Mental Illness, UFOlogy and New Science

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Kev, I wouldn't say I solved it. I am a Watcher. But I did discover Evil is a function of time. It evolves in intrincate ways, entangled with Goodness up to the point they are sometimes indiscernible from each other. However, I can tell you that it is my view good actions that end in disaster are more hideous than evil actions. As an example, forgiving the bad actions of an evil man that takes advantage of his being forgiven to commit just more evil actions is, in my view, a disgusting error in the entire cosmological design. Obviously, to forgive is something only superior civilizations can reach... I need to learn. A lot.

a reply to: Direne

Perhaps the very laws of physics are an expression
of mental illness. (not our theories about them,
the actual reality itself).

Would that make mental illness 'ok'?

Kev

a reply to: Direne

You are bad at languages? If you wish to educate
us, how a ForgottenLanguages luminary is bad at
languages, that would be most entertaining.

Now.. don't let me press you, and cause you to
withdraw. Can we please avoid that mechanism?

Unless you wish to stop learning? That's acceptable
as well.

a reply to: stealthskater

Welcome... ;-)

I love educated participants.

a reply to: IgnorantGod

Lovely.

"Dunning-Kruger" is very useful to keep in mind.

But overharping on it stifles even USEFUL creativity.

When Einstein was pretty certain that space was curved,

or Dirac saw the link between EM and QM,

but nothing was proven.

Were they, 'insane'?

One could say that.

Were they wrong?

Not really.

Were they completely right?

We can't know that, we can never know.

But if both went around saying "I have the Dunning Krueger Effect"

we wouldn't have modern technology.

In a manner of speaking,

Insanity is a horse running free from bridle and saddle.

Quite possibly a good thing, sometimes.

Catching the horse, putting on the bridle and saddle..

that's the trick.

But if you threw Dunning Kreuger minds out with the bathwater,

you'd have nothing to work with.. no horse at all.

Kev

a reply to: Direne

Oh! I am definitely interested in how to achieve a pristine divine divide between fantasies and objective facts; in particular, I am extremely interested in how to be able to separate dreams from non-dreams.

I understand the sarcasm in the answer, and considering your perspective, is probably on point. Yet, here's where the word "try" that I used becomes pertinent. It defines my own uncertainty in this task that I burdened myself within the path I chose.

I don't know if I'm efficient, or accurate. I setup my own standarts, and try to update them as experiences pass by. I reflect on my own actions/reactions (subjective experience) from the feedback loop between my perception and supposedly (from my perception at least) "external events".

At this point, I take the feedback loop in general as objective, and my experiences, or the experiences of others as subjective. No magic involved, and no certainty whatsoever. I go with it, because it won't help to just spiral in uncertainty. I'd rather do "trial and error" (taken from google trad. of essais et erreurs).

I guess it isn't really a satisfactory answer, but it did help me escape from a twisted nihilism, that I've named "The Journey towards Deconceptualization". Pretty insane 3 years, these were.

a reply to: Direne

After the "Problem of Evil" is solved, it becomes time
to move past Gnosticism.

It's a thing of beauty, to see the heart of something;
the one loose thread that could be pulled.

Gnosticism is a pearl, a corrupted pearl mind you,
that formed due to the grain of sand..

"The problem of evil".

Kev

a reply to: Direne

What if the extent of 'mental illness ' was far,
far worse than that?

I mean, that's what Gnosticism says, if you
want to give it credence.

What if every thought you had, every action you
performed, all the struggle you do, was entirely
100% for the benefit of another?

Could you go on living?

But then, how could you not?

I love the question:

"If all is one, is God a Sadist, a Masochists', or both?"

Kev

a reply to: Direne

So do you want to know the truth about
'neutral angels' mired in matter, willingly,
so that they may assist others?

Humorously, that knowledge, or some good
facsimile of it, is attainable.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

What if every thought you had, every action you
performed, all the struggle you do, was entirely
100% for the benefit of another?

Do you mean the difference between what the subconscious part seeks versus what conscious part seeks? That the reasons behind my thoughts/actions are not what I consciously think it is, but rather are the product of some desires expressed subconsciously?

I tend to agree with that. I often imagine my own mind as a conflict between conscious and subconscious different interests.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Well taken to the extreme everything becomes harmful and you know I fully support entertaining all kinds of fancy fantasies, but to me even generally accepted theories like the big bang falls into that category too.

I recently read Max Tegmark Our Mathematical Universe and he was building it up "...colleagues warned me not to pursue this..." I got all excited ooh this will get juicy and ... it wasn't.
Basically a level-IV- multiverse whose ultimate structure is maths. And I was like dude d'uh if that qualifies as controversial and exciting in modern science we got a huge problem.

It also had a pretty interesting thought experiment in it, basically an advancement to the Cat of Schrödinger
A shotgun triggered by quantum randomness, click = shot, you die, tick = blank, you live (I shortened and simplified of course) anyhoo since you are part of that system and you can only observe if you live, it's (If the multiverse theory is true) outcome will inevitably be the highly unlikely tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...
Instead of click, tick with 50%.

To actually test that would indeed be considered as "mentally ill"
Ha

a reply to: IgnorantGod

Dude it's even wilder your consciousness is most likely a cacaphony of probably a googol unicellular consciousnesses

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
... shared insanity, as in religion, had
survival value, or it wouldn't be with us to this
day, be so strong...

Weirdly I disagree. It's more out there but I actually believe religion, the ur-religions weren't insane at all, but testimony of an infant-intelligence stretching its wings.
A lot less rational and logical a lot of mystification of the instincts and intuitions as "guiding hand" but as spiritual manual a lot more useful than religions today.
I would assume.
The issue with modern myths is their anthropocentric, anthropomorphising tint.

a reply to: Peeple

I studied the non-human origination of religion
for quite a while.

Sometimes 'sciency Kevin' is talking.. sometimes
bat# crazy Kevin is talking.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Well:
Advantage Kev

I can't even tell the difference anymore

a reply to: Peeple

Then, subconsciously speaking, it would still be a "me" in "we", or a "we" veiled as "me". The conflict of interest between consciousness and subconsciousness is still expressed.

a reply to: IgnorantGod

Lovely.

You unknotted your ignorance.

Some people take the coin of the realm

and created new things for civilization with it

others just stop with the unknotting.

Is it a matter of free will?

not a matter of free will?

That baked my noodle for some time.

Until there was a yummy plate of lasagna.

a reply to: Peeple

It's just speaking for one audience or another.

The easy test of sanity I use is this:

What's the most nasty, soul-less, hopeless, reductionist
twaddle imaginable?

If I speak from that standpoint, it's considered 'sane'
by society.

I often speak that way, as it's more true than not true.

But it's not ENTIRELY true.

for that, I let insane Kev out.

It's part of basic 'purification' for someone on that crazy
path I was on to learn how to do various such things.

Kev

a reply to: IgnorantGod

If you're into simplification. But it would be like saying the gatekeepers (skin cell) are the same as the management (neurons), they aren't, they got very different agendas and "personalities".

But think as you wish, it's just something I enjoy to entertain