Me

[Ribald]

Hello, I am Ribald. I am an INTP.

Really, I am kind of like an INTP's INTP. What that means I need to warn you about is that I can be abrasive. I tend to simply disregard people's feelings in discussions about right and wrong, and they feel belittled (or so I am to understand) when corrected without the appropriate tact.

Now, I have tried this "tact" people speak of, and frankly it doesn't work for me. The truth is, though, that I don't intend to be malicious and I actually would like people to talk to me the same way. It's not that I go out of my way to insult anyone. It just seems to be a byproduct of putting truth before tact... kind of like Sheldon in Big Bang Theory, I suppose, but not as hair-splitting. I really don't like that show, though. I'd like it more if people actually looked up to Sheldon and listened to his arguments. There are so many times when they should be saying things like "wow, that is a really good point" or "you just entirely rendered everything I'm saying moot."

It's not about ego or feelings to me. I just want to be right. If someone can correct me, that's fantastic. I want to learn. My only request is that the person take the time to explain their reasoning. If they aren't going to bother to do that, why reply at all? That said, I do not like name-calling or insults, and I don't engage in them. The worst I will do is simply tell someone they are wrong, or perhaps express disbelief that someone actually thinks something so absurd.

Anyway, I am into science, history, and philosophy. I spend my days reading and learning about them. My thoughts are dominated by the singularity. I have slightly more hope than fear for it. This is where I get my purpose in life, actually. I think for things to go well in the future, people are going to have to wake up and stop believing in nonsense like religion (for one). There is this ignorantly scary conservative streak in the human mind that I also try to combat. For instance, when anesthesia was adopted in the 1840s, many cried out about its evils and insisted that operations like amputations should be done to people fully conscious.... because God, or something.

I see the same kind of thing happening throughout history, and today. The main culprit today, other than plain delusion, is emotional pain. For most of my life, I was a believer in emotional pain. "No pain no gain" I thought. I've since changed my mind. I used to think that pain actually served a purpose, even if a divine one. It doesn't. I was usually not religious, but I always was a bit superstitious, and it turns out those are the same. This thinking culminated as my diffuse superstitions unexpectedly coalesced last year and I became a religious fanatic for a few months. I thought that if I made myself suffer enough, God would appear to me. I spent nights in misery, and after so many I realized I had done all I could do--if he hadn't appeared yet, he never would. So that ended that.

My thoughts are better expressed by transhumanist David Pearce, who wrote the Hedonistic Imperative. He also wrote a critique of Brave New World, which I like to get as many people to read as possible, because it is both mindblowing and essential. It can be found at www.huxley.net.

Gone on too long already. Cya 'round.

 

[Black Rose]

How do you think the Cybernetic Dreamtime will turn out?

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/post-transhumanism-and-the-cybernetic-dreamtime-of-the-2030s

 

[Ribald]

How do you think the Cybernetic Dreamtime will turn out?

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/post-transhumanism-and-the-cybernetic-dreamtime-of-the-2030s

I think the idea is compelling and could well come to fruition. I will say I am mostly a believer in simplicity regarding the future, though. The exponential trend line is the only thing I believe that can be truly relied on. The manifestations it brings about are truly unpredictable.

One thing I think will be most interesting is that once we unlock our understanding of the mind, tons of new experiences will be open to us. Forget space being the final frontier! Anyone who has ever done psychedelics knows the mind itself contains infinite universes more strange than the sober mind could ever dream. I think we will explore and inhabit these headspaces, but without the disastrous unpredictability and fleetingness that is offered by today's entheogens.

I did see a thread about the Fermi Paradox when I was browsing here a few minutes ago, it may have been yours, and I tended to agree with the notion that it is possible that aliens in our universe may simply get so immersed in virtual worlds they create that the larger physical universe ceases to be of interest. The only problem I have with that conclusion is that I would consider myself a utilitarian, and I think it is somewhat of an imperative to explore the universe and "rescue" other civilizations and bring them any benefits we can.

Then again, the energy requirements of a warp drive could be too prohibitive. Honestly it is all just speculation. Again, all I truly know and assume is exponential change.

 

[BigApplePi]

Hello, I am Ribald. I am an INTP.

Welcome to this dangerous Forum. Is that avatar you? I'm just curious.

Really, I am kind of like an INTP's INTP. What that means I need to warn you about is that I can be abrasive. I tend to simply disregard people's feelings in discussions about right and wrong, and they feel belittled (or so I am to understand) when corrected without the appropriate tact.

Perhaps if they show feelings those are irrelevant to facts or logic. Feelings could be the package. Ignore the package at your own risk.

It just seems to be a byproduct of putting truth before tact... kind of like Sheldon in Big Bang Theory, I suppose, but not as hair-splitting. I really don't like that show, though. I'd like it more if people actually looked up to Sheldon and listened to his arguments.

I don't know this Sheldon and haven't looked up his arguments because I didn't feel like it. (I hope that's not too rude.) Do you want to say something about those arguments? That interests me.

It's not about ego or feelings to me. I just want to be right. If someone can correct me, that's fantastic.

Here is a correction: you have feelings about being right.

I want to learn. My only request is that the person take the time to explain their reasoning. If they aren't going to bother to do that, why reply at all? That said, I do not like name-calling or insults, and I don't engage in them. The worst I will do is simply tell someone they are wrong, or perhaps express disbelief that someone actually thinks something so absurd.

I can dig that. I like to explain what I say but if it's complicated I fail.

Anyway, I am into science, history, and philosophy.

I go for philosophy to understand stuff, psychology to understand people and accurate thinking to avoid something thrown in my face.

 

[Ribald]

Welcome to this dangerous Forum. Is that avatar you? I'm just curious.

Wow, I wish. No, it is Selena Gomez. I actually think it is kind of an obnoxious avatar, but I've found that avatars tend to influence people's perceptions of posts, and the best outcome is always obtained with hot and sexy women. So I chose one I find beautiful.

Perhaps if they show feelings those are irrelevant to facts or logic. Feelings could be the package. Ignore the package at your own risk.

