Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[SpheresOfBalance]

And some only display their ignorance.

It's about the sale of swampland!

Care to elucidate?
An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts, that is in fact merely a smoke screen, hiding their true intentions. Now apply that to the original text.

Did you hear the whistle above your head?

Nope, care to explain what this other cut is?
Self serving, power mongering.

I'm a realist in my perception, an idealist in my vision, and you're a fool in your naivete!

You think politics naive?
Hey, you're the one that brought up politics, not I. Please stick with the subject at hand (so you don't get lost in your sidebars), namely, the illusion that is civilization.

How do you resolve this contradiction between your realism and idealism?
Since you failed to catch it the first time, my realism is that in understanding the current state of civilization, while my idealism points the way towards what needs correcting. Resolution is in the hands of the populace, if they ever get a clue and cure their selfishness.

You need to clear the fog from your vision, assuming you're capable!

So you are not an absolute idealist?
You're lost in a dream world, if you believe that the so called, 'civilization,' is pure of heart.

[SpheresOfBalance]

When reading me, you must continually hear a whistle! I'm talking of perception, seemingly, your presumption precludes your comprehension.

Then we are talking about the same thing, what do you mean by 'perception'?
In this particular case, the observation of cause and effect relating to the so called elitists; their modus operandi, as it pertains to the current construct of the so called civilization.

No! Coding computers, period!

Ah! Things must have changed as I come from the time when programs were paper-run before being input. Couldn't afford to put garbage in.
No you don't, or you didn't pay attention! It is not specific to databases. It simply means that the output is directly proportional to the input. If you input garbage, expect garbage as output, i.e., databases, code, formulas, etc. The whole point is that you can't afford it, duh!

And you, my dear, are a reductionist, post presumption of your parroting, i.e. an ignorant grouper, as well as, I'm sure, a victim of other such rationale limiters; so much, a cookie cutter clone, and just as much a product! How does it feel to be bought and sold?

No idea? What is it you think I'm a reductionist about?
You seem to have difficulty following, it is impossible to label anyone with one word. While it may appease your sense of self to categorically dismiss people in a word, it's an empty assumption that it has any real meaning.

[Arising_uk]

An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts, that is in fact merely a smoke screen, hiding their true intentions. Now apply that to the original text.

You mean my thoughts about asteroid mining and resources? Or my thought that the idea that there was a past utopia where man did not destroy or change the environment was unsubstantiated. What intention do you think I was hiding?

Self serving, power mongering.

Huh!? So you'd prefer to leave people to die in this harsh world of yours?

Hey, you're the one that brought up politics, not I. Please stick with the subject at hand (so you don't get lost in your sidebars), namely, the illusion that is civilization.

And your reality is what?

Since you failed to catch it the first time, my realism is that in understanding the current state of civilization, while my idealism points the way towards what needs correcting. Resolution is in the hands of the populace, if they ever get a clue and cure their selfishness.

What are you doing to cure yours? What do you think is the current state of civilization? What actions are you taking to cure this state? Sorry if I missed it but exactly what does your idealism propose as a solution?

You're lost in a dream world, if you believe that the so called, 'civilization,' is pure of heart.

Where did you hear me say that? Your idealism appears to believe in past and future utopias?

[Arising_uk]

In this particular case, the observation of cause and effect relating to the so called elitists; their modus operandi, as it pertains to the current construct of the so called civilization.

Like I said, you have a victimhood perception of things and a conspiracist to boot.

No you don't, or you didn't pay attention! It is not specific to databases. It simply means that the output is directly proportional to the input. If you input garbage, expect garbage as output, i.e., databases, code, formulas, etc. The whole point is that you can't afford it, duh!

You put garbage code in you get nothing out as the program won't run. Still a bit lost about how this applied to NLP?

You seem to have difficulty following, it is impossible to label anyone with one word. While it may appease your sense of self to categorically dismiss people in a word, it's an empty assumption that it has any real meaning.

"reductionist", " ignorant grouper", "cookie cutter clone", ring any bells?

In case its missed your notice you are on a philosophy forum, as such single words have a whole host of concepts attached to them which provide the meaning for the appellation of the one word.

[SpheresOfBalance]

An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts, that is in fact merely a smoke screen, hiding their true intentions. Now apply that to the original text.

You mean my thoughts about asteroid mining and resources? Or my thought that the idea that there was a past utopia where man did not destroy or change the environment was unsubstantiated. What intention do you think I was hiding?
It was a point about the subject matter at hand and had nothing to do with anything you specifically said. It's not always about you, Arising!

