|
|
Post by gw on Oct 7, 2020 22:49:28 GMT
I've had a few run ins with the Mandela Effect so I can't be sure that reality is fully self consistent. If I thought it were, I'd say that we could potentially grow smarter over time, though there may be some upper limit. If there were a way in which we could grow our intellect indefinitely we'd be in an endless chase where our knowledge perpetually struggles to catch up to our ever increasing intelligence. So in a way we'd never catch up to ourselves as we curently are. The Mandela Effect has a psychological explanation. Which examples of it have you encountered? Please tell me it is something more interesting than "Luke, I am your father."  I've encountered it at least twice. The first is a movie with a similar plot to Fools Rush In but with perhaps a different male lead and a different ending where the baby is somebody else's and the baby is another man's. The man meets a woman who's more WASPy after a business colleague and friend introduces them on a yacht. The other one is a minor change to the lyrics of American Woman where something like "Shine in someone else's eyes" became "Sparkle someone else's eyes". I really hope it is just a false memory thing. However, I can't find any movies that I would have confused the movie with and I listened to the song several times before it apparently changed. I can't prove it of course and I would rather it weren't true but I don't know for sure either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 7, 2020 22:53:05 GMT
The Mandela Effect has a psychological explanation. Which examples of it have you encountered? Please tell me it is something more interesting than "Luke, I am your father." I've encountered it at least twice. The first is a movie with a similar plot to Fools Rush In but with perhaps a different male lead and a different ending where the baby is somebody else's and the baby is another man's. The man meets a woman who's more WASPy after a business colleague and friend introduces them on a yacht. The other one is a minor change to the lyrics of American Woman where something like "Shine in someone else's eyes" became "Sparkle someone else's eyes". I really hope it is just a false memory thing. However, I can't find any movies that I would have confused the movie with and I listened to the song several times before it apparently changed. I can't prove it of course and I would rather it weren't true but I don't know for sure either way. Memory is very unreliable and human beings are similar in how their brains operate. That explains it right there as far as I'm concerned. I think coincidence is way more freaky than The Mandela Effect and coincidence can be written off as counting the hits and being oblivious to the misses.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 7, 2020 23:00:09 GMT
If people have no control over their actions. Should they be punished for crimes, etc. Then again I guess the punishment is also pre determined, so I see what you mean. A concept that's very hard to accept/get your head around. Depends on what you mean by punish. If you got rid of prisons for example then the pre-determined result would be the criminals making society worse. I agree it is a hard concept to make sense of in this way. I'd say that is just a case of the universe being unfair. Nothing new there. I'd say the death penalty would be extremely unethical and so would revenge, though the former should be done away with for obvious reasons anyway and ethics don't even come into the latter. Someone taking revenge cares not about ethics in that particular situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Oct 7, 2020 23:06:02 GMT
If people have no control over their actions. Should they be punished for crimes, etc. Then again I guess the punishment is also pre determined, so I see what you mean. A concept that's very hard to accept/get your head around. Depends on what you mean by punish. If you got rid of prisons for example then the pre-determined result would be the criminals making society worse. I agree it is a hard concept to make sense of in this way. I'd say that is just a case of the universe being unfair. Nothing new there. I'd say the death penalty would be extremely unethical and so would revenge, though the former should be done away with for obvious reasons anyway and ethics don't even come into the latter. Someone taking revenge cares not about ethics in that particular situation. You get stuck in a loop, no matter what you do/what happens, the argument is it was "fated to happen that way", so I guess ethics doesn't even come in to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 7, 2020 23:14:18 GMT
