A less wrong post I thought was interesting.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/5dj/the_benefits_of_madness_a_positive_account_of/#more
QuoteThe ability to loosen one's associations and build bridges between disparate ideas seems to help us solve problems not amenable to direct, formal computation: to intuit mathematical truths before sitting down to prove them, for example, or to recognize that a pattern seen in one system is reflected in another, totally unrelated system. A state of mental excitation, even to the point of fervour, is also useful for overcoming akrasia, and promotes the quick thinking necessary when you don't have time to sit around and compute. If this is the case, then there is considerable benefit to be had in learning to depart from rationality in a safe and controlled manner. I say safe and controlled because, as we have seen, there are real dangers in overextending oneself; but with proper technique, I believe these dangers can be minimized while still reaping the benefits.
:mittens:
Reminds me of this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-unleashed-mind
We just started suscribing to that magazine and my 13 year old made off with it, so now I need to get it back from him and read it!
More and more I come to believe that complete insanity is the only reasonable behavior.
Quote. . . to recognize that a pattern seen in one system is reflected in another, totally unrelated system.
This shit will get you in trouble and drive your friends/roommates/SOs/fellow inmates
crazy.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 27, 2011, 03:18:17 AM
More and more I come to believe that complete insanity is the only reasonable behavior.
Been there, worn the teeshirt back to front. Doesn't work. This, however...
QuotePart 2: How I learned to stop worrying and use my madness
Once you've been in a deep psychosis part of dragging yourself back to sanity is to discount the things you experienced and the ideas and visions you had during the downtime or, at least, it was for me. The tendency is to throw the baby out with the bathwater as you err on the side of caution. Caution is still required but, once the door to those states are opened they're never fully closed again and I'd have to agree with the author that there are 'states' or 'circuits' or whatever you want to call it that can prove useful in the right circumstances.
Handle with care, tho. It may be true that mental dynamite is one of the quickest ways to circumvent a wall or barrier but it's also one of the quickest ways to fuck yourself up completely :wink:
Mm.
Really though, my only experimentation with madness is from ecstatic states brought on by music and visualization.
Dunno if there's a word for that, but I find myself in the doldrums if I don't do it at least once a week. It's addicting.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 29, 2011, 06:07:04 PM
Really though, my only experimentation with madness is from ecstatic states brought on by music and visualization.
That's not even close.
No, probably not. I'm really no good at madness. I'll probably need some kind of aftermarket upgrade to do it properly, like senility or brain syphilis.
Real and true madness isn't fun or pretty.
Imagine being in a state where pissing yourself appears to be the only logical answer to someone's questions and you've got an idea.
Now, imagine living in a state where you've worked out a series of equations in your head to replace the "piss response" with other variables so you can respond to people and things in ways that won't get you locked up or stinky...except you lost track of the algorithm a long time ago and now the secure token just spits out numbers randomly and you're left with no choice but to type them in and hope they don't get you killed or worse.
Yeah, not even that.
Sitting around in your house doing drugs is like petting kittens compared to this shit.
I've studied abnormal psychology, and I know what serious, clinical insanity is. I distinguish that from the kind you can use to approach problems in fresh and relevant ways.
You have to remember that some of us are neurologically atypical. Rubbing ice cream on your testicles and running around your house with a sheet tied around your neck is just wonderful for loosing the creative juices for you because at the end of the day, you get to wipe off the pistachio swirl with those 480 thread counts and dump the whole fucking thing into the hamper.
I have to fight the natural inclination towards the hysterical on a daily basis. I am Eris incarnate in this way. I have worked my entire life to stop indulging in "intuition" and look, look at the goddamned facts for fuck's sake.
What you're suggesting is not actually blurring the lines between mental function and malfunction, but rather an internal dadaist, new-age TED Convention from which you're hoping to glean videos that no one else will understand because the problem with going off into a cardboard box with your G.I. Joes and a puppy is that whatever you produce in there isn't much use to anyone but yourself.
I'm not saying this is a waste of time, but why bother? We've already got scientifically proven methods...standard operating procedures n shit. Optimization is a fantastic word. So are relevance and altruism--the quest to discipline the self in such a way as to produce things which are beautiful and useful to others. Elegant solutions hardly ever result from complicating the recipe with a bunch of "fun shit" you tossed in just to "mix things up." You may think your own cupcakes are beautiful (everybody thinks they own cupcakes is byootiful) but I guarantee you, no one's gonna appreciate oregano-mint-hotsauce frosting except other whackadoodles producing much of the same.
That's not to say I'm suggesting you conform, just that the goal should be to produce. Make a message, make a song, make a supaFuck automated robotic Loch Ness Monster (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cesarminoru/protei-open-hardware-oil-spill-cleaning-sailing-ro) to clean up the Oil spill and piss your FAYCE, just don't think that "altering your consciousness" so you can watch the Woody Woodpecker cartoons on your frontal cortex is going to get things done any faster or better than grabbing some markers, paper and a stapler and going full-frontal trial-and-error.
But hey, you know how dey say in New Orleans: "Errybody got dey own Gumbo."
Ah. I've always had the opposite problem. I test as starkly neurotypical, I've never once hallucinated, and I've never really been "out of my head". I need a bit of crazy to feel human.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 04:18:30 AM
Ah. I've always had the opposite problem. I test as starkly neurotypical, I've never once hallucinated, and I've never really been "out of my head". I need a bit of crazy to feel human.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgxpDgSjxkA&feature=player_detailpage#t=75s
:lol: Something like that.
Quote from: navkat on May 05, 2011, 04:14:40 AM
You have to remember that some of us are neurologically atypical. Rubbing ice cream on your testicles and running around your house with a sheet tied around your neck is just wonderful for loosing the creative juices for you because at the end of the day, you get to wipe off the pistachio swirl with those 480 thread counts and dump the whole fucking thing into the hamper.
I have to fight the natural inclination towards the hysterical on a daily basis. I am Eris incarnate in this way. I have worked my entire life to stop indulging in "intuition" and look, look at the goddamned facts for fuck's sake.