Self serving, power mongering.

Huh!? So you'd prefer to leave people to die in this harsh world of yours?
Sweetheart, everyone dies, it's a fact of life, but again you're the one that brought up dieing. You seem to project your presumption onto my meaning and then hold me accountable.

Hey, you're the one that brought up politics, not I. Please stick with the subject at hand (so you don't get lost in your sidebars), namely, the illusion that is civilization.

And your reality is what?
My reality is that of the laws of nature. I do not subscribe to anything that man creates that is at odds with nature. And mans, so called, civilization is not in keeping with nature.

Since you failed to catch it the first time, my realism is that in understanding the current state of civilization, while my idealism points the way towards what needs correcting. Resolution is in the hands of the populace, if they ever get a clue and cure their selfishness.

What are you doing to cure yours?
My what?

What do you think is the current state of civilization?
One that has lost sight of what it truly is in being human.

What actions are you taking to cure this state?
Talking here.

Sorry if I missed it but exactly what does your idealism propose as a solution?
There you go again presuming that because I can see a flaw that it's my responsibility to correct it. My name's not Bob E Vinson, I don't believe that I alone could possibly find solution to the problem of all, nor do I necessarily want the responsibility.

You're lost in a dream world, if you believe that the so called, 'civilization,' is pure of heart.

Where did you hear me say that?
I thought I 'saw' inference, it's hard to 'hear,' here, Arising, obviously, my assumption..
Your idealism appears to believe in past and future utopias?
Not of the past, no, but I do believe that it's possible to build one in the future, if humanity can only find a way to check their selfishness at the door.

[SpheresOfBalance]

In this particular case, the observation of cause and effect relating to the so called elitists; their modus operandi, as it pertains to the current construct of the so called civilization.

Like I said, you have a victimhood perception of things and a conspiracist to boot.
Not as you present it at all! It's the fact of our so called civilization. If you're not a so called elite, and deny it, then you're a fool, if you're a so called elite, it's no wonder you deny it. It's not necessarily a conspiracy by definition, however I'm sure that historically there has been secret meetings that have played a part in the current state of the construct, to which I refer.

No you don't, or you didn't pay attention! It is not specific to databases. It simply means that the output is directly proportional to the input. If you input garbage, expect garbage as output, i.e., databases, code, formulas, etc. The whole point is that you can't afford it, duh!

You put garbage code in you get nothing out as the program won't run.
Not true sweetie, I have coded in the past, there are many parts of code, there are labels (line numbers), constants, variables, arrays, subroutines etc. depending on where the "garbage" is located it can lead to bugs, inefficiencies, incorrect output (garbage out) and program crash's, but it shall always run to some extent, unless the first line of code is flawed. Sure incorrect syntax shall stop it dead in it's tracks, but you said it wouldn't run, and that is not accurate.

Still a bit lost about how this applied to NLP?
"Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate that NLP contains numerous factual errors, and has failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents. According to Devilly, NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology. NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions. In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”."
--Wikipedia--

You seem to have difficulty following, it is impossible to label anyone with one word. While it may appease your sense of self to categorically dismiss people in a word, it's an empty assumption that it has any real meaning.

"reductionist", " ignorant grouper", "cookie cutter clone", ring any bells?
You seem to have forgotten the importance of sequence, I tend to treat people in kind, though admittedly, I sometimes jump the gun, but not in this particular case, ring any bells?

In case its missed your notice you are on a philosophy forum, as such single words have a whole host of concepts attached to them which provide the meaning for the appellation of the one word.
You said, and I quote:

You are a nihilist, a pessimist and a fatalist.

None of which are true, definitively. Obviously it was your way of diminishing me, and as such, in truth, you achieved quite the opposite.

And you had started off by saying:

Some people burble,

And in what you had responded too, I wasn't even referring to you, just sharing with you a point that I thought was important.

Additionally, initially, during this particular course of conversation, I'd merely said:

...such that for me, your point is empty.

No attack what so ever, simply saying that due to what I know and believe, your words fell short of saying anything of meaning, to me. Such that I was perplexed as to why you would try and label my persona in a condescending way. So I treated you in kind, as I always do.

[Arising_uk]

It was a point about the subject matter at hand and had nothing to do with anything you specifically said. It's not always about you, Arising!

Then why did you quote me!? As that is what I responded to.

Sweetheart, everyone dies, it's a fact of life, but again you're the one that brought up dieing. You seem to project your presumption onto my meaning and then hold me accountable.

