Fat is a type of crazy

5 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

Those were the days of 

 

Mary Tyler Moore show

THAT Girl 

What's that show with the Diner ...Mel's Diner? At the airport

Taxi 

Cheers 

Welcome back kotter

 

Show with Mel's Diner is Alice. Kiss my grits was a catch phrase. Not at an airport though. That might be Wings. 

She's not there before I was born but good song. There's a good thing on Youtube where they take the 60's UK music month by month and look at new releases and reviews and goings on - sounds boring but not. Name of Yesterday's Papers. 

CNN poll reported today has Trump a little ahead of Biden while Hayley would beat Biden easily.

CNN Poll: Trump narrowly leads Biden in general election rematch | CNN Politics

12 minutes ago, charleskerins said:

There is Fascism

I don't mean Trump... some way to get Biden to find a way with dignity, and having had a successful presidency, to pass the baton. 

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The Magas are shooting themselves in the foot with this insanity.

Swift will continue to encourage her Swifties to register to vote and when the time comes she will actively endorse Biden over the adjudicated rapist maga fascist buffoon. 

That was going to happen anyway but now they've magnified the impact.

What new support do they get by dissing Swift and the Swifties? Zero. They just massage their bizarro cult. That will not lead to a happy ending for them. 

 

 

Saw Biden on the news today. Geez he's looking old. There's got to be a different way. 

Nice story and pictures. But don't give up on the real world Timmy... removing the weight of reality may feel good and the elation of putting reality to one side for a while might make you  see things like a staircase but stay focused Timmy on what's real ..if the staircase is real then it is a fact you can add to the other facts.  Your attitude to reality and facts may be too serious and make you heavy but reality is all we have.

On the topic of stereograms that it is a good analogy ..stay focused and sensible and you see what's there .. squint and distort your outlook and you start to see things differently but it's of no use in the real world and makes you tired and confused. 

There.  

Hope the op doesn't mind if I throw in a question - If I am staying at a combination of hotels and say monthly rents at a condo over the ninety days what is required at the 60 day mark to extend  -

• showing where I stayed for the whole 60 days - and or now only - and or the last 30 days. Wouldn't have the latter yet so I suppose it's not that.
• is it required for both condos with a landlord and normal hotels ie  if I stay at multiple hotels do I have to ask for a TM30 at each one as I leave. 

Thanks for help. 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Ayn Rand was another crackpot.

Her core message was that altruism was bad and unfettered self-interest was good.

Total bs.

 

I like the fact that she went there - for good and for bad. Keep in mind her communist past where she saw a lot of justifications for helping her fellow man which turned out not to work in terms of practical human nature.

What if self interest is everything that feels good for you and doing things for people feels good. Then doing things for selfish reasons might include helping people. Starting with the premise that you are doing things to help people because it's somehow objectively good is almost religious - doing what you want, which may include helping others, is doing something based on your human nature. Possibly the same outcome but how you get there in your mind is more logical and clear. 

54 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I haven't read any of Rand's works.  I've come across some of her most well known quotes and if they smack of truth then they're worth quoting.

 

 

To be honest, I already know the answer.  She would react no different than anyone on this thread would react.  The Seth material either fits into ones current world view, their belief system, or it does not.

 

". . . by your own admission the evidence is subjective at best."

 

I admit I laughed as I read that.  I laughed because subjective reality, though it's existence is undeniable, is given scant credibility.  It's not r-e-a-l like objective reality is.  And that is the fallacy which most have adopted as their "truth."  Subjective evidence cannot be accepted as r-e-a-l evidence because only objective evidence can be real.  The truth is, and this is a truth I understand full well that you may never accept, Fat, that the objective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of subjective reality.  Science is attempting to take that truth and reverse it by saying that the subjective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of objective reality.  Which is only a natural consequence when holding the erroneous belief that objective reality is all the exists.

 

I understand full well, therefore, that the implications of what I claim would then force unimaginably massive changes in ones thinking.  So many currently held beliefs, belief being an idea considered to be "true," would have to be discarded whilst new ones take their place.  In the interim people would literally be lost as to how to act and what to think as their current beliefs which comprise their world views are in the most practical terms the modus operandi by which people act and interpret the data of life.  There are few, very few, who are willing to do that work of massively changing their ideas to conform to actual reality rather than a fictitious one.  As illustrated in the movie series, The Matrix, the character Cypher would rather return to the matrix than know the truth of the matrix.  So it is for most.  I ain't gonna change that. 