I don't know this Sheldon and haven't looked up his arguments because I didn't feel like it. (I hope that's not too rude.) Do you want to say something about those arguments? That interests me.


Here is a correction: you have feelings about being right.

Sheldon is a character on an American TV show about nerds who try to get girls called Big Bang Theory. He is the super-nerd of the bunch, and is actually more of an asexual than the other 3. Stereotypes galore, kind of offensive in a way, but I can't help but laugh at some of his lines. My favorite:

*hot girl (Penny) storms out of their apartment in fit of rage*
Leonard: She doesn’t want to talk.
Sheldon: Not surprising. Penny’s emotional responses originate from the primitive portion of the brain known as the Amygdala, while speech is centered in the much more recently developed Neocortex. The former can easily overpower the latter, giving scientific credence to the notion of being rendered speechless…
Leonard: *Blank stare*
Sheldon: or maybe she just doesn’t want to talk.

 

[Base groove]

Wow, I wish. No, it is Selena Gomez. I actually think it is kind of an obnoxious avatar, but I've found that avatars tend to influence people's perceptions of posts, and the best outcome is always obtained with hot and sexy women. So I chose one I find beautiful.

An excellent decision, no doubt.

 

[Cognisant]

Thus far: The Loon, The God Botherer and The Sycophant.

This is starting to sound like a tarot deck.

 

[Ribald]

An excellent decision, no doubt.

But a poor decision to actually explain my reasoning! I always shoot myself in the foot like that. For a while I was really big on Robert Greene's The 48 Laws of Power, but instead of applying them like I was supposed to, I went around trying to converse with people about them. This apparently sets people at unease.

I can't help myself, in the end. It's like I said in the first post. Whatever attempt I try to make at tact ultimately fails because I find it impossible to not "tell it like it is."

 

[BigApplePi]

Ribald. Let me introduce you to the Automaton. Because he lacks God he has to bring Him up. Very suspicious. It must be his intuition telling him something is missing.

 

[Cognisant]

Indeed, something is missing.

Keep praying and maybe there will be a happy ending

 

[Base groove]

But a poor decision to actually explain my reasoning! I always shoot myself in the foot like that. For a while I was really big on Robert Greene's The 48 Laws of Power, but instead of applying them like I was supposed to, I went around trying to converse with people about them. This apparently sets people at unease.

I can't help myself, in the end. It's like I said in the first post. Whatever attempt I try to make at tact ultimately fails because I find it impossible to not "tell it like it is."

I know, I know ... *pat pat pat*

I think it gets worse with age. Best not to tell people what you're up to even if it's far more interesting than anything they've got on the go.

 

[Ribald]

I know, I know ... *pat pat pat*

I think it gets worse with age. Best not to tell people what you're up to even if it's far more interesting than anything they've got on the go.

I think you're right. I've found the same thing is true when speaking of, say, transhumanism. People love to adopt new technologies whenever they come around, but certain words just set them off. "Transhumanism" is a scary word apparently, even though there is so much truth to it (people fear change, even though it is the one inevitable thing in life). Same with "immortality." I have become very enthusiastic as of late over the work of gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who claims that immortality is probable before the end of the century. When I mention this to people, they invariably say "well, I wouldn't even want to live forever," and they bring up all sorts of predictable objections.

Let's not kid ourselves, though. If the technology suddenly came around that allowed them to reverse aging and be perpetually 23, it would sell like hot cakes. Already, people spend unimaginable sums trying to preserve their lives as long as they can, even long past the point of functionality. Hell, my dad's parents spent the last 20 years of their lives sitting in recliner chairs with almost no vision, hearing, and ability to move around. Didn't seem like a good life to me, but they took who knows how many medicines and medical interventions to keep it going. Most people do.

Same with, say, curing cancer. Everyone wants to cure cancer, but do they ever think, "why?" How can you want to cure cancer and not death? It frustrates me to no end not to be able to talk about these things, though. People simply won't hear it. I have so many arguments to make, but they fall on deaf ears.

I wonder, if death were medically cured, would these people propose we should force people to die at a certain point? And what point would that be?

Anyway, I am here at this forum because I figure a bunch of INTPs can stomach this sort of thing a little better. I can't find this sort of conversation IRL :/

 

[BigApplePi]

Anyway, I am here at this forum because I figure a bunch of INTPs can stomach this sort of thing a little better. I can't find this sort of conversation IRL :/

You will find this conversion here. INTP's can think about anything as long as they don't have to do anything about it.

BTW you mentioned real life. This Forum IS a life form.

 

[Ribald]

You will find this conversion here. INTP's can think about anything as long as they don't have to do anything about it.

Hey, I think speaking is doing lol. I figure I am spreading memes. I'll leave the manual labor to the sensors -_-

Haha.

BTW you mentioned real life. This Forum IS a life form.

I agree! But no one else does.

 

[BigApplePi]

Indeed, something is missing.

Keep praying and maybe there will be a happy ending

Not necessarily. Those people may know exactly where they are ... under a tarp on some island or maybe in Iran.

You mentioned praying. I hope that gets you to feel better. Who knows. You may achieve a kinesthetic effect.

 

[Kuu]

I've found that avatars tend to influence people's perceptions of posts, and the best outcome is always obtained with hot and sexy women.

Avatars certainly influence perception, but I would question the conclusion you've reached, particularly in regards to this forum. Though it does depend what kind of outcome you expect to achieve. Best outcome = ?

I agree largely with transhumanism on an abstract, theoretical basis. I don't discuss it much nowadays, and have fallen behind on tech news, but I used to talk about it quite a lot. My point of contention is, like with most things, a practical and executive one, and the issue always ends up in a discussion of politics. I'm currently in a mildly dystopian mood as opposed to previous extreme utopian and dystopian swinging periods.

A lot of people don't even have reasons to live a lifespan as is, an extended one seems hellish to many...