No dearie, you said in your quote of me that it was about keeping alive in a harsh world and your words appeared to say you thought you preferred the cut. I asked you what this cut was and you appear to have avoided answering.

My reality is that of the laws of nature. I do not subscribe to anything that man creates that is at odds with nature. And mans, so called, civilization is not in keeping with nature.

Give me an example of one of these 'Laws of Nature' you uphold.

My what?

Your selfishness, as I presume you are part of this civilization?

One that has lost sight of what it truly is in being human.

Which is what?

Talking here.

There you go again presuming that because I can see a flaw that it's my responsibility to correct it. My name's not Bob E Vinson, I don't believe that I alone could possibly find solution to the problem of all, nor do I necessarily want the responsibility.

You've not even said what this flaw is yet? Like I said pessimistic nihilist.

I thought I 'saw' inference, it's hard to 'hear,' here, Arising, obviously, my assumption.

Yes.

Not of the past, no, but I do believe that it's possible to build one in the future, if humanity can only find a way to check their selfishness at the door.

What would it look like?

[Arising_uk]

Not as you present it at all! It's the fact of our so called civilization. If you're not a so called elite, and deny it, then you're a fool, if you're a so called elite, it's no wonder you deny it. It's not necessarily a conspiracy by definition, however I'm sure that historically there has been secret meetings that have played a part in the current state of the construct, to which I refer.

Not true sweetie, I have coded in the past, there are many parts of code, there are labels (line numbers), constants, variables, arrays, subroutines etc. depending on where the "garbage" is located it can lead to bugs, inefficiencies, incorrect output (garbage out) and program crash's, but it shall always run to some extent, unless the first line of code is flawed. Sure incorrect syntax shall stop it dead in it's tracks, but you said it wouldn't run, and that is not accurate.

A quick goggle has me standing corrected. Like I said I come from a time when the programmers wrote machine-code so no program would run as it wouldn't compile if it had errors, so they paper-ran the program first because computer time was expensive.

"Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate that NLP contains numerous factual errors, and has failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents. According to Devilly, NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology. NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions. In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”."
--Wikipedia--

Nearly all these articles were not based-upon any actual research but just psychoanalysts and psychiatrists defending their theories of psyche and their approach to analysis. A psychoanalyst friend reliably informed me that it was bunkum but then went looking through the research and admitted that there was only one true double-blind testing done and that did show that the techniques were effective in the areas that NLP was interested in treating in its early inception. Which is not a surprise as the main techniques are all drawn from the field of psychiatry and psychoanalysis in the first place, i.e. they were mainly models of the techniques of two successful analysts, Viginia Satir and Milton Erickson

Even funnier is the coincidence that with the disparagement of NLP psychoanalysts suddenly discovered CBT.

But NLP makes no great claims about being 'scientific' nor any claims to a theory of mind, rather it claims a grab-bag of techniques and an epistemology that says, try it and see for yourself, anyone can do it.

You seem to have forgotten the importance of sequence, I tend to treat people in kind, though admittedly, I sometimes jump the gun, but not in this particular case, ring any bells?

You got upset that in a philosophy forum I named the kind of philosophy I think you support!?

None of which are true, definitively. Obviously it was your way of diminishing me, and as such, in truth, you achieved quite the opposite.

No you numbnuts, you are in a philosophy forum, these are acceptable names to use about others thoughts. That you think it dismissive makes me think you are have no clue as to where you are and whom you are speaking to.

And in what you had responded too, I wasn't even referring to you, just sharing with you a point that I thought was important.

My mistake, as you quoted me so I thought the point referring to me. I still don't understand what it was meant to say and what it referred to?

Additionally, initially, during this particular course of conversation, I'd merely said:

...such that for me, your point is empty.

No attack what so ever, simply saying that due to what I know and believe, your words fell short of saying anything of meaning, to me. Such that I was perplexed as to why you would try and label my persona in a condescending way. So I treated you in kind, as I always do.

Which point of mine was empty? Thats what I was trying to discover.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Not as you present it at all! It's the fact of our so called civilization. If you're not a so called elite, and deny it, then you're a fool, if you're a so called elite, it's no wonder you deny it. It's not necessarily a conspiracy by definition, however I'm sure that historically there has been secret meetings that have played a part in the current state of the construct, to which I refer.

