A $350 “anti-5G” device

20-100-2fe

Active Member

Reaction score: 186
Messages: 176

Of course, but only "experts" can grant you access to solutions to your problems, though they don't know more than you and they don't care about you.

This is particularly the case with medicine. Most health problems are nowadays either caused by stratospheric levels of stress, or by a number of toxics stuffing everything from baby bottles to tomato sauce. MD are clueless when you consult them, you have to make your own diagnostic and then try and find a way to have an MD prescribe the appropriate treatment.
 

jomonger

Member

Reaction score: 14
Messages: 41

So much for that one. So, yes, we should always listen to the experts, and believe what they tell us. And for every field of knowledge, there will be an expert to tell us what we ought to believe.
But then, what happens if there isn't?
Richard Feynman said that "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". We live in quite and advanced world while most of people doesn't know at all how technology works. It easy for them to believe in functionality that seems for them similiar to things they already saw (microwaver heats food, usb sticks can flash lights, so why usb stick couldn't block 5g huh?). Empiricism vs Rationalism.

Anyway I am big fan of this USB stick. Properetary holographic nano-layer catalyst technology is the thing I need.
 

20-100-2fe

Active Member

Reaction score: 186
Messages: 176

The former destroyed by Sea People, the latter might destroy by Scene People.
What's ever increasing over time is our arrogance. Along evolution, the most arrogant homo.* has always superseded the least arrogant. I could trace it back to 500,000 years ago, but it began most probably even earlier. Our arrogance grows ever stronger, ever faster over time, exactly like toxics concentrate along the food chain. But Nature isn't a creature, you can't intimidate it, nor negotiate with it, its laws apply universally, full stop. Disregarding this, blinded by arrogance, is simply suicidal. However, aware of this or not, none of us can escape, for we are social animals and we can't live alone... Hence the suffering and all those little tactics we use to try and deal with it - the best we can do.
 

k3y5

Member

Reaction score: 18
Messages: 47

Yes, Daniela, that was your sanity disappearing.

I'm not too familiar with UK law, but aren't there consumer protection laws for this? It's clearly snake oil,
You'd think so. I fondly remember the "pet rock," mania that hit for couple of months. How else would it be possible for someone like bunker b*tch to get elected.
 

SirDice

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator

Reaction score: 8,919
Messages: 33,312

I fondly remember the "pet rock,"
They never claimed those rocks were anything special or have any medical benefits. It was a weird fad, yes, but nothing more than that.
 

getopt

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 451
Messages: 735

I'm not too familiar with UK law, but aren't there consumer protection laws for this? It's clearly snake oil,
I just wonder that the US have this:

I. The Empirical Evidence
We could spend hours discussing the extensive, decades-long scientific
examination of homeopathy, but suffice to say the empirical evidence
against homeopathy is overwhelming: aside from a placebo effect,
homeopathic products have no effect in treating illnesses.

And these mountains of evidence contain what? As just explained, they contain nothing.
As a profound evidence denier could you please offer your understanding of nothing as there is too much room for interpretation.

PMc, for what homeopathic dilution would you use the term 'nothing'?
 

jardows

Member

Reaction score: 12
Messages: 44

So much for the experts. It seems to me, just like in religion: if you want to talk to God, you're not allowed to do so. Instead, you have to go to a priest, pay the priest, and the priest will handle the communication on your behalf, and tell you what God is saying. Same is now true for the experts: if you want to do something, or decide something, or experience something, you're not allowed to do so. Instead you have to go to the experts, pay the experts, and the experts will tell you what experience you are expected to have. And certainly, this is all for our protection.
You say "expert" in this conversation, and the way you use it, I hear "Consultant."
 

SirDice

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator

Reaction score: 8,919
Messages: 33,312

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
 

Jose

Active Member

Reaction score: 102
Messages: 218

 

PMc

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 291
Messages: 782

As a profound evidence denier could you please offer your understanding of nothing as there is too much room for interpretation.
That's the point in it. Have fun interpreting. (The outcome will reflect Your personal mind-state, and that is nothing I am concerned to influence.)

PMc, for what homeopathic dilution would you use the term 'nothing'?
Good point. As somebody who does prefer solid personal experience, I can say that homeopathy did never work for me, but then, faith healing does. And it does work to such an extent, that one could start drawing a map for, which kind of suppressed emotional thinking would spark which kind of spontaneous healing, i.e. the body-mind relation.
Now this map is individual for each human, consequentially most of the esoteric market offerings of "healing" are quite pointless.

