Reciprocality

The only thing that can 'take over' in the sense I believe you mean it are beliefs themselves, emotion or logic in their purity can therefore only indirectly and therefore never really at all take over anything alone. No sentimental, emotivist, naive frame of mind can therefore be that very frame unless the belief in them perpetuates their essence. As with a logicistic, positivistic, dualistic, physicalistic frame of mind, since these things all flails their own predicate they are taking its stead. Since cohesion is impossible without logic, and all your life amounts to cohesion the question becomes not how one can make everything fit together from intention but why it fits together without intention at all. Emotions do not negate logic, emotion drives logic to its objects with or without conscious intention.

To assign probability to a WW3 in the next few years is the pinnacle of pure speculation,a drudgerous task devoid of both reason and aim. Though it will either be a world war in some sense or there will be no world war in any sense, what i would speculate on rather is the nature of the war were it to unfold at all. As a conclusion from there you are likely to see how that looks very different from the past wars we are familiar with, and for that reason alone you can see how the bayesian model of probability will do you minimal service. Unless you close the system, begin from 50/50 and infest the reasoning with naive objects of reference such as "putin this" "the u.s this", "atomic bomb here" or "fear here". The problem then is that the meaning such references are supposed to contain in proportion to the universe are so radically removed from its actual workings that the conclusion says more of your insanity then about the world beyond established grasp. At which point you discover the inductive method as a means for each such object to bear resemblance to the present world as idea, but since the object are themselves intuited as wild-cards that function at immeasurable will you are left without any more insight then you begun with, as well as the problem of drawing from trivial experience in history as alluded to above.

@Yarco xd

@John Paul You don't always have to own any property to rent out on Airbnb, as long as you are prepared to take on some minor risk then you can rent an apartment for the same month in which you rent it out to travelers who would gladly pay both three and four times what you do each day.

@Gregory1 You seem to compensate so much in the policing aspect of things one could be forgiven for questioning who enacted the laws on the account of which you patrol.

All negations are of the mind, death as such is an object of reason. If there is something outside your bubble of consciousness it would be the thing in itself, the thing precisely the definition of which absurds. Trough your limitations there are no such thing as a thing in itself, and since you are those reductions only you are in absurdity questioning the possebility itself of what is outside you. Pure imagination as an end in itself forever not to be a means as otherwise would be your nature.

Logic is a precondition for identity, of which i have seen almost nobody on this forum very aware. That requires substantial meta-cognition, for even in the application of logic which is the only mode for language there rests no insurance that logic inheres in it. Formal logic is to logic as such as the calculator is to both a finished and an unfinished calculation. It is not those alone with a skill in synthetic computation who apply logic in a day to day basis, and on the matter of synthetic computation as you seem to propose this forum being filled with I must respond with a hard hell no, as would be a trivial addition to its general ends.

@Ramu I guess had it not been for you telling them as bluntly as you do that they are not put up for it then they would definitley not 'get it', right?

@Ramu It's good you included yourself among the chosen ones, could have left us completely in the dark otherwise.

As long as you are living you can not transcend concept, but you can transcend the belief that the object of reference trough concept is external and something 'in itself' beyond the reference itself, as in beyond your mind. Solipsism as a metaphysics based in the (knowledge of the boundary of mind) as the boundary to existence can either be assumed as absurd or assumed as perfectly cohesive or sensible. The question then gets back to the original meaning of skepticism, in which alone the imaginary power poses the alternative to having already been convinced of a given claim. Such that if I said 'around my house there is a pink fence' you either believed the information as such or you problematize it trough imagination perhaps as 'I could easily conceive that a fence were white'. In which case we must ask what is the relation between the imagined and the claim, and what is the nature of such claims which can have an equal antithesis and precisely the nature of such claims beyond conceivable antitheses. The solipsist is indeed a skeptic who regard his imagination as something which stands powerless to not only some but indeed all possible claims and information in general, the skeptic however is the least skeptic of all for he thinks that there where anything transcendentally meaningful in the claim such to deserve a wholehearted discourse in the first place. He then applies his abundance of speculative powers onto a claim he conceive of as both integral to his schema and powerful over the things in themselves from where he believes his schema were wholly built. Solipsism regard the question of 'others' as a meaningful question to be defeated synthetically. In so doing it defeats its own premise in imagination being powerless. We could even say that he is in it for the 'game'. Non-dualism does not regard the question as meaningful at all, indeed no question as meaningful at all.

Yes its called cleanliness, go figure.

He is teasing you, just wanted to make sure you love him.

Life would be dreadful without drama, as such they are often perfectly capable of making you more interesting then you are. So they create in you the beast they almost tamed in themselves. The higher your aim the more of a beast you must be on your own though, the higher their expectations and the more boring you appear. You speak of 'caring', but if you have cared too much they want to be teased, if you care not enough then your problem is elsewhere. And the real world of dating is to its theory what Actualized teachings is to its followers, and with that in mind you are wasting your time.