Not true sweetie, I have coded in the past, there are many parts of code, there are labels (line numbers), constants, variables, arrays, subroutines etc. depending on where the "garbage" is located it can lead to bugs, inefficiencies, incorrect output (garbage out) and program crash's, but it shall always run to some extent, unless the first line of code is flawed. Sure incorrect syntax shall stop it dead in it's tracks, but you said it wouldn't run, and that is not accurate.

A quick goggle has me standing corrected. Like I said I come from a time when the programmers wrote machine-code so no program would run as it wouldn't compile if it had errors, so they paper-ran the program first because computer time was expensive.
Incorrect, even in the lowest of languages, 'assembly,' the same holds true! And no one has ever written in machine code and then compiled, as compilation is not needed, as machine code is binary, 0's and 1's. Any language that is complied is higher than machine code!

"Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate that NLP contains numerous factual errors, and has failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents. According to Devilly, NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology. NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions. In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”."
--Wikipedia--

Nearly all these articles were not based-upon any actual research but just psychoanalysts and psychiatrists defending their theories of psyche and their approach to analysis. A psychoanalyst friend reliably informed me that it was bunkum but then went looking through the research and admitted that there was only one true double-blind testing done and that did show that the techniques were effective in the areas that NLP was interested in treating in its early inception. Which is not a surprise as the main techniques are all drawn from the field of psychiatry and psychoanalysis in the first place, i.e. they were mainly models of the techniques of two successful analysts, Viginia Satir and Milton Erickson

Even funnier is the coincidence that with the disparagement of NLP psychoanalysts suddenly discovered CBT.

But NLP makes no great claims about being 'scientific' nor any claims to a theory of mind, rather it claims a grab-bag of techniques and an epistemology that says, try it and see for yourself, anyone can do it.

You seem to have forgotten the importance of sequence, I tend to treat people in kind, though admittedly, I sometimes jump the gun, but not in this particular case, ring any bells?

You got upset that in a philosophy forum I named the kind of philosophy I think you support!?
That's not what you said now is it? Am I the only one in here that can say what they mean and mean what they say, and if not and called upon for clarification, will do so and apologize for the misconception? Especially if it could be seen to be spiteful!

None of which are true, definitively. Obviously it was your way of diminishing me, and as such, in truth, you achieved quite the opposite.

No you numbnuts,
No, you brain dead fuck, In this limited medium it's impossible to classify any one in a word. Anyone's verbiage may be seen as initially from one perspective, but once inspected completely at all angles, one can see other such perspectives, such that they could be said to believe in a new idea, that has elements of several old ideas, with a few new ones thrown in. You cannot honestly pigeon hole anyone here in this limited forum, without opening mouth and inserting foot.

Are you hard of seeing, all three were definitively incorrect, are you dense?

And no, I do not like being pigeon holed by those with limited facts and knowledge, so please keep your labeling to yourself, fool! See, not very nice is it.

Now, it was uncalled for that you called me 'numb nuts' as well as it was uncalled for that I called you a 'brain dead fuck' and a 'fool,' so can you and I, please, not stoop to the level of Chaz?


you are in a philosophy forum, these are acceptable names to use about others thoughts.
The word 'thoughts' never entered the picture nor did you allow for your misconception, which is apparent from my perspective.

That you think it dismissive makes me think you are have no clue as to where you are and whom you are speaking to.
Are you shrooming? Neither of us know whom the other is talking to, it's impossible here when one use's pseudonym's, and even if we did use our real names, it still wouldn't necessarily mean anything of significance.

And in what you had responded too, I wasn't even referring to you, just sharing with you a point that I thought was important.

My mistake, as you quoted me so I thought the point referring to me. I still don't understand what it was meant to say and what it referred to?
Simply that we are from different camps you buy into the lie and I see it for what it is, intentional or otherwise.

Additionally, initially, during this particular course of conversation, I'd merely said:

...such that for me, your point is empty.

No attack what so ever, simply saying that due to what I know and believe, your words fell short of saying anything of meaning, to me. Such that I was perplexed as to why you would try and label my persona in a condescending way. So I treated you in kind, as I always do.

Which point of mine was empty? Thats what I was trying to discover.
NO! Empty for me, empty for me, empty for me, empty for me, christ how many times to I have to say it? Empty for me, empty for me! Get it, NOT that your words are empty for 'you,' but they are empty for 'me.'

[Arising_uk]

Incorrect, even in the lowest of languages, 'assembly,' the same holds true! And no one has ever written in machine code and then compiled, as compilation is not needed, as machine code is binary, 0's and 1's. Any language that is complied is higher than machine code!