 

Thanks. I think that is where it does hit a bit of a dead end because of the subjective objective issue. I tried to fix that by noting that, if it is observable only subjectively, then maybe the results rather than the phenomenon itself, could be observed objectively, but if that's not possible, then hard to take it further unless one commits to some super deep dive. It seems that you should be able to take some bit of the findings into the objective world as evidence but if not then fair enough. 

A brief comment on the covid stuff that had been provided separately: 

I don't think Fauci noted you'll be safe with the vaccine is the same as saying it will prevent it - it made sennse to say safe when the unvaccinated were dying in such large no's at the time and the vaccinated were not. He didn't appear to use the word prevent. 

The Biden comment you provided, which I recall, is a perfect example of what I was saying - that some politicians misspoke - the reaction to his comment that the vaccine prevented covid was immediate and scathing - from social media and a range of medical sources including the CDC - saying his comment was not correct. It shows that the statement that the vaccine prevented covid had clearly not been treated as a scientific truth at that time. Broadly or otherwise.

49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

When I said that I validate to the extent that I can I'm obviously making that statement in reference to my below quote.

 

 

I've certainly validated much for myself.  And of course, as with anything in science, there's always something that remains to be validated and some things which are almost impossible to validate.

 

 

Because it has massive practical applications in the real world.  But you have no way of knowing about that.  If you did then you wouldn't ask the question.  The proof is always in the pudding, isn't it?

 

 

The way you framed each and every point you made then each and every point was a blatant lie.  Remember what I said about honesty being an indispensable prerequisite for uncovering the real truth of ourselves and the world?  You're dispensing with it.  It is true to say that the only one anyone really fools is themselves.  You, sir, are fooling yourself as all of the evidence needed to prove your assertions to be wrong are readily available if only you were willing to look.

 

But just as you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs about Covid so you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs regarding this subject matter.  You may not like the truth but there it is.

 

“You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

— Ayn Rand

 

I think you are getting a bit excited about the covid stuff. Your point was specifically the following:

 The mRNA shots will prevent you from catching Covid.  That was billed and heavily promoted as a scientific "truth." 

I don't recall ever being told in Australia that getting the vaccine would mean I would not get covid. I was always told, and had known from previous vaccines, that it means if you catch it, and have had the vaccine, it is a lot less worse. It may have been also said that there is LESS likelihood of catching it but I do not recall hearing it would actually prevent you getting it. As I said maybe it was said in the early period. 

I do recall the controversial issue being around whether a person should have to get vaccinated as it made it safer for others but that is a separate issue. 

If you can show me that all the major medical bodies made your claim throughout the covid epidemic, and not just early on as I stated where errors were made, then I will accept what you are saying. Please do and I can learn something. 

Fun fact: I was a big fan of Ayn Rand at one time. Her direct and somewhat extreme right wing economic views and opinions on personal freedoms and approach to life were refreshing in The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged got a bit much and I saw that you need a heart and being so hardcore is in the end not a good way to treat fellow humans. Ask yourself : if you showed her the Seth stuff what would have she said. Doesn't mean it's wrong but see how it appears to others when by your own admission the evidence is subjective at best. 

On 1/24/2024 at 4:50 PM, JonnyF said:

It would appear that Trump is very popular amongst Republican voters.

 

 

He's not popular with the Smiths - if I recall you are a big fan. Fun fact they've told him to stop playing 'Please please please let me get what I want' at his rallies without permission. 

37 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

". . . if there was evidence . . ."  That's your red herring. 

 

 

BS.  Covid and climate change.  Let's be honest, Fat.  There's science as an ideal and then there's science as it's practiced.  The two are vastly different these days.  You don't interact with an ideal world, do you?  The ideal world doesn't exist and neither does the ideal science.

 

 

Okay, you've gone off the rails, Fat.  What you wrote has no truth in it.  I can jam the real truth right down your throat but the evidence is not acceptable here.  Early on?  That's an out and out lie.  The odd scientist?  That's an out an out lie.  A few politicians?  That's an out an out lie.  Misspoke my ar$e.  That's an out an out lie.  It boggles my mind that people can so easily forget what really happened and then deny that what really did happen didn't happen.

 

There's one thing about any exploration of consciousness.  It requires absolute self honesty.  Without that you'll only be fooling yourself and the truth will remain hidden from you because the dishonesty is that which will hide it.  Your choice there, Fat.

 

 

And thus your uninformed and misinformed opinions carry very little weight.  I've studied consciousness for decades.

