Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Logik]

Atla, you might consider what " a psychiatric condition" is. Pathologies are defined and evaluated according to twin criteria of morbidity and pain.

DAM's thesis is so far from being morbid that if world leaders understood it they would tend more to tolerate minorities and the poor and oppressed people.

The thesis of no duality is so far from causing pain that it may tend towards over much quiescence towards unhappiness and pain.

The problem with psychiatry/psychology is confirmation bias and poor understanding of the scientific method in practice.
Studies of the mind allow for no falsifiers. No black swans. No evidence that can reject a hypothesis.

Psychiatry/psychology does not take into account counter-factual reasoning and the principle of charity.

And so nobody is actually taking into account the least plausible, but not impossible hypothesis.

Age may not be a child, he may be older than all of us.
Age may be role-playing e.g his words/behaviours are measured and intentional e.g he's just very good at the game he's playing.

The most fundamental of hypothesis is simply: is it a condition or an informed choice?

Of course - such is the game of philosophy. To keep your cards (your intentions) close to your chest.
So in practice - you must be content with the possibility that you will never know.

[Atla]

Atla, you might consider what " a psychiatric condition" is. Pathologies are defined and evaluated according to twin criteria of morbidity and pain.

DAM's thesis is so far from being morbid that if world leaders understood it they would tend more to tolerate minorities and the poor and oppressed people.

The thesis of no duality is so far from causing pain that it may tend towards over much quiescence towards unhappiness and pain.

I was talking about Age/ken, if you literally believe that God/the world is talking through you, that's pretty much a psychiatric condition.

And who is going to clean up after people like DAM, even her own children think she's crazy. What would you do if your mother told you that she doesn't exist, and that you don't exist, let's leave each other alone? That's antisocial and bordering on child abuse.

Schizophrenics and pseudo-advaitans often cause more harm than good, and even pure nondualism has technically nothing to do with causing less pain or with happiness, it's the system that you additionally build upon it that can address such issues.

[Logik]

I was talking about Age/ken, if you literally believe that God/the world is talking through you, that's pretty much a psychiatric condition.

Q.E.D

Atla has no way of testing these two hypothesis:
* Age "literally believes" X
* Age is pretending to "literally believe" X.

Both explanations manifest as identical empirical behaviour from Atla's perspective. The entire notion of "literal belief" is bogus pseudoscientific junk.

And while he has been trying to figure out what "my condition" is - I've been taking him along for a ride for 6 months.

I'd take this game out into the real world and fuck with "proffessionals" to see if I can get them to diagnose me with the condition I intend to be "diagnosed with", but if it backfires those assholes have the authority to stick me in a looney bin...

[Atla]

I was talking about Age/ken, if you literally believe that God/the world is talking through you, that's pretty much a psychiatric condition.

Q.E.D

Atla has no way of testing these two hypothesis:
* Age "literally believes" X
* Age is pretending to "literally believe" X.

Because the entire notion of "literal belief" is bogus pseudoscientific junk.

There is overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is fairly correct. You can whine like an idiot all you want about the limits of psychology, the world will go on anyway.

[Logik]

There is overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is fairly correct. You can whine like an idiot all you want about the limits of psychology, the world will go on anyway.

Interesting notion that "Fairly correct" and "overwhelming evidence".

All it means is that you have accepted some probability of error as tolerable/acceptable. Be it 1 in 100 or 1 in 100000.
Either way you have drawn a line in your own mind as to QUANTITY of evidence that would convince you one way or another, and while you may think that the difference betewen 1 in 10^2 and 1 in a 10^6 is huge. It's really not. Weight of evidence is logarithmic, not linear.

All that is required then is that I have to remain "in character" for a little longer. Just long enough till your confirmation bias does its thing.

Of course the world will carry on. That's why I spend very little of my time whining about it, and a lot of my time gaming it.

It is far easier to manipulate humans than to convince them of anything they don't want to be convinced of.
And there are virtually NO humans who want to be convinced that they are wrong.

[Atla]

There is overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is fairly correct. You can whine like an idiot all you want about the limits of psychology, the world will go on anyway.

Interesting notion that "Fairly correct".

All it means is that you have accepted some probability of error as tolerable/acceptable. Be it 1 in 100 or 1 in 100000.
Either way you have drawn a line in your own mind as to QUANTITY of evidence that would convince you one way or another, and while you may think that the difference betewen 1 in 10^2 and 1 in a 10^6 is huge. It's really not. Weight of evidence is logarithmic, not linear.

All that is required then is that I have to remain "in character" for a little longer. Just long enough till your confirmation bias does its thing.

Of course the world will carry on. That's why I spend very little of my time whining about it, and a lot of my time gaming it.

It is far easier to manipulate humans than to convince them of anything they don't want to be convinced of.
And there are virtually NO humans who want to be convinced that they are wrong.

What people like you don't understand is that there are things you can't fake. You can lie about things like deeply understanding information or computers, you can lie about yourself, where you live what you do etc. but it's how you process/say certain things and how you make certain errors that you can't avoid.

And right now you are here, again, spending your time trying to convince me that you are merely outsmarting me.

[Logik]

What people like you don't understand is that there are things you can't fake.

And what people like you don't understand is that if I understand the protocol/observations you are looking for I don't need to fake everything.
Only the things you are looking for.

I am gaming your framework! Because every system can be gamed. Input validation. Garbage in - Garbage out.

You can lie about things like deeply understanding information or computers, you can lie about yourself, where you live what you do etc. but it's how you process/say certain things and how you make certain errors that you can't avoid.