And they also hate it when you are honest about your emotions and thoughts, curious don't you think? I guess it amounts to tact and general human social skill more so than honesty or deception as though ever perfect on their own.

Sure he will, he's just waiting out you clever beggars to expand the fee for him.

If your standards are set around the 13th century then sure.

The idea of people is an object of reason, the idea that there can be something conscious in the objects of your reason which non the less is beyond the trajectory of your mind is speculation. It can not be proven, even if science could make the perfect case for your mind being affected by stimuli ALONE on the brain it would at no point prove the existence of the irreducible premise that is consciousness. Yet all such objects of reason occurs in consciousness, that is your consciousness. It is yet a leap of speculation that there is no such thing like your mind beside your mind, the question itself however, on whether there is has no meaning other than to play on your imagination. You can have an intuition on the matter, but the very nature of intuitions will exclude the possibility of the object within that intuition being true, or known rather.

Every now and then I experience streams of associations at 2/5 items a second, they follow no premeditated logic or algorithm of any kind yet appear non-random linearly trough time. The items can either be concepts AS written words, concepts as spoken words, names, concepts without expressive form, 2 dimensional images, 3 dimensional objects or moving objects, they obviously appear from memory alone for never do I create them from scratch. They follow the logic of all logics, that of associations, every item has in SOME sense a resemblance to the former except (presumably) the 'first'. It happens a few times a month without me trying to do it, I can do it at will as well. An example would be "fish, dish, food, blood, cat, hat, black, void, negation, correct" it can continue for a few minutes, there are recurrent themes within it obviously and I have never experienced not being able to shut it down. Is it weird? Maybe, anyone who can relate or have experienced something similar? I guess we can all do it but to me it occurs spontaneously and rather vividly. I would even call it entertaining.

@mw711 Aha, makes sense. It happens to me at such times when the ego is at rest, and as the ego identity is generally inversely proportional to the amount of people around me it only happens when alone. It does not happen as emotions for me though, as in going from calm-alarmed-anxious-sporadic-disturbed-happy at fast pace anyway. Is that how you would describe your version of it? Or do you picture similar items as mine but as representations of emotions instead?

Yes, well thank you. I were aware of this idea of Wilber and never seemed off, but funny enough i did not draw the connection between it and this habit of mine, though i saw the convergence now! You experience something similar? In the wider context vision logic of course makes you incapable of continue believing that any one formulation of anything can be 'one' true representation of that thing, as the very faculty for representations are based on indiscernible or overlapping associations. In better terms, that minds are of the proclivity to put labels on their experiences trough what we postulate as categories but which seems never to be comprehensive as a study on its own.

The idea that you can be a someone in another persons mind can be enough to blow you mind, it never stopped blowing mine. What would you be if there were in you no theory of other minds? Most would die, this idea of others contains alone the power to make you mad if you let it. Your relative essence, the personality etc will never be truly captured by anyone of those minds even if the lights are truly on at their end. If you are anxiety ridden this may give some relief to contemplate.

Yes, and we have a name for it. Aesthetics.

@The Lucid Dreamer You could only hope for such a thing trough doubt of your own, can I ask you then what is less than necessary (as not merely affirmative) in your metaphysics?

We distribute our own cohesion over the objects of mind, that will never tell us whether it is cohesive on its own. To assume so is to avoid your own physicalism and claim that it must be independently of your mind dependent on your mind. Whether there is a perfect correlation between the representations of your own mind and another person or a whole society or minimal correlation it will not change how that cohesion is dependent on your mind. If there is much correlation in both your and another's triangulation of what we call the physical both before and after you close your eyes that tells you something about mind, to say that it implies an independent existence outside your mind assumes something beyond the epistemic framework of your representations. It does not matter if it is two people or 8 billion scientists. To claim otherwise is to be epistemologically illiterate, but not to be metaphysically wrong. It is not an assumption to say that our experience occur in mind, for we call such things mind, as by definition. A material independent world is a necessary construct of mind from birth, it is possible to deconstruct it as an object of knowledge while remaining faithful of its independence. That is not possible however, when you realise that the object of the faith itself could never be IF REAL something that your mind could create. For it could only be itself. (this is the reason why there are no actual physicalists, only people who thinks that conclusions of reason are more true or real than negation to that reason.) There is no more reason to be a materialist if the contents of the world can be agreed upon or not, if we can find the smallest particle and a unified field theory or not. If you think so then your comprehension of modern philosophy is almost at zero, I would not blame you. In fact when it comes to physicalism you are so fucked that even if you believe in it you don't. To use causality as an object of mind trough means of induction of the mind to prove reemerging phenomena of the mind trough cohesive reason of the mind as proof for a concept of a material world that is ALSO independently existent of its own predicate as a concept as in the referenced video above has shown its age. At the same time, there are plenty of idealists who would do far better as physicalists, those indeed who thought that a symmetrical and cohesive closed universe would negate idealism in the slightest. Mostly these people defend their worldview by pointing towards evidence of an incomplete world in various ways. Incompleteness is derived from reason, completeness is reason at rest.

I dont sleep at day