18
Tag: philosophy
The basic argument for what is probably the only corrective to Western and USA total demise
The US system is based on ‘enlightened self-interest’, not bald ‘self-interest’. A system like ours demands a fundamentally moral population that largely agrees with basic Rawlsian morality — don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you. Our system works best within that framework, as that is what allows individual freedom and creativity to flourish. Almost all of that has been lost, inundated with too many migrants who have have no idea and corroded by too many groups who are entirely selfish. ABN
Most brains, when confronted with seemingly ambiguous data, will seek subconsciously to arrange it in a pattern that is familiar
__________
The title above states precisely what people do with interpersonal speech and semiotics: When confronted with seemingly ambiguous data, they seek subconsciously to arrange it in a pattern that is familiar. People do this all the time. Throughout history people have been doing this. It is a major source of suffering, violence, idiocy, madness, cruelty, and lost opportunity. Isn’t it obvious? When we talk or communicate in any way our message is frequently misunderstood, sometimes very seriously misunderstood. This causes all of us to live in a massively reduced world because the only way we typically deal with this interpersonally is by seeking subconsciously for a pattern that is familiar. So far, no one has suggested a cure for this horrible human malady, until FIML came along. FIML fixes precisely this problem: It’s not hard: You just have to change the way you think (and listen and talk). ABN
Interdimensional demonic & angelic intelligence manipulates us and controls the world — CA Fitts
She describes a battle between good and evil. And a cult of controlling humans. Some of what she says resonates with some Buddhist insights but most of it is framed in Abrahamic concepts. Either way, it is helpful to see the world this way. Intelligence is surely not limited to us or our brains. ABN
If his name is a sign ‘then Pope Leo XIV is planning to follow in the footsteps of Pope Leo XIII’ — E. Michael Jones
_________
What is Thomism?
Thomism is the system of philosophy developed by Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic scholar. Aquinas harmonized the philosophy of Aristotle with Christian theology, creating a system that became among the most influential in history. Aquinas’ philosophy was popular during his lifetime. After his death, a small minority of Catholic leaders condemned his teachings as heresy. Their efforts reduced the popularity of his work, but only temporarily.
In response to the Reformation, the Catholic Church heavily endorsed the work of Aquinas, including Thomism, elevating it to a status second only to the Bible itself. Other philosophical systems today disagree with Thomism on many points, but Thomism remains a dominant philosophical worldview.
Thomism is strongly grounded in reason, specifically in opposition to “blind faith.” It holds the laws of non-contradiction and causality as the fundamental principles of reality. According to Thomism, most of nature and theology can be apprehended through observation and reason. That which can be known by reason, accordingly, should be used to judge what is known only by faith. Thomism recognizes, however, that certain truths are only knowable by special revelation.
Thomism is also empiricist, meaning it teaches that observations and experiences are necessary for knowledge. It claims that we cannot argue for God’s existence on the basis of direct experience; we can only argue for God by interpreting what we see, feel, and understand. This philosophy rejects the Rationalist claim that pure logic or reasoning—without any observations or empirical data—can be used to draw reliable conclusions.
‘The Jews are the only people especially beloved by God’
The Abrahamics cause so much suffering based on the sole fact that they all believe their scriptures absolutely tell them what God wants, yet few of the sects and divisions agree with each other. Buddhism at its core recognizes the indeterminacy of all speech and our interpretations of all of it. Clinging to speech as an absolute is a recipe for moral, intellectual, and spiritual failure. When speech is deemed absolute, the mind and spirit are blocked from full realization. This is why Buddhism often suggests rather than states and why the Buddha himself refused to answer questions on subjects that lead to clinging to absolutist ideas. From a Buddhist POV, to say the Jews are the only people especially beloved by God is ridiculous. I was raised as a Christian and do my best to remain respectful of Christianity and strongly believe a good Christian is better than a bad Buddhist. Given that background, I think it’s proper for me to speak this way about Christianity. Whatever spirituality people get from it is good, very good. Clinging to the absoluteness of the words is the mistake. ABN
__________
Punishment must fit the crime. In like manner, law must be applied to fit the situation. This is the pragmatic, real basis of all American law. Judges who violate these basic principles are either ignorant of the law or activist frauds. They should be impeached and removed from the bench, if not jailed for treason. ABN
Consciousness reveals there’s no single objective world — Christian List
Science as we know it won’t explain consciousness
…Over time, humans went from an anthropocentric to a geocentric to a heliocentric and eventually to a more universal view of the world, and each step constituted scientific progress.
