NEWS BREAK--PREHISTORIC HIGH MAN SLAPS HIS HANDS ON KEYBOARD!!
is there a reason that similar substances will produce similar effects, even in degree on the brain? thc for example. how many people have accounted for paranoia, drastically increased sensory perception? It makes me wonder if some people assume that quantities have a perceptually recognizeable degree in the scientific world.
An example situation: a drug is being tested that could cure aids, but not to alert the world to an imminent solution, the people in the know were instructed (with great rewards) to not say anything. in the testing period of the drug, paranoia is reported by everyone at different levels. people will probably assume unconsciously, since paranoia is so visceral, that their general experience with paranoia is a good definition of "normal" paranoia. then when they rate the degree, it's completely based on their individual frames of reference. is it so strange to wonder why scientists assume that people's perceptions are an accurate representation as an average, when it's clear that in the case of an overarching substance, no one is basing it on a control value? couldn't a lot of people have a physical abnormality that causes them to generally experience paranoia to a greatly higher degree and offset an average rating drastically? in that case, the abnormality (being an abnormality) would probably exist in much less people than not. say 5 out of 100 people said they experienced paranoia, right? they have a rating system from 1 to 10. 95 people say 1 or 2, so an average of 1.5 we'll say.. and 5 people say 10. 95 * 1.5 is 142.5. 5 * 10 is 50. 50/142.5 is 35.09%. but if those 5 people had the defect that caused them to generally experience paranoia greater, then the actual percentage of people who would likely experience it (based on a good sample set) would be 5%.. but the scientists will think it's 35.09%. sucks. later south africa.
..yeah basically i can't write this anymore. the premise was that we'd miss a cure for aids based on a series of logical follies. i think only about half of this makes sense though. oh well.
the implication here is that paranoia is a state of mind, subjective, rather than an objective state. otherwise, the drug companies are lying about how much "effect" their substance has.
it's never been easier to see the difference between things made by man and things made by nature, god, The Big Force, what have you.
you know. logical representations are silly.
let's take the idea of a divine ruler being responsible for the actions of everything thereabout in nature. like, god created a system, now by predestination these events in the physical world come as, in some way, a result of that divine ruler. if we can place the concept of a ruler, formed in our minds by the coagulation of societies in pre-modern ages most likely (why would there be a ruler when you're scattered and hunting? maybe a sort of pack mentality, so there has to be a head to lead it? what about deeper than that. behind that pack mentality has to lie a deeper psychological origin: was it a result of a situation on an otherwise unchanged object (as in, the pack mentality would have never been realized) or was the mentality there to start with, sitting in the mind? if it came as a result of a situation, and then turned into a feeling in the man's mind, then you have to say that the pack mentality did not exist prior, as well as that changes in the brain manifest only physically outside of perception. if you assume the latter, which is in agreement with modern science, then you can see that the concept of ruler was not part of the divine ruler's "side of things." but what if energy has been conceived as "needing a source" rather than how we conceive it as a result of our interaction with the world
hm... forgot what i was writing about. oh well.
have you ever considered that this nation's religion, as a result of scientific expanse, is truly mathematics? with statistics reeling on america's bigscreen: the internet, and mathematics effectively determining 95% of the way we interact with the world, combined with the advent of society reaching out to the embrace of pop psychology, dietary studies, anti-depressant medication, and thousands of other "scientific and statistically-proven" solutions to everyday problems, it's no wonder that our world has gotten incredibly confusing and diluted--to consistenly rely on concepts we can never completely understand, as mathematics is only a construction of what "really is" there, we are almost certainly out to create more problems to the bigger picture than not, as we know that many physical factors that we ignore (like pollutants) do, indeed, relate mathematically to the rest of physicality, and what we think we do know about the nature of physicality may yet be slightly off, as was uncovered by einstein's relativity, and research on quantum theory. a people continuing to believe a malignant and deceptive fantasy -so close- to reality will slowly, but inevitably, kill itself.