 

[Ribald]

Avatars certainly influence perception, but I would question the conclusion you've reached, particularly in regards to this forum. Though it does depend what kind of outcome you expect to achieve. Best outcome = ?

I just want people to be nice to me. I really don't think men can help themselves. When they see those dark alluring eyes, that JBF hair, that over the shoulder smile, there is a biochemical reaction they have no control over. Being that I assume this forum is mostly men, I think it actually does make sense particularly in regards to this forum. Beautiful women get treated really well. There is no way around that.

I agree largely with transhumanism on an abstract, theoretical basis. I don't discuss it much nowadays, and have fallen behind on tech news, but I used to talk about it quite a lot. my point of contention is, like with most things, a practical and executive one, and the issue always ends up in a discussion of politics. I'm currently in a mildly dystopian mood as opposed to previous extreme utopian and dystopian swinging periods.

A lot of people don't even have reasons to live a lifespan as is, an extended one seems hellish to many...

If things were to be like they are in 2014 forever, I would totally agree with you. But think of how things will change. We will be able to access anything we want. We will be orders of magnitude more intelligent and brighter in mood. We will be able to construct virtual reality paradises to inhabit and explore psychedelic realms unending in wonder--not to mention the real physical world. That's just the beginning. That seems like a great reason to live!

 

[Helvete]

Wow, I wish. No, it is Selena Gomez. I actually think it is kind of an obnoxious avatar, but I've found that avatars tend to influence people's perceptions of posts, and the best outcome is always obtained with hot and sexy women. So I chose one I find beautiful.

How do I know this isn't some kind of façade and that you're not Selena Gomez?

 

[Ribald]

How do I know this isn't some kind of façade and that you're not Selena Gomez?

If I were Selena Gomez her lyrics would be way better.

 

[Helvete]

If I were Selena Gomez her lyrics would be way better.

A bit pretentious? If you were Selena Gomez then surely your lyrics would be just as shit; as you're Selena Gomez. (Providing they are actually shit, I'v never knowingly heard her music)

 

[Ribald]

A bit pretentious? If you were Selena Gomez then surely your lyrics would be just as shit; as you're Selena Gomez. (Providing they are actually shit, I'v never knowingly heard her music)

A bit, yes. I certainly don't write songs or lyrics, but then again I have other talents as do we all. I have heard some of her music and I find it to be quite generic, but I suppose that 15 year old girls who have never been exposed to anything else could like it.

But hey, I give credit where credit is due. I think Katy Perry's "Teenage Dream" might be the best song of the 21st century so far. "California Girls" was also awesome.

 

[Pyropyro]

Welcome Ribald

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think Katy Perry's "Teenage Dream" might be the best song of the 21st century so far.

 

[Ribald]

Popularity must factor in. I could of course name many songs no one has ever heard of, but what's the point in doing that? There needs to be some objective dimension; the song must have some popularity. Given that, what are those songs that literally everyone loved? The other big contender would be Hey Ya by Outcast, and while I did like the song, I don't think it packed the punch of Teenage Dream.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Simply going by popularity = Gangnam Style.

 

[Ribald]

Simply going by popularity = Gangnam Style.

True, but I say Teenage Dream is a better song, especially as a candidate for a "best of the century" listing. For some reason I still feel, and always did feel like Gangnam Style is a joke, like people don't seriously listen to it and deeply love it and get any meaning from it. It would be like saying the Macarena was the best song of the 90s or something. I figure once a song hits ubiquity, popularity ceases to matter and it is up to the list compiler. Teenage Dream is just huge. Every line is something you can resonate with. It's almost like the perfect pop/love song, reminiscent of "Can't Hurry Love" by the Supremes, and that's also a personal favorite of mine. Or perhaps "Something" by the Beatles. These songs are the essence of simplicity, but done perfectly. No nonsense but not too serious, powerful pop songs that just leave you thinking, now that's how a 3 minute song is done. Everything is just right.

 

[Pyropyro]

Simply going by popularity = Gangnam Style.

Gangnam Style actually means something when interpreted in the South Korean context.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

True, but I say Teenage Dream is a better song, especially as a candidate for a "best of the century" listing. For some reason I still feel, and always did feel like Gangnam Style is a joke, like people don't seriously listen to it and deeply love it and get any meaning from it. It would be like saying the Macarena was the best song of the 90s or something. I figure once a song hits ubiquity, popularity ceases to matter and it is up to the list compiler. Teenage Dream is just huge. Every line is something you can resonate with. It's almost like the perfect pop/love song, reminiscent of "Can't Hurry Love" by the Supremes, and that's also a personal favorite of mine. Or perhaps "Something" by the Beatles. These songs are the essence of simplicity, but done perfectly. No nonsense but not too serious, powerful pop songs that just leave you thinking, now that's how a 3 minute song is done. Everything is just right.

I'm afraid there's simply no hope for you...

Gangnam Style actually means something when interpreted in the South Korean context.

Exactly. Not only does it criticize American culture, but it got tens of millions of Americans to behave like complete idiots and feel good about it because it was coupled with a dance.

 

[Variform]

Hello, I am Ribald. I am an INTP.

Really, I am kind of like an INTP's INTP. What that means I need to warn you about is that I can be abrasive. I tend to simply disregard people's feelings in discussions about right and wrong, and they feel belittled (or so I am to understand) when corrected without the appropriate tact.

I understand that perfectly. I have this about me as well. It is like not having time to caress all these ego's and run them all the right way. I don't like it and don't have time for it. I will state what I think matter of factly demanding people to understand why because I demand a minimum intelligence and self-awareness about their own petty ego's not to be hurt by what I say.

Now, I have tried this "tact" people speak of, and frankly it doesn't work for me. The truth is, though, that I don't intend to be malicious and I actually would like people to talk to me the same way. It's not that I go out of my way to insult anyone. It just seems to be a byproduct of putting truth before tact... kind of like Sheldon in Big Bang Theory, I suppose, but not as hair-splitting. I really don't like that show, though. I'd like it more if people actually looked up to Sheldon and listened to his arguments. There are so many times when they should be saying things like "wow, that is a really good point" or "you just entirely rendered everything I'm saying moot."

