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.
"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?