Tag: thought

For all medicines and medical treatments — ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

If there is reasonable suspicion about any medicine, and there is about acetaminophen, then do not take it.

There is no need to prove acetaminophen is harmful; it only needs to be shown that it may be harmful.

Acetaminophen has been shown repeatedly to be harmful and even its manufacturer does not recommend it for pregnant women.

Ofc, there will be occasions when it may be better to use acetaminophen than not, but those occasions are not common.

When in doubt err on the side of caution. ABN

Charlie Kirk’s Israeli security detail killed Charlie Kirk — Stew Peters

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Though stated as factual, Peters’ analysis is speculative. And yet it’s somewhat convincing.

I have posted on Kirk’s mic and the probability it was the actual weapon, but Peters has added the suspicious brown shirt guy and the man who jumps over the table as plausible participants.

Filing this under ‘speculation’ but like all reasonable speculation, it is worth keeping in mind.

It is clear as of today that not nearly enough evidence of Robinson’s guilt has been presented to the public to make a strong case.

Indeed, the evidence presented so far looks like the kind of bogus narrative we find every single time something like this happens. Mind-control works best when the false narrative is presented immediately.

Moreover, Candace Owens has stated she has information that the FBI is pressing Utah authorities to close the case now because further inquiry will only spoil their Robinson-did-it story. ABN

UPDATE: No hand-off apparent in frame-by-frame video:

Netanyahu offered Kirk $150 million to stay kosher. Kirk refused. One can only assume the names below have accepted similar offers

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

As of today, there is no way to be certain who shot Kirk and why.

But there is also no way it is not suspicious so many influencers are asserting the radical trans left did it.

There’s plenty more than just those four names singing that tune.

Free speech isn’t free when it costs $150 million.

I respect Kirk for turning down the bribe.

Congress is bribed, influencers are bribed, legacy media is bribed, universities are bribed.

It’s either the carrot or a bullet in the neck.

If Israel or US IC killed Kirk, it was not just to stop him and blame the left.

It was also to scare the sh*t out of anyone who turns down the bribes to tell what they see as the truth, as Kirk did.

There are so many holes in the official story as of today, no one should be claiming they know who did it or telling others to stop noticing patterns or the absurdity of the story to date.

I will never believe a word of this story if they don’t release the video from the camera behind Kirk when he was shot. ABN

The Astral Plane

~ ABN ~ 2 Comments

The astral plane, also called the astral realm or the astral world, is a plane of existence postulated by classical, medieval, oriental, esoteric, and new age philosophies and mystery religions.[1] It is the world of the celestial spheres, crossed by the soul in its astral body on the way to being born and after death, and is generally believed to be populated by angels, spirits or other immaterial beings.[2] In the late 19th and early 20th century the term was popularised by Theosophy and neo-Rosicrucianism.

Another view holds that the astral plane or world, rather than being some kind of boundary area crossed by the soul, is the entirety of spirit existence or spirit worlds to which those who die on Earth go, and where they live out their non-physical lives. It is understood that all consciousness resides in the astral plane.[3] Some writers conflate this realm with heaven or paradise or union with God itself, and others do not. Paramahansa Yogananda wrote in Autobiography of a Yogi (1946), “The astral universe … is hundreds of times larger than the material universe … [with] many astral planets, teeming with astral beings.”

link

My sense is the term astral plane has fallen a bit out of favor. In some cases it is replaced by ethereal plane. In Buddhism, it is traditionally referred to as ultimate reality or vaguely as nirvana, or what comes after nirvana. More recently among scientists and philosophers, we are seeing the concept of a conscious universe or a thinking universe, a universe in which consciousness is a primary force, feature or dimension. However we refer to it, we need a term that evokes dimensions or planes of awareness beyond earthly or mundane awareness or ‘relative reality’, as it is put in Buddhism.