 

 

Explained succinctly?  You're being unreasonable.  The subject matter of consciousness includes multiples upon multiples of subject matter.  It is far more complex than you can begin to imagine.  How many books would you need to read to get your PhD in astrophysics?  What, you can't learn astrophysics in a succinct manner.  Can you reasonably expect to understand what consciousness is with a few one liners?  A paragraph or two?  A couple of posts?

 

As has been said many, many times.  Some things can only be proven by yourself to yourself.  If physical evidence doesn't exist so then what?  Statistical data collection and analysis the points to A being responsible for B?  You have no idea how many variables there are to consider.  As you admitted, you have not studied consciousness.  Therefore you are not in any position to demand how it needs to be proven.

 

Analogies are useful in conveying a point.  But they are never meant to be used to make unfitting points.  When that happens it's said that the analogy doesn't fit.  And it doesn't fit the point you're trying to make with my analogy.

 

 

Huh?  Again, you have not studied what consciousness is and therefore can't begin to opine on what possibilities exist for producing evidence.  As to "followers of your ideas" that's like saying that if I taught someone the mechanics behind an automotive engine then they would be followers of my ideas.  Consciousness is what it is, like an engine is what it is.  Both work according to definite principles and are governed by laws.  It's not "my idea."  It's the simple fact of the way it is.

 

 

I agree.  Faith is not a dirty word.  Those who do not believe in faith have little idea of how often they operate on faith throughout every day of their lives.  My reference to faith, though, was that I'm not about to employ it as a method of accepting anything I say as being "true."

 

 

That's your personal interpretation and it's wrong.  Anything one learns needs to be validated.  I validate, to the extent I can, what I learn via testing it out in the real world.  I can provide you with endless anecdotes that are proof for me but will never be accepted as proofs by those who fail to understand that proofs for anything and everything in existence must come in the form of "hard" evidence.

 

Let's face it, Fat, you have no interest in understanding any of this.  You have your beliefs and they suit you just fine.  You don't want to change them, nor are you ready to change them.  It's fun for you to argue for your beliefs but that's really about as far as it goes.

OK. Leave it there. You say you validate to the extent you can - so you're either not totally sure and you accept the theory is a theory only or you say it is definitely true and then faith is involved. Simple point. I am not sure why it is important for you to seem so sure of yourself that your theory is correct. 

The covid point, which in the big picture is not a lie, is that you used it as an example of science not working when science is by definition a self correcting mechanism and the vaccine had been clearly ultimately successful backed by scientific studies and not simply by someone's subjective notions.  

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Well, is that truly a shocker considering that the unknowns about consciousness are not "many" but rather that what most people, including science, know about consciousness is precious, precious, very scant little?  Because of that fact, and due to so many accepted ideas of science which I would say are false, any claims of non physical forces would be viewed with massive skepticism.  Also, given the vast ignorance about consciousness, combined with erroneous scientific "truths," then would it also be a shocker that obvious connections aren't being made which link to non physical forces?  Dear Fat, this "shocking" revelation is, in the words of the great Sherlock Holmes who had exceptional deductive reasoning skills, elementary.  What else can one expect as a result???

 

 

Reread the above and neither is there definitive proof that it is reliant on or a product of our physicality.  It's what's called "up for debate."  I'm debating it and taking up the counter position using reason and logic.  I've not invoked the word "faith" as a convincer ever.

 

 

Not to poke fun at you, Fats, or to be condescending but your suggestion for how to show a connection between non physical forces and real world physical outcomes via statistical data collection and analysis is highly amusing - it produced a smile on my face.  I consider it so because the idea you suggest has such little thought put into it that the fatal flaws of such an approach are immediately apparent to those who have an understanding of these non physical forces.

 

Now this is a highly important point.  I've written before about folks who haven't, as I put it, "thought things through."  People all too often give their opinions on subject matter of which they have little knowledge, experience, or have not put a great deal of thought into.  They usually repeat only the scant ideas which they've come across in their journey through life, ideas which they've accepted as "true" for themselves.  Take the idea which fusion58 and I are arguing about.  fusion58 claims that everything which exists can be proven via evidence of it's existence.  That is an idea which is heavily promoted by science.  Most have heard it.  Most trust science.  And since they do not want to spend the time and effort to validate the idea for themselves, and since they trust science and trust that science has done the heavy lifting for them - and concluded correctly, then most people simply accept the "truth" of it uncritically and unexamined.  And they then repeat it themselves as "truth."  This is simply a truth of the way people "pick up" ideas through life which then become their beliefs; beliefs held as "true."  That is without dispute - at least if you give pause long enough to think it though.