What you're suggesting is not actually blurring the lines between mental function and malfunction, but rather an internal dadaist, new-age TED Convention from which you're hoping to glean videos that no one else will understand because the problem with going off into a cardboard box with your G.I. Joes and a puppy is that whatever you produce in there isn't much use to anyone but yourself.
I'm not saying this is a waste of time, but why bother? We've already got scientifically proven methods...standard operating procedures n shit. Optimization is a fantastic word. So are relevance and altruism--the quest to discipline the self in such a way as to produce things which are beautiful and useful to others. Elegant solutions hardly ever result from complicating the recipe with a bunch of "fun shit" you tossed in just to "mix things up." You may think your own cupcakes are beautiful (everybody thinks they own cupcakes is byootiful) but I guarantee you, no one's gonna appreciate oregano-mint-hotsauce frosting except other whackadoodles producing much of the same.
That's not to say I'm suggesting you conform, just that the goal should be to produce. Make a message, make a song, make a supaFuck automated robotic Loch Ness Monster (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cesarminoru/protei-open-hardware-oil-spill-cleaning-sailing-ro) to clean up the Oil spill and piss your FAYCE, just don't think that "altering your consciousness" so you can watch the Woody Woodpecker cartoons on your frontal cortex is going to get things done any faster or better than grabbing some markers, paper and a stapler and going full-frontal trial-and-error.
But hey, you know how dey say in New Orleans: "Errybody got dey own Gumbo."
Extraordinarily well fucking said.
You want the luxury of feeling a little crazy? Here's a good one for you. Pick a chair in which you feel safe. Make a list of things you need to do. It can be a short list; three things is fine. Now, sit in that chair. Intermittently get up and walk from one room to another, trying to decide what thing to do first. Pick something, then retreat to your chair because the task seems impossibly daunting and you're sure you're going to fuck it up and you just need a few more minutes and then you'll be ready.
Repeat for a week.
Then a month.
Then a year.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 26, 2011, 07:51:50 PM
A less wrong post I thought was interesting.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/5dj/the_benefits_of_madness_a_positive_account_of/#more
QuoteThe ability to loosen one's associations and build bridges between disparate ideas seems to help us solve problems not amenable to direct, formal computation: to intuit mathematical truths before sitting down to prove them, for example, or to recognize that a pattern seen in one system is reflected in another, totally unrelated system. A state of mental excitation, even to the point of fervour, is also useful for overcoming akrasia, and promotes the quick thinking necessary when you don't have time to sit around and compute. If this is the case, then there is considerable benefit to be had in learning to depart from rationality in a safe and controlled manner. I say safe and controlled because, as we have seen, there are real dangers in overextending oneself; but with proper technique, I believe these dangers can be minimized while still reaping the benefits.
Ok, after reading the post in question, a few observations:
The story given is one where the author is bi-polar, and he relates how his mania caused him to focus intently on intellectual projects, but ultimately biting him on the ass when the passion outweighs the rationality, causing him to make mistakes; while his depressions were like a collapse of his entire worldview, which then needed to be rebuilt.
Oddly, the conclusion he reaches has little to do directly with his disorder: He basically says we can't all be Spock, nor should we. We should embrace our emotions and passions as fervently as we do our intellectualism. To use your emotions while engaging rationally.
In addition, the quote above sounds more like the funadmental equation of creativity: Try to relate two previously unrelated things. A simple rule, but sometimes it can be difficult if you can't free your mind up to think of something unrelated.
Unfortunately for Sig, and the author of the LessWrong post, the word "madness" was used, which tends to cause it's own discussion. In the case of the author, he actually suffers from Bi-Polar disorder, and he was trying to relate it to the way he currently thinks. Sig should have couched and caveat-ed the quote in a manner that addressed the use of the word, to limit the side discussion.
All in all, the LessWrong post was a bit disjointed, though it has one or two good ideas. I'd be willing to break it down and discuss further, if that would be interesting to anyone else.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 01:59:26 PM
Ok, after reading the post in question, a few observations:
The story given is one where the author is bi-polar, and he relates how his mania caused him to focus intently on intellectual projects, but ultimately biting him on the ass when the passion outweighs the rationality, causing him to make mistakes; while his depressions were like a collapse of his entire worldview, which then needed to be rebuilt.
Oddly, the conclusion he reaches has little to do directly with his disorder: He basically says we can't all be Spock, nor should we. We should embrace our emotions and passions as fervently as we do our intellectualism. To use your emotions while engaging rationally.
In addition, the quote above sounds more like the funadmental equation of creativity: Try to relate two previously unrelated things. A simple rule, but sometimes it can be difficult if you can't free your mind up to think of something unrelated.
And I'm saying it's a self-indulgent mistake...
especially with BiPolar disorder which has every bit of justification being referred to as a "madness" without a trace of irony.
Anyone struggling with a neurological pre-frontal disorder in
earnest knows that the
last thing you need to worry about is embracing your emotional/creative/illogical side. The last thing you need to worry about is being too
rational.
I know from experience that it's really easy to come up with complex, intellectual-sounding excuses to rationalize your own crazies...to "explore the recesses of your own, unique, snowflake fucking mind" in an attempt defer payment for later...to keep hitting the snooze button on the
work you gotta do to get a firm fucking grasp on reality before you can even entertain the thought of "embracing passion."
Only a robot with a Dissociative Disorder would see the need to incorporate passion into your rational works as some profound discovery. This isn't rocket science. Even the emotionally/psychiatrically
balanced of us don't really need to point something like that out because it's second nature. It's a no-brainer about as trite as saying shit like "Sometimes ya gotta stop and smell the roses" and "Dare to be different!" His whole blog was a scattered, overly-complex way of saying just those things.
He's full of shit and he knows it...but the dichotomy is that he believes his own shit and won't figure it out until later. Right now he's just having fun masturbating with his own shit-sandwich.
I agree. His conclusions seemed valid to me, but I objected to how he got there.
And as my physics teacher used to say, "Getting the process right is more important than getting the right answer."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 01:59:26 PM
I'd be willing to break it down and discuss further, if that would be interesting to anyone else.
