Yea, Canada is only 350,000 square kilometers larger than the United States including all of it's ill-gotten regions. Maybe there is some truth to the "Narcissist" stereotype.
I'm trying to pick on theistic beliefs too. I said creationists would have you believe there were giant humans. I guess this could have been taken as supportive of the claim, but that wasn't my intention. I don't personally believe much at all. Belief is what happens when you choose what you want to be true. I do not choose what I want to be true. I will remain conflicted on this issue until my death. Did or didn't giants exist? Its not a high priority issue for me or anything, but I'm not prepared to go all-in. That's the best way I can put it, people choose beliefs and they put all their chips into the pot. They go all-in with their identity they "become an atheist" and do everything "like an atheist". Someone tells me they are an atheist and I'm suddenly endowed with precognitive insight into their point-of-view on everything.
Agnosticism is not desirable either. Agnosticism that is passive, uncaring and unproductive is no different than ignorance. I've had enough ignorance for one lifetime. What I'm after is the truth. It is not acceptable to take anything for granted. I've acquired a means of monitoring my own psyche for subtleties that influence the cognitive process, and just as importantly I've devised means of counter-acting those forces. If I desire at all to believe in something I run from the feeling like my life depends on it. Desire should not determine what is true. I recognize that the best state for discovery of truth is complete non-attachment. But it is a practice and it doesn't come easy, every time I shift my attention to 'external' phenomena I lose some executive control.
I have never, in my life, come across a single person who would write such words as I have just written. 1) They portray themselves as lacking control would is bad for one's image (ego), 2) They reveal a level of intellectual vulnerability mostly unheard of, 2) They demonstrate an internal dynamic that is alien and disturbing to other people. Most people want to believe something, they want to be something and be loved by like-minded souls. But truth requires non-attachment to everything, including truth itself. If one's identity is caught up in it then it's error. That is what I'm pointing to.
Atheists, and I can say that anyone who calls themselves an atheist is deluded. They have an attachment to an identity, some kind of belief-system. Or an agnostic, or a Christian or a deist. If you have these attachments you fail to see outside of your box. When I read pantheistic, deistic or Atheistic writings, I can't tell the difference outside of the lingo. What Christians describe as God is only different from what an Atheist would describe as Nature or Universe because of the words.
These are myths that describe a relationship, a dynamic, they describe the psychological process I spoke of, the distortions of perception through attachment to identity. The evidence is in the actual definition of the terms "Theist" and "Atheist", these are identities. The evidence is on the battlefield of the internet and outside abortion clinics and funerals. The world has gone mad with identity. It creates a drastic schism between people which intensifies to a state of war. The tower of Babel was not a literal story, it illustrates that all logical thought points to the same God though it is obscured by countless languages.
My experience and to that extent it is a kind of operational belief is that theists do a descent job of interpreting their own theology, but not each others and atheists cannot decipher any of it. They take it all literally. How are we going to solve this insanity of babeling? I think it starts with identifying this problem of attachment and moving beyond it. Unfortunately, it is easy to claim non-attachment than it is to prove, and it is common that someone will say "I am non-attached, so my God is real and yours is not." that person demonstrates attachment. But now, there are all kinds of subtleties about people's belief systems, sometimes theists deny that God is Universe because they think Atheists believe physical matter as we naively perceive it is the final reality, but actually Atheists believe that physical reality as we naively perceive it is completely wrong and that we are all composite of some multidimensional fabric which itself is All. Atheists tend to think Theists believe in a sky-God, a man, but in reality they believe in a Grand Unifying Principal of some sort that operates according to its own laws.
I want to stress that my pain comes from the fact that I don't want to do this. I don't want to care or spend the time on this. I don't care, because its futile, people are ignorant and always will be, the wheel of the sky keeps on turning. Trying to save anyone is a fool's errand. I know, it's suicide, stupidity, pointless, but I do it anyway. I can't rationally work out anything better to do. Nothing more productive. Perhaps writing a book would be, but that's debatable. Given that I'm also on the guard for my own biases and desire to be someone I daily suffer the act of being someone when I don't want to. I don't care if giants were real or not, does not matter to me one bit. My convictions are predicated on axiomatic, paramount truth, there is no getting around it - it's getting to it that's difficult. I mean, everything I say is subject to the cognitive structure, identities, attachments and shit of whoever I'm speaking with, I find it all unproductive. I'm trying to knock down barriers that amount to emotional attachments, they can't let go of or see beyond and I become their enemy. I'm equally sympathetic to all classes of people, and equally unsympathetic, but I guess it's hard to see because different circumstances call for different actions. Anyway, enough about me, I'm just trying to describe something of objective importance in my little jabs at people. What else can I do, lengthy analysis are TL:DR and arrogant.
