even if a conjecture is inductively sound, it does not necessarily mean that it is true. Despite this, such conjectures can still be considered a form of knowledge.

I do not believe that the only thing that exists is the physical, but rather that there is an aspect of reality that is physical. 

 i had this dope realization in therapy that the reason i struggled with the concept of 'reality' and was feeling like nothing was real was actually a coping mechanism to allow me to feel like i had control or could decide what was real and what wasn't. totally unrelated but. 

I'll relate it to the topic regardless of your intention.

We are pretty ignorant of reality as a thing in itself, I mean this in a transcendental way. Hence, we are left with making assumptions about reality. As this relates to science and method, we make a number of assumptions about causality and induction and their validity. Despite induction having a lot of philosophical issues and it not technically being verifiable we choose to believe. The benefit of believing in it is that its incredibly functional given all the modern technologies we enjoy are fundamentally derived from that assumption.

the questioning reality thing reminds me of that type you talked about how you like had that wild experience with the coma thing and i just wonder if its still processing mentally for you 

totally understandable. i had a NDE (near death experience) when i was 12 and i still have yet to fully process it in therapy, but the first several years afterward made an impact. 

you don't just have these sorts of things happen and then pick up and return to everything as normal. i struggled to 'process' this experience and still do sometimes to this day. 

 Yes, I am still processing it mentally. My most naive conclusion is that it was a lot of fun.

I have integrated into my views of the world by essentially becoming more skeptical of models of the world more generally. That goes for everything, regardless of how social or strictly material the model is.

However, I have no problem believing in reality depending on what you attribute to the word 'reality'. As I stated earlier that reality may be something our perceptions cannot touch, hence I rely on my perceptions. In that sense it could be said that my perceptions are therefore my reality. However, given perceptions can drastically change so too can my reality.

My thoughts:

Xena said: 

My thoughts:

 

 I concur

AliceInWonderland said: 

Blanc said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I've been thinking about the place Physicalism has in my philosophy of science.

We come into contact with something we call the physical world through our perceptions. The physical world is an epistemic or ontological aspect of our perception, but it is unclear which one it is because it is uncertain whether our perception accurately reflects reality. Through our perception, we can make inferences and draw conclusions about the physical world based on observation and plausible reasoning. We can evaluate the validity of these inferences and conclusions through the process of induction. However, even if a conjecture is inductively sound, it does not necessarily mean that it is true. Despite this, such conjectures can still be considered a form of knowledge.

I do not believe that the only thing that exists is the physical, but rather that there is an aspect of reality that is physical. 

 i had this dope realization in therapy that the reason i struggled with the concept of 'reality' and was feeling like nothing was real was actually a coping mechanism to allow me to feel like i had control or could decide what was real and what wasn't. totally unrelated but. 

I'll relate it to the topic regardless of your intention.

We are pretty ignorant of reality as a thing in itself, I mean this in a transcendental way. Hence, we are left with making assumptions about reality. As this relates to science and method, we make a number of assumptions about causality and induction and their validity. Despite induction having a lot of philosophical issues and it not technically being verifiable we choose to believe. The benefit of believing in it is that its incredibly functional given all the modern technologies we enjoy are fundamentally derived from that assumption.

the questioning reality thing reminds me of that type you talked about how you like had that wild experience with the coma thing and i just wonder if its still processing mentally for you 

totally understandable. i had a NDE (near death experience) when i was 12 and i still have yet to fully process it in therapy, but the first several years afterward made an impact. 

you don't just have these sorts of things happen and then pick up and return to everything as normal. i struggled to 'process' this experience and still do sometimes to this day. 

 Yes, I am still processing it mentally. My most naive conclusion is that it was a lot of fun.

I have integrated into my views of the world by essentially becoming more skeptical of models of the world more generally. That goes for everything, regardless of how social or strictly material the model is.

However, I have no problem believing in reality depending on what you attribute to the word 'reality'. As I stated earlier that reality may be something our perceptions cannot touch, hence I rely on my perceptions. In that sense it could be said that my perceptions are therefore my reality. However, given perceptions can drastically change so too can my reality.

 thats great that you could take such a healthy view on it. 

my NDE sent me spiraling into an existential depression, but, i was much younger when i experienced it and likely just didn't have all the necessary bearings mentally to 'cope' with such a strange experience. i was 12! 

i took a healthy view on it later in young adult hood when it allowed me to make peace with the fact i wasn't scared of death because i had already 'tasted' it and saw it was more peaceful than it was scary, and it gave me a greater gratitude for life. 

