A Simple Theory

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Sodium, Aug 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    A lot of theories in psychology are painfully equivocated. Because its a science, it tends to get approached by some like it was all numbers. The result is a theory that started at some spark of truth but overextended to the point where that truth became forgotten and replaced with a thick pile of analysis that isnt really saying anything. What I got here is a pretty simple theory

    The premise is that humans possess a need to control reality. This is an evolutionary measure: one has to be controlling about certain things or else he will lose control over his life and be unable to keep himself alive. By this fact, we can deduce that all humans are controlling by nature since this tendency is critical to survival.

    Here I define control as the desire to get what you want and the way one would go about doing that. This desire to get what you want is often challenged by reality. Naturally, you cant get everything you want. I propose that there are three different reactions that occur when this happens.

    One response is aggression. In response to not being able to get what one wants one tries to ,in essence, fight back. To them reality is acting as a defiant force; "how dare it disagree with what I want." They 'fight back' by attacking reality in some way. One way could be to attack passive aggresively by saying a sarcastrc joke, another by actually physically attacking something. Regardless of the multitude of ways it can be done what remains constant is the attacking of reality in through some means as a way to get back at it for defying you.

    I think that this also occurs not just when people are acting angry but also can happen whenever a person is confronted with a challenge of some sort. For example, Michael Jordan endlessly shooting jumpshots as a kid because he was unhappy with how good he was and wished to improve himself. Had he been content with himself (content with reality as it then was) he would have never bothered to continuously practice and improve himself; he would have never overcame the reality of being just an average player and not the greatest player of all time. Thus he must have reacted aggressively to the notion that he was just an average player. He must have cut away at that very notion with every time he played a game, with every time he would practice, with every jumpshot he would take. In their own unique way, all attacks on reality. Eventually reality would bend to his will and Michael Jordan would finally win in his battle with reality, going on to become the greatest player to ever live just as he sought out to do. Thus reacting with aggression when challenged by reality is not always purely bad thing. It can be said that the greatest inventions and acheivments of man started from this very source. From men who were very discontent with reality and very determined to change it into what they wanted.

    Another type of response to not getting what you want is giving up. You submit your defeat to reality and simply let it beat you. When youre resolved from this you feel a sense sadness. Its because you still want that which you originally wished to have but because you arent reacting aggresively, you are forced to live with this emptiness. Reality towers over you like a giant bully, pushing you to the ground. You lay there helpless as its booming laughter pummels you in waves. I think this particular response is the cause of depression in that you exist in a state where you perpetually want something but perpetually can never have it; trapping you.

    The third response to not getting what you want is acceptance. Simply put, you accept that reality will not allow you to have that which you want and you stop wanting it anymore: you move on.

    Of these three reponses two of them share, at their base, the same fundamental quality. Agression and defeat are both forms of resistence against reality with acceptance being an agreement with what reality demands.
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Its called suicide alturnism. And It's the process of self-termination to better the superorganisms group survival. And it is quite easy to understand. So I shall attempt to explain it to you inorder to advance your curious knowledge out of the realm of theory and into the the realm of Scoiobiological, neuroimmunological, and bio-psychological superorganism sturcture.


    The neural net is a wide consensus of individual change objective-electronic nodes whose connection to the vaster grid can be enhanced or dramatically atrophied. Now, this immune system is made up of about ten million to ten billion diverse antibody varieties. Moreover, it occupies a stream of entities refered to as, individual virus specific T cells. Now, a Immune system and the neural net follow this algorithm principle of Jesus's: "To him who hath it shall be given; from he who hath not even what he hath shall be taken away." In other words, When the immune system, T-cells come up against MHC invaders there is a tiny relative amount of manque protectors who realize their unique receptors authorize them to help thwart the assailants. Thus, these victors are allotted to reproduce with fiery swiftness, and fixed with the fresh material they crave inorder to expand their quantity. While the T-cells of no use in challenging the present onslaught are deprived of nourishment, of the adeptness to procreate, and often of extence itself. By way of, apoptosis, a pre-programmed cell death.


    The conclusion is observable, the nerual net nodes whose cooperation adds to the results of a difficulty are honored with more electrical energy and with connexions to a distant disposed hank of recruits. While the nodes whose effort proved tangential to the difficulty at hand are fed less electrical juice, and their ability to join with and awaken others is spectactularly reduced. Now, both T cells and network nodes contend for the right to expropriate the resources of the bigger unit. And both demonstrate a ostensible, willingness, to abide by the rules which prescribe self-abnegation. This combining of contention and self-altruism turns a collective mass of electronic or biological components into a eruditeness machine whose entirety have acquired an adaptive might immensely on the far side of any one element within it.