BTW, I'm
always interested in what you have to say. You're my favorite breakbeat, dontcha know. ;)
I think the word "madness" doesn't always have to be synonymous with "mental illness".
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 05, 2011, 03:11:18 PM
I think the word "madness" doesn't always have to be synonymous with "mental illness".
Of course not. I partake in incredibly obnoxious, delightfully healthy, flushed-and-sweaty, eyes gleaming, ripped-stockings, lost shoe and where-the-fuck-did-I-park-my-car
madness all the time.
OP referred to it in the depraved, reduced cognitive functioning due to a clinical disorder sense.
I'm calling confirmation bias. That's not what I got out of it at all.
I only feel the need to bring it up because there's been a long-standing convention here of busting peoples' balls for anything resembling "FUCK YOU, MY MOTHER DIED FROM ****", and yet there has also been a long-standing convention here of "YOU CAN'T TAKE MENTAL ILLNESS LIGHTLY, NO NOT AT ALL, DON'T YOU KNOW THERE ARE ACTUAL MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE HERE?" and I don't see how this situation can exist without an unhealthy dose of cognitive dissonance.
This, as one might expect, is incredibly annoying to me.
Absolutely. Call me on it if you think you gotta.
What I'm saying is that he's full of shit and due to my unique set of life experiences and circumstances, I see it. It's not a point worthy of our time here but it seems like it might be because the writer baffles you with bullshit.
There's nothing wrong with looking at my batshit mental illness and laughing at it--laughing diminishes its power. There is an element of that healthy madness in doing just that. Whistling in the dark. Heckling and throwing fish at the mirror. Roger does it all the time and I absolutely love him for it.
What the writer of this piece is attempting to do is not accept and laugh at the absurdity of his lot, but rather, to bullshit himself into thinking he can somehow incorporate the gambling, the staying awake for 5 days in a row, the coke and meth benders, the tendancy to stalk girlfriends and spend money he doesn't have, the punching walls, and then the weeks of thinking about all the stupid shit he did in that phase and hating himself to the point where he wants to leave his landlord a 180 lb rent-check in the closet, hanging from his own belt.
That's about as realistic as me trying to incorporate three screaming, hungry monkeys with full diapers as my dates at a Mardi Gras Society ball or a charity function.
He's not laughing, he's trying to convince others that he's giving himself a hug.
Quote from: navkat on May 05, 2011, 03:44:30 PM
throwing fish at the mirror.
That's a great phrase. Is it yours?
There can also be strategic benefits to irrational behaviour:
QuoteWe have observed that the rationality of the adversary is pertinent to the efficacy of a threat, and that madmen, like small children, can often not be controlled by threats.
[...]
The apparent restrictiveness of an assumption of "rational" behavior -- of a calculating, value-maximizing strategy of decision -- is mitigated by two additional observations. One, which I can only allege at second hand, is that even among the emotionally unbalanced, among the certified "irrationals," there is often observed an intuitive appreciation of the principles of strategy, or at least of particular applications of them. I am told that inmates of mental hospitals often seem to cultivate, deliberately or instinctively, value systems that make them less susceptible to disciplinary threats and more capable of exercising coercion themselves. A careless or even self-destructive attitude toward injury -- "I'll cut a vein in my arm if you don't let me . . ." -- can be a genuine strategic advantage; so can a cultivated inability to hear or to comprehend, or a reputation for frequent lapses of self-control that make punitive threats ineffectual as deterrents. (Again I am reminded of my children.)
As a matter of fact, one of the advantages of an explicit theory of "rational" strategic decision in situations of mixed conflict and common interest is that, by showing the strategic basis of certain paradoxical tactics, it can display how sound and rational some of the tactics are that are practiced by the untutored and the infirm. It may not be an exaggeration to say that our sophistication sometimes suppresses sound intuitions, and one of the effects of an explicit theory may be to restore some intuitive notions that were only superficially "irrational."
The second observation is related to the first. It is that an explicit theory of "rational" decision, and of the strategic consequences of such decisions, makes perfectly clear that it is not a universal advantage in situations of conflict to be inalienably and manifestly rational in decision and motivation. Many of the attributes of rationality, as in several illustrations mentioned earlier, are strategic disabilities in certain conflict situations. It may be perfectly rational to wish oneself not altogether rational, or -- if that language is philosophically objectionable -- to wish for the power to suspend certain rational capabilities in particular situations. And one can suspend or destroy his own "rationality," at least to a limited extent; one can do this because the attributes that go to make up rationality are not inalienable, deeply personal, integral attributes of the human soul, but include such things as one's hearing aid, the reliability of the mails, the legal system, and the rationality of one's agents and partners. In principle, one might evade extortion equally well by drugging his brain, conspicuously isolating himself geographically, getting his assets legally impounded, or breaking the hand that he uses in signing checks.
In a theory of strategy, several of these defenses can be represented as impairments of rationality if we wish to represent them so. A theory that makes rationality an explicit postulate is able not only to modify the postulate and examine its meaning but to take some of the mystery out of it. As a matter of fact, the paradoxical role of "rationality" in these conflict situations is evidence of the likely help that a systematic theory could provide.
And the results reached by a theoretical analysis of strategic behavior are often somewhat paradoxical; they often do contradict common sense or accepted rules. It is not true, as illustrated in the example of extortion, that in the face of a threat it is invariably an advantage to be rational, particularly if the fact of being rational or irrational cannot be concealed. It is not invariably an advantage, in the face of a threat, to have a communication system in good order, to have complete information, or to be in full command of one's own actions or of one's own assets. Mossadeq and my small children have already been referred to; but the same tactic is illustrated by the burning of bridges behind oneself to persuade an adversary that one cannot be induced to retreat. An old English law that made it a serious crime to pay tribute to coastal pirates does not necessarily appear either cruel or anomalous in the light of a theory of strategy. It is interesting that political democracy itself relies on a particular communication system in which the transmittal of authentic evidence is precluded: the mandatory secret ballot is a scheme to deny the voter any means of proving which way he voted. Being stripped of his power to prove how he voted, he is stripped of his power to be intimidated. Powerless to prove whether or not he complied with a threat, he knows -- and so do those who would threaten him -- that any punishment would be unrelated to the way he actually voted.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 03:45:49 PM
Quote from: navkat on May 05, 2011, 03:44:30 PM
throwing fish at the mirror.