but nontheless, trauma is tough, and the first couple years, i really struggled with the nuanced way my brain responds to trauma, which mainly manifested in the form of avoidance and a tinge of compulsive thoughts/patterns, and becoming withdrawn. 

thats the thing about this though is like, it's trauma, but its also so much more than 'just trauma' because its not like oh, guy robbed me blind in a parking lot one night- its like, i experienced something i can't explain or comprehend, that is beyond this fabric of reality and existence. 

but i like that take on it that like, 'hey, that is kind of cool and bad ass, and fun' and thats a nice way of looking at such a hard thing to go through or that for some could be unfathomably anxiety inducing. 

its makes sense though why you delved into understanding some of the topics you got into intellectually, i had a whole different approach and decided to learn about different religions. either way, we both kind of found the 'connection' we sought out to other human beings and their explanations and experiences for the things we experienced, and made the experience more comfortable and safe in that way or understandable. 

for me i found understanding and connection among a multitude of people with wide-eyed philosophies about life, and it was a beautiful thing to experience looking back on it. it led me down a very open-minded path that i would of likely never of strayed down had it not been for that experience and seeking that connection with individuals who could connect with me on those weird existential grey areas. 

it was a huge relief to me when i found the hindu death experience explained, as it was basically word for word what i had experienced. and it helped me to stop ruminating about the experience but rather just embrace it as a fact of life that is universal. not being alone in what i experienced and seeing that it was documented basically by a near ancient culture was even more divine. and allowed me to open up and embrace the 'divineness' that is life through the guise of these philosophies, traditions, teachings and practices. 

Not sure if you're a Marvel fan.

If you are, you will probably love Wandavision.

Lizzie Olsen is just brilliant. I'm so glad she didn't waste her time on that rebooted sitcom her sisters abandoned.

Mary Kate and Ashley's empire was cute brain fluff and fun for little girls, but Lizzie is a much better actor  :)

So yeah, fantasy retreats after trauma. 

Wandavision was worlds within worlds.

I loved it  :)

Blanc said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Blanc said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I've been thinking about the place Physicalism has in my philosophy of science.

We come into contact with something we call the physical world through our perceptions. The physical world is an epistemic or ontological aspect of our perception, but it is unclear which one it is because it is uncertain whether our perception accurately reflects reality. Through our perception, we can make inferences and draw conclusions about the physical world based on observation and plausible reasoning. We can evaluate the validity of these inferences and conclusions through the process of induction. However, even if a conjecture is inductively sound, it does not necessarily mean that it is true. Despite this, such conjectures can still be considered a form of knowledge.

I do not believe that the only thing that exists is the physical, but rather that there is an aspect of reality that is physical. 

 i had this dope realization in therapy that the reason i struggled with the concept of 'reality' and was feeling like nothing was real was actually a coping mechanism to allow me to feel like i had control or could decide what was real and what wasn't. totally unrelated but. 

I'll relate it to the topic regardless of your intention.

We are pretty ignorant of reality as a thing in itself, I mean this in a transcendental way. Hence, we are left with making assumptions about reality. As this relates to science and method, we make a number of assumptions about causality and induction and their validity. Despite induction having a lot of philosophical issues and it not technically being verifiable we choose to believe. The benefit of believing in it is that its incredibly functional given all the modern technologies we enjoy are fundamentally derived from that assumption.

the questioning reality thing reminds me of that type you talked about how you like had that wild experience with the coma thing and i just wonder if its still processing mentally for you 

totally understandable. i had a NDE (near death experience) when i was 12 and i still have yet to fully process it in therapy, but the first several years afterward made an impact. 

you don't just have these sorts of things happen and then pick up and return to everything as normal. i struggled to 'process' this experience and still do sometimes to this day. 

 Yes, I am still processing it mentally. My most naive conclusion is that it was a lot of fun.

I have integrated into my views of the world by essentially becoming more skeptical of models of the world more generally. That goes for everything, regardless of how social or strictly material the model is.

However, I have no problem believing in reality depending on what you attribute to the word 'reality'. As I stated earlier that reality may be something our perceptions cannot touch, hence I rely on my perceptions. In that sense it could be said that my perceptions are therefore my reality. However, given perceptions can drastically change so too can my reality.

 thats great that you could take such a healthy view on it. 

my NDE sent me spiraling into an existential depression, but, i was much younger when i experienced it and likely just didn't have all the necessary bearings mentally to 'cope' with such a strange experience. i was 12! 

My first brush with death was 13. 

My body wasted away over several months and one night I collapsed. I then sat in the hospital for a year, with small breaks in between stays, and finally was diagnosed with the disorder that would nearly kill me again at 24. 