Am I making "errors"? Surely then if you can recognize "errors" then you must know what an "error" is.

Please tell us! The whole field of science has been looking to define it. Make your mark.

And right now you are here, again, spending your time trying to convince me that you are merely outsmarting me.

Well. Interesting that. Maybe I am outsmarting you, maybe I am not outsmarting you. That's not the issue at all.

The issue is this: Can you be convinced that you are being outsmarted?

If the answer is "yes" - then you MUST know exactly where your uncertainty lies, no? Tell us then. What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? What is your black swan?

[Dontaskme]

Age may not be a child, he may be older than all of us.
Age may be role-playing e.g his words/behaviours are measured and intentional e.g he's just very good at the game he's playing.

I don't see Ken as playing a game that you believe he's good at, that's just your projected belief that is your own egoic conditioning. Egos are role playing bullshitting animals.

I see Ken as being his authentic self, which is very rare in this age of conditioned belief systems that like to put people in categorised limited little boxes.

I'm aware he has stated he has some form of autistic tendencies, which incidentally is just a unique way that being wants to express itself....nothing wrong with that, and having worked with these people myself, I can honestly say they do not play mind games, in fact they have never been more serious and authentic in their self expression, they pay particular attention to detail and they are very intelligent, and are a lot more aware of what's going on than most people think. All he is trying to do is understand himself and others, he wants to be free to express his views in the only way he knows how, the way only he understands. He reaches out for universal mutual understanding that's all...which is very positive.



.

[Logik]

Age may not be a child, he may be older than all of us.
Age may be role-playing e.g his words/behaviours are measured and intentional e.g he's just very good at the game he's playing.

I don't see Ken as playing a game that you believe he's good at, that's just your projected belief that is your own egoic conditioning. Egos are role playing bullshitting animals.

Naturally - I am projecting. I have a game-theoretic and probabilistic understanding of the universe.

The point is that while I have overwhelming evidence AGAINST the hypothesis "Age is good at playing a game" - at no point have I actually abandoned/dismissed it the hypothesis. I cannot falsify it, so it remains on my radar.

Because there is non-zero probability that I am actually wrong about this. Why have you dismissed that hypothesis entirely?

If all this mathematical hoo haa doesn't make sense to you then let me explain it in much simpler terms.

A smart person can play dubm. A dumb person can't play smart.

[Atla]

What people like you don't understand is that there are things you can't fake.

And what people like you don't understand is that if I understand the protocol/observations you are looking for I don't need to fake everything.
Only the things you are looking for.

I am gaming your framework! Because every system can be gamed. Input validation. Garbage in - Garbage out.

You can lie about things like deeply understanding information or computers, you can lie about yourself, where you live what you do etc. but it's how you process/say certain things and how you make certain errors that you can't avoid.

Am I making "errors"? Surely then you must know what an "error" is. Tell us!

And right now you are here, again, spending your time trying to convince me that you are merely outsmarting me.

Well. Interesting that. Maybe I am outsmarting you, maybe I am not outsmarting you. That's not the issue at all.

The issue is this: Can you be convinced that you are being outsmarted?

If the answer is "yes" - then you MUST know exactly where your uncertainty lies, no? Tell us then. What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? What is your black swan?

You sure ask many question for some who doesn't waste time here.
Well, keep believing that you know what things I'm looking for, and that I take you seriously. You are only beating yourself in this game you are playing.

[Dontaskme]

Naturally - I am projecting. I have a game-theoretic and probabilistic understanding of the universe.

The point is that while I have overwhelming evidence AGAINST the hypothesis "Age is good at playing a game" - at no point have I actually abandoned/dismissed it.

Because there is non-zero probability that I am actually wrong about this. Why have you dismissed that hypothesis entirely?

If all this mathematical hoo haa doesn't make sense to you then let me explain it in much simpler terms.

A smart person can play dubm. A dumb person can't play smart.

But what you have claimed above ..this is all just more conceptual belief...meaningless story pretending to have meaning.

And yet Ken categorically states he has no belief..and you know I just kind of get what what he means by that.

.

Remember, your the one who thinks he can put consciousness inside a robot.

.

[Logik]

You sure ask many question for some who doesn't waste time here.

You equate "asking questions" with "wasting time"?

You couldn't have admitted to dogmatism any more plainly than this!

You are only beating yourself in this game you are playing.

Time will tell

[Logik]

But what you've have claimed above ..this is all just more conceptual belief...meaningless story pretending to have meaning.

My "meaningless story" is called Bayesian inference. It's the foundation to probability theory and the foundation of science.
It is how scientists test hypotheses.

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712

So lets hear your opinions on how science is "just more conceptual belief" and let us hear your alternatives.

And yet Ken categorically states he has no belief..and you know I just kind of get what what he means by that.

So naive. And I categorically state that I am God. Do you get what I mean by that

Remember, your the one who think he can put consciousness in a robot.

I have said that? Way to strawman me. Let me clarify for you, because it's becoming pertinently obvious that science is not your forte.

IF it is possible to replicate consciousness into a machine - the only way to do it is to try DO it. Either it will work or it will not work.

Armchair philosophy will not produce an answer.

[Atla]

Time will tell

How does it feel to encounter someone you can't beat?

[Logik]

How does it feel to encounter someone you can't beat?

I don't know - I am yet to encounter such a system. Well. Not quite correct. I can't bea the universe, but you aren't the universe...

Reminder:

The issue is this: Can you be convinced that you are being outsmarted?

If the answer is "yes" - then you MUST know exactly where your uncertainty lies, no? Tell us then. What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? What is your black swan?

We might just start reading things into your avoidance