That's a great phrase. Is it yours?
Directly from my ass and into your FAYCE.
Cain, what's that from? It's dense, but accurate.
Oh, sorry. Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (http://www.scribd.com/doc/33276095/Schelling-The-Strategy-of-Conflict).
Diego Gambetta's How Criminals Communicate: Codes of the Underworld uses Schelling's framework with a particular focus on actual criminal behaviour, if you like that sort of thing. It's a natural companion to the above, since criminals do so many things which don't make much sense, inititally.
Quote from: navkat on May 05, 2011, 03:20:59 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 05, 2011, 03:11:18 PM
I think the word "madness" doesn't always have to be synonymous with "mental illness".
Of course not. I partake in incredibly obnoxious, delightfully healthy, flushed-and-sweaty, eyes gleaming, ripped-stockings, lost shoe and where-the-fuck-did-I-park-my-car madness all the time.
OP referred to it in the depraved, reduced cognitive functioning due to a clinical disorder sense.
Oi, I take exception to that. I'm perfectly comfortable with my madness, always have been, [/irony] but depravity is something entirely other.
Ack--
LMNO was on the money when he said I could have framed the discussion more delicately.
Cain, that x-post was great. I should look into that author for more.
Schelling is good, especially if you've already read up on Game Theory. The RAND Corporation archives may have some of his papers for free download.
Quote from: navkat on May 05, 2011, 03:44:30 PM
Absolutely. Call me on it if you think you gotta.
What I'm saying is that he's full of shit and due to my unique set of life experiences and circumstances, I see it. It's not a point worthy of our time here but it seems like it might be because the writer baffles you with bullshit.
There's nothing wrong with looking at my batshit mental illness and laughing at it--laughing diminishes its power. There is an element of that healthy madness in doing just that. Whistling in the dark. Heckling and throwing fish at the mirror. Roger does it all the time and I absolutely love him for it.
What the writer of this piece is attempting to do is not accept and laugh at the absurdity of his lot, but rather, to bullshit himself into thinking he can somehow incorporate the gambling, the staying awake for 5 days in a row, the coke and meth benders, the tendancy to stalk girlfriends and spend money he doesn't have, the punching walls, and then the weeks of thinking about all the stupid shit he did in that phase and hating himself to the point where he wants to leave his landlord a 180 lb rent-check in the closet, hanging from his own belt.
That's about as realistic as me trying to incorporate three screaming, hungry monkeys with full diapers as my dates at a Mardi Gras Society ball or a charity function.
He's not laughing, he's trying to convince others that he's giving himself a hug.
This.
AND, if you check out the link I posted before, he appears to have been inspired by the Scientific American article, but ran with the idea in an extremely self-indulgent (and flat out wrong) direction, only to present essentially a similar, if disjointed, conclusion at the end. I've seen people with bipolar disorder say extremely similar things while they were cruising the mania spiral... usually just before taking off on an energy bender that would destroy their lives and careers, and leave them drained, listless, and suicidal.
Yeah. "use it" baby. Use it all up until it's burned out and dead... that's how to rock "the benefits" of madness.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-unleashed-mind
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 05:48:44 PM
Schelling is good, especially if you've already read up on Game Theory. The RAND Corporation archives may have some of his papers for free download.
You know what book I would buy?
Everything Cain Knows (for Dummies).
Srsly.
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 05:48:44 PM
Schelling is good, especially if you've already read up on Game Theory. The RAND Corporation archives may have some of his papers for free download.
I wasn't even aware that RAND had public archives. Score. :D
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 05:53:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 05:48:44 PM
Schelling is good, especially if you've already read up on Game Theory. The RAND Corporation archives may have some of his papers for free download.
You know what book I would buy?
Everything Cain Knows (for Dummies).
Srsly.
I would prefer the ebook. I don't like carrying really heavy things around.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 05, 2011, 03:26:12 PM
I only feel the need to bring it up because there's been a long-standing convention here of busting peoples' balls for anything resembling "FUCK YOU, MY MOTHER DIED FROM ****", and yet there has also been a long-standing convention here of "YOU CAN'T TAKE MENTAL ILLNESS LIGHTLY, NO NOT AT ALL, DON'T YOU KNOW THERE ARE ACTUAL MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE HERE?" and I don't see how this situation can exist without an unhealthy dose of cognitive dissonance.
This, as one might expect, is incredibly annoying to me.
Cognitive dissonance? No, I don't see any. Here's why; the first case is an issue of retaining a sense of humor at things that are bad. Can we laugh at mental illness? FUCK YEAH OF COURSE WE CAN, AND SHOULD! Especially when it's our own!
The second is simply a bad example, because it has nothing to do with "taking mental illness lightly". It has to do with people who are not mentally ill trying to exotify it, claim a piece of it for themselves to make themselves special magic precious unicorn princess fairies.
:hosrie:
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 05:53:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 05:48:44 PM
Schelling is good, especially if you've already read up on Game Theory. The RAND Corporation archives may have some of his papers for free download.
You know what book I would buy?
Everything Cain Knows (for Dummies).
Srsly.
I would prefer the ebook. I don't like carrying really heavy things around.
I'd clear space on my Kindle for that.
The only "benefit" I derived from my little bout was that I lost some friends.
One thing I thank God for every day is that my case was temporary - mild setbacks notwithstanding - and I got better. I can't imagine what life must be like for seriously mentally ill people that don't get better.
It really, truly, isn't about that kind. I regret including the M word in the title.
QuoteIf Less Wrong is simply about improving our techniques of rationality, then much of our work is already done: the voluminous Sequences encode both the core ideas and many of the consequences of good critical thinking, and we are left quibbling about subtleties of anthropic reasoning and speculating about AI design. If, however, we wish to use every advantage afforded by our mental constitution, then we should be studying ecstasy and passion. In fact, this generalizes to a wide variety of affective states; indeed, there have been some posts mentioning more effective managing of emotions, social skills, and so on, but not many concrete suggestions have been made. This is not surprising: much of the scientific research that has been done on emotions is either about business-as-usual or about treating serious pathologies.
