|
Hi Harv,
This all started when I wrote "Math In The Mirror".
Now, you are entitled to your opinions; I am entitled to mine; right? Otherwise known as freedom of thought.
I wrote "Math + consciousness = physics".
I am an amateur so I do not have to impress anyone; I can think up any connection in physics I want; so can you; actually quite a bit of thought often goes in to my ideas.
You said "No. It does not" re: my quote above on math and physics; recently Kyle said he liked the quote I gave.
Each of us is free to dream up whatever ideas he wants and to agree or disagree with ideas, right?
I wrote, in "Math In The Mirror", an extremely brief sketch of how various ideas in advanced physics might be mapped. I gave so little detail that it is not surprising it looked like "gobbledegook".
However there is plenty behind that inadequate sketch; also some ideas are developing and only partially worked out.
It may have been rash of me to say so little; I'm sorry if I upset people who wanted to know what on earth I was talking about and felt frustrated at the lack of explanation.
Unfortunately you seem to have jumped to certain conclusions.
From my perspective; the questions you asked me about my personal circumstances are not to the topic; if anything is unclear about what a poster writes the polite thing is to request clarification on the points not understood.
Unfortunately the discussion veered to pschiatry and we have apparently very different views of that.
I hope at least you can sort of agree to disagree (as Yanniru did as I recall) on that subject.
I do not think it is correct behaviour on a discussion forum to quiz people about their lives.
The advantage of a forum like this is you can be anyone; even a house-wife doing the dishes can talk about theoretical physics without the baggage of prejudice (no I'm not a housewife).
At Counterbalance you seemed to give the impression that you thought one should rely on experts a lot. While experts have their role to play; I think it is good that in a forum a person can be judged solely by their words and without prejudice.
So that does mean not being able to pre-judge someone based on information about them; but having only their forum contributions to go on.
I do not believe in "mental health"; it looks like a metaphor for obedience to rules of behaviour invented by a dictatorship. There is plenty of material on this at www.szasz.com
I hoped that my comment about the innovation friendly culture at 3M ; and my explanations in "A Way Of Thinking" and "Hidden Messages" might have reached you.
Harv wrote:
"I'm not okay. Alan refuses to respond to my questions just dismissing them without any concern."
I show real concern for the guy, and how does he return this favor and consideration??"
I do not mind anyone expressing concern that they think I am losing the plot in my argument; but the proper way to do this is to say "I do not follow what you are talking about. Please explain." or similar.
I do not believe in the secularised religion called "psychiatry"; I am not particularly into wanting concern on behalf of promoting that belief system; such concern can be noxious; similarly I do not desire much for concern that I am failing to adhere to many other religions and belief systems. People are free to express their concern but they could note that it must not be coercive.
I am not against genuine concern; only binding it to a coercive system is I think not a good idea.
I do not have to believe in other people's religion-type systems and any concern their adherents have for me is misplaced the moment it becomes coercive.
This idea of "crazy people don't know their crazy" is highly dangerous: it allows the labeller to impose their definitions on another in a game of "heads I win, tails you lose". A gross violation of human rights.
"He tells me to go read the forum rules!?! This is unbelievably arrogant."
I do not, it seems, want to be "saved" by Osama Bin Laden, or by Saddam Hussein, or by Psychiatry; given a variety of impressions of what their view of desirable behaviour seems to be.
But I do not want to judge them.
Osama and Saddam were newborn babies once, Jesus Christ lives in them as in each one of us. I am blessed that I am not in their predicament, I hope they can see the light; the same sun shines on everyone regardless of who he is, I read.
"I thought he was a nice guy, but I'm starting to see him as the snake in the grass that he is."
What does this mean? You have my words; why not judge by my words and request clarification where content is unclear or refute points in proper debating style?
I made some rash-looking comments without apparent backing; they did not make sense to you; that is understandable. Internet costs me a lot but I hope to clarify in due course.
I suggest do not place limits on the abilities of human beings to figure stuff out; amateur or not.
We are both free to think what we want; and to take ownership for and responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
Am I politically healthy in the view of the North Korean leadership? Does it matter?
I do not see why I should be subjected to prejudice-establishing interrogation on behalf of a belief system that labels people.
You have the skill of academic debate; my words are here; that's enough surely?
Don't you see what I'm saying?
Best wishes,
Alan |