Quite right. Sometimes you can shoot the guy but a lot of the time he does have a point. And so while the focus is on him, the way the other react to him fascinates me because it reveals a lot about society and how we are supposed to deal with each other, among each other.

It's not about ego or feelings to me. I just want to be right. If someone can correct me, that's fantastic. I want to learn. My only request is that the person take the time to explain their reasoning. If they aren't going to bother to do that, why reply at all? That said, I do not like name-calling or insults, and I don't engage in them. The worst I will do is simply tell someone they are wrong, or perhaps express disbelief that someone actually thinks something so absurd.

Yep, I like that. Though I can insult people. I don't like it but if people are so annoying and stupid..well, they should take ownership of that. Give me a line of reasoning. Not circular reasoning. It does not even have to be a logical line of reasoning, along as it is consistent within its own right.

That and that alone shows you know how to use your brain.

Anyway, I am into science, history, and philosophy. I spend my days reading and learning about them. My thoughts are dominated by the singularity. I have slightly more hope than fear for it. This is where I get my purpose in life, actually. I think for things to go well in the future, people are going to have to wake up and stop believing in nonsense like religion (for one). There is this ignorantly scary conservative streak in the human mind that I also try to combat. For instance, when anesthesia was adopted in the 1840s, many cried out about its evils and insisted that operations like amputations should be done to people fully conscious.... because God, or something.

I think any model has its merits as long as it is understood to be a model, a way of being in the world along certain lines of conduct. If you wanna be free in your mind, do not fall prone to denouncing one model while defending another. Most people here will defend science. Because science connects to the INTP state of being.

But that what makes INTP, INTP, is a mentality, a process of perception that can be put to use on any model.

An INTP should have in principle no preferences because he can be a student of religion and seeing the connections between them and what makes it all the way it is. An INTP can be a great Zen Buddhist. These people deal with the nature of reality on grand scales.

I see the same kind of thing happening throughout history, and today. The main culprit today, other than plain delusion, is emotional pain. For most of my life, I was a believer in emotional pain. "No pain no gain" I thought. I've since changed my mind. I used to think that pain actually served a purpose, even if a divine one. It doesn't. I was usually not religious, but I always was a bit superstitious, and it turns out those are the same. This thinking culminated as my diffuse superstitions unexpectedly coalesced last year and I became a religious fanatic for a few months. I thought that if I made myself suffer enough, God would appear to me. I spent nights in misery, and after so many I realized I had done all I could do--if he hadn't appeared yet, he never would. So that ended that.

INTP's like logic, science and exactness. I think for this reason I am a bit superstitious myself. I have integrated this part of myself quite well. I am not quite balanced between my reasoning skills and my notions towards the eldritch. I think many INTP's have this tendency and perhaps more so than other types, because we live in logical thought so much, and reason so much, that the mind needs a a break from it by going into the strange fringes of the logical mind where the elves live.

The mistake you made is how to about meeting god. Suffering has no bearing on god. God is both real and unreal at the same time.

 

[Variform]

I think you're right. I've found the same thing is true when speaking of, say, transhumanism. People love to adopt new technologies whenever they come around, but certain words just set them off. "Transhumanism" is a scary word apparently, even though there is so much truth to it (people fear change, even though it is the one inevitable thing in life). Same with "immortality." I have become very enthusiastic as of late over the work of gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who claims that immortality is probable before the end of the century. When I mention this to people, they invariably say "well, I wouldn't even want to live forever," and they bring up all sorts of predictable objections.

Maybe that is because they understand the concept better.

I see nothing in the whole concept of immortality because I already am an immortal being. Argue what you will about it, but when I die I move on to the things you refer to when you mentioned psychedelics.

What you mean is the idea of immortality as a human on Earth, wearing this thing we call a body. What an antique idea!

You speak of progress and trans-humanism, but come up with that? :-) You come across as progressive, but you are in reality a die-hard conservative!

For society it will mean utter annihilation. Have you thought it over what immortality would do to society when most people have a single-minded craving to breed? We are already overstocked with humans and I would like to see half of the population die off. Save our climate and many species.

Life as a human on Earth is only part of what we are as beings but don't you think being in this particular state has its reasons and benefits? So why would we utterly annihilate any sort of pleasurable options by overpopulating this world with bodily entities? The world is not a public toilet at a train station, used by too many people who don't give a shit because they will hop on the next train.

Let's not kid ourselves, though. If the technology suddenly came around that allowed them to reverse aging and be perpetually 23, it would sell like hot cakes. Already, people spend unimaginable sums trying to preserve their lives as long as they can, even long past the point of functionality. Hell, my dad's parents spent the last 20 years of their lives sitting in recliner chairs with almost no vision, hearing, and ability to move around. Didn't seem like a good life to me, but they took who knows how many medicines and medical interventions to keep it going. Most people do.

Because they don't understand what they are supposed to do on Earth. They were leaves in the wind from birth and never understood themselves, let alone find a meaningful purpose.

Same with, say, curing cancer. Everyone wants to cure cancer, but do they ever think, "why?" How can you want to cure cancer and not death? It frustrates me to no end not to be able to talk about these things, though. People simply won't hear it. I have so many arguments to make, but they fall on deaf ears.

I don't want cancer cured, even though my girlfriend has it. This is what INTP is to me, a ruthless search for truth that will hurt even my loved once, because I can look beyond my own shadow.

We are very keen on curing diseases. News anchor's tone of voice will optimistally raise when they announce there has been found a cure for some disease. They are happy. But I cringe. The world is overpopulated. Too many people consuming energy and matter.

And they wanna cure diseases that will allow even more people to do just that?

I wonder, if death were medically cured, would these people propose we should force people to die at a certain point? And what point would that be?

I don't see that as a moral option. If people would accept their mortal, their bodily ending, it wouldn't lead to delusion sof immortality.