From here on, You maybe can see that the materialistic approach in trying to tackle the physical substance in homeopathy (which might induce healing) leads into the void, because what induces healing is not a substance, it is basically an idea.

So now it is up to You to show a way how to physically measure an idea.
And, to answer Your question: it is this mentioned void for which I use the term 'nothing'.
 

PMc

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 291
Messages: 782

You say "expert" in this conversation, and the way you use it, I hear "Consultant."
Actually, no. I rather mean "priest" - in the sense of somebody monopolizing opinion in their field of knowledge. And you may get that opinion seemingly for free, in TV shows for instance, because the public hand (that is: you as a taxpayer) pays for the service, which is considered to be for the greater good of all.

With consultants the matter is a bit different - there you usually have an individual contract (or your employing corp. has one). So -in principal- you can tackle them and force them to explain what they are doing - and since they are individually hired, they will have to respond to that.

The consultant gets at you only where you are weak (that is true for the esoteric healers just the same as for the McKinsey etc. flock), while the modern "expert" gets at you by shaping public opinion.
 

PMc

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 291
Messages: 782

This one gave me a really hard time of thinking during the recent days... Something in Your perception appears strange to me, but it also appears extremly difficult to pinpoint it.

Because you understand this, I think you know what I mean when I talk about suffering.
So, what You meain is not a physical injury (that could be treated appropriately). And neither is it a mental disorder (that could probably also be improved by the proper means). It rather seems to be something similar to the notion in the buddhist philosophy, that "we all experience suffering". I never understood that one, either.

I think the buddhist philosophy is a very important and necessary approach to try and understand the phenomenon of the mind, and of existence, NOT based on the telltale of some divine being, but on something near to clear reasoning. But then, it positions suffering at the entry-point to the whole philosophy, and it does not even bother to explain how to achieve suffering, but simply declares it as conditio-sine-qua-non.
At that point I did almost despair - not because I would have been in the mood to despair, but because there was a philosophy that hat an methodology I could well agree with, and that tried to understand the very things I did also try to understand, but that did exclude me from their wisdom, because I could not achieve the prerequisite, i.e. suffering.

We are the only species whose arrogance goes well beyond insanity, up to the point we're destroying the ecosystem that allows us to live at an incredible speed and with an unwavering determination.
Slowly... we are the only species that tends to reflect on matters. This is an advantage, but it comes at a price.
Our ability to survive, our "evolutionary niche", is based on this: we are not stronger/faster/... than another animal, but we can reflect on experiences and change our methodology.
But it is the very same thing that separates us from nature - because you cannot reflect without distance.

Then, about arrogance - when do we behave arrogant? Often that is an act of defiance. We are, as you said, social animals. So we have a natural instinct to join and integrate. If that, for some reason, is not possible, the reaction may well be arrogance.
An animal is never asked: they behave according to their instincts because they have no other option.

Finally, the "ecosystem" cannot be destroyed, first of all, because it is just a mental concept. It's a product of human thinking. Just like the GDP is also a concept, a creation of thinking. You can use these as arguments, you can say, this or that behaviour is important for the whatever-concept - but then you make that concept a fetish, a semi-god. We have seen this; practically all demagogues work with such fetishes to stir public emotions. Currently the eco-system is made such a fetish, and it works, in favour of lots of things of which most are not really thought thru, and do not really make much sense.

The major bug here, as I see it, is the concept of guilt. The current telltale is based on guilt: you should feel guilt, because things you do may be harmful to that eco-system, or because we have so much a bigger "ecological footprint" than e.g. the people in indonesia. But at the same time you cannot change that, because you are supposed to consume, and the economy (again: a concept) depends on that. So you are stuck in what in psychology is called a double-bind.

This whole scheme cannot work in any satisfactory way. Instead of giving people guilt, one should take care that people feel good, that they love themselves, that they love their life - and then they would automatically take care for that life.
So, suffering is pointless and counter-effective.

However, we ARE part of nature, how could we not suffer while helplessly witnessing our self-destruction?
We ARE nature. For some reason nature has decided to create a reflective animal, with all the consequences.
Why should we suffer from that?