I don't think anyone's saying that we can turn schizophrenia, paranoia, or severe anxiety into magical superpowers that save the day. I think the idea here is that there are other useful mindsets than "cold" rationality, a la doctor Spock.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 06:21:18 PM
It really, truly, isn't about that kind. I regret including the M word in the title.
QuoteIf Less Wrong is simply about improving our techniques of rationality, then much of our work is already done: the voluminous Sequences encode both the core ideas and many of the consequences of good critical thinking, and we are left quibbling about subtleties of anthropic reasoning and speculating about AI design. If, however, we wish to use every advantage afforded by our mental constitution, then we should be studying ecstasy and passion. In fact, this generalizes to a wide variety of affective states; indeed, there have been some posts mentioning more effective managing of emotions, social skills, and so on, but not many concrete suggestions have been made. This is not surprising: much of the scientific research that has been done on emotions is either about business-as-usual or about treating serious pathologies.
I don't think anyone's saying that we can turn schizophrenia, paranoia, or severe anxiety into magical superpowers that save the day. I think the idea here is that there are other useful mindsets than "cold" rationality, a la doctor Spock.
Some things can't - or shouldn't - be quantified. Who wants to analyze a fantasic sexual experience, or the feeling you get when you accomplish something difficult and rewarding? Sometimes it's okay to just live life and enjoy the good bits.
I would instead propose that we study the way the world and the universe actually is, because 99% of the BAD times are caused by making decisions based on bad signal or irrational beliefs.
To be fair, Less Wrong do that a lot as well. In fact, in their archives, they have entire books worth of posts on cognitive biases and how people form irrational beliefs.
I think they just got bored with that and wanted to branch out a little.
I'm not about to pick apart my own happiness with tweezers, I can see what you mean.
I'm just trying to decide whether there's anything worth thinking about in this LessWrong post.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 06:30:19 PM
I'm not about to pick apart my own happiness with tweezers, I can see what you mean.
I'm just trying to decide whether there's anything worth thinking about in this LessWrong post.
There's probably something worth thinking about in ANY post. (Okay, maybe not some of the ones GIGGLES puts up, but...)
Yeah, it's occasionally useful to be able to look at things from another angle, but it's hardly a solve-all. Heck, I can get another perspective with a deck of tarot cards, no insanity required.
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 06:28:07 PM
To be fair, Less Wrong do that a lot as well. In fact, in their archives, they have entire books worth of posts on cognitive biases and how people form irrational beliefs.
I think they just got bored with that and wanted to branch out a little.
Also, Elizer didn't write that post. Some boardmember did. I suspect he's not one of the brightest.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 06:30:19 PM
I'm not about to pick apart my own happiness with tweezers, I can see what you mean.
I'm just trying to decide whether there's anything worth thinking about in this LessWrong post.
Oh, sure. I was just saying that you eat the HELL out of that cheeseburger. There's no need to pull it apart and catagorize the results. I wasn't implying that you did, I was just putting forward my own personal viewpoint.
Quote from: Luna on May 05, 2011, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 06:30:19 PM
I'm not about to pick apart my own happiness with tweezers, I can see what you mean.
I'm just trying to decide whether there's anything worth thinking about in this LessWrong post.
There's probably something worth thinking about in ANY post. (Okay, maybe not some of the ones GIGGLES puts up, but...)
Yeah, it's occasionally useful to be able to look at things from another angle, but it's hardly a solve-all. Heck, I can get another perspective with a deck of tarot cards, no insanity required.
WTF? I use GIGGLES' posts to divine the future.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 06:33:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 06:28:07 PM
To be fair, Less Wrong do that a lot as well. In fact, in their archives, they have entire books worth of posts on cognitive biases and how people form irrational beliefs.
I think they just got bored with that and wanted to branch out a little.
Also, Elizer didn't write that post. Some boardmember did. I suspect he's not one of the brightest.
Usually, Elizier, Yvain, Alicorn and Anna Salamon are worth reading.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 05, 2011, 06:34:42 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 05, 2011, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 06:30:19 PM
I'm not about to pick apart my own happiness with tweezers, I can see what you mean.
I'm just trying to decide whether there's anything worth thinking about in this LessWrong post.
There's probably something worth thinking about in ANY post. (Okay, maybe not some of the ones GIGGLES puts up, but...)
Yeah, it's occasionally useful to be able to look at things from another angle, but it's hardly a solve-all. Heck, I can get another perspective with a deck of tarot cards, no insanity required.
WTF? I use GIGGLES' posts to divine the future.
I am not as Holy
TM as you are, and can not use those to divine anything, save, occasionally, what I ate last.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 06:33:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 06:28:07 PM
To be fair, Less Wrong do that a lot as well. In fact, in their archives, they have entire books worth of posts on cognitive biases and how people form irrational beliefs.
I think they just got bored with that and wanted to branch out a little.
Also, Elizer didn't write that post. Some boardmember did. I suspect he's not one of the brightest.
I noticed that after reading the first paragraph. I was a bit confused for a moment.
The only thing Eliezer bothered saying about it was "write your sequence, see if it works".
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 05:57:00 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 05, 2011, 03:26:12 PM
I only feel the need to bring it up because there's been a long-standing convention here of busting peoples' balls for anything resembling "FUCK YOU, MY MOTHER DIED FROM ****", and yet there has also been a long-standing convention here of "YOU CAN'T TAKE MENTAL ILLNESS LIGHTLY, NO NOT AT ALL, DON'T YOU KNOW THERE ARE ACTUAL MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE HERE?" and I don't see how this situation can exist without an unhealthy dose of cognitive dissonance.
This, as one might expect, is incredibly annoying to me.