Depends on what you mean by punish. If you got rid of prisons for example then the pre-determined result would be the criminals making society worse. I agree it is a hard concept to make sense of in this way. I'd say that is just a case of the universe being unfair. Nothing new there. I'd say the death penalty would be extremely unethical and so would revenge, though the former should be done away with for obvious reasons anyway and ethics don't even come into the latter. Someone taking revenge cares not about ethics in that particular situation. You get stuck in a loop, no matter what you do/what happens, the argument is it was "fated to happen that way", so I guess ethics doesn't even come in to it. I think the main difference would be how we see the people who commit horrible acts. We would have to change our views to pity instead of anger and disgust, because after all, they had no choice in what they did and who they are. Very interesting stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by gw on Oct 7, 2020 23:22:32 GMT
I've encountered it at least twice. The first is a movie with a similar plot to Fools Rush In but with perhaps a different male lead and a different ending where the baby is somebody else's and the baby is another man's. The man meets a woman who's more WASPy after a business colleague and friend introduces them on a yacht. The other one is a minor change to the lyrics of American Woman where something like "Shine in someone else's eyes" became "Sparkle someone else's eyes". I really hope it is just a false memory thing. However, I can't find any movies that I would have confused the movie with and I listened to the song several times before it apparently changed. I can't prove it of course and I would rather it weren't true but I don't know for sure either way. Memory is very unreliable and human beings are similar in how their brains operate. That explains it right there as far as I'm concerned. I think coincidence is way more freaky than The Mandela Effect and coincidence can be written off as counting the hits and being oblivious to the misses. Skeptics can point to memory and proponents can point to unexplained behavior of quantum particles. There are two reasons I can think of for scientists to be skeptical. There's the obvious "That is impossible based on what we know." angle and then there's the "If that were true then how can we trust science when it relies on verification which this idea so clearly undermines?" I've had 'misses' too, sure. But there's a lot of quantum particle and photon beh behavior that we don't understand and until we learn more I'll stay uncertain. If they find a way to scan the brain more fully without causing physical harm and figure out a way to assess what's more likely real and what's made up, then I'd do it. Unfortunately that's not possible right now so I will have to tell myself that "This may or may not have happened." and leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 7, 2020 23:24:04 GMT
I've had a few run ins with the Mandela Effect so I can't be sure that reality is fully self consistent. If I thought it were, I'd say that we could potentially grow smarter over time, though there may be some upper limit. If there were a way in which we could grow our intellect indefinitely we'd be in an endless chase where our knowledge perpetually struggles to catch up to our ever increasing intelligence. So in a way we'd never catch up to ourselves as we curently are. We do have a way to grow our intellect: computers. The problem becomes when our wisdom does not keep up.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 7, 2020 23:30:59 GMT
Memory is very unreliable and human beings are similar in how their brains operate. That explains it right there as far as I'm concerned. I think coincidence is way more freaky than The Mandela Effect and coincidence can be written off as counting the hits and being oblivious to the misses. Skeptics can point to memory and proponents can point to unexplained behavior of quantum particles. There are two reasons I can think of for scientists to be skeptical. There's the obvious "That is impossible based on what we know." angle and then there's the "If that were true then how can we trust science when it relies on verification which this idea so clearly undermines?" I've had 'misses' too, sure. But there's a lot of quantum particle and photon beh behavior that we don't understand and until we learn more I'll stay uncertain. If they find a way to scan the brain more fully without causing physical harm and figure out a way to assess what's more likely real and what's made up, then I'd do it. Unfortunately that's not possible right now so I will have to tell myself that "This may or may not have happened." and leave it at that. I am on the opposite side. I like the mystery of it all and don't want to know the truth of everything. In this case I just don't buy into The Mandela Effect as a thing outside of the mistakes in our thinking. Memory is objectively unreliable and human beings are notoriously flawed thinkers.
