Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

"Secularism is a religion...Atheism is a religion"


Guest Kyelo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

You are repeating the same thing you said a few posts ago. The same thing I addressed in complete and fully disqualified.

Neil, you are unbelievable. I disproved your language bullshit along with everything else. I disproved it scientifically.

if you think that's science, you really are a joke. :lol:

I showed how there is no need for language to see that a person is addicted in exactly the same way as you don't need language to see that an apple falls. You need it to formulate a theory of gravity though. Much like you need it to formulate a theory of dependency.

It's not the same thing. :rolleyes:

You don't need a theory of gravity to understand what gravity does and what it acts on; you don't even need the word gravity. The falling apple does all of that for you.

You *DO* need a theory for addiction to gain the same level of understanding of addiction. Without a theory, all you can know of is how an addicted person acts towards their addiction, not what the addiction is internally acting on or from.

For what addiction acts on, psychology has invented a 'psyche' - out of nothing; it's a concept of no more solid substance than the concept that the sky might fall in. It's a thought and nothing more, and we all know (except you, as you keep proving) how unreliable human thoughts are.

As Stephen Fry so rightly pointed out, psychology is dark ages stuff. We don't have a reliable starting place to build up other concepts from. We do not know what thought is (other than our feeling of thought) and what is acting on us to create our thoughts - and until we do, everything built on top of the flaky ideas of what thought is are HUGELY unreliable ideas.

That unreliability is proven by how often psychological ideas have to be revised. It's too immature a 'science' to yet be a science in how we now think of science. Science in a modern sense are solidly tested and repeatable things, not often-unable-to-be-replicated ideas that then have to be constantly revised.

Until we're able to recognise the constants to thought processes, there is no basis for the application of science to thoughts (apart from in trying to find those constants to get a starting point for a 'proper' science of thought).

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Start speaking sense and address the issues put to you. Stop trying to avoid them by turning to other things as you always do. This is a fucking discussion, you child.

I'm keeping to the subject. :rolleyes:

It's you who avoids the issues, by a pretence of confusion over what I've said - and so you try the diversionary tactics of saying I'm talking biology or whatever. I'm not, and either you're fucking stupid beyond belief, or you're a charlatan.

And we both know which of those it is. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that one object is seperate from another? How do you know that the apple is seperate from the tree? It's independence. Thus, we have a psyical universe.

How do you know that one person's thinking is seperate from another? How do you know that the addict is seperate from the non-addict? Their independence. Thus, we have a psyche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you think that's science, you really are a joke. :lol:

It's not the same thing. :rolleyes:

You don't need a theory of gravity to understand what gravity does and what it acts on; you don't even need the word gravity. The falling apple does all of that for you.

You *DO* need a theory for addiction to gain the same level of understanding of addiction. Without a theory, all you can know of is how an addicted person acts towards their addiction, not what the addiction is internally acting on.

For what addiction acts on, psychology has invented a 'psyche' - out of nothing; it's a concept of no more solid substance than the concept that the sky might fall in. It's a thought and nothing more, and we all know (except you, as you keep proving) how unreliable human thoughts are.

As Stephen Fry so rightly pointed out, psychology is dark ages stuff. We don't have a reliable starting place to build up other concepts from. We do not know what thought is (other than our feeling of thought) and what is acting on us to create our thoughts - and until we do, everything built on top of the flaky ideas of what thought is are HUGELY unreliable ideas.

That unreliability is proven by how often psychological ideas have to be revised. It's too immature a 'science' to yet be a science in how we now think of science. Science in a modern sense are solidly tested and repeatable things, not often-unable-to-be-replicated ideas that then have to be constantly revised.

Until we're able to recognise the constants to thought processes, there is no basis for the application of science to thoughts (apart from in trying to find those constants to get a starting point for a 'proper' science of thought).

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Psychology steps in to test the link between arousal and attraction.

Some tips from science/psychology on increasing your attractiveness:

http://whywereason.c...t-with-science/

:D

.

I'm particularly liking this line....

"all of these studies identify what unconsciously influences attraction". PMSL. :lol:

Mind you, your own choice of first words to quote are pretty good too....

"Psychology needs at least a few more decades to even begin to understand attraction". :lol:

Worm claims himself a disciple of science. So how come he won't address or accept the scientific evidence? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

How do you know that one object is seperate from another? How do you know that the apple is seperate from the tree? It's independence. Thus, we have a psyical universe.

How do you know that one person's thinking is seperate from another? How do you know that the addict is seperate from the non-addict? Their independence. Thus, we have a psyche.