    Thus, the vivid example of countergenetic behavior, intimately affiliated to the outcome of altruism, is that of, suicide teams, kamikaze pilots, or martyrs, who are prepared to abandon their existence in rules of order to advance the circularization of a meme. Be it a ideology, nation, or religion. The scenario would go like this, the expiration of one or a few toters is remunerated by the enlarged probability of survival for the other toters or for the meme itself. e.g. The self-abnegation may draw the attention of other individualist to the meme he is totering, and thus alleviating it wide spread. A long-familiar e.g. is Jan palach, a Czech student who lite himself on fire in decree to dissent the Russkie Comminism quelling of the prague spring. And as In my last scenario the meme would be the Czech adaptation of socialism with a human face.


    FYI: ISOLATIONISM IS A CAUSE FOR DEPRESSION, THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL HEMINGWAY THEMSELVES.
    test
  3. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    Every bit of this was taken from an article titled: "Selfish Memes and the Evolution of Cooperation." by Francis Heylighten.

    Why don't you just plagiarize the entire article in your vain attempt to feign intellectual superiority? Or I suppose I could simply post a link to it?
    ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/Papers_Heylighen/Memes&Cooperation.txt
    test
  4. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Menaz, why are you trying to trick people into believing that you understand this stuff when you don't? You're not fooling anybody. Some of us actually read the stuff you pretend to read. We read it for fun, because we're interested in it, not because we want people to like us.
    test
  5. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Number 1.) No I didn't.

    Number 2.) please point out where? you can't.

    Number 3.) Thanks for providing that link so people can learn further on it though.

    I do know what i'm talking about, just because you talk nonsense doesn't mean everyone else does.You're jealous lies won't stop me from speaking.

    So why even attempt such poppycock? lol

    Sorry, I'm not you.
    Nor am I a trickster like you.

    The only thing you read is bazooka comic strips.

    I've actually just finished reading three books on this subject.

    But think what you want, Mr. acrimonious.
    test
  6. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    The irony . . . you claim to possess a scientific mind, correct? The reason that scientists have a problem with religions is not that they (religions) had theories which turned out to be wrong. The problem that scientists have with religions is that they (religions) have been proven wrong on countless theories (not all, keep in mind . . . at least not yet) and they continue to teach their false beliefs and are even trying to suppress the truth. Yet, many modern "so called" scientists are taking up the torch of the religious mentality and are condemning beliefs that contradict their own instead of being detached emotionally and asking how the other has come to their conclusions. They are simply not interested in the truth, they are interested only in their own theories and ideas and proving them correct. That is not what science is about. History is beginning to repeat itself, only this time under the title of science, instead of religion.

    Now, here you are . . . plagiarizing a scientist. You have been called on it and proven to be full of shit, like most "religious memes" (as Dawkins would phrase it) and yet you refuse to repent and admit that you were wrong. You are more a victim of religiosity than you are a practitioner of science, your religiosity is merely reactionary and inverted. Keep pushing in the direction that you're moving though and eventually the change within you will be total. Pick one side of the fence and stand on it, if you are going to proclaim that both sides cannot be right. Do not enter into science with a religious mentality, otherwise you will pollute science with the ignorance which it is trying to combat.

    I will take whichever side is necessary to create the progress. If I am talking to a religious man then I will play the Atheist, either that or I will challenge their views by playing a practitioner of a competing religion. If I am talking to an Atheist then I will take the Theist stance and force the Atheist to reach within and bring the truth out of their self. People work more when trying to prove something than they do when you give them the truth. If you want it, earn it. But don't copy and paste replies and pretend you're not. I'll call you on it every time.
    test
  7. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I'll speak plain with you.

    I do have a biological mind set it helps out the global mind. I'm all for scientists persenting all sceintifical theories whether right or wrong. I understand how these theories work whether right or wrong in helping out the Global mind. There is no learning with religion, but there is learning with science therefore history can not repeat. The Global mind will just swell with all kinds of theories, If a theory is wrong, we learn from its mistake. Was I not the one who researched global warming while conartists like yourself where on a soapbox trying to be conformity enforcers? Yes.



    Number. 1) I didn't palgiarize.
    Number 2.) please point out where? you still can't.
    Number 3.) I wish my knowledge was on their level. And I'm flattered you would even compare my mindset to theirs.

    Since you can't I don't need to read three pargarphs to distract from the fact you're a blantant minpulating lair. And all mentalities in science are great for the global mind.

    This is blantant reactionary tactics as usual. You're trying to be a resource shifter & comformity enforcer. Not going to happen sir. I know what you are doing, but I'm telling you're sinking low with envy here. You're being a modern sophist. And I mean that in a derogatory way.

    So save the rigmarole. Save the reactionary minpulating lies. I just find conversation with you intellectually worthless. It's obvious this conversation frightens you.

    I'm not even reading dawkins that is how out of the loop you are. You're whole reaction, the need to flasely character assassinate me is because your inner Judge sees I showcase a talent you don't possess, this makes me dangerously different from you, but there can't be difference in conformity, therefore I must conform to whatever you decree.