 

By no means do I judge you now, but I would say you are such a one on this topic.  To prove me correct I would only need to ask you how much thought you've given to the subject of what consciousness is, what ideas are, where they come from, what their effects are, what beliefs are, how they work, what thoughts are, etc., etc., and ask you how many books on these subjects you have not only read but studied.  And how much effort you've then put in to testing the ideas out in the real world to validate them yourself.

 

Believe it or not there are people in the world, Fats, who delve to great depths on this subject matter.  On the subject of consciousness it is simple fact that science and people in general are wholly ignorant on that subject.  I do not imply any judgement whatsoever in my use of the word 'ignorant'.  I use it in the strict sense of the dictionary definition:

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

Yet those who have studied it, some for a lifetime, are treated as idiots who don't know what they're talking about.  An apt analogy, which happens in real life, is an individual who has spent an entire lifetime in his business and knows it inside and out.  He hires a newbie, someone who perhaps had taken some classes taught by teachers who may well have taught him correctly at times but also much which is backwards, and this newbie on his first day then decides to "educate" this individual with a lifetime of real experience on how the business needs to run.

 

I've said this many times:  people love to pretend they know it all.  They approach subject matters as if they were experts despite the fact that they are less than novices.  They tend to believe that everything which they believe is correct and true and when challenged get upset and feel prideful indignation.  Do show some respect.

 

 

It has nothing to do with faith, sir.  Reading the faith part of it into it is strictly due to your personal interpretation, your personal perception.

 

 

I've already addressed the 'faith'.  I've never, ever suggested meditation.  Be accurate.  As to reading a million words it works this way:  if one has no interest in a subject matter my posts are verbose, long-winded.  If one has settled on their convictions and are immovable then my arguments are verbose, long-winded.  If one has interest in the subject matter then my posts are too short.  If one has no set convictions and possesses curiosity then my posts are too short.

 

It all hinges on ones position.  So, do you still want to contend that I am being unfair?  I guess that would depend on what position you take, correct?

Claims that science now has a lot of things wrong, and that scientists would likely disregard evidence of non physical forces if there was evidence are your claims, are unproven red herrings and do not help in backing up your theory. Science by definition never says it is undisputedly right of course. 

You have used as an example of your mistrust in science claims about the covid vaccine being a cure. Early on maybe the odd scientist, and a few politicians, misspoke and said it would prevent covid rather than lessening it's effects. I never had the impression the vaccine was a cure. So, because things were learnt on the run, and the messaging was not perfect, you seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater and somewhat put aside the clear scientific success of the vaccine. So let's set aside what others are doing or not doing or who is immovable and stick to your theory. 

The comment on meditation related to other posters. 

I have not studied consciousness. Your reading and personal experiences have led you to a theory - but that theory can't be explained succinctly similar to how a business could be explained as per your example - and apparently can't be proven, by direct or indirect evidence, at this time.

The notion that evidence might come from followers of your ideas, possibly having objectively similar outcomes, is not acceptable to you.  Maybe some other form of secondary evidence is acceptable. 

Faith is not a dirty word. I think we all have a type of faith at times in this and that to get through the day. You could one day be proven correct. If you have a theory that works for you based on readings and subjective experiences, but accept it may be wrong, then to me that's fine. Some of your writing though indicates you are sure it is correct which by definition requires faith. 

People have such small cameras now that you'll never know so you have to cop it. Don't want to be filmed there don't go there. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

First of all, I had written this in my last reply to you:

 

You have this impression of me that I believe in God, that I believe in supernatural agencies, that I believe in supernatural beings or entities, that I subscribe to theism, that I believe in a supernatural realm.  I believe in none of that.

 

And:

 

And so, I expect no more references from you as to what you think I know or believe.  If you're uncertain then have the courtesy to ask me first.  I demand intellectual honesty for without it there's nowhere for us to go.  Are we clear?

 

Yet here you are spouting the same BS about me that I believe in a supernatural being.  I demanded intellectual honesty from you I guess that would throw a monkey wrench into your narrative so you simply continue to dishonestly proceed with your narrative that I believe in a supernatural being.

 

Secondly, here's an entry from Wiki on consciousness:

 

Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and all of science. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.

 

Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain.

 

Millennia of analyses, and however many hundreds of years by science, and yet to this day science doesn't have much of any clue as to what consciousness is.  And they have even less of a clue as to where consciousness is.  For the life of them they can't find it's physical location.  Do you know why?  Because consciousness isn't physical.  And thus it can't be proven to exist, nor can it be found to reside anywhere in the physical world.