Medical science is a transference symbol. Look up Ernest Becker on that. In debates I have with people, well, not guinea pigs alright, and voice my critique and speak with the voice of technorealism (look that up too on wiki), they invariably say I am a hypocrite if I take a pill for a headache.

Morons. A man in a so called primitive society can live a happy live too. And when he dies of a disease at age 35 he is just as well off as a westerner at age 90 who practically begs for a 'Drion Pill', because he is so done with his life that there is no point in living anymore. When you die surrounded by the ones you love and move on that is just as rewarding.

Technology is not the measuring rod for happiness. That is just a materialistic idea. Consuming matter does not make one happy, that dude in his hut in some jungle, owning only a cup and a plate can have a perfectly fine and loving life.

 

[Ribald]

I think any model has its merits as long as it is understood to be a model, a way of being in the world along certain lines of conduct. If you wanna be free in your mind, do not fall prone to denouncing one model while defending another. Most people here will defend science. Because science connects to the INTP state of being.

I've heard that argument before. In fact I came across it recently in the form of pyrrhonism, which I had never heard of before this week. It's actually uncanny how closely you have echoed what I read:

A Pyrrhonist tries to make the arguments of both sides as strong as possible. Then he asks himself if there is any reason to prefer one side to the other. And if not, he suspends belief in either side. According to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic. They thus attempted to make their skepticism universal, and to escape the reproach of basing it upon a fresh dogmatism.[3] Mental imperturbability (ataraxia) was the result to be attained by cultivating such a frame of mind.

On the other hand, I feel driven to denounce various models. While no one can ever quite be 100% sure of anything (maybe God is messing with the detectors at the LHC), I don't like the paralysis that comes of refusing to reject what seems ridiculous.

Is astrology a model? If so, you and I must disagree. I could perhaps, if I really tried, write a nice thorough defense of astrology and make it sound pretty good, just like, I suppose, Ken Ham did about as good as a creationist could hope to do in his debate against Bill Nye. But maybe I am misunderstanding you.

But that what makes INTP, INTP, is a mentality, a process of perception that can be put to use on any model.

An INTP should have in principle no preferences because he can be a student of religion and seeing the connections between them and what makes it all the way it is. An INTP can be a great Zen Buddhist. These people deal with the nature of reality on grand scales.

There are connections between religions because... how could there not be? On closer inspection, though, one finds that religions are not even slightly compatible. In fact most of them command that a person be killed for choosing a different one.

Religion is about as correct as 2 + 2 = 5. I have a marked preference for 2 + 2 = 4, just like I have one for atheism.

But like I said in OP, I actually did used to be much more similar to you. I saw connections between religions as sure proof there must be something to them, and I indeed became a Zen Buddhist for roughly 5 years--full blown, too. I meditated daily, strict zazen style, and I would go to a Zen service every week for a while. Also read many books and watched hundreds of hours worth of teaching videos.

For the sake of brevity I didn't mention any of that in the OP, but it was at the heart of everything. I was on the quest for enlightenment, which I increasingly saw as synonymous with God. What led to my great depression was, in fact, a total, all consuming effort toward constant meditation. I shut all externals out of my life. I even quit my job. I refused to even read or watch TV, and I wouldn't even speak to my family, let alone friends.

It is safe to say that I took Zen Buddhism to its full conclusion, and came up empty handed. If you're thinking about getting into it, I'd say don't bother. You're not going to get enlightened. You're not going to get anything. And I'm not even being elusive and paradoxical here. It's literally pointless. Far better to pursue something of this world.

INTP's like logic, science and exactness. I think for this reason I am a bit superstitious myself. I have integrated this part of myself quite well. I am not quite balanced between my reasoning skills and my notions towards the eldritch. I think many INTP's have this tendency and perhaps more so than other types, because we live in logical thought so much, and reason so much, that the mind needs a a break from it by going into the strange fringes of the logical mind where the elves live.

The mistake you made is how to about meeting god. Suffering has no bearing on god. God is both real and unreal at the same time.

Superstition will be the death of you. You're incredibly superstitious if you are even a tiny bit superstitious, it is an all-or-nothing sort of belief. That little seed could start a wild-fire, and do serious damage. I literally quit my career on superstition, and can't go back now. I spent 27 years being "a little superstitious." When it started to matter, though, I let myself fall off a cliff. It dominated my life. Almost killed me, too.

I know how to see God. You go to Kroger's and get a bottle of Robitussin and chug it. Then you wait 2 hours and smoke some weed while lying down in a dark room. God will appear. Been there, seen it. It was undeniable, nothing else it could have been. Problem is, it was still just an experience of God. If God is just a headspace I can't get into while sober, I have little interest in it. I have seen the "spiritual" experiences of many psychedelics and I am interested for science to one day map them and open their doors.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

A Pyrrhonist tries to make the arguments of both sides as strong as possible. Then he asks himself if there is any reason to prefer one side to the other. And if not, he suspends belief in either side.

What's the difference between a Pyrrhonist and one who deems all sides equally valid simultaneously? You know... other than that whole deeming all sides equally valid simultaneously thing.

Why does the former lead to paralysis while the latter doesn't? I'd argue strongly that the latter catalyzes its opposite. Everyone occupying the space between is deluded, not those at either extreme.

 

[Ribald]

What's the difference between a Pyrrhonist and one who deems all sides equally valid simultaneously? You know... other than that whole deeming all sides equally valid simultaneously thing.

Technically that would be academic skepticism as done by Carneades. The difference between them? I guess the pyrrhonists are just more hardcore. To me it just seems like they obliterate thought. If you can't know anything, including not being able to know anything, then every thought you have might as well be pure delusion. No conclusion about anything can be drawn. As soon as you even begin any thought whatsoever, it is wrong. In practice, this leads to thought-silencing. I've lived that way for a long time, trying to silence my thoughts and live in a state of instinct (which is what they advocate) and I find it annoying and wrong. Thoughts come up; silencing the mind is not possible. Our mind is part of who we are, that is why we have it. To try to obliterate it makes one an animal. Furthermore, raw instinct is an awful, unsustainable way to live. Try it out sometime. You'll see.