My apologies, they used to write them on register pads and my job as the computer operator was to convert them to punch cards and input, schedule and run them as jobs. I thought of it as compilation but this appears wrong.

[Arising_uk]

That's not what you said now is it? Am I the only one in here that can say what they mean and mean what they say, and if not and called upon for clarification, will do so and apologize for the misconception? Especially if it could be seen to be spiteful!

I said you were a pessimistic nihilist and a conspiracy theorist. Are you not? Where is the spite in that?

[Arising_uk]

No, you brain dead fuck, In this limited medium it's impossible to classify any one in a word. Anyone's verbiage may be seen as initially from one perspective, but once inspected completely at all angles, one can see other such perspectives, such that they could be said to believe in a new idea, that has elements of several old ideas, with a few new ones thrown in. You cannot honestly pigeon hole anyone here in this limited forum, without opening mouth and inserting foot.

Are you hard of seeing, all three were definitively incorrect, are you dense?

And no, I do not like being pigeon holed by those with limited facts and knowledge, so please keep your labeling to yourself, fool! See, not very nice is it.

Now, it was uncalled for that you called me 'numb nuts' as well as it was uncalled for that I called you a 'brain dead fuck' and a 'fool,' so can you and I, please, not stoop to the level of Chaz?

And yet the terms I used are used in philosophy and yours are not. What is a "cookie-cutter" by the way? Did I find spite or offense in your use of "reductionist"? No I did not. I questioned why you thought so rather than letting my emotions gush.

Do you not hear the victimhood writ large in your responses to me?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Incorrect, even in the lowest of languages, 'assembly,' the same holds true! And no one has ever written in machine code and then compiled, as compilation is not needed, as machine code is binary, 0's and 1's. Any language that is complied is higher than machine code!

My apologies, they used to write them on register pads and my job as the computer operator was to convert them to punch cards and input, schedule and run them as jobs. I thought of it as compilation but this appears wrong.

Your one endearing quality, OK, maybe not one, is that you appear to be honest, once you see truth. I admire that. There are some things I like about you.

[Arising_uk]

...
The word 'thoughts' never entered the picture nor did you allow for your misconception, which is apparent from my perspective

Which I still waiting to hear, as so far my thoughts about your appear to hold.

Are you shrooming? Neither of us know whom the other is talking to, it's impossible here when one use's pseudonym's, and even if we did use our real names, it still wouldn't necessarily mean anything of significance.

Which is why I wait to hear some response from you to my questions.

Simply that we are from different camps you buy into the lie and I see it for what it is, intentional or otherwise.

But you've not said what your camp is?

NO! Empty for me, empty for me, empty for me, empty for me, christ how many times to I have to say it? Empty for me, empty for me! Get it, NOT that your words are empty for 'you,' but they are empty for 'me.'

Yes, but which specfic point in your quote of me were you referring to? As you quoted two thoughts of mine.

[SpheresOfBalance]

That's not what you said now is it? Am I the only one in here that can say what they mean and mean what they say, and if not and called upon for clarification, will do so and apologize for the misconception? Especially if it could be seen to be spiteful!

I said you were a pessimistic nihilist and a conspiracy theorist. Are you not? Where is the spite in that?

ni·hil·ism /ˈnaɪəˌlɪzəm, ˈni-/ [nahy-uh-liz-uhm, nee-]
4. Philosophy .
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.

NOPE!

pes·si·mism /ˈpɛsəˌmɪzəm/ [pes-uh-miz-uhm]
noun
1. the tendency to see, anticipate, or emphasize only bad or undesirable outcomes, results, conditions, problems, etc.: His pessimism about the future of our country depresses me.

While I can see how you could say this, based upon some of the things I've said, I see it like this:

The good things are good, no need to mention them, because there's no need to change them, but rather, enjoy them.
The bad things are bad, so there is a need to mention them, because there is a need to change them, how could anyone possibly really enjoy them.

con·spir·a·cy /kənˈspɪrəsi/ [kuhn-spir-uh-see] noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."
--Don't know who coined this--

Is there conspiring? Of course there is!
Do I know of any particular meetings? No!
Can you look at facts and extrapolate what could be seen as conspiracies? Of course you can!
Does it mean they are definitely conspiracies? Of course not!
Could it be that these things that you bring to light are merely coincidence, born of mankind's legacy? Of course!
Does this change the fact that they should be changed in the interests of fairness? Of course not!
If you bring them to light can someone see you as a conspiracy theorist? Of course they can!
Does it mean that in fact that you are one? Of course not!