neeeel
-
Posts
826 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Everything posted by neeeel
-
you said and Perhaps rather than battle it or destroy it or push it away, relax into it in order to find out what is going on. Easier said than done, I know. Meditation isnt about destroying feelings, its about being present with what is there, whatever the feelings. I used to often feel very anxious and depressed when I would see something that was in disorder or disrepair, something that was rusting away, or falling apart. I am wondering if its something similar for you? Is there anything that triggers these feelings? Any thoughts or situations you have noticed? Are you currently in therapy? Or would you consider going?
-
I dont think thats what I meant (im not sure what your answers address?) What are the feelings that come up when you think about nothingness? Do you know what they are about? What thoughts are linked with them? There is something deeper going on, it would be worth finding out what. Is it like an existential angst? Is it depression? Or what?
-
I dont think the science lessons in this thread are helpful to you, when its likely not about science and reason for you at all. You say your brain brings up disturbing feelings. Can you expand on that a bit more?
-
https://www.parentingscience.com/Ferber-method.html 4. The Ferber method does not teach children how to fall asleep As Richard Ferber himself acknowledges, graduated extinction doesn't teach children how to fall asleep on their own (Ferber 2006). Children are simply denied access to their parents, and left to work it out for themselves.
-
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/moral-landscapes/201407/parents-misled-cry-it-out-sleep-training-reports https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/baby-development/sleep-training/ https://aasm.org/resources/practiceparameters/review_nightwakingschildren.pdf https://aasm.org/resources/practiceparameters/review_nightwakingschildren.pdf from the first link: Points in Brief (read details below): 1. Research does not support what sleep training reports assume: That sleep training “is fine” for baby —it’s NOT, even when the baby stops protesting. That cry-it-out (extinction of crying) works at home—it does NOT. Age and development level of the child does not matter for sleep training. WRONG. Research shows no harm for babies—NOT: it doesn’t even examine harm to babies! Sleep training research is well done—NOT: poor designs, fidelity, analysis show it is UNRELIABLE 2. Sleep training reports gloss over the trauma and toxic stress that is done to babies during sleep training, when the brain and body are developing rapidly. Reports overlook how ignoring a baby at night is a form of NEGLECT. 3. Most parents are not comfortable with cry-it-out (extinction of crying) and they should not be. Babies are meant to be with caregivers all the time. Their wellbeing is undermined otherwise. There are also links supporting cry it out, or at least saying ( as above) that its not harmful. You would have to look deeper into them, and the research behind them. The idea that we need to teach children ( and especially babies) independence seems crazy to me. Children start off TOTALLY dependent. If their needs are met, they will have a base on which to move to greater independence, with support from their parents, of course. Forcing independence by removal of care and attention, is not teaching independence at all.
-
I can imagine how tough it was, and that in your situation, I would try anything, even something that, before getting into your situation, I would have sworn never to do ( ie, I dont have kids, and I would swear that I would never do cry it out or let them cry and not go to them, but I can see that if I was in that nightmare, I might do what I swore never to do) Did you always sleep in separate rooms?
-
Sorry, I dont think I know what this means No, consciousness is part of the causal chain. There are no external causes ( what would they be external to?). Its not that consciousness is changed as a result of external causes, its that the changes in consciousness were an integral part of the chain already. Every part of the system working with, and on, every other part of the system, at every moment, unguided and seamless. Consciousness is not aware of every external cause. You could argue that , for example, our brain structure is a reflection of the chain up to the present moment, but there is no awareness of most of that. We are not aware why we do things, or why we feel things, a lot of the time.
-
So what does this mean exactly? I am assuming "conscious experience" is the important thing here? there is conscious experience of lots of things, eg eating a banana. What is different about the conscious experience of deciding and initiating actions, that allows you give it some extra function, that allows you to give it status as an "actor" outside of the material world?
-
You claim a lot of things that arent true in that thread as well
-
Nice mind reading. I dont see how you can claim they were thinking 100% about that.
-
Uhh... S.D.Attenborough, not just toxic but mad.
neeeel replied to barn's topic in Science & Technology
Im not sure what those threads are supposed to show? You both used the same circular argument for free will. What has that do do with this thread, and you refusing to link to a video? -
Uhh... S.D.Attenborough, not just toxic but mad.
neeeel replied to barn's topic in Science & Technology
again, you dont get to say what threads I do or dont post on. I told you, if you dont give me a specific link, the only choice I have is to choose a random video. Which i did. There was nothing indoctrinating in there, so I can conclude that you are mistaken Are you claiming that that isnt a david attenborough nature documentary? -
As far as I understand it, they found it so difficult to deal with the disruption and lack of sleep that they felt they had no alternative. Not that I know much about it, but thats what Ive gathered from the little I have heard.
-
If your argument is circular ( and it is), it is automatically rebutted, since a circular argument is not valid. Im done with this. You are either not reading my posts, or not understanding them. The way you dealt with my bible example shows that you havent grasped what I am saying.
