Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

PillowSofa

Veteran Member
  • Content count

    2,878
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About PillowSofa

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    xxxx
  • Enneagram
    xxxx
  • Global 5/SLOAN
    xxxx
  • Astrology Sign
    xxxx
  • Personal DNA
    xxx
  • Brain Dominance
    Left
    Right
    Balanced

Converted

  • Homepage
    N/A
  • Biography
    N/A
  • Location
    Internet
  • Occupation
    N/A
  • Interests
    N/A
  • Gender
    Male
  • Personal Text
    Nobody

Recent Profile Visitors

5,023 profile views
  1. Nonsense. Not all ice glaciers have 52 genders. In fact most of them have 107. Did you just assume the number of genders of ice glaciers? Here's the source of the facts I am presenting here: SOURCE (it contains statements of an expert who have Ph.D. on Ice Glaciers Gender studies from one of the elite Icy League Universities).
  2. May be. But I will probably mess with people's free will (if you consider that to be even a thing) and shape their mind (and mine own) if you meant quasi-omnipotence or something by 'all the power'. Otherwise if it's just a collection of 'mudane human power'.....I am not too sure....well I can always make call it perfect and hang anyone who criticize? But I guess that won't end too nicely. The rules of kings are complicated. Maintaining the power balance is tricky and demands some unfair action unless one is nearly omnipotent or one has extremely loyal yet talented followers.....how to get loyal yet talented followers who would work even if not paid unfairly high (so that competitors don't take them by paying them unfairly high)....may be a religion; a cult. And then there are real life brainwashing techniques, right? May be TV and even internet can be used somehow creatively to lightly brainwash people and shape their mind as I will it to be. But nay, probably won't work with a TV as good (as putting them in some camp or something and systematically breaking down their believes with forged or cherry picked evidences (or may be actual evidences) and reconstructing new beliefs controlling other stimulus by forcing them in a specific location. Media's are probably only good for some subliminal messages. Well, I don't know much. May be have to ask MK Ultra for their expert opinion. May be I should start another iteration of MK Ultra. Some people who find it out may not take things too greatly even if I do all these for the greater good. Meh, I will just manage to have them labeled as conspiracy nuts or something. Children; I need to take some special care for them. Their minds are especially impressionable. Must make sure, their mind is impression-ed with ideas that I want to be there. Hmm. I haven't though too much about what to do with absolute 'mundane' (under the currently discovered laws of physics and under the current technological paradigm) power. Needless to say, I am also not educated in politics at all. Don't even know the P of it.
  3. When I was talking about possibility of lack of 'uniqueness' I was being a bit nit-picky; I admit. I guess, the optimally sized picture will show that most of the humans have some gross similarities yet have enough differences, some of them may have quite drastic differences and indeed all of them seems to be having their own 'unique' private worlds unless some of them are philosophical zombies. But I was talking about metaphysical or logical possibilities (anything that doesn't contradict itself or in other words anything imaginable, can logically exist....but if it actually exists or not is some other concern). So it is possible to conceive 'exact' (and by exact I mean exact...) replicas of say, earth or may be this whole universe existing elsewhere. That may not exactly be true, and may be improbable (probability is also kind of a bit problematic concept which is another topic again), but as long it's possible and there are no proof that there isn't such replicas it's not certain that 'all' private worlds are unique. Surely, if one have to conceive every possibilities before speaking something, communicating wouldn't be so convenient, I don't exactly believe in the existence of self and actual control, but the fragments of the mind, idea, behavior do roughly make up a sort of dynamic ever-changing self if one would like to call it so, and desires, will and other attributes may roughly enable the self to influence or change stuffs according to the direction of those wills and desires which is kind of the definition of 'control'. So, yeah; sure. I do agree with the general idea. Hmm, not a big fan of this reality. Wouldn't like to be limited by it. Didn't meant to bring God in it and I was trying to mean 'god' all along. Though in the past I have argued for we being 'God' not just the 'god'. There were some reasons, I guess but I barely remember anything from the past few years. Perhaps, forgetfulness is the curse which I was rewarded with for showing the audacity of referring me as God? Nay, just kidding. Science may be able to replicate it some day using some of the 'nature legos'. But making it from scratch, building up all the connections and everything, I don't know. Comprehension is whole another deal. Sometimes one can make stuff without exactly comprehending it, kind of how my friend wrote some machine learning problem by using convenient libraries without having any idea about how they work. Conventional Science doesn't really yet 'explain' consciousness though....though I can take it to a bit extreme and even argue science actually 'explains' 'nothing'....though before I make such claims, I intend to study more about 'explanation' itself and those are some other topics though. I admit that I am not exactly a follower of conventional structure argument myself however, I am curious why do you think that the structure argument is 'retarded'? And exactly which structure argument? You can PM to avoid derailment.
  4. Can hear crackles in Cak's video. Can't hear 16K Hz in Warrior's video.
  5. How is it necessarily 'unique'? Spatio-temporarily unique? May be. But other's private worlds being inaccessible it can't be said that 'all' of them are unique. There may be trillions of repetitions and exact clone worlds. As long as we don't know for certain that there are not such repetitions we can't make any claim? Separate? In what ways? The worlds may not be totally separate. We may be alone in our own universe. In some sense, we are our universe (non duality of experience and experiencer). But God? In which sense? What's Reality? Matter not in which sense? And how does one being a god have anything to do with neural structures mattering not? As @Digital Avatar said structure tends to determine function (or state, I might add). I don't understand what does the evidence of two structurally and mentally similar beings with same history has to do with Digital Avatar's statement. Digital Avatar never said anything about existence of exact replicas and if you simply want evidence of connection between neural structures and mental states\functions there are many which demonstrates a 'correlation' between gross similarities