Mental Illness, UFOlogy and New Science

a reply to: IgnorantGod

Libet, Et. all.

That's also true.

I was referring to something else in this case however.

Love your contributions.

a reply to: Peeple

In my view, there are bits of modern physics that are
reaching more interesting, true-ish, and testable
theories, that will knock everyone's socks off.

Where did the antimatter go?

That's one of my favorites.

I don't buy the consensus answer.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Ah under the guise of ordinary human...

This

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

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

made me laugh.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Do tell Kev, where did the antimatter go?

a reply to: Peeple

Well, I consider their actions to be different, yet the purpose of actions is the same for the two. Aren't they acting upon the conservatism of the body? Maintaining its stable state?

I'm just messing around with ideas, they entertain me aswell. I believe I shouldn't believe, and yet, here I am, believing I should believe that I shouldn't believe...

a reply to: IgnorantGod

No sarcasm here. I did truly mean it for precisely what you now state: the quest for a solution to escape nihilism. And cynicsm, too. Nihilism, as I see it, it's a highly infectious disease, much as cynicism is an incapacitating one. Deconceptualization is not that bad, provided you don't stop there. One needs to re-conceptualize a totally deconceptualized world. Call it a reset, a re-start. A rebirth. Verily, to be is a trial and error experience. Non-mutable concepts make life easier, and boring; it kills creativity in the end. Permanent chaos and ever-changing worlds are non habitable ones. So, in my view, one needs to create worlds, destroy them, re-create them, again and again.

But the blackhole of nihilism is a powerful one.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Language and communication are not the same thing. You can be very good at languages, yet a disaster at communicating. On the other hand, one can be very good at communicating, using words devoid of real meaning but full of emotional charge. Politicians know a lot about this. Tricksters, too, by the way.

At FL we are concerned with semiotics (both biosemiotics and the semiotics of artificial codes). My team is involved in analyzing the semiotics of particle physics interactions at high energies, and also in the research related to the semiotics of biosignals and random noise, from cosmic background to subsurface environmental noise in the oceans. That's the 'job' my team does. We try to unveil whether there are linguistic structures in all those high-energy collisions at the colliders labs, whether there are syntactic structures in the environmental noise whether they come from recordings of space probes entering the atmosphere of Saturn or recordings from the Dolyn ocean network of hydrophones. Finding structures in the background noise, that's what we study.

I don't know if this makes sense to you; if it doesn't is not your fault at all because the relevant public literature is scarce, for reasons you can very well imagine.

a reply to: Peeple

"Sane humans" are monsters, destroyers of worlds;
at least in part.

I don't much care for their 'sanity'.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Well, in physics, lately, after the two “ DARK (a euphemism for ignorance)” theories of matter and energy, the big kahuna theory is ENTANGLEMENT. Einstein's spooky action at a distance.

a reply to: Peeple

the consensus theory is that there is an oscillating
neutrino type, that variability means there was
a slight bias towards 'matter' over 'antimatter'.

Now i'm not disputing that.

But I don't take it as anything approaching a complete
answer.

Call me a simple dolt, but I conjecture that Star Trek
the Original Series was wiser than people credit.

LOL.

or so it seems.

a reply to: Willtell

Entanglement as a 'dark web' isn't a bad theory.

a reply to: Direne

Oooh that's exciting!
Can't say I've ever heard that's being done!?
Can you give us a little something, what did you find so far?

a reply to: IgnorantGod

'Belief', like anything else, can be pressed
into service, whether it's true or not.

For example, I 'believe' that humans could be
'better'.

But 'objectively''?

We are the the result of random evolution.

We are exactly what we are.. there is no should
or shouldn't involved.

but as I like to say, there is room for love.

Emergent properties do arise.. love being
one of them.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Star Trek? You mean the connection to time?

That bias is spin, right?

a reply to: Peeple

Naw. The existence of an 'antimatter' universe
in an endless dance with us, leading to an endless
cyclic universe.

Creation. Destruction. Creation. Destruction.