Everything feels existential to me but I never really experience depression. being killed by your own immune system isn't very traumatic though, perhaps if something more violent happened I'd get depressed. 

i took a healthy view on it later in young adult hood when it allowed me to make peace with the fact i wasn't scared of death because i had already 'tasted' it and saw it was more peaceful than it was scary, and it gave me a greater gratitude for life. 

but nontheless, trauma is tough, and the first couple years, i really struggled with the nuanced way my brain responds to trauma, which mainly manifested in the form of avoidance and a tinge of compulsive thoughts/patterns, and becoming withdrawn. 

thats the thing about this though is like, it's trauma, but its also so much more than 'just trauma' because its not like oh, guy robbed me blind in a parking lot one night- its like, i experienced something i can't explain or comprehend, that is beyond this fabric of reality and existence. 

but i like that take on it that like, 'hey, that is kind of cool and bad ass, and fun' and thats a nice way of looking at such a hard thing to go through or that for some could be unfathomably anxiety inducing. 

My response to my original experience as a kid was to be come less emotional as a whole, and that never really changed after that. My second experience was therefore processed via that state and integrated into my interests. I view my near death and experience during my coma as just information to be processed and integrated into my views about reality. 

its makes sense though why you delved into understanding some of the topics you got into intellectually, i had a whole different approach and decided to learn about different religions. either way, we both kind of found the 'connection' we sought out to other human beings and their explanations and experiences for the things we experienced, and made the experience more comfortable and safe in that way or understandable. 

for me i found understanding and connection among a multitude of people with wide-eyed philosophies about life, and it was a beautiful thing to experience looking back on it. it led me down a very open-minded path that i would of likely never of strayed down had it not been for that experience and seeking that connection with individuals who could connect with me on those weird existential grey areas. 

it was a huge relief to me when i found the hindu death experience explained, as it was basically word for word what i had experienced. and it helped me to stop ruminating about the experience but rather just embrace it as a fact of life that is universal. not being alone in what i experienced and seeing that it was documented basically by a near ancient culture was even more divine. and allowed me to open up and embrace the 'divineness' that is life through the guise of these philosophies, traditions, teachings and practices. 

Since this second experience I now understand Christianity and other esoteric westerns and middle eastern ideas. I've always studied these things but analytically I could never get past a view beyond comparative religion, but now I have an understanding of their actual reality. 

What is Hindu Death Experience? 

I finally understand how little I understand the Axiom of Choice. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I finally understand how little I understand the Axiom of Choice. 

Not promising I'll understand it all, but how so? 

Turncoat said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I finally understand how little I understand the Axiom of Choice. 

Not promising I'll understand it all, but how so? 

Godel showed via his constructible universes that if Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) without choice is consistent, then Zermelo-Fraenkel with choice is consistent. That is the consistency does not depend on the Axiom of Choice, which is to say that Choice is not a necessary assumption for ZF but also does not lead to inconsistency of ZF. 

This result is shown by constructing an inner model of ZF we call L that satisfies the axioms of ZF+Choice. 

To construct L we use definable sets in ZF to build a Von Nueman Hierarchy of sets, where each level of the hierarchy is defined in terms of the previous level of the hierarchy. 

L_0 = {}, L_1 = {x|x ⊆ L_0}, L_2 = {x|x ⊆ L_1} ... L_n = {x|x ⊆ L_n-1}, L_ω = {x|x ⊆ L_n}, L_ω +1 = {x|x ⊆ L_ω }, ..., 

= L 

L_α = {x | x ⊆ α-1}, L_α+1 = {x | x ⊆ L_α} = P(L_α) = Definable subsets of L_α

A set is called definable at level α if there exists a function φ(x) in the language of set theory such that for any set y, where y ∈ X iff φ(y) holds in the standard model of ZF. 

Given this construction of L we can define a well-ordering of L.

If you have a well ordering of the constructible universe the axiom of choice follows, hence consistency in that universe for ZF holds. 

I do not expect you to understand much of the above, it serves as an example. 

This is one topic of twelve related to the Axiom of Choice and each involves a great deal of depth to understand. 

As an added noted, the Axiom of Choice is one of those things great mathematicians disagree on, to some it is obviously true while to others its obviously false. 

A fun bit of mathematics folklore. 

Tarski came up with a theorem about choice and he received two responses. 

Lambek said that the axiom of choice and tarski's theorem were obviously false and proving that two false assertions are equivalent was of no interest. 

Frechet said that the axiom of choice and tarski's theorem were obviously true and that proving two true assertions are equivalent was of no interest.