Why does the former lead to paralysis while the latter doesn't? I'd argue strongly that the latter catalyzes its opposite.

If you cannot choose between any belief, there is no basis for action. Also, the people who are CLEARLY wrong are given undue credit and time to be heard, and it leads nowhere.... because they are wrong.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Technically that would be academic skepticism as done by Carneades. The difference between them? I guess the pyrrhonists are just more hardcore. To me it just seems like they obliterate thought. If you can't know anything, including not being able to know anything, then every thought you have might as well be pure delusion. No conclusion about anything can be drawn. As soon as you even begin any thought whatsoever, it is wrong. In practice, this leads to thought-silencing. I've lived that way for a long time, trying to silence my thoughts and live in a state of instinct (which is what they advocate) and I find it annoying and wrong. Thoughts come up; silencing the mind is not possible. Our mind is part of who we are, that is why we have it. To try to obliterate it makes one an animal. Furthermore, raw instinct is an awful, unsustainable way to live. Try it out sometime. You'll see.

If you cannot choose between any belief, there is no basis for action. Also, the people who are CLEARLY wrong are given undue credit and time to be heard, and it leads nowhere.... because they are wrong.

Pyrrhonists more hardcore...

Isn't all thought delusion by definition due to being filtered through perception?

Time is the basis for action. You've no choice but to move through it, you just influence where. If all choices ultimately lead to the same destination, it doesn't matter which ones you make. Yet each choice you make restricts those you can make in the future, at an exponential rate.

How is anyone/thing clearly wrong? How easy would it be for me to replace "wrong" with "misunderstood"?

To try to obliterate it makes one an animal. Furthermore, raw instinct is an awful, unsustainable way to live. Try it out sometime. You'll see.

This deserves an extra quote.

Animals have some distinct advantages, especially when the animal state is accessible at will. I don't see how it's unsustainable (it's certainly at odds with society, but that's society's problem). And.... between you and me... I might like it just a little. I'm not sure you're doing it right.

"Our mind is part of who we are, that is why we have it." But our mind is also part of something larger, just as a bird belongs to a flock, which exhibits completely different behavior than the birds that compose it. Thoughts allow you to be enslaved by others. If you really want to isolate who you are, you adopt pure instinct.

Basically it seems you've gone from attempting to suppress all thought to selectively suppressing thought... without yet suppressing thought suppression.

*EDIT: Jusst want to make sure you caught the edit in my last post. I have a bit of an.... editing problem.

 

[Ribald]

Maybe that is because they understand the concept better.

I see nothing in the whole concept of immortality because I already am an immortal being. Argue what you will about it, but when I die I move on to the things you refer to when you mentioned psychedelics.

What you mean is the idea of immortality as a human on Earth, wearing this thing we call a body. What an antique idea!

And.... how do you know that?

Actually, I take that back. I totally agree. Since there is no experience of nonexistence, there can be only consciousness and there is no death. But as far as I am concerned there is, because I would assume all memory is lost upon worldly death. It certainly is upon taking a big hit of salvia. I would rather stay alive on this planet and retain my memory than roll the dice.

You speak of progress and trans-humanism, but come up with that? :-) You come across as progressive, but you are in reality a die-hard conservative!

Eh?

For society it will mean utter annihilation. Have you thought it over what immortality would do to society when most people have a single-minded craving to breed? We are already overstocked with humans and I would like to see half of the population die off. Save our climate and many species.

All doubtful. Yes, society as we know it will cease to be, whether or not immortality occurs. Change is a fact.

However, there are tons of reasons why immortality will pose no problem whatsoever to the world, the first of which is that population growth slows to barely above replacement rate in developed countries.

Beyond that, the technological increase we will soon see will usher in an age not just of total abundance, but also total resilience. Nanotechnology will clean up pollution, reverse global warming, and make sea water drinkable. No longer will we need to harvest animals to eat meat, we will grow it in vitro. Solar power is doubling in efficiency every 2 years, meaning that within 15 years the current energy use of the whole globe will be achieved by solar alone, easily. I don't even think we will need fusion.

That's only the beginning. The world is becoming an easier place for tons of people to live, not harder. For half the pop. to die off would be an epic tragedy and would do great harm.

Life as a human on Earth is only part of what we are as beings but don't you think being in this particular state has its reasons and benefits? So why would we utterly annihilate any sort of pleasurable options by overpopulating this world with bodily entities? The world is not a public toilet at a train station, used by too many people who don't give a shit because they will hop on the next train.

Did I mention space colonies? With nanotech, megascale engineering will become possible. O'Neil colonies made with material from the asteroid belt could hold literally quadrillions of people.

Assume technological change. By the 2030s we will have advanced nanotechnology. It's gonna be beyond what you could ever imagine. And then the 2040s will come.

Because they don't understand what they are supposed to do on Earth. They were leaves in the wind from birth and never understood themselves, let alone find a meaningful purpose.

I don't want cancer cured, even though my girlfriend has it. This is what INTP is to me, a ruthless search for truth that will hurt even my loved once, because I can look beyond my own shadow.

We are very keen on curing diseases. News anchor's tone of voice will optimistally raise when they announce there has been found a cure for some disease. They are happy. But I cringe. The world is overpopulated. Too many people consuming energy and matter.

And they wanna cure diseases that will allow even more people to do just that?

Do you also hope the black death returns? And small pox? Do you think that none of those things should have been cured? Not cholera, the disease people got because there was human shit in their water? Not dengue "bone crushing" fever? Not malaria?

If you don't care about life or death, why care if the world is overpopulated? What's the difference between starvation and cancer? There really isn't one, especially if you view them as population control. From your standpoint, I don't think it is possible to believe the world is overpopulated. But like I said, it's not. It just seems that way.

I don't see that as a moral option. If people would accept their mortal, their bodily ending, it wouldn't lead to delusion sof immortality.