The concept of an astral plane dates back to Plato if not before. The Buddha was referring to something like that without using any term when he spoke about nirvana. The Buddha was a Scythian who argued against the strong Scythian belief in an absolute distinction between right and wrong and a single, great God (Ahura Mazda) who created the world and could be known only through doing good.

It’s a good development that scientists and philosophers today are increasingly seeing what the Buddha and many others have seen throughout the ages. I believe deep meditative states and a moral life afford us frequent opportunities to commune with or glimpse dimensions or realms beyond our normal default cultural behavioral realms.

Buddhism is a profoundly ethical teaching but it also rejects absolutes. We humans are characterized by emptiness, impermanence, and the suffering wrought by clinging to any concept, belief or idea, and yet are capable of freeing ourselves from ‘relative reality’ through ethical practice and experiential samadhi states.

The Buddha remained silent on matters related to anything like the astral plane because he knew that focusing on ethereal aims (especially in his day?) tends to reify them, which then leads to ossification, doctrine, worship without reason. I wonder if in our day, the Buddha would reason differently as many reasonable thinkers now accept that consciousness may be inexplicable by rank materialism or particle physics or biology based on those; and thus may/must be a primary aspect of all that we know of.

My current understanding of Buddhism and ancient history has been recently influenced by Christopher Beckwith’s The Scythian Empire: Central Eurasia and the Birth of the Classical Age from Persia to China, which I highly recommend to Buddhists and everyone else. ABN

A theory of FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

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

Fractals in the humanities

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

“A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale.” (Wikipedia)

Most of us know what math fractals look like and understand that shorelines and trees exhibit fractal patterns that display at different scales.

I think we can also see fractal patterns or sets in the humanities.

For example, the five skandha explanation in Buddhism to be fully understood must be conceived of as a fractal pattern that repeats at different scales. The normal explanation of the five skandhas is as follows:

The five skandhas are form, sensation, perception, activity, consciousness. A form can arise in the mind or outside of the mind. This form gives rise to a sensation, which gives rise to perception, followed by activity (mental or physical), and lastly consciousness. In the Buddha’s explanation, the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly. They are not a continuous stream but rather a series of discrete or discernible moments. A form arises or appears, then there is a sensation, then perception, then activity, then consciousness. (Ibid.)

This explanation describes the most basic fractal pattern or the smallest one. “…the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly.”

A simple example of this rapid movement of the five skandhas might be the experience of having something suddenly touch your neck. Your first awareness of this is the form. Your next awareness is the sensation; at this point you react with aversion, attraction, or neutrality. If you are outside, you might react with aversion as you perceive (third skandha) the touch to probably be an insect. Following that, there is often rapid physical activity (fourth skandha) as you involuntarily reach to brush it away. After that has been done, you will determine what actually happened, you will become conscious (fifth skandha) of what happened.

If it was an insect you might shudder or feel relieved. If it was a leaf on a tree branch you might feel a bit foolish. Your consciousness of the event comes after the first four skandhas have arisen or occurred.

A larger fractal version of the above might be the feeling (form, or first skandha) that you are ignorant about something. This form gives rise to an aversive sensation (second skandha), which leads you to perceive (third skandha) that you ignorance is probably something you should correct. This leads to mental activity (fourth skandha) which may require months of your time. At last, when you are satisfied that you are no longer ignorant on that subject, you will experience a new state of consciousness (fifth skandha).

In the above example, your ongoing feeling of ignorance as you study the subject might also be described as the fifth skandha, consciousness. Understanding that the five skandha explanation is a fractal pattern to be used to help you understand yourself will allow you to apply it where it can do the most good. As with so many things in the humanities, you will do better if you see the pattern and use it to aid understanding without letting yourself get trapped in a quasi-logical net that hinders understanding.