Cognitive dissonance? No, I don't see any. Here's why; the first case is an issue of retaining a sense of humor at things that are bad. Can we laugh at mental illness? FUCK YEAH OF COURSE WE CAN, AND SHOULD! Especially when it's our own!
The second is simply a bad example, because it has nothing to do with "taking mental illness lightly". It has to do with people who are not mentally ill trying to exotify it, claim a piece of it for themselves to make themselves special magic precious unicorn princess fairies.
:hosrie:
I totally agree, it just rubs me the wrong way that so frequently the deservedly mocking responses to that sort of idiocy are liberally interspersed with "SO-AND-SO HERE IS ACTUALLY MENTALLY ILL, ASSHOLE, YOU'RE A BIG FUCKING JERK FOR THINKING IT'S SOMETHING THAT MAKES YOU COOL" when it actually doesn't make them a big fucking jerk, just a small and probably inconsequential jackass.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 05, 2011, 07:09:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 05:57:00 PM
Cognitive dissonance? No, I don't see any. Here's why; the first case is an issue of retaining a sense of humor at things that are bad. Can we laugh at mental illness? FUCK YEAH OF COURSE WE CAN, AND SHOULD! Especially when it's our own!
The second is simply a bad example, because it has nothing to do with "taking mental illness lightly". It has to do with people who are not mentally ill trying to exotify it, claim a piece of it for themselves to make themselves special magic precious unicorn princess fairies.
:hosrie:
I totally agree, it just rubs me the wrong way that so frequently the deservedly mocking responses to that sort of idiocy are liberally interspersed with "SO-AND-SO HERE IS ACTUALLY MENTALLY ILL, ASSHOLE, YOU'RE A BIG FUCKING JERK FOR THINKING IT'S SOMETHING THAT MAKES YOU COOL" when it actually doesn't make them a big fucking jerk, just a small and probably inconsequential jackass.
*Shrug* We're mentally ill...we overreact.
Overreaction is always appropriate, anyway.
It's like tshirt and jeans; Hasn't been out of fashion since it was invented.
Tell a joke once, it's comedy.
Same joke three times: tragedy.
Same joke ten times: comedy again...like watching the Jif cat eat peanut butter.
(http://images.funadvice.com/photo/image/old/8622/large/cat_eating_peanut_butter.gif)
IT'S SO STUPID, WHY DO I KEEP LAUGHING AT THIS?
WTF, JENN, HE'S JUST CHEWING.
I think that madness is a trick word that tends to get abused. It can mean mental illness and it can mean foolishness and/or senselessness. I think that behaving in a foolish/senseless/silly manner can indeed be healthy and useful. It's the fictional Mad Hero, like the Hatter in Wonderland, Willy Wonka and Hunter S Thompson. While all of them may also have been ill (mercury poison, obsessive compulsive, crazy drug overload etc), their oddity is celebrated and the beloved nature of the character is based on their 'madness'.
"A little madness now and then, is relished by the wisest men."
The eighteenth century and nineteenth century are full of the same kind of thinking, often treating as synonyms "madness, quirky, unserious, demented, foolish, absurdity". In retrospect, we can often see dementia, mercury poisoning and other physical causes in many of the cases... but the legend, the myth continues onward. If we consider Kerry Thornley, we can see great creativity in his madness... but there was also some serious badwrong aspects to his madness as well. The same for our beloved Emperor Norton. Norton was respected by many, including Sam Clemens, but in the end he was also ill and suffered from serious problems. Its this myth that we struggle with... the trying to explain the value of not being serious, of being absurd or silly.. and invariably, due to hundreds of years of use the term madness gets tossed in. In return, people with actual illnesses may try to justify their behavior by invoking the myth of madness.
"Madness" in one sense can be incredibly freeing, in another sense entirely debilitating. If the context indicates that an author is using it as a synonym for 'absurd' then I don' think its a problem. If they're using it to justify mental illness, that seems unhealthy. It falls to the reader to determine the context, and for some who suffer (or have family that suffers) from a real illness, it can be a word the evokes a very visceral response.
Those who choose to use the term 'madness' should be careful and clear in how they use it... as Inigo Montoya said, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 05, 2011, 11:11:31 PM
I think that madness is a trick word that tends to get abused. It can mean mental illness and it can mean foolishness and/or senselessness. I think that behaving in a foolish/senseless/silly manner can indeed be healthy and useful. It's the fictional Mad Hero, like the Hatter in Wonderland, Willy Wonka and Hunter S Thompson. While all of them may also have been ill (mercury poison, obsessive compulsive, crazy drug overload etc), their oddity is celebrated and the beloved nature of the character is based on their 'madness'.
"A little madness now and then, is relished by the wisest men."
The eighteenth century and nineteenth century are full of the same kind of thinking, often treating as synonyms "madness, quirky, unserious, demented, foolish, absurdity". In retrospect, we can often see dementia, mercury poisoning and other physical causes in many of the cases... but the legend, the myth continues onward. If we consider Kerry Thornley, we can see great creativity in his madness... but there was also some serious badwrong aspects to his madness as well. The same for our beloved Emperor Norton. Norton was respected by many, including Sam Clemens, but in the end he was also ill and suffered from serious problems. Its this myth that we struggle with... the trying to explain the value of not being serious, of being absurd or silly.. and invariably, due to hundreds of years of use the term madness gets tossed in. In return, people with actual illnesses may try to justify their behavior by invoking the myth of madness.
"Madness" in one sense can be incredibly freeing, in another sense entirely debilitating. If the context indicates that an author is using it as a synonym for 'absurd' then I don' think its a problem. If they're using it to justify mental illness, that seems unhealthy. It falls to the reader to determine the context, and for some who suffer (or have family that suffers) from a real illness, it can be a word the evokes a very visceral response.
Those who choose to use the term 'madness' should be careful and clear in how they use it... as Inigo Montoya said, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
This.
Madness can also refer to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJOLwy7un3U).
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2011, 01:16:40 PM
Madness can also refer to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJOLwy7un3U).
HEY, YOU! DON'T LISTEN TO THAT, LISTEN TO THIS!
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2011, 01:16:40 PM
Madness can also refer to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJOLwy7un3U).