We have a physical universe we can test for the existence of (within the limits of our own existence of course).

We can similarly test the physicalness of people. We cannot test for anything for the concept you call psyche. It's made up out of nothing, an attempt at understanding, but not actually anything that is understandable.

It's just a bit of goalpost moving. We have one idea that we don't understand, so let's create another idea we don't understand and say that the first is a consequence of the second. It gives the illusion of understanding the first, but doesn't actually succeed in doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm particularly liking this line....

"all of these studies identify what unconsciously influences attraction". PMSL. :lol:

Mind you, your own choice of first words to quote are pretty good too....

"Psychology needs at least a few more decades to even begin to understand attraction". :lol:

Worm claims himself a disciple of science. So how come he won't address or accept the scientific evidence? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

'You don't have to have a theory of gravity to see that gravity happens'. Eh?!?!?!?!?! Of course you do. Gravity is the theory of why the apple falls to the ground, not the reality. Dependency is the theory of why the person is addicted, not the reality of them being addicted.

Dependency is what you have, a dependency on flawed language and self-sustaining ideas. :lol:

Gravity is just a word, a label. It's applied to what is indisputably there, that exists without any doubt - without need of the word, or an idea that might come to bring about a word (as it eventually did). The apples falls on your head.

The only thing which says there's a psyche is the idea of psyche itself.

Can you point at the psyche? Can you say what it influences and what it doesn't? Can you prove it actually exists at all, outside of an idea? Nope, none of these.

It's no more of a solid idea than the idea that the sky might fall in. And that of course was a concept that someone made up on day and used it to help explain the sky and the universe - but none of it was true.

The ideas of psychology have no stronger a basis in science than the idea that the sky might fall in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I wouldn't argue with you that brain function/consciousness is still a mystery, both to scientists and psychologists. But I find it a fascinating subject, and I love reading the scientific experiments that are being conducted to try to advance our understanding.

And I appreciate your proper application of scientific method.

It's a shame that not all people round here have the same discipline towards a discipline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Fuck me backwards! Did you listen to what I just said?

I did, once the laughter had subsided. :)

The entire concept of a psychological universe is based upon the fact that people are independent of each other. Psychology is about this independence. It's about the behaviours of these independent objects.

Yep, that's it. Glad to see you've got it.

So, where's this independent object called 'the psyche' then? Care to show me it (rather than showing me the concept of it)? :lol:

When you point to a rock and say that it is evidence of a physical universe, I can then point to someone's behaviour as evidence of a psychological universe. That's how this shit works.

And then when you've finished proving the idea of a psychological universe, can you actually prove much within that universe? Such as there being a psyche (rather than there being a concept of a psyche)? :lol:

It's just an idea. The sky falling in was also just an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Right. Now we see why you're so confused. You're wrong.

Gravity is a theory of what is indisputably observed - the apple falling. I have said this a number of times like, but whatever. Get that part in your head.

the apple falls, theory or not. It's a demonstration of gravity at work, and nothing of the concept of gravity is required to understand that demonstration of gravity at work. :rolleyes:

Now, where's the evidence for the psyche at work without someone having first invented the concept of there being a psyche? :lol:

At best it's a tautology. At worst its a nothing.

Dependency is a theory of what is indisputably observed - a person returning to an object of desire. Dependency is based upon the notion of helplessness. It is a need to return and helps to explain why we will sacrifice many things to fullfil this desire-based obligation. It ties into many other theories and, amazingly enough, actually compliments them. Just as gravity is a way of explaining why things fall to the ground. And it also ties into many other theories, which amazingly enough, compliment it.

This is how it works Neil. An apple falling to the ground is not gravity. It's observable evidence that led to the theory of gravity. Much like addiction is observable evidence that led to the theory of psychological dependence.

Do you compute yet?

nothing of that addresses the invented-from-nothing concept of the psyche. There's a reason why you're trying to swerve away from that, i'm not daft you know, no matter how many times you post that I am as diversion (just as you swerving psyche here is another). :lol:

At no point have I said there's no such thing as what we recognise as addiction. What I have said is that the concept of addiction is itself a flaky concept, because we humans have drawn lines without any evidence - just on an idea (yet again) - on what is classed as an addiction and what isn't.

For example, I might be no less 'addicted' (in all the defined ways) to my relationship with my missus as a junkie is to smack - both are thought processes that can draw me towards something whether that's my fully-free wish or not, but only one is within the definition of how we formally use the word addiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...