KaliYugaSurfClub.jpg
Then, there is an old hindu teaching of the Yugas, and it describes precisely what is happening. Civilisations are not meant to exist forever, they do rise and fall. Everything in nature happens in cycles; this is no different for civilisations. We ARE nature.

All this is known already for thousands of years. It has happened before and it will happen again in the future.

It might seem, it is our own free decision, if we prefer to suffer, or to just watch nature.

And those who understand what's happening suffer twice: once like all others, and once more because they feel so lonely, lost in an ocean of self-blinding peers.
I might understand that the unconscious people are suffering - in an unconscious way. Because, they do not really know why they are here, or what actually they belong to. Then they fill this with supplement ideas of where they would belong to, like, the family, the sports club, the job, whatever. Then, when that thing suddenly breaks away, a divorce happens or the job is cancelled, then the suffering becomes very imminent.

But if you know that, then you're not subdued, and you're actually free to do what you want. But yes, as a knowledgeable one you are lonely, and the search for peers is difficult.
 

20-100-2fe

Active Member

Reaction score: 186
Messages: 176

By "ecosystem", I refer to the processes and interactions that make OUR life possible. We are destroying the balance of this system by our actions. This illustrates with some humor an aspect of our insanity, but many others receive much less media coverage.

By "arrogance", I refer to the fact that we deem we deserve better that what nature offers us. It began very,very long ago, when we invented arts, religions and concepts such as private property. There's also a lot to say about this.

And by "suffering", you know what double-bind is, and it's close to what we're all living these days: we all know our collective behavior is incompatible with the survival of our species, but we just can't change anything and risk ending up alone. Whatever we do, we're doing wrong. And everyday, we helplessly notice more and more nasty consequences of our collective behavior, increasing the pressure on us to levels so high most people try and find relief in illusions or drugs.
 

suntzu00

Member

Reaction score: 7
Messages: 42

But then, it positions suffering at the entry-point to the whole philosophy, and it does not even bother to explain how to achieve suffering, but simply declares it as conditio-sine-qua-non
Schopenhauer would like to have a word.
So, suffering is pointless and counter-effective.
That's like saying that good algorithms are worth using.
It might seem, it is our own free decision, if we prefer to suffer, or to just watch nature
I've never realised that we had that option.
I might understand that the unconscious people are suffering - in an unconscious way. Because, they do not really know why they are here, or what actually they belong to. Then they fill this with supplement ideas of where they would belong to, like, the family, the sports club, the job, whatever. Then, when that thing suddenly breaks away, a divorce happens or the job is cancelled, then the suffering becomes very imminent.
Either you've discovered the meaning of life or this doesn't make any sense and it's contradicted by the next sentence.
But if you know that, then you're not subdued, and you're actually free to do what you want. But yes, as a knowledgeable one you are lonely, and the search for peers is difficult.
Still not sure if you're "free" or not at this point.

I'm not saying that you're completely wrong but the whole thought process relies on "meaning" which is an actual minefield. As soon as we start operating outside the limits(see limits.h :D ) of the metaphysical knowledge(see Immanuel Kant) we're pretty much lost.
 

20-100-2fe

Active Member

Reaction score: 186
Messages: 176

Suffering is certainly not counter-effective, it's the way evolution has found to best notify living creatures that something is wrong in their current situation and they should try and change something (when feasible) to restore sustainable life conditions.
 

PMc

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 291
Messages: 782

By "ecosystem", I refer to the processes and interactions that make OUR life possible. We are destroying the balance of this system by our actions. This illustrates with some humor an aspect of our insanity, but many others receive much less media coverage.
If our life is no longer possible, then we die. Which we all do, anyway.
Being worried about something one cannot change, is irrational. Expecting others to also be worried, is insane.

If a system is brought out of its balance, then it enters a chaotic state, and searches for a new balance. If the system is complex enough, then it is not possible to prospect that new state.

Tramping Indonesia (with an "ecological footprint" way below average) I have not noticed a lack of anything. (The only long-term issue would have been that it is difficult enough to get my teeth fixed here, and it is impossible there. An ordinary doctor would be reachable by ship, that goes once a week. That wasn't a worry to me, as I have my opinion about doctors, anyway...)

I find it interesting that the most part of that climate hystery is propagated by people who at the same time could not imagine to live without a car, or a tv set, or a laundry machine (I have neither). Their business equates their business.
Yes, to some extent one has to follow in (I recently replaced my 20-year-old computer with a 7-year old, as it became increasingly difficult to live without 64bit), but one can limit that by quite a lot.