-
If I show your argument to be circular that means its invalid. An invalid argument is false. Showing an argument to be false is rebutting an argument from Wiki:- Exactly. Wheres your proof of the outcome being due to free will? You are making an unproven claim by saying recognising choice is free will. Your claim is "holding true" because of the way you defined free will. This is why yours is a circular argument. You missed the whole point of my paraphrasing of your argument. I even pointed out that it wasnt proof of determinism, but a paraphrasing of your argument in order to show you why your argument is circular. Did you read that part? are you serious? A circular argument is a logical fallacy. If an argument is circular , its false. eg P1: The Bible tells us that it is the word of God. P2: The word of God is infallible. C1: Therefore the Bible is infallible.
-
This is where I hit a wall. I think determinism is true. So I shouldnt believe in good and bad. But, on some level, I do. This doesnt disprove determinism, just to be clear. But I suppose it does expose some cognitive dissonance on my part.
-
The fact that, under your definition, any action proves free will, should show you that its an incorrect circular argument. Whether I respond, or dont respond, you take as proof of free will. whether its choice, or recognising choice, you are assuming that free will exists ( ie the free will to make, or recognise, a choice) and using it in your premise. Its a circular argument. How can you not see this? Just because you defined it in a way that proves your argument, doesnt make your argument valid. Its almost like you are arent reading my posts. I have rebutted your argument by showing that its circular. Yes, because you defined it by assuming free will. The fact that you put smileys after it ( you have done it twice in this thread now), is kind of telling to me. Ok, how about this , I define choice as a determined outcome to a previous sequence of events. Oh, look, a choice was just made, so that proves determinism (this is a re-phrasing of your argument to show you how you are making a circular argument, it does not mean that I am making this as an actual argument.)
-
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. ( from oxford dictionary)
-
Im not sure what you mean? Are you asking me to define the word "morality"? Again, its not clear what you mean. In deterministic terms, there is no WE who determines morality. all thoughts , including thoughts about concepts, are determined by previous causes and material interactions.
-
Its still not clear what you mean. If something is determined, that means that no "thing" determines it, it happens as part of a causal chain of events. So something we can agree on being determined, a rock rolling down a hill, its part of a long chain of events including the formation of the solar system, the mountains, the rocks, ultimately ending in a path down the hill, which is also determined by the shape of the rock, and the shape of the hill. So morality is a concept, which exist in thought. Thoughts are causal on the structure of the brain, previous experience, exposure to other concepts etc. I would guess this doesnt answer your question to your satisfaction, so if you can expand your question further, please do.
-
Im not sure what you mean?
-
this is your claim I dont understand how a belief in determinism would allow you to make a fortune determining things. It doesnt follow I was pointing out that us not being able to determine everything does not disprove determinism, you were giving this as evidence that determinism is false. It isnt evidence of that. yes defining free will as choice assumes free will, since a choice is defined as having the free will to make that choice, its a circular argument. the word "choice" assumes free will is real. but it is the only way free will can exist. All physical matter is part of the universe and acts in predictable ways. We are made up of physical matter, which follows the same rules( for want of a better word) as all other matter. Those rules are causal in nature. So either, everything is causal, in which case, determinism, or there is something outside of the causal chain, outside of the predictable actions of matter. In order for something to be outside of the causal chain, it has to be immaterial ( if its material, ie matter, then it again obeys the rules of the universe, and is causal). Usually, the claim of the immaterial comes down to souls, or some sort of spirit( aka ghost in the machine).
-
Uhh... S.D.Attenborough, not just toxic but mad.
neeeel replied to barn's topic in Science & Technology
I watched this video I didnt hear anything remotely like indoctrination, or anything about population control. If you arent going to give a specific example, I can conclude that your premise is false. -
The fact that all events including moral choices are completely determined by previously existing causes, does not mean that WE can determine everything. The fact that someone cant determine things from previously existing causes, does not disprove determinism, I hope you realise that. Ugh, this is so dishonest. You are using circular reasoning. You assume free will, and then use the assumption that free will exists to go "Look! you used free will". The fact that choices appear to take place, does NOT disprove determinism. If you believe in free will, then you believe in a soul, or a ghost in the machine. That is the only way that free will can exist, if there is something outside of the causal chain, the causal universe, that makes the choices. There is no evidence for such a thing.
-
Uhh... S.D.Attenborough, not just toxic but mad.
neeeel replied to barn's topic in Science & Technology
I never said I wasnt going to check things. In fact, I have made it clear that I want to check things, thats why I entered the thread in the first place. You made an assertion that david attenborough was indoctrinating kids in his nature videos. I asked for evidence in the form of a video. You have constantly refused to provide that. So, as I said, I will just choose a random video, and assume that you meant every single video. As for steering clear of your threads, I will post where I have questions, or want to challenge assertions. You dont get to say where I post.