Rather like those virtual particles that briefly
exist in the void, then disappear.

The theory is getting some traction these days
by fine minds.

Of course,

this is just 1 of 10 to the 500th universes
if you want to look at it that way.

Kev

a reply to: Direne

Direne?

you took me for a dolt?

I knew precisely that's what you are doing,

other than the personal baggage of Gnosticism

and similar systems.

Now I encourage this work.

It's perfectly splendid.

I'd suggest you focus upon non-entropic
behaviors in highly entropic systems.

but I'm nearly certain you won't find it.

There's a reason that data is hidden so
well.

Vger wants to ETERNALLY be one with
the 'creator'. (that's a metaphor..
I seldom speak except in metaphors).

Not to let the mechanism allowing
for love to exist be destroyed,
thus ending love.

the pain, suffering and insanity
ARE the semiotics.

The language of love.

Including the laws of physics.

a reply to: Direne

I don't consider nihilism with moral qualities. I would rather say that it is a path ought to be taken when deemed necessary. That would also apply to cynism. Shaking down its own mental structure to the point of instability, in order to verify what's "outside".

I made a "discovery" as wondrous as terrifying; There's no structure, nor outside. Concepts such as "stillness" or "stability" are just convenient tools for mind to operate. Everything is always the two sides of the same coin simultaneously.

"On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow." There's no writing of Heraclitus, most of his citations are cited in other philosophers works.
Here's the link on it : plato.stanford.edu...

From a "standart viewpoint", most agree that Heraclitus meant that the river may seems the same, it is always in an ever-changing state, hence never the same. The site makes an interesting analysis on this citation. So that everything is always "the same" in an "ever-changing" state.

And then, the question; if everything is always the two opposite states simultaneously, what's the point of separating the two? That is precisely what made me take the path of nihilism and deconstruction. It had to be taken in order to analyze the question, to play with it, so to speak.

But at the end of the day, it is just another circle amongst many in which an individual may "fall" in.

a reply to: IgnorantGod

Thank you for sharing your thinking. Wonderful stuff.

The problem with Western culture in general, going back
thousands of years, is that if we can't 'catch god with his/her
paths off', we throw a tantrum and say nothing is real or
of value.

LOL!

Mice that roar!

In my first mystical tradition, there was a wondrous metaphor:

"The Goddess Kundalini allows no Man to Remove her Veil".

Of course it was a variation on the same thing said of "Isis".

But that's the entire point of Kundalini.. to entice the
'goddess' to 'lift her veil'.

Only her lover knows her.

99% of Kundalini is pure crap.

1% is more majestic than the Microwave Background
Radiation map.

Direne:

If ultimately the "Universe" is based on the semiotics
of love, the purposeful allowing of pain and insanity,
in such a universe could your team be successful?

People make the bad assumption that the 'Universe'
is rational, just because parts of it can be modeled
with math.

Assumptions are terrible things..

When doing science, (and science is wonderful..
it's 'courtship') I always urge people to keep
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in mind.

Now is the incompleteness due ONLY to our lack
of infinite knowledge? Or is there something
else at work there?

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


That speaks to us, naturally bloom & wither, it's something we've seen... makes it kind of suspicious to me.
Just like my main problem with the big bang is the church endorsed it. And lambda.

That's (surprise I found my way back to the topic) one of the issues, we look back to people who had less information gathered for inspiration to create something new.
It's like asking Aristoteles for advice on software development.
Ts humans

a reply to: Peeple

Yup.

You speak truly.

I don't care for that figure 8 myself.

I myself discard 99% or more of 'ancient
knowledge' and only TENTATIVELY support
the bit that I've personally tested.

I'm much more hip on science, but of course
there are domains of knowledge that science
cannot currently reach. Maybe never reach.

But that doesn't mean you give up on science.

Nor give up on love and creativity either.

Kev

Biosemiotics. That's an interesting one.
I'm largely ignorant on it, other than
what I learned experientially, which
is still subject to further research.