FIML practice can be seen as a fractal pattern as well. The smallest, or most basic level, is the basic FIML query which interrupts normal communicative processing to insert rational thought and more accurate information. The FIML query interrupts the mind as soon as the second skandha, sensation, arises. Whenever partners question a sensation, they will immediately change all of the five skandhas associated with it. Rather than follow a semi-conscious sensation down the same associative path as usual, partners gain an entry point to their deep psychology and an awareness of how their communications are affected by it.

A larger fractal pattern of FIML, might be hearing about it (form); feeling interested in it (sensation); perceiving what it is; learning the system (activity); and lastly gaining a new consciousness about how language can be made to work much better than without FIML.

FIML is a tool that helps partners leverage communicative details to gain great insight into how their minds work. Since FIML is not (yet) the rule for how people speak to each other, a non-FIML fractal pattern can be seen in society at large: since most people do not have a way to access the highly important details that FIML can access, they do not expect anyone else to access them. Thus, by default they accept horribly sloppy reasoning and lies from politicians and others who make important statements in public.

The fractal pattern of non-FIML communication in society at large is all but defined by lies, secrets, and hidden motives. At a smaller fractal level, so are the personal lives of most people. The world goes on. It is my guess that brain scans and better computers and computer programs will one day make it easier for people to see that having the ability to perceive and manipulate communicative details greatly enhances communication. And that communication so enhanced greatly enhances our understanding of ourselves and others. And that this sort of understanding will help us see that we do not have to live in a society that is all but characterized by lies, sloppy reasoning, and partisan nonsense.

In the humanities, fractal patterns can be seen at many levels. By changing the details of very significant communicative patterns between ourselves and our partners, we will change both ourselves and our perceptions of others, and this will gradually lead to better concepts of what society is and how it can function. ABN

FIML is a specific semiotic

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is a specific semiotic, but it also says interesting things about the general semiotics of all languages and communication systems.

As a specific semiotic, FIML influences individual psychology, behavior, and thought. Since FIML rules can be generalized and taught, FIML also shows something about all languages and their uses.

FIML is a way that two people can check the specific semiotics that exists between them. Without FIML, or something like it, individuals cannot do this.

If an individual does not do FIML or something very similar in their primary relationship, that relationship will be characterized by semiotics extrinsic to the relationship and/or by illusions.

I don’t want to overemphasize the semiotic content of FIML practice, but a basic sense of how signs and symbols are interpreted can be a great help to understanding FIML.

In FIML practice, your partner can explain the “text” of what they said much better than you can interpret it. This can only happen if both partners are honest and trust each other and the interpretation/explanation of the “text” is brought up quickly enough that little or nothing has been forgotten by either partner.

As for honesty and trust, it is my guess that these areas can be a problem for people because we humans are almost always required to interpret what is said to us without any possible recourse to a better explanation. There are three major reasons for this: 1) convention, habit; 2) timing; and 3) emotion.

Taking the second reason first, timing makes it very difficult to get good information about what a speaker means because when we ask quickly enough for them to actually still be able to remember, we will appear confrontational or rude. The speaker will become flustered and often answer with an excuse rather than an explanation.

This happens due to factor three, emotion. Language evolved in hierarchical societies. To question someone quickly about what they said is to seem to question them, to doubt them. In hierarchies, we do not question the orders we are given. We wait our turn, we let the speaker finish, we don’t interrupt, etc. Yet, if we don’t act quickly—within a few seconds—the speaker will have forgotten the fullness of their mind at the moment they spoke. Their explanation for the “text,” for what they said, will be lost forever, even if we have a video recording of it.

Due to the quickness of human emotion, virtually all societies everywhere have constructed rules for listening and speaking that completely preclude a FIML-type inquiry. Most beginning FIML partners will, therefore, experience some difficulty getting used to FIML queries. Our moods, emotions, mental states, thoughts, and more have all been long conditioned by social forces that constrain us in the very place where we need more freedom—getting the real explanation from our partner to replace our interpretation.

You would never want to run a business or do an engineering project based on ambiguous interpretations, but most of us conduct our love lives and friendships in just that way.