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2011, 01:16:40 PM
Madness can also refer to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJOLwy7un3U).
What the fuck...
The way I see it is that certain disorders (bipolar especially) by their very nature lend themselves to highly creative thinking. A lot of great artists have suffered from this. Notice I said "suffered" cos it aint a fucking hours meditation, it's your life and for the 99% of the time that you aint painting Starry Night or writing the Goon Show it's a goddamn nightmare. Still, if that's the hand your dealt you might as well take advantage of the positives and do something creative whenever you find yourself in the "genius zone"
As for non-mentally ill people who want to try it out? Forget it - Madness cannot be faked. Even psychedellics (closest thing I've tried to the real thing) are a pale imitation. The OP dude strikes me as someone who's half way between trying to justify his disorder to himself and others and someone who's in serious danger of getting his fingers burned. You work on balancing your swings, not trying to fly for shits and giggles.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 06, 2011, 04:30:41 PM
The way I see it is that certain disorders (bipolar especially) by their very nature lend themselves to highly creative thinking. A lot of great artists have suffered from this. Notice I said "suffered" cos it aint a fucking hours meditation, it's your life and for the 99% of the time that you aint painting Starry Night or writing the Goon Show it's a goddamn nightmare. Still, if that's the hand your dealt you might as well take advantage of the positives and do something creative whenever you find yourself in the "genius zone"
As for non-mentally ill people who want to try it out? Forget it - Madness cannot be faked. Even psychedellics (closest thing I've tried to the real thing) are a pale imitation. The OP dude strikes me as someone who's half way between trying to justify his disorder to himself and others and someone who's in serious danger of getting his fingers burned. You work on balancing your swings, not trying to fly for shits and giggles.
This is the correct motorcycle.
P3NT4GR4M nailed it, right there.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 06, 2011, 04:30:41 PM
The way I see it is that certain disorders (bipolar especially) by their very nature lend themselves to highly creative thinking. A lot of great artists have suffered from this. Notice I said "suffered" cos it aint a fucking hours meditation, it's your life and for the 99% of the time that you aint painting Starry Night or writing the Goon Show it's a goddamn nightmare. Still, if that's the hand your dealt you might as well take advantage of the positives and do something creative whenever you find yourself in the "genius zone"
As for non-mentally ill people who want to try it out? Forget it - Madness cannot be faked. Even psychedellics (closest thing I've tried to the real thing) are a pale imitation. The OP dude strikes me as someone who's half way between trying to justify his disorder to himself and others and someone who's in serious danger of getting his fingers burned. You work on balancing your swings, not trying to fly for shits and giggles.
YESSSS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!
Interestingly, one of the few times PD reached consensus in one of my threads, and the decision is that madness should be avoided.
Just as soon as I think I've got this place figured out...
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 07, 2011, 01:45:32 AM
Interestingly, one of the few times PD reached consensus in one of my threads, and the decision is that madness should be avoided.
Just as soon as I think I've got this place figured out...
:lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 07, 2011, 01:45:32 AM
Interestingly, one of the few times PD reached consensus in one of my threads, and the decision is that madness should be avoided.
Just as soon as I think I've got this place figured out...
Some of us are mad, and others are just angry.
Mad SCIENCE
Or
Angry SCIENCE
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 07, 2011, 07:55:42 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 07, 2011, 01:45:32 AM
Interestingly, one of the few times PD reached consensus in one of my threads, and the decision is that madness should be avoided.
Just as soon as I think I've got this place figured out...
Some of us are mad, and others are just angry.
Mad SCIENCE
Or
Angry SCIENCE
Angry Scientist: [In the pilot episode] I'm not mad, I'm angry, I am an Angry Scientist.
General Specific: Yes of course, perhaps you could show us your "mad weapon".
Angry Scientist: ANG-GU-REE weapon!
"ANG-GU-REE!, I AM THE ANG-GU-REE SCIENTIST!!!"
"Why are you not my Englishness be understanding? All the timing with that."
"Hey! What are you in the doing of?!"
/
/
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs25/f/2008/032/e/3/e357e04baaccb1e5.jpg)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_in_the_Big_City]
Ozzy - a study in the real thing
You're up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urd1blwS6oM)
then you're down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiEJOzAVAXc)
Quote from: Telarus on May 07, 2011, 08:06:19 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 07, 2011, 07:55:42 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 07, 2011, 01:45:32 AM
Interestingly, one of the few times PD reached consensus in one of my threads, and the decision is that madness should be avoided.
Just as soon as I think I've got this place figured out...
Some of us are mad, and others are just angry.
Mad SCIENCE
Or
Angry SCIENCE
Angry Scientist: [In the pilot episode] I'm not mad, I'm angry, I am an Angry Scientist.
General Specific: Yes of course, perhaps you could show us your "mad weapon".
Angry Scientist: ANG-GU-REE weapon!
"ANG-GU-REE!, I AM THE ANG-GU-REE SCIENTIST!!!"
"Why are you not my Englishness be understanding? All the timing with that."
"Hey! What are you in the doing of?!"
/
/
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs25/f/2008/032/e/3/e357e04baaccb1e5.jpg)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_in_the_Big_City]
I was totally unaware of this. :lulz:
I was referencing Dr. Putrid T. Gangreen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Killer_Tomatoes:_The_Animated_Series
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 07, 2011, 01:45:32 AM
Interestingly, one of the few times PD reached consensus in one of my threads, and the decision is that madness should be avoided.
Just as soon as I think I've got this place figured out...
Your brain turning traitor on itself can hardly be considered "thinking for yourself".
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 07, 2011, 01:45:32 AM
Interestingly, one of the few times PD reached consensus in one of my threads, and the decision is that madness should be avoided.
Just as soon as I think I've got this place figured out...
The only beneficial madness is MAD SCIENCE. Everything else is just your brain trying to kill you, so it can be moved into a jar and take over the world.
Heh. I have sometimes had the thought that "I am not my brain, and my brain is not necessarily my friend."
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
Heh. I have sometimes had the thought that "I am not my brain, and my brain is not necessarily my friend."