Yet the crux is that there is at least one important phenomenon that resists such objectivization or “de-perspectivization,” and that is consciousness itself. If we accept that the core of consciousness is subjective experience, then consciousness is the ultimately subjective phenomenon. The core of my consciousness lies in the fact that I find myself in a world in which there are first-personal facts. I am conscious, I have certain experiences, I am in a particular perceptual state, and so on. First-personal facts are irreducibly subjective. They are “centred” around my perspective as an experiencing subject, and unlike objective facts, they are not invariant under shifts in perspective.
Crucially, each of us is inextricably tied to our own conscious perspective. I can reflect about your experiences and empathize with you; I can hypothetically try to place myself in your shoes; I can try to simulate in my mind what things must be like for you. But I cannot literally leave my own conscious perspective. It is an essential fact about me that I experience the world from my perspective and not from anyone else’s. To be conscious, one might say, is to have a subjective perspective around which some first-personal facts are centred.
…The lesson, I think, is that the attempt to “objectivize” consciousness – to represent it as an ordinary property that can be found in the objective world, like gravity and electromagnetism – fails to do justice to the irreducibly subjective nature of the phenomenon. Physicalist theories of consciousness are not alone in running into that problem; standard versions of dualism face the same problem too. We will better understand consciousness only if our scientific and philosophical theories fully come to terms with the existence of first-personal facts and recognize that reality may not be captured by a single objective book of the world, but only by a library of subjective ones.
This is a good essay. It provides an overview of consciousness studies to frame the worthy assertion that: ‘We will better understand consciousness only if our scientific and philosophical theories fully come to terms with the existence of first-personal facts’. This kind of thinking fits well with Buddhism, and especially well with the Buddhist emphasis on samadhi states, which are deeply subjective. A Buddhist might say samadhi is describable and sharable with someone else who knows it. Or a Buddhist might not say that. The full essay is 2,578 words long and worth reading because the point is well made and the overview fits it very well. It’s quality information briefly stated. ABN
A theory of FIML
FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.
The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:
- Greatly improve communication between participating partners
- Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
- Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
- Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality
These results are achieved because:
- FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
- FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
- FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
- FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
- This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed
FIML practice will also:
- Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
- Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)
FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.
Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.
The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.
FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.
Wolfram’s ‘computational irreducibility’ explains FIML perfectly
In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.
Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.
FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 42.22 in this video. Here is the full quote:
One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.
42.22 in this video
This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.
In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.
When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.
By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.
I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN
A theory of FIML
FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.
The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:
- Greatly improve communication between participating partners
- Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
- Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
- Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality
These results are achieved because:
- FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
- FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
- FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
- FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
- This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed
FIML practice will also:
- Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
- Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)
FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.
Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.
The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.
FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.
Wolfram’s ‘computational irreducibility’ explains FIML perfectly
In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.
Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.
FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 42.22 in this video. Here is the full quote:
One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.
42.22 in this video
This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.
In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.
When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.
By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.
I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN
Stew Peters on white people and history
He’s actually right even if this is jarring for some to hear. The whole world should be thanking white people for our inventions not just in science, medicine, and technology, but also in economics, politics, philosophy, psychology, arts & letters, agriculture, engineering, law, you name it. We’ve taken decades of abuse (and reasonable criticism) with great patience (another white virtue). The shame now lies with other races who only criticize whites while benefitting enormously from our contributions in virtually every field of human endeavor there is. ABN
American law ultimately is political and/or pragmatic
American law ultimately is political and/or pragmatic.