|
|
|
|
Post by gw on Oct 7, 2020 23:43:52 GMT
I've had a few run ins with the Mandela Effect so I can't be sure that reality is fully self consistent. If I thought it were, I'd say that we could potentially grow smarter over time, though there may be some upper limit. If there were a way in which we could grow our intellect indefinitely we'd be in an endless chase where our knowledge perpetually struggles to catch up to our ever increasing intelligence. So in a way we'd never catch up to ourselves as we curently are. We do have a way to grow our intellect: computers. The problem becomes when our wisdom does not keep up. Yes and no. Computers are a great invention but until they are incorporated into our brains they'll only be useful to us while our eyes are open. Were we to find an effective way to integrate them into our brains, which many people are just starting to figure out how to do right now, then sure. But until the computers let us ask questions as complex as the code that's in our software and see things in our mind's eye that only savants can yet see then I will have to disagree with your first statement. I don't know what to say about wisdom other than "Help the poor, the mentally deviant and ill, watch out for existential threats, and so on." I don't know what direction you'd take that in so I'll have to follow your lead on that front.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 7, 2020 23:50:26 GMT
We do have a way to grow our intellect: computers. The problem becomes when our wisdom does not keep up. Yes and no. Computers are a great invention but until they are incorporated into our brains they'll only be useful to us while our eyes are open. Were we to find an effective way to integrate them into our brains, which many people are just starting to figure out how to do right now, then sure. But until the computers let us ask questions as complex as the code that's in our software and see things in our mind's eye that only savants can yet see then I will have to disagree with your first statement. I don't know what to say about wisdom other than "Help the poor, the mentally deviant and ill, watch out for existential threats, and so on." I don't know what direction you'd take that in so I'll have to follow your lead on that front. We don’t need to be connect them, we will be them. However, the human capacity for knowledge tends to outpace human wisdom and wisdom is what tells us, usually through progressive trial and error, how to handle our knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Oct 8, 2020 0:31:57 GMT
Having a pint with your mates.  |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 8, 2020 14:40:20 GMT
The opposite of existentialism is common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 8, 2020 14:46:05 GMT
According to Webster, the only antonym for 'existential' is 'theoretical', with 'conjectural, hypothetical, speculative, unproven, unsubstantiated, metaphysical, transcendentalist, and visionary' as near antonyms. I'm still wondering about the noun thing. Can a person, place, or thing have an opposite? If so, then I guess the opposite of 'existentialism' is 'theory'. Seems weird.  Yes, a noun can have an opposite. A leftist is the opposite of a rightist. A virgin is the opposite of a whore. Black is the opposite of white. A lie is the opposite of truth ... If you really think through it, a virgin is not the opposite of a whore. A "whore" is a prostitute. And most people who are not virgins are not prostitutes. I think you just like using the word "whore". |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Oct 8, 2020 15:21:26 GMT
Yes, a noun can have an opposite. A leftist is the opposite of a rightist. A virgin is the opposite of a whore. Black is the opposite of white. A lie is the opposite of truth ... If you really think through it, a virgin is not the opposite of a whore. A "whore" is a prostitute. And most people who are not virgins are not prostitutes. I think you just like using the word "whore". "Whore" meaning slut, promiscuous, whether money changes hands or not. Maybe the opposite of prostitute is spouse.
What do you think of the term "virgin slut"? 
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 8, 2020 15:52:34 GMT
If you really think through it, a virgin is not the opposite of a whore. A "whore" is a prostitute. And most people who are not virgins are not prostitutes. I think you just like using the word "whore". "Whore" meaning slut, promiscuous, whether money changes hands or not. Maybe the opposite of prostitute is spouse.
What do you think of the term "virgin slut"? I would say promiscuous is the opposite of virginal or chaste. A "virgin slut"... what, a slut in the making? |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 3, 2020 22:48:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 6, 2020 22:41:37 GMT
According to Webster, the only antonym for 'existential' is 'theoretical', with 'conjectural, hypothetical, speculative, unproven, unsubstantiated, metaphysical, transcendentalist, and visionary' as near antonyms. I'm still wondering about the noun thing. Can a person, place, or thing have an opposite? If so, then I guess the opposite of 'existentialism' is 'theory'. Seems weird. Yes, a noun can have an opposite. A leftist is the opposite of a rightist. A virgin is the opposite of a whore. Black is the opposite of white. A lie is the opposite of truth ... And that also begs to ask the question on an existentialist, or perhaps even metaphysical level, are there really opposites to what is considered only theoretical?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 6, 2020 22:47:49 GMT
The opposite of existentialism is common sense. Is common sense really a key aspect of existentialism rather than opposite? To exist, is to act purposefully, appropriately and out of the best intentions. Common sense is the way through this, so as to become aware of the consequence of any action. Whether one cares or not about the consequence, then ties into the the existential contribution of being.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 7, 2020 1:20:14 GMT
essentialism is the opposite to existentialism.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Dec 7, 2020 15:55:39 GMT
The opposite of existentialism is common sense. Is common sense really a key aspect of existentialism rather than opposite? To exist, is to act purposefully, appropriately and out of the best intentions. Common sense is the way through this, so as to become aware of the consequence of any action. Whether one cares or not about the consequence, then ties into the the existential contribution of being. I don't really think there can be a true opposite of existentialism, but when i think of philosophical matters I thunk they are not pragmatic things. And common sense is, to me, very much rooted in practicality. So that's how i came up with that answer. |
|