I AM my brain, and I can't stand sharing a skull with myself.
TGRR,
Off to see about a trepaning.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 09, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
Heh. I have sometimes had the thought that "I am not my brain, and my brain is not necessarily my friend."
I AM my brain, and I can't stand sharing a skull with myself.
TGRR,
Off to see about a trepaning.
Mine tried to kill me this morning.
I shouldn't let it talk while I'm trying to drive.
Quote from: Luna on May 09, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 09, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
Heh. I have sometimes had the thought that "I am not my brain, and my brain is not necessarily my friend."
I AM my brain, and I can't stand sharing a skull with myself.
TGRR,
Off to see about a trepaning.
Mine tried to kill me this morning.
I shouldn't let it talk while I'm trying to drive.
Sometimes you have to discipline it. Chew on tinfoil til it shuts up.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 09, 2011, 09:16:33 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 09, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 09, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
Heh. I have sometimes had the thought that "I am not my brain, and my brain is not necessarily my friend."
I AM my brain, and I can't stand sharing a skull with myself.
TGRR,
Off to see about a trepaning.
Mine tried to kill me this morning.
I shouldn't let it talk while I'm trying to drive.
Sometimes you have to discipline it. Chew on tinfoil til it shuts up.
No fillings. Chewing on tinfoil is just annoying.
Quote from: Luna on May 09, 2011, 09:18:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 09, 2011, 09:16:33 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 09, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 09, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
Heh. I have sometimes had the thought that "I am not my brain, and my brain is not necessarily my friend."
I AM my brain, and I can't stand sharing a skull with myself.
TGRR,
Off to see about a trepaning.
Mine tried to kill me this morning.
I shouldn't let it talk while I'm trying to drive.
Sometimes you have to discipline it. Chew on tinfoil til it shuts up.
No fillings. Chewing on tinfoil is just annoying.
Then stick a couple of pennies under your tongue. That'll teach the bastard.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 09, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
Heh. I have sometimes had the thought that "I am not my brain, and my brain is not necessarily my friend."
I AM my brain, and I can't stand sharing a skull with myself.
TGRR,
Off to see about a trepaning.
Are you though? I mean, psychologically maybe, but artefacts of you exist in other people's heads, and in the artefacts that you leave behind. On this forum, for example.
At least, that's how I look at it. When people tell me they hear my voice in their head, I consider that almost as "me" as when I personally talk, because it's just an independent impression of myself in the world. Like if there was a virtual sigmatic on some computer, I'd also consider that "me".
I take a pretty broad view of ego and mind, though.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:19:30 PM
Are you though? I mean, psychologically maybe, but artefacts of you exist in other people's heads, and in the artefacts that you leave behind. On this forum, for example.
Quit taking the piss. You know that's just going to lead to some awful shit involving flinging bits of Hemmingway and Kipling's putrid corpses around.
I don't think I'm taking the piss. I'm just a product of shitty information age postmodernism. I own that, and I wish it wasn't so.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:25:39 PM
I don't think I'm taking the piss. I'm just a product of shitty information age postmodernism. I own that, and I wish it wasn't so.
So fix it.
I'm trying to fix it by deciding philosophy's dead and talking about it as little as possible. Postmodernism just taught me that people will say meaningless shit to sound clever, so do I sometimes, and people should get tazed for doing it. Now I treat everything that isn't empirical as art or garbage.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:30:16 PM
I'm trying to fix it by deciding philosophy's dead and talking about it as little as possible. Postmodernism just taught me that people will say meaningless shit to sound clever, so do I sometimes, and people should get tazed for doing it. Now I treat everything that isn't empirical as art or garbage.
Yeah, down that road rests a tall bike, Buddy Holly glasses, and a fur-trimmed coat with your name on them.
Nnng.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 09, 2011, 09:46:00 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:30:16 PM
I'm trying to fix it by deciding philosophy's dead and talking about it as little as possible. Postmodernism just taught me that people will say meaningless shit to sound clever, so do I sometimes, and people should get tazed for doing it. Now I treat everything that isn't empirical as art or garbage.
Yeah, down that road rests a tall bike, Buddy Holly glasses, and a fur-trimmed coat with your name on them.
If that doesn't scare your brain straight, we could go back to the trepanning idea...
This is about "scaring me straight"? I presented the article in the OP as "of interest". I think you ascribe enthusiasm to me that is not there.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:19:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 09, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
Heh. I have sometimes had the thought that "I am not my brain, and my brain is not necessarily my friend."
I AM my brain, and I can't stand sharing a skull with myself.
TGRR,
Off to see about a trepaning.
Are you though? I mean, psychologically maybe, but artefacts of you exist in other people's heads, and in the artefacts that you leave behind. On this forum, for example.
At least, that's how I look at it. When people tell me they hear my voice in their head, I consider that almost as "me" as when I personally talk, because it's just an independent impression of myself in the world. Like if there was a virtual sigmatic on some computer, I'd also consider that "me".
I take a pretty broad view of ego and mind, though.
:wank:
Fixed that for ya.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 10, 2011, 01:55:43 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 10, 2011, 01:55:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 10, 2011, 01:53:06 AM
Fixed that for ya.
hahahahahaha! Oh my god.
I can't believe we didn't have a wank emote.
Now I need "wanker".
Rummage...
(http://lllipgloss.com/wp-content/uploads/5589_diagnosis_wanker.jpg)
Do we have :pedant:?
A picture of Requia, maybe?
Quote from: Nigel on May 10, 2011, 02:05:52 AM
Do we have :pedant:?
A picture of Requia, maybe?
Pretty sure Requia has never posted a pic.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 10, 2011, 02:11:04 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 10, 2011, 02:05:52 AM
Do we have :pedant:?
A picture of Requia, maybe?
Pretty sure Requia has never posted a pic.
Yeah, actually I've noticed that. She's too busy being wrong to post pics.
This is why I generally avoid talking about it. I'll go back to doing that.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 10, 2011, 03:37:54 AM
This is why I generally avoid talking about it. I'll go back to doing that.
There's no reason to quit now.