This is obvious on many levels. Sometimes this fact of life is abused a little bit one way or the other, without dire consequences.
Where it matters is in serious situations. USA is facing an extremely serious situation right now — tens of millions of illegal migrants illegally brought into this country by the corrupt Biden regime.
The Biden regime’s purpose was to flood our nation with new Dem voters, which will rapidly yield a one-party state entirely under Dem control. This must be recognized and laws applied accordingly.
Deportation policies today and their legal justifications must be based on the obvious need for removing Biden’s illegal migrants as quickly as possible. If you want to preserve our precious legal framework and the rights of individuals, strict pragmatic policies must be implemented now.
This is not a legal contradiction or a question of Constitutional protections. This is not a time for dithering over legal punctilios. American civilization is facing imminent extinction. The time to act is now. Biden twisted the law to effect an invasion of USA. Trump must bend the law (far, far less, if at all) to remedy Biden’s treason.
Rand Paul is an example of a total fool on this topic: Rand Paul Discusses Deportation Conflict with Constitutional Protection. ABN
Non-Trump faction players
Both appear to be Jewish and funded by Soros, who is Jewish. The vast majority of Jews vote Dem and do not support Trump. Jewish Supremists have worked assiduously and continuously to undermine USA and the West. This includes savage internecine violence in addition to payola politics and mind-control campaigns. All prominent Jews in the public sphere should be asked by interviewers if the are Jewish Supremists or if they support Jewish Supremacy. They should also be asked to disavow Jewish Supremacy if they claim not to be Jewish Supremists. This has been a common question asked of white males for many decades. ABN
The key to understand Bondi, is to accept and understand the role of performative ops in the management of public perception
The key to understand Bondi, is to accept and understand the role of performative ops in the management of public perception.
Remember, Bondi knew she was participating in an operation as State AG to manufacture a false witness in a criminal case (Zimmerman), by her friend Ben Crump.
In the manufacturing of Witness #8 (Jeantel), Bondi knew to a demonstrable certainty that there was no factual “ear witness” against the accused. Bondi knew the state prosecution (Corey), conducted by her former campaign manager, was contingent upon the retention of a lie that was dependent on the fabricated Witness #8. She didn’t make mistakes. She knew the fraud behind the construct.
With foreknowledge and specific intent, Bondi in her position as state AG, filed motions with the court to deny the accused the ability to question the fabricated witness (Jeantel). She knew the motions she was filing were based on fraud, but she perceived her role in managing public opinion was more important than the lawful application of justice.
In that moment, Bondi became a manager of public opinion. This is the same skillset and perceived purpose we are seeing now, with the Epstein information.
Bottom line: (1) Bondi is a truth manager. (2) Bondi will maintain and advance false information to retain her intents for #1.
We are now and always have been ruled by a core elite (a comitatus) based on and held together by loyalty to their figurehead or actual leader, in this case Trump. The Trump comitatus is a major faction of the Western elite, which includes Israel and may be dominated by Jewish Supremists. If the Epstein client list is ever released we will have no way of knowing how much of it is true. We do not even know if Epstein is alive today, something worth remembering. Everyone wants justice and most of us want to see major politicians and celebrities taken down if they have been raping kids or made massive fortunes off taxpayer monies. Me, too. But much more important is can Trump succeed in forming an enduring alliance with Russia. Can he succeed in expanding and solidifying the Western Empire to include Russia as well as Canada and Greenland as part of USA. Can he establish peace in the Middle East and keep USA out of war. If Trump succeeds geopolitically, war with China won’t happen. The Western Empire will thrive as will China and the rest of the world. Do not waste any time dreaming of a Ben Franklin America because it won’t happen. And if it ever does it will arise only out of advanced technology. Incidentally, the surveillance state so many fear is already here. It was here even before the Patriot Act. There is no way anyone can stop it evolving. The best we can hope for is a reasonable comitatus that has enough respect for we the people to allow us to pursue our lives with minimal government interference. Today, that’s Trump. ABN
American Buddhist Net 