"From the very start it was; 'Let's do this for real', 'Let's challenge ourselves to not rely... rely on.. uh.. wizardy.'" - Dave Barber, Writer - Red Urban
"I think authenticity is key. There is a certain amount of, going through great lengths to make it happen. I love the true craftsmanship." - Christina Yu, Creative Director - Red Urban
I wouldn't be surprised that this is real. But if I engage my conspiracy gears I can find ways to knock it.
First, the video is incredibly slick as pointed out by Jill. There are a variety of artistic video/audio editing techniques that seem to require a high-level editing ability. However, to be fair, I could probably reproduce the video/audio edits inside of a holiday weekend with the limited experience I have using such software.
Second, the timer in the video does not accord with the cuts in the video. The timer does not appear until 0:23 at which point it starts with the value 00:02:01:06. The timer then continues to steadily increment until 0:37. There are many cuts during this segment but the timer continues to steadily increment without any leaps forward. The timer then switches to 00:10:31:07 and begins steadily incrementing. There are a bunch of rapid cuts that probably amount to a few hours but the timer only adds a few minutes. Then it switches from 00:10:58:12 to 01:15:36:02 and begins incrementing steadily. Clearly the timer was not a part of the recording. It must have been added during post-production.
Still, it could be real and all the post-production handiwork could be added for dramatic effect. It doesn't matter to me, I think all bodily augmentation for vanity is silly.
The eye saccades are handled primarily by the superior colliculus in the thalamus, which passes it's deliberations off to the parietal lobes. The parietal lobes re-present this information to the integration of the corticothalamic complex, when it becomes integrate therein along-side the re-presentations from the five senses and the other autonomic senses (nociception, etc..) and the anterior cingulate sulcus (abstract self)(BA24), it constitutes a sense of being-someone-inhabiting-space.
That's not my intention, my intention is merely to show that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If Gigantopithecus did live with humans it could be the source of the folk lore. I'm not saying it is, instead what I'm saying is that science like anything else is blind to what it does not know.
People; naturalists, scientists like Richard Dawkins, and atheists the globe over, have been ridiculing theists for their "outrageous" beliefs, some of which are the beliefs in Giants, Unicorns, Leviathan, etc... These beliefs have been ridiculed because there is an absence of evidence, as if that meant evidence of absence.
Nor am I saying folk lore is a good source of knowledge, still, just pointing to the intellectual arrogance of naturalistic types who think that lack of evidence is evidence of lack.
It is primarily the implimentation I take issue with. If the system is out of balance and SSRIs are needed to keep it from going completely haywire, fine, but that is a temporary solution.
Nevertheless, I know kids that are taking Resperidone every day for "ADHD", and according to my girlfriends Compendium of Pharmaceuticals, it shouldn't even be administered to children. It's definitely not addressing the problem.
By Freeman's time there may have been BAs or other specialization theories like the Triune Brain Model, but the point I was trying to make was that there was little concept of neuroplasticity. There are rudiments of such a hypothesis in the writings of Freud, but it wasn't made explicit until Hebb's work "The Organization of Behavior" in 1949, and even then it was swept under the rug until about four decades had passed. Freeman was doing his dirty work beginning in 1936.
They would remove, or separate (as you say) parts of the brain so that those "dysfunctional" parts would be effectively destroyed. Because as cogs in a machine, when it is broken, they yank it out. The distinction between separating it and pulling it out is probably semantic, I don't see any functional difference. But you are right, they would stick the ice-pick through the orbit above the eye and do a circular motion that would separate the brain.
Phinease Gage, great story, I have a video on my youtube channel that is about 10 minutes long and describes the incident, it has been used by professors all over the world to teach Psychology 101. But my voice is incredibly monotone and the students wind up on my youtube channel complaining about having to sit through the video in class listening to my boring, dull voice. No good deed goes unpunished, they say.
Depends. I am allergic to cats' and dogs', urine and saliva, which ends up all over their fur, which ends up all over me. I was diagnosed this way via a scratch-test. It used to really bother me, my eyes would redden, water and get itchy. But I've lived with cats or dogs ever since, about 20 years, and can't say I have many symptoms anymore. I've heard that you can build a resistence to allergens.
I'm trying to pick on theistic beliefs too. I said creationists would have you believe there were giant humans. I guess this could have been taken as supportive of the claim, but that wasn't my intention. I don't personally believe much at all. Belief is what happens when you choose what you want to be true. I do not choose what I want to be true. I will remain conflicted on this issue until my death. Did or didn't giants exist? Its not a high priority issue for me or anything, but I'm not prepared to go all-in. That's the best way I can put it, people choose beliefs and they put all their chips into the pot. They go all-in with their identity they "become an atheist" and do everything "like an atheist". Someone tells me they are an atheist and I'm suddenly endowed with precognitive insight into their point-of-view on everything.
Agnosticism is not desirable either. Agnosticism that is passive, uncaring and unproductive is no different than ignorance. I've had enough ignorance for one lifetime. What I'm after is the truth. It is not acceptable to take anything for granted. I've acquired a means of monitoring my own psyche for subtleties that influence the cognitive process, and just as importantly I've devised means of counter-acting those forces. If I desire at all to believe in something I run from the feeling like my life depends on it. Desire should not determine what is true. I recognize that the best state for discovery of truth is complete non-attachment. But it is a practice and it doesn't come easy, every time I shift my attention to 'external' phenomena I lose some executive control.
I have never, in my life, come across a single person who would write such words as I have just written. 1) They portray themselves as lacking control would is bad for one's image (ego), 2) They reveal a level of intellectual vulnerability mostly unheard of, 2) They demonstrate an internal dynamic that is alien and disturbing to other people. Most people want to believe something, they want to be something and be loved by like-minded souls. But truth requires non-attachment to everything, including truth itself. If one's identity is caught up in it then it's error. That is what I'm pointing to.
Atheists, and I can say that anyone who calls themselves an atheist is deluded. They have an attachment to an identity, some kind of belief-system. Or an agnostic, or a Christian or a deist. If you have these attachments you fail to see outside of your box. When I read pantheistic, deistic or Atheistic writings, I can't tell the difference outside of the lingo. What Christians describe as God is only different from what an Atheist would describe as Nature or Universe because of the words.
These are myths that describe a relationship, a dynamic, they describe the psychological process I spoke of, the distortions of perception through attachment to identity. The evidence is in the actual definition of the terms "Theist" and "Atheist", these are identities. The evidence is on the battlefield of the internet and outside abortion clinics and funerals. The world has gone mad with identity. It creates a drastic schism between people which intensifies to a state of war. The tower of Babel was not a literal story, it illustrates that all logical thought points to the same God though it is obscured by countless languages.
My experience and to that extent it is a kind of operational belief is that theists do a descent job of interpreting their own theology, but not each others and atheists cannot decipher any of it. They take it all literally. How are we going to solve this insanity of babeling? I think it starts with identifying this problem of attachment and moving beyond it. Unfortunately, it is easy to claim non-attachment than it is to prove, and it is common that someone will say "I am non-attached, so my God is real and yours is not." that person demonstrates attachment. But now, there are all kinds of subtleties about people's belief systems, sometimes theists deny that God is Universe because they think Atheists believe physical matter as we naively perceive it is the final reality, but actually Atheists believe that physical reality as we naively perceive it is completely wrong and that we are all composite of some multidimensional fabric which itself is All. Atheists tend to think Theists believe in a sky-God, a man, but in reality they believe in a Grand Unifying Principal of some sort that operates according to its own laws.
I want to stress that my pain comes from the fact that I don't want to do this. I don't want to care or spend the time on this. I don't care, because its futile, people are ignorant and always will be, the wheel of the sky keeps on turning. Trying to save anyone is a fool's errand. I know, it's suicide, stupidity, pointless, but I do it anyway. I can't rationally work out anything better to do. Nothing more productive. Perhaps writing a book would be, but that's debatable. Given that I'm also on the guard for my own biases and desire to be someone I daily suffer the act of being someone when I don't want to. I don't care if giants were real or not, does not matter to me one bit. My convictions are predicated on axiomatic, paramount truth, there is no getting around it - it's getting to it that's difficult. I mean, everything I say is subject to the cognitive structure, identities, attachments and shit of whoever I'm speaking with, I find it all unproductive. I'm trying to knock down barriers that amount to emotional attachments, they can't let go of or see beyond and I become their enemy. I'm equally sympathetic to all classes of people, and equally unsympathetic, but I guess it's hard to see because different circumstances call for different actions. Anyway, enough about me, I'm just trying to describe something of objective importance in my little jabs at people. What else can I do, lengthy analysis are TL:DR and arrogant.
"I think authenticity is key. There is a certain amount of, going through great lengths to make it happen. I love the true craftsmanship." - Christina Yu, Creative Director - Red Urban
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSV5wK1GzHA&feature=youtu.be
First, the video is incredibly slick as pointed out by Jill. There are a variety of artistic video/audio editing techniques that seem to require a high-level editing ability. However, to be fair, I could probably reproduce the video/audio edits inside of a holiday weekend with the limited experience I have using such software.
Second, the timer in the video does not accord with the cuts in the video. The timer does not appear until 0:23 at which point it starts with the value 00:02:01:06. The timer then continues to steadily increment until 0:37. There are many cuts during this segment but the timer continues to steadily increment without any leaps forward. The timer then switches to 00:10:31:07 and begins steadily incrementing. There are a bunch of rapid cuts that probably amount to a few hours but the timer only adds a few minutes. Then it switches from 00:10:58:12 to 01:15:36:02 and begins incrementing steadily. Clearly the timer was not a part of the recording. It must have been added during post-production.
Still, it could be real and all the post-production handiwork could be added for dramatic effect. It doesn't matter to me, I think all bodily augmentation for vanity is silly.
Thank DrDan. I'd take it, but I don't deserve it.
That's not my intention, my intention is merely to show that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If Gigantopithecus did live with humans it could be the source of the folk lore. I'm not saying it is, instead what I'm saying is that science like anything else is blind to what it does not know.
People; naturalists, scientists like Richard Dawkins, and atheists the globe over, have been ridiculing theists for their "outrageous" beliefs, some of which are the beliefs in Giants, Unicorns, Leviathan, etc... These beliefs have been ridiculed because there is an absence of evidence, as if that meant evidence of absence.
Nor am I saying folk lore is a good source of knowledge, still, just pointing to the intellectual arrogance of naturalistic types who think that lack of evidence is evidence of lack.
It is primarily the implimentation I take issue with. If the system is out of balance and SSRIs are needed to keep it from going completely haywire, fine, but that is a temporary solution.
Nevertheless, I know kids that are taking Resperidone every day for "ADHD", and according to my girlfriends Compendium of Pharmaceuticals, it shouldn't even be administered to children. It's definitely not addressing the problem.
By Freeman's time there may have been BAs or other specialization theories like the Triune Brain Model, but the point I was trying to make was that there was little concept of neuroplasticity. There are rudiments of such a hypothesis in the writings of Freud, but it wasn't made explicit until Hebb's work "The Organization of Behavior" in 1949, and even then it was swept under the rug until about four decades had passed. Freeman was doing his dirty work beginning in 1936.
They would remove, or separate (as you say) parts of the brain so that those "dysfunctional" parts would be effectively destroyed. Because as cogs in a machine, when it is broken, they yank it out. The distinction between separating it and pulling it out is probably semantic, I don't see any functional difference. But you are right, they would stick the ice-pick through the orbit above the eye and do a circular motion that would separate the brain.
Phinease Gage, great story, I have a video on my youtube channel that is about 10 minutes long and describes the incident, it has been used by professors all over the world to teach Psychology 101. But my voice is incredibly monotone and the students wind up on my youtube channel complaining about having to sit through the video in class listening to my boring, dull voice. No good deed goes unpunished, they say.
"I saw a preacher man in cuffs
He'd taken money from the church
He'd stuffed his bank account with righteous
Dollar bills
But even still I can't say much
Because I know we're all the same
Oh yes we all seek out to satisfy those thrills
You know there ain't no rest for the wicked" - Cage the Elephant
Douglas Noel Adams (1952 - 2001)