...
haha what if i wrote a bunch of songs about math and toured the world so i could make people aware of a common ground between us. i'd kind of love that. :D
An example situation: a drug is being tested that could cure aids, but not to alert the world to an imminent solution, the people in the know were instructed (with great rewards) to not say anything. in the testing period of the drug, paranoia is reported by everyone at different levels. people will probably assume unconsciously, since paranoia is so visceral, that their general experience with paranoia is a good definition of "normal" paranoia. then when they rate the degree, it's completely based on their individual frames of reference. is it so strange to wonder why scientists assume that people's perceptions are an accurate representation as an average, when it's clear that in the case of an overarching substance, no one is basing it on a control value? couldn't a lot of people have a physical abnormality that causes them to generally experience paranoia to a greatly higher degree and offset an average rating drastically? in that case, the abnormality (being an abnormality) would probably exist in much less people than not. say 5 out of 100 people said they experienced paranoia, right? they have a rating system from 1 to 10. 95 people say 1 or 2, so an average of 1.5 we'll say.. and 5 people say 10. 95 * 1.5 is 142.5. 5 * 10 is 50. 50/142.5 is 35.09%. but if those 5 people had the defect that caused them to generally experience paranoia greater, then the actual percentage of people who would likely experience it (based on a good sample set) would be 5%.. but the scientists will think it's 35.09%. sucks. later south africa.
..yeah basically i can't write this anymore. the premise was that we'd miss a cure for aids based on a series of logical follies. i think only about half of this makes sense though. oh well.
the implication here is that paranoia is a state of mind, subjective, rather than an objective state. otherwise, the drug companies are lying about how much "effect" their substance has.
it's never been easier to see the difference between things made by man and things made by nature, god, The Big Force, what have you.
you know. logical representations are silly.
let's take the idea of a divine ruler being responsible for the actions of everything thereabout in nature. like, god created a system, now by predestination these events in the physical world come as, in some way, a result of that divine ruler. if we can place the concept of a ruler, formed in our minds by the coagulation of societies in pre-modern ages most likely (why would there be a ruler when you're scattered and hunting? maybe a sort of pack mentality, so there has to be a head to lead it? what about deeper than that. behind that pack mentality has to lie a deeper psychological origin: was it a result of a situation on an otherwise unchanged object (as in, the pack mentality would have never been realized) or was the mentality there to start with, sitting in the mind? if it came as a result of a situation, and then turned into a feeling in the man's mind, then you have to say that the pack mentality did not exist prior, as well as that changes in the brain manifest only physically outside of perception. if you assume the latter, which is in agreement with modern science, then you can see that the concept of ruler was not part of the divine ruler's "side of things." but what if energy has been conceived as "needing a source" rather than how we conceive it as a result of our interaction with the world
hm... forgot what i was writing about. oh well.
have you ever considered that this nation's religion, as a result of scientific expanse, is truly mathematics? with statistics reeling on america's bigscreen: the internet, and mathematics effectively determining 95% of the way we interact with the world, combined with the advent of society reaching out to the embrace of pop psychology, dietary studies, anti-depressant medication, and thousands of other "scientific and statistically-proven" solutions to everyday problems, it's no wonder that our world has gotten incredibly confusing and diluted--to consistenly rely on concepts we can never completely understand, as mathematics is only a construction of what "really is" there, we are almost certainly out to create more problems to the bigger picture than not, as we know that many physical factors that we ignore (like pollutants) do, indeed, relate mathematically to the rest of physicality, and what we think we do know about the nature of physicality may yet be slightly off, as was uncovered by einstein's relativity, and research on quantum theory. a people continuing to believe a malignant and deceptive fantasy -so close- to reality will slowly, but inevitably, kill itself.
...
haha what if i wrote a bunch of songs about math and toured the world so i could make people aware of a common ground between us. i'd kind of love that. :D