FIML is a specific semiotic in that it deals with the communications between two specific individuals. FIML does not tell these individuals what to think, say, or believe. It merely provides a technique for them to fully explore the semiotics and all ramifications of those semiotics that occur between them. A general semiotic is one that says something about all languages. FIML fixes a general weakness that occurs, to the best of my knowledge, in all human languages.

Why Whitney Webb’s Epstein book and podcast interviews have had a more detrimental effect on the public’s grasp of the Jeffrey Epstein story than the censors could ever dream of having

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Here’s a long piece about why Whitney Webb’s Epstein book and podcast interviews have had a more detrimental effect on the public’s grasp of the Jeffrey Epstein story than the censors could ever dream of having:

A book or any other printed material needs to be precise and as brief as possible in order to properly convey the material therein. A smart writer knows this and endeavours to reach that goal. It is no good to say “but I had to include everything so that people will understand” instead what should be done is to get a really good understanding of the material so that one might express the essence of it with just enough backing history that the reader can have faith that the material is accurate.

When attempting to baffle with bullshit, however, authors and lawyers often use a simple trick: bury their mark in unnecessary documentation. Overload the senses, use too many words, offer too much documentation.

The aim, of course, is to make the reader or target feel that there’s no way they can actually verify the information or even absorb it all.

Often this trick in itself is evidence of foul play or malfeasance, however it could be that the person producing the material is simply ill equipped to handle the case they are working on and so they throw everything into the mix hoping that the sheer volume will confer some sort of legitimacy on the work. I’m not commenting, in the case of Webb, on her intentions.

Part 2

Think of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes.

The point of that tale is to demonstrate that a group of people will go along with a delusion if ‘popular’ people embrace it first.

Where real life differs from the tale is that in real life, if someone comes along to point out that the whole group of people were fooled, more often than not the group will turn on the person pointing out the truth rather than awaken from their shared delusion.

This is what has happened with Whitney Webb and her book about Epstein. She wrote this huge and unreadable book (which no, I haven’t read) and immediately got invited onto popular shows (Glenn Beck first) to receive high praise for it. This was ‘The King’ endorsing the new invisible fashion.

Soon the commoners (even though they didn’t read past the first chapter, let’s say, of the book) wanted to look smart & informed so instead of admitting that the book was a cloud of verbal flatulence they joined in the adoring chorus.

The truth is that Tracey’s critique is valid.

He doesn’t go far enough in his warnings about it, though. His aim is not my aim. It appears to me that Tracey just wants to discredit links to Israelis and Jewish intelligence (not sure). In my case I want people to realize that the truth of Epstein not only includes links to Israel, but also to the world of science (progress) / transhumanism / AI and probably to much darker stuff. That his links to Howard Lutnick are not properly investigated. Etc.

When Webb goes on podcast after podcast with her flood of info and in her grating manner (the combination of which sets one’s teeth on edge and makes their eyes glaze over) she serves a more dangerous role than would a censor of info about Epstein and his connections.

She makes people believe that they’ve got the full story, but also that that story is too complex to grasp, and in the end they slip back into “muh egg-shaped penis” titllation instead of ever really reaching understanding.

link

This has been my sense of Webb as well. I also have not read her book for the reasons given above.

We should all be wary of influencers while also taking in whatever information is good.

I, for one, accept the fact that we are living in a world run by elites; and with that in mind I offer qualified support to whichever side or faction of the elite seems pragmatically best to me.

To put that another way: would you ever really want to live in a real democracy? wherein every moron alive who knows nothing can determine the fate of a nation?

It’s just as well we have pretend elections which amount to public opinion polls at best.

AI may change the game but, so far, elites have always ruled and still do. ABN

Abstract reasoning and mental illness

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Listening to the ranting of a friend who has Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), I am struck by two things:

  • he gives reasons for his anger
  • his reasoning or abstract understanding of his predicament is ridiculous

(His rant was recorded and sent to me by a third party who is trying to help.)