Medical science is a transference symbol. Look up Ernest Becker on that. In debates I have with people, well, not guinea pigs alright, and voice my critique and speak with the voice of technorealism (look that up too on wiki), they invariably say I am a hypocrite if I take a pill for a headache.

Morons. A man in a so called primitive society can live a happy live too. And when he dies of a disease at age 35 he is just as well off as a westerner at age 90 who practically begs for a 'Drion Pill', because he is so done with his life that there is no point in living anymore. When you die surrounded by the ones you love and move on that is just as rewarding.

Technology is not the measuring rod for happiness. That is just a materialistic idea. Consuming matter does not make one happy, that dude in his hut in some jungle, owning only a cup and a plate can have a perfectly fine and loving life.

Slow progress is not the same as no progress. Living 60 healthy years is twice as good as living 30 healthy years. In a few decades, there will be no withering 90 year olds, but ones who have the healthy bodies of mood-enhanced 25 year olds.

Plus, you underestimate the brutal realities of the past. Yes, a man in a primitive society can live a happy life, but it sure isn't as easy. Especially if he, you know, had to have his leg amputated because it got infected or something. Would you rather live in the past, when such a procedure would have been done fully conscious? And you probably still would have died after? This is barely the beginning, though, of all the ridiculous physical hardship people used to face. I gotta believe that's why everyone was so damn religious. Because life sucked so much they couldn't not believe that garbage..

 

[redbaron]

I've found that avatars tend to influence people's perceptions of posts, and the best outcome is always obtained with hot and sexy women. So I chose one I find beautiful.

Just increases the probability that you're a vapid idiot if you ask me.

If you really want to isolate who you are, you adopt pure instinct.

Not everyone's an N-dom.

I think Katy Perry's "Teenage Dream" might be the best song of the 21st century so far. "California Girls" was also awesome.

Vapid idiot status confirmed.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Vapid idiot

You're supposed to let the noobs become established before calling them vapid idiots and weak pieces of shit.

Not everyone's an N-dom.

N = instinct?

There could probably be a case made that instinct also expands to Si and Se, in which case we're all equals in terms of means but with different variance. But I'm not certain that variance would have an appreciable effect in terms of grasping the nothing is true---everything is true gradient holistically.

 

[BigApplePi]

Just increases the probability that you're a vapid idiot.

Words are Emotional

 

[Ribald]

Pyrrhonists more hardcore...

Isn't all thought delusion by definition due to being filtered through perception?

Time is the basis for action. You've no choice but to move through it, you just influence where. If all choices ultimately lead to the same destination, it doesn't matter which ones you make. Yet each choice you make restricts those you can make in the future, at an exponential rate.

How is anyone/thing clearly wrong? How easy would it be for me to replace "wrong" with "misunderstood"?

Is all thought delusion because it is filtered through perception? No, I wouldn't say so. Delusion is too strong a word. Thought is certainly a mere representation of reality, but reason exists nonetheless and people can be right and wrong about things.

Don't know what your point is with "time." I thought we were talking about having no basis for action because of not believing any one thing is right or wrong. Time has nothing to do with it.

How is anyone/thing clearly wrong? 2 + 2 doesn't = 5. It's not just a misunderstanding, it is wrong. Same with a lot of more complex things. Astrology is wrong.It would be very hard for you to claim that astrologists are misunderstood. They make very definite claims about what they do, and those claims have no basis in fact or reality; they are wrong. Many people spend most of their waking lives being wrong about almost everything.

This deserves an extra quote.

Animals have some distinct advantages, especially when the animal state is accessible at will. I don't see how it's unsustainable (it's certainly at odds with society, but that's society's problem). And.... between you and me... I might like it just a little. I'm not sure you're doing it right.

It is unsustainable on a personal level. To live on pure instinct without reason is basically impossible anyway, again, because you can't not think. You have to make decisions and hold beliefs, you literally don't have a choice. Trying to live on pure instinct itself is open to about a billion interpretations of what it could mean.

"Our mind is part of who we are, that is why we have it." But our mind is also part of something larger, just as a bird belongs to a flock, which exhibits completely different behavior than the birds that compose it. Thoughts allow you to be enslaved by others. If you really want to isolate who you are, you adopt pure instinct.

Basically it seems you've gone from attempting to suppress all thought to selectively suppressing thought... without yet suppressing thought suppression.

This is completely nonsensical. It doesn't address the point. You can't choose not to think or believe anything. You just can't. Even if you make an attempt to adopt pure instinct, that itself is based on the belief that you should adopt pure instinct. Being that you have no choice but to think and believe, you might as well try to have the most correct thoughts and beliefs.

In other words, be scientific. A lot of what science tells us is counterintuitive, but true. Instinct often fails, whatever it is.

 

[redbaron]

This is completely nonsensical. It doesn't address the point.

That's nothing, he's only just getting started.

You're supposed to let the noobs become established before calling them vapid idiots and weak pieces of shit.

Agreed - we should let vapid idiocy establish itself before challenging it.

This is the third time you've brought that thread up in various other places. One day you'll end up grasping the context of what I posted in it and probably feel silly.

 

[BigApplePi]

I like Teenage Dream. This one is in the top ten of the millennium but for some reason I can't hum it. Why not?

Spoiler

California Dreamin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-aK6JnyFmk

 

[Base groove]

Wow. You really have some fucking issues don't you? (not you, ... You)

Anyway, if I were to enter a vote for 'song of the decade' it would be that one by the INFPs ... uhh... Goyte.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVNT4wvIGY&feature=kp

It's absolutely timeless. Without prior knowledge you can't tell whether it's from the 1970s, or last week. I believe it will remain timeless. Doesn't matter if you 'like' ... it's timeless.

Hey Ya and Teenage Dream are "ok" for choices but they're in no way contestants for 'song of the decade'.

 

[BigApplePi]

What's the difference between a Pyrrhonist and one who deems all sides equally valid simultaneously? You know... other than that whole deeming all sides equally valid simultaneously thing.