By "arrogance", I refer to the fact that we deem we deserve better that what nature offers us. It began very,very long ago, when we invented arts, religions and concepts such as private property.
Yes, or beauty.

And by "suffering", you know what double-bind is, and it's close to what we're all living these days:
Then stop doing that.

we all know our collective behavior is incompatible with the survival of our species, but we just can't change anything and risk ending up alone.
Yes You can. You can make a decision for Your self. You speak languages, You have computer skill, You can in principle make a living at almost any place in the world - and that includes all those places that have a significantly lower "ecological footprint". And You will not "end up alone", as there will be other people.

Whatever we do, we're doing wrong.
Thats what I express as "guilt". It's a bad plan, because it leads straigt to disempowerment.

And everyday, we helplessly notice more and more nasty consequences of our collective behavior, increasing the pressure on us to levels so high most people try and find relief in illusions or drugs.
No, I am noticing something that worries me a lot more: the disappearance of the "quality zones".
During the past, one could always find certain hidden places where one could meet some sane people. Earlier the hippies where such a zone, later the hackers were such a zone. There would be people who are genuine friendly, have an open mind, an eye for beauty, would not worry about their "social reputation" or about the profit that would yield from their doings, and enjoy mutual inspiration.
As I perceive it, these quality zones seem to disappear. And since I as a human being am also an ecosystem, and have a balance, I need some occasional amount of quality input in order to keep my balance. Because otherwise, rather bad things might happen.
 

PMc

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 291
Messages: 782

Schopenhauer would like to have a word.
Well then, You're free to hand him my e-mail. :)

That's like saying that good algorithms are worth using.
So then 1.Moses 3,16-17 suggests a bad algorithm? A lot of people seem to believe in that.

I've never realised that we had that option.
Then try to look out for it.

Still not sure if you're "free" or not at this point.
Does it matter?

I'm not saying that you're completely wrong but the whole thought process relies on "meaning" which is an actual minefield. As soon as we start operating outside the limits(see limits.h :D ) of the metaphysical knowledge(see Immanuel Kant) we're pretty much lost.
Ah. :) Yes, correct. That is a technical limitation of the mind.

I don't know what "metaphysical knowledge" is supposed to be. I experienced philosophy as quite disappointing; it's like mathematics, a logical constuct, that is thought to be somehow consistent on it's own behalf. Now we know what we can do with mathematics - we can spend a lifetime playing inside the system for it's own purpose, but we can also utilize these tools to understand and manage things in the real world. In philosophy we can also play with the arguments inside the system, probably for a lifetime, but then what?

Now, try to describe what actually happens when going beyond the limits. You use pictures of danger - being "lost", a "minefield". What is this danger, how does it manifest?

There is something that made me wonder for quite a time: we have a science of the mind, called psychology. That exists for only about 100 years.
At the same time we have a tradition of science in general that scopes a good 2000 years - and that one is considered so profound, that the higher education in the western world was in my youth and maybe to some extent is still based on that, namely: the "classical era".
Now why does the science of the mind scope only 100 years? Wouldn't the people of 2000 years ago also have an interest into the nearest of all phenomena - their own mind?

Then yes, we have philosophy. But philosophy is mainly concerned with proper acting and proper character, that is, with ethics. NOT with the mind as a phenomenon, or only insofar as that is a prerequisite for the former.
The difference is similar to one in computing: you have the software specification, that describes how a program must behave (the ethics), and you have the technology of constructing a computer, i.e. make the components interplay in a certain way so that a program can be run at all on it (the understanding of how it does function).
So yes, if you go beyond the limits of philosophy, then that is no longer useful to derive ethics from it (because then the values are no longer meaningful and you can proof or unproof anything) - but you may get a lot nearer to an understanding of how the mind works.

So here is a manyfold hint: Thunder perfect mind

This will point you to where you may find the ancient science of the mind (because it does exist), and it also shows how that used to work.
This text is protected: it cannot be understood by logical means, and it also very safe against the loss of meaning. It is like a cryptographic chiffre: it will look like gibberish to the eavesdroppers, but where it can be decoded on the inner core that is not deteriorated by intellectual viruses of "meaning", it will restore it's message (which, in this case, is the contact details of a goddess - use that at your own risk).
 
Top