Sociology > Depression > Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions):
| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Roland Koch" |
| Date: |
18 Mar 2005 03:14:12 PM |
| Object: |
Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
With sincerity, and not wanting to upset
the "special exceptions"
I believe that the cause of Depression
as outlined and so many times expressed
in this NG, is caused by an excessive
degree of SELFISHNESS.
Many posters are only interested in their own sufferings,
and aside from pretty "I hope you feel better" comments
-which cost nothing to say,
there seems to be no real power to heal.
"Meaningless, everything is meaningless"
A vacuous emptiness.
Empty, useless words, instead.
And looking back at my past problems,
which I now recognise as selfishness too,
it seems that the diagnosis is not too far
from the truth. SELFISHNESS.
I repent, personally.
God forgive me.
------------------------------
For Depression to end,
Selfishness must end.
In other words,
we must "go out on a limb",
forsake our "comfort zone",
and risk inconvenience
to help someome else in trouble.
That attitude SHALL help us to forget
how much WE are suffering,
and it will please God no end!
We are all miserably selfish
and worry only about our own sufferings.
Big Deal!
We are all wimps, chicken-hearted
lily-livered slobs, who deserve
to continue living the useless and dead life
we seem to lead, day by day.
-According to so, so many posts in ASD
May God have mercy upon us!
Roland
.
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
26 Mar 2005 08:02:39 PM |
|
|
In article <rm4c41l6skndo6u7rru85mhdgbg39147tn@4ax.com>,
ponette <ponette0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
I once had someone in my family express pity for me because I'd
labeled myself as an atheist. "Can't you at least say you are an
agnostic??!!" he entreated.
Arggh, don't get me started. I really hate the way so many people who
are probably really atheists are intimidated by that attitude into
calling themselves "agnostic", for fear of being accused of -- the usual
line -- "having all the answers". How disbelief in gods is supposed to
translate to belief that one knows everything continues to escape me,
but it really is a terribly popular accusation among the godly crowd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
26 Mar 2005 11:25:07 PM |
|
|
"RGB" <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote in message
news:3vo1e.2533416$Zm5.412048@news.easynews.com...
In article <rm4c41l6skndo6u7rru85mhdgbg39147tn@4ax.com>,
ponette <ponette0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
I once had someone in my family express pity for me because I'd
labeled myself as an atheist. "Can't you at least say you are an
agnostic??!!" he entreated.
Arggh, don't get me started. I really hate the way so many people who
are probably really atheists are intimidated by that attitude into