 

This is illustrates conclusively the point that I've been making which you refuse to accept.  There exist in the world phenomenon which are not physical.  And if they are not physical then how the f are you going to legitimately place the burden of proof on the claimant, or demand they produce the evidence of it's existence?  I'm sure you would claim you have consciousness.  That you have awareness.  So prove it.  Show me where your consciousness is.  Well, after millennia of analyses and no one has yet been able to do it then neither will you.  But you can't deny the fact that you have consciousness.  To deny that would be the epitome of stupidity.

 

Same with thoughts.  Thoughts aren't physical.  But they sure as hell exist and are real.  Think a thought and then prove to someone else that the thought you had exists.  You can't.  Another instance, which example I've used earlier - but conveniently ignored by you, of phenomenon which surely exist yet can't be proven to exist.

 

But hey, keep fooling yourself as long as you would like to.  You don't fool me, though. 

There are many unknowns about how consciousness works but you have not proven conclusively that there are non physical forces - not even close. 

We all have thoughts and a consciousness but there is no evidence that it is not reliant or a product of our physicality.

One of your key claims seems to be that non physical forces can control the physical world and that an individual can influence their life and or surroundings through these non physical means. As I have noted, if direct physical evidence is not possible, you should seemingly be able to provide statistical secondary evidence to back up your claims.

Followers or adherents of your doctrine or ideas, could show specific and possibly unusual or surprising outcomes in their physical lives, that came from these non-physical concepts e.g. we are not sure why there is a link between A and B, or what forces are at play, but clearly A leads to B.

Next steps may be to see if you can gather evidence or alternatively live your life happily in your faith that to you these are self evident truths. But in my opinion criticism of those that doubt, on the basis that they don't have your faith or that they can't comment without 10000 hours meditating or reading 1000000 words, is not a fair way to make an argument. You need evidence. 

His take on things are sensible and likely accurate for those who don't believe in a god or for those like Thaibeachlovers who see a god as there but hands off. Of course denying that there are objectively human rights as part of the ether is not to say human kind cannot decide that life is better if we introduce human rights as laws.

I have not seen the WEF have an anti human agenda. I have seen some cynics misinterpret on purpose things attributed to them such as 'You'll own nothing and be happy' which was one obscure speaker talking about the sharing economy and in no way suggesting or dictating how things should be beyond this. 

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Vivek actually predicted it.  He claimed that the objective was to eliminate all contenders aside from Trump and their preferred candidate, then double down on the legal attacks against Trump so their preferred candidate would be the one.

 

I think DeSantis made a mistake here.  If (when?) Trump gets taken out, his voters would be a lot more likely to migrate to DeSantis than to Haley.  So being in 3rd place, down just a couple of points, didn't mean a loss.  And a Trump exit is the only shot any of them (including Vivek) had.

 

Suppose if Trump falls over De Santis can maybe start it up again. They all seem to use the term suspending the campaign. Or would Hayley win automatically if she has some points from a win in New Hampshire or something. Interesting. 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

When I went to China for a couple of weeks absolutely nothing was as the western media portrayed it.

Nobody followed or watched me, I could go where I pleased. Small business flourished. Immigration and visa was easier, and the staff more pleasant and helpful. No police apparent on the streets.

 

They had more personal freedom than the UK or the USA as far as I could tell.

 

Your opinions are all formed by western anti Chinese propaganda!

Could be some of those journalists, who get fact checked and stand by their words, see things you don't see. A compliant tourist looking at a panda or a wall or eating yum cha might not see what goes on behind the smiles of the government and the army and police. 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

Biden and the left cares nothing about the "average American working man", and in fact has contempt for him. The average American working man knows this, and that is why he supports Trump. 

 

 

Focusing on the working person for a minute. I get that at times some on the left, mainly the young which is nothing new,  may seem a bit precious and care about issues rather than the working class but I don't see that with Biden.  

Biden supports unions. Higher wages. Lots of jobs right now. Efforts somewhat successful to reduce inflation. 

If it was 2016 you might be forgiven for thinking Trump might shake things up in favour of the working man - but what did he do in 4 years. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Promises on healthcare but all he tried to do is remove support measures. No push for better wages. It seems like bravado, and attitude is what his fans like, even if it has no substantive action behind it. Or he can talk about freedom and the border and guns and how bad the left is and ...words words words ... and that satisfies his supporters.

Let's talk specifics - he benefited low and average income working people by .... 

25 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

On American Samoa, they're most likely to end up as NGs or DTs. Funny, I thought the OL most likely. But not so.

Not sure what those acronyms are