With that as a starting point, consider the various ways abstract reasoning or solid abstract paradigms can compensate for or mask mental illness. Not all of it is pretty.

For example, serial killers often mask their illnesses for decades by holding fast to the appearance of normalcy while secretly indulging their madness.

Less bad are career criminals who act with savagery in less direct ways, through hit men, poisons, theft, fraud, and so on.

There is a wide spectrum between serial killers and normally inoffensive people.

It is reasonable to see all cultures as fundamentally abstract paradigms that mask and allow for madness among large groups of people.

A culture, after all, is nothing more than a Lowest-Common-Denominator system of communication; an LCD semiology. Consider how many cultures are grotesquely narcissistic.

Personality is much the same whether it conforms well or not to whichever cultural semiology it inhabits.

From this point of view, enshrining diversity only ensures a wider array of mad people. Identity politics is the same; just more ways for mad people to function, more room for them to run free; more abstract paradigms to mask their underlying chaos.

That is a decent modern restatement of the First and Second Noble Truths: life is suffering because we are crazy.

The Third and Fourth Noble Truths tell us that the way out of being crazy is to use our reason better; to understand why we are crazy; that clinging to LCD semiologies can’t ever work.

A philosophical psychologist might rightly say that a mad mind open to reason will gradually become well.

My friend with BPD can reason, but his reasoning is really bad. It’s selfish, marinated in anger, and not open to contrary views. But even he can do it if he clings to reason and evidence.

Abstract reasoning and paradigms such as Buddhism, science, other religions, atheism, psychology, or philosophy can lead us out of madness if we use them diligently.

Diligence or perseverance is one of the most important virtues in Buddhist practice. Wisdom is the most important. Compassion is probably the most famous Buddhist virtue but compassion without wisdom or diligence is not good and can even be dangerous.

Indeed, my BPD friend frequently and loudly demands unreasonable compassion from others. And that is one of the most obvious flaws in the way he thinks about himself, the way he reasons.

Timothy Williamson on Knowledge: What is Knowledge?

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

FIML works with the shared knowledge of two people; knowledge that both partners agree on.

FIML works with small bits of knowledge to avoid jumping mistakenly into false belief, justification, or truth as these words are used in the video above.

In this way, FIML is working with both primary subjective and primary objective knowledge, turning them into agreed upon better subjective and objective knowledge (since both agree).

Doing FIML frequently, clears up mistaken beliefs, justifications, and truths by clearing up basic subjective and objective knowledge mistakes.

I have only just heard of Williamson, but the messy knowledge basis of interpersonal relations has been clear to me for many decades.

When partners compare their subjective knowledge of self and each other, they correct their false knowledge and replace it with much better knowledge.

Basic FIML works with bits of language and semiotics that are small enough for both partners to distinctly remember in real-time and agree on what they are.

A huge advantage of working with small bits of knowledge is self-correction is fairly easy. And also its effects on meso and macro kinds of knowledge happen through autocatalytic expansion into those regions.

Everything changes when lots of little bits of knowledge are cleared up and made better. The insights expand throughout the mind.

FIML does not tell you what to think. It is a method for working with what you know or can know or thought you knew but maybe were wrong or right.

FIML’s truths, once realized, are psychological, existential, philosophical and spiritual. ABN

I will accept the high risk of a civil war due to jailing the Russia Hoax perps, including Obama — Scott Adams

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Very serious lines were crossed by the perps. Their actions were treasonous.

At some point lines like these have to be enforced.

The line-crossing was a slippery slope which began before Obama and got worse during his term.

He is the one who turned the Patriot Act against US citizens and his political opponents.

I doubt Obama will be prosecuted for his role in the coup d’état, but punishing lesser actors may send nearly as valuable a message to federal employees if not to the American public.

If Bondi leaves this ‘file’ on her desk, she will become as a traitor herself. ABN