Why does the former lead to paralysis while the latter doesn't? I'd argue strongly that the latter catalyzes its opposite. Everyone occupying the space between is deluded, not those at either extreme.

One can think in terms of balance. Would you call balance, "paralysis"? Anything can tip the scale. On the other hand one can find oneself in a trough or even a rut which is not what was talked about. We have equilibrium. If we can have equilibrium, is disequilibrium surprising?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I see you still haven't managed to grasp the context of that thread.

Curious how you ignore the real criticism, isn't it?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

@Ribald Now this is giving me the warm fuzzies...

Is all thought delusion because it is filtered through perception? No, I wouldn't say so. Delusion is too strong a word. Thought is certainly a mere representation of reality, but reason exists nonetheless and people can be right and wrong about things.

Agreed for the most part, but... Though it exists, reason is 1) taught, meaning its methods must also be filtered and 2) biased by what is already known, both in formation and application.

Don't know what your point is with "time." I thought we were talking about having no basis for action because of not believing any one thing is right or wrong. Time has nothing to do with it.

At any given moment in time you are forced to make a choice, conscious or otherwise. That is how time progresses, it is the subjective perception of motion through space. Not making a choice is choosing to abstain. Because of this aspect of time, the basis for action is moot. It actually doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong, which are inherently subjective.

How is anyone/thing clearly wrong? 2 + 2 doesn't = 5. It's not just a misunderstanding, it is wrong.

O'rly? Sure it does.

Spoiler

But really math isn't a moral value. Correct/incorrect =/= right/wrong.

Same with a lot of more complex things. Astrology is wrong. It would be very hard for you to claim that astrologists are misunderstood. They make very definite claims about what they do, and those claims have no basis in fact or reality; they are wrong. Many people spend most of their waking lives being wrong about almost everything.

Astrology is perfectly accurate to those for whom it is meant to be perfectly accurate. If it doesn't work for you, then it's not for you. (Note that you're lumping astrology with astrologists in your criticism).

Case in point: http://www.chaosastrology.net/freeastrologyreports.cfm

The main criticism against astrology is that the descriptions are so general that they apply to everyone and evoke the Forer Effect. So challenge this. Get your report analyze it, and quantify the contents that apply to your past and present as best you can, and then distribute it and ask others to do the same with your report, comparing it with theirs. You'd expect yours to apply to everyone to the same degree as it does to you. Betcha it won't.

It is unsustainable on a personal level. To live on pure instinct without reason is basically impossible anyway, again, because you can't not think. You have to make decisions and hold beliefs, you literally don't have a choice. Trying to live on pure instinct itself is open to about a billion interpretations of what it could mean.

I think it's unsustainable only if it's not properly integrated, i.e. neurotic. Like many things, utilizing it takes practice. More importantly, it's not something that can be done too soon. Learning and reasoning must be done first before it can be unleashed. It's a progressive process that results in instinct becoming more and more prevalent.

This is completely nonsensical. It doesn't address the point. You can't choose not to think or believe anything. You just can't. Even if you make an attempt to adopt pure instinct, that itself is based on the belief that you should adopt pure instinct. Being that you have no choice but to think and believe, you might as well try to have the most correct thoughts and beliefs.

You can choose what makes it through your perception filter, which acts in a selectively permeable manner similar to a cell membrane. PCT. Others influence your actions, and you influence theirs. I agree that you can't choose not to believe anything, but I disagree that you can't choose not to apply meaning to anything, or can't choose to believe everything.

Back to what I said: "Basically it seems you've gone from attempting to suppress all thought to selectively suppressing thought... without yet suppressing thought suppression."

Why don't you suppress the suppression of thought? Let your mind go. Think everything. Endeavor to fit everything into a holistic whole.

In other words, be scientific. A lot of what science tells us is counterintuitive, but true. Instinct often fails, whatever it is.

The irony here of course is that I'm a scientist. (Though I really do hate appeals to authority. )

Peer-reviewed source on the failure of instinct?

One can think in terms of balance. Would you call balance, "paralysis"? Anything can tip the scale. On the other hand one can find oneself in a trough or even a rut which is not what was talked about. We have equilibrium. If we can have equilibrium, is disequilibrium surprising?

Hehe... The opposite of paralysis is not being able to stop... Equilibrium does fit though, the ol' unstoppable force meets immovable object.

We could also have equilibrium if everyone occupied the two extremes. (The scale might break though, which would definitely be interesting. )

But how does one know if they're in the right place without seeing the whole area first?

 

[redbaron]

Curious how you ignore the real criticism, isn't it?

I actually responded to it, but I'm not going to seriously care about any criticism based on some arbitrary idea about what people, "should" do. Yawn.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I actually responded to it, but I'm not going to seriously care about any criticism based on some arbitrary idea about what people, "should" do. Yawn.

Please quote it and explain why others should be banned for being discourteous with new members and you are exempt.

The same goes for the ol' passive-aggressive claiming an insult is a joke ploy:
http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=387979&postcount=18

Precedents.

 

[Base groove]

He's exempt because people don't stand up to him and when they do he proceeds to talk about how pathetic they are that "straw-man straw-man straw-man" and how sad it is that "shit shit shit" and how "fuck fuck fuck" they are.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Let's not devolve into total derail. OP brings some good stuff to the table.

 

[Ribald]

A few more things about me:

I don't believe in free will, nor compatibilism.

I do believe there can be an objective science for morally right and wrong, based on how much pain or pleasure an action causes.

These beliefs are similar to those of Sam Harris. What can I say, the guy is just right. He has excellent talks on youtube for both topics.

 

[redbaron]

A few more things about me:

I don't believe in free will, nor compatibilism.

I do believe there can be an objective science for morally right and wrong, based on how much pain or pleasure an action causes.

These beliefs are similar to those of Sam Harris. What can I say, the guy is just right. He has excellent talks on youtube for both topics.

While I generally agree and I think Sam Harris has some great ideas, I don't really know that this is the kind of attitude to take on complex issues if the goal is understanding and truth.

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." - Neitzsche