    I don't agree with how dawkins persents the meme. Again you're nothing more than a conformity enforcer out of the loop.

    You don't care about progress you care about protecting your spot in the pecking order. You're best way of doing this is by saying you can't point to this, you can't point to that, you'll even make up lies like you did here, just so one must do as you say. I say FUCK YOU! therefore we fight/battle. I don't care what conartist games you play. I'm not playing, I'm speaking on biology, something observable.

    I didn't copy and paste anything you jealous bastard so get over it. I understand you're a resource shifter, but don't lie to make yourself feel better.

    LMAO!

    I took TIME to write something and this pisses you off? utterly amazing.
    test
  8. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    this theory is probably incorrect.
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny]

    Funny how a thread goes completely off topic, huh? Sorry about that, Sodium.


    I'd agree with this. The brain creates a mind and the mind creates an identity and the identity serves as a survival tool for the human being.

    But, every cause has an effect. Physicists are now aware that matter is the effect of energy and energy is the cause of all matter. Behind matter is energy. But, what is behind energy pushing it forward? And for what purpose is this taking place? Evolution is true and so is Creation, just not in the sense that Scientists and the Religious view it.

    The body is made up of matter. The body includes the brain. The brain creates a mind (like a mirror) which reflects back a "self" or a "being" through a manufactured identity. That reflection is not a true being, it is merely the reflection of the true being. When one reflects on their created identity and tears it down they will realize that it is false and their own creation. But what is the true being? What is that conscious being which uses energy to form the material world?

    What is driving this play forward? What makes the dance go on?

    You're speaking only of the surface. Move beneath the surface and then move beneath that and you will find the truth. Right now you are studying a shell. If you move beneath the shell then you will discover the body beneath. Move beneath that and you will get down to the real guts of the matter.
    test
  10. I will assault it from it's most obvious bottleneck:

    The thesis is soaked in compartmentalism and isolation. Extreme existentialism.
    test
  11. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    I dont know what that even means
    test
  12. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    It means that no man is an island.
    test
  13. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    and? i swear some you nikkas hate to make sense. keep it real with hip hop.
    test
  14. It means that this theory is taken from the perspective of a single person and a single person alone, without recognition of the systems you are dependant to feedback with.
    test
  15. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    test
  16. That makes it existentialist, and therefore, is incapable of achieveing a non-self-referencing version of reality.
    test
  17. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    you talk like humans can comprehend stuff beyond their perspective in the 1st place. Because i cant doesnt make me wrong. i could still be right at the end of the day [/slam dunk]
    test
  18. Humans are given more than enouhg tools to comprehend reality beyond their just their isolated perspective.

    In fact, evolution deemed such tools so important, we were forced to contain emotions to communicate with other people long before language even existed.
    test
  19. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Through the eyes of a beholder reality is shaped. However, not every reality is the same, through creative quibbling realities are formed.

    Hence: Democracy, Fascism, Feminism, Religions, Socialism, Communism, Money & Taxes, Different Societies, Concept Of Good & Evil, Theories, Philosophies.

    Let me introduce you to the nature of swiveling eyes and pivoting minds.
    Diversity generators are just many realities creatively quibbling one anothers reality. This diversity generated thought was spaked through resource shifters such as pythagoras, pericles, plato, socrates, aristotle, thales, thucydides, thomas hobbes, aldous huxley, hitler, stalin, hideki tojo, king james I, karl marx, martian luther king, muhammad, saint paul, abraham lincoln, thomas jefferson... etc.. All these free thinking leaders create a meme. Meaning (different ideaologies) Everyone either accepts or rejects as a reality. If a new meme is accepted then a new reality of society is born, but If the new meme is rejected then a conflict within this society takes place over reality. This is known as a intergroup tournament. It involves two inner judges one which is the persent conformity enforcer (status quo meme) and the other which is the resource shifter (revolutionary meme). However, If the resource shifter WINS then his meme becomes the conformity enforcement. Regardless, ALL memes were neccassary tapestry for the survival of the ever learning and expanding global mind.

    If people still can't comprehend It's because they're mentally handicapped.
    In that case norms wish to see their COCKSUCKING HEAD Impaled on a stick.
    Sorry about the violent parlance, I think vlad the impaler was bicouriously speaking through me. So forgive that irrational dark humor moment.

    however remember, the Intolerance of the handicapped comes in part from an ancient impulse to distance ourselves from those who may be carrying one of the primary killers of premodern men and animals -- infectious diseases. For instances, Byzantine emperors knew the power of disfigurement to trigger replusion. If need be they would cut off the noses of their relatives who might have a legitimate claim to the throne, aware that handicap would keep the nasal amputees from ever commanding respect.
    test
  20. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I think I'm going to just spectate on discussions like this for a while.

    Ghet, I'm curious . . . what is your philosophy?
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)