in structures and similarities in personalities. It's true that we can't ultimately conclude anything from this with 100% certainty, because we can't access the private worlds of other's but just the external manifestation that get reflected in my own world. Also we may not know the nature and direction of relationship....but I am not sure we can just dismiss neural structures from its possible contribution to our private world... ...... added to this post 1 minute later: In your imaginations inside your private world or may be if you get some high level Siddhi (if those things are legit). In another sense imaginations and rest of the private world (subjective experience that appears to sentient beings) are in some way of fundamentally similar nature. Dream, imagination and rest of the private world aren't exactly distinguishable; it's only our intuitions and feelings telling what is what. Hume's criteria of vitality for distinguishing private world into idea and impressions makes more sense. May be it is possible to even create impressions which will feel like controlling 'reality' to those who believes what happens in their private reality is what is happening on 'some objective reality out there'.
  6. To a limited extent (depending on the context). The only truth is that which appears. And all that can be said of that which appears is that, it appears...nothing can be said of its existence beyond appearances. However you can have better evidence if you\someone conduct a rigorous study or something depends on the context or subject for which we need the evidence. For example if the context is about finding the evidence if X have some special defined effect Y on people,...we can make two groups each having similar samples with decent size....one group given placebos and one group given real ones and then the effect can be statistically analyzed or something like that. It's not necessarily *perfect* but if done fairly and rigorously with enough sample size; it can serve as a more reliable and convincing evidence for or against an hypothesis compared to some random collection of anecdotal effects.
  7. I don't decide. I let my feelings do the job.
  8. If we just for the sake of the argument 'assume' that some version of physicalists or something nearby (those who states that consciousness emerges from brain and or, the physical structure of the brain is directly connected to the state of consciousness and that they are more like 2 sides of the same side)...in that case the 'laws' governing consciousness can be called physical as consciousness is just another mode of existence of the physical structure (under the assumption) which works based on 'physical laws'. But still in this case, David's arguments stand as in we can't know if the law determining this absolute correlation between consciousness and brain structure is absolute since a being with same external reaction, same structure may (metaphysically possible) lack consciousness. But in this 'hypothetical scenario', even if we can't know, the laws governing consciousness are still physical. Which is how I am not sure how it 'necessarily' follows from David's arguments as posted in OP, that consciousness must be governed by separate phenomenological laws. It may necessarily follow if we account the assumption: But am not too sure about it. The hypothetical situation I wrote seemed to present a possibility of there being physical laws but not exactly ascertainable. In the hypothetical scenario, consciousness and physical structure are being treated as two sides of the same coin, where the physical laws affected the physical structure also affect consciousness. But since we can only be aware of 'one side' of the coin at a time, we can't validate the law. Though in a sense you can call the physical laws also as phenomenological laws if the assumption is that physical and consciousness are two sides of the same coin. But one may as well assume physical structure 'causing' effects of consciousness rather than assuming them being expressions of the same thing and still share the same concerns I posted above.
  9. Is the idea that the idea of everything being a social construct is a social construct, just another social construct?
  10. The dualism between physical world and consciousness is not certain. Everything perceived is under consciousness; qualias or whatever terms they wanna use. We can't be conscious the "physical world outside consciousness". It's true you can't know if one is conscious or not based on their reactions and statements. One can just be programmed to parrot words describing 'their conscious word' which they don't 'actually' perceive. So contrary to some popular opinions, even if someone vividly describes what is supposedly their subjective world, we can't rule out the possibility that the one is a philosophical zombie. So it's true that we can't really be sure about someone else's conscious experience from their outward appearances being reflected in our own consciousness. But I don't see how we can conclude 'that phenomenology has its own laws' from the fact (that we can't know if one is conscious, or that we can't truly describe red unless we can somehow share consciousness or something). I am not sure if you are skipping some steps in your post which was mentioned in the book (I haven't read it)...I just don't follow why there *must* be separate laws. Also, if we don't just stay within the scope of your post, the arguments mainly convinces one to realize that one can't know if the physical structure in brain really relates to consciousness....but that in itself doesn't imply that there really is no connection or laws connecting physical structure and consciousness. There's also property dualism, where consciousness is veiwed as a different property of physical structure, the physical structure existing in a different state but still being the same...kind of like hardware vs software...what's in the monitor screen...that information is still present somewhere somehow in the hardware. May not be the best analogy but something like that. I am not advocating any particular theory, just that I don't find the arguments in the post to be necessarily against the possibilities of property dualism or such.
  11. Life is neither boring or interesting. It's all about the reactions to life that we make. Being potentially depressed, apathetic and having dampened emotions, life is pretty boring to me....or not...these days I don't really feel much boredom either. Or is boredom rather a lack of feeling. Am I bored or am I not? I wonder. But. I don't really care. Then why am I thinking or even writing this? Why? Because I cared some minutes ago, I guess.
  12. I completely forgot about Roger Armstrong (The Psychic Child)...don't know what else I forgot from my past. I barely remember my recent past for some reason. There were some interesting (not really to me) CIA declassified documents on Psychic phenomena. You can search for other keywords like 'psychic', 'remote viewing' etc. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/Telekinesis https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/NSA-RDP96X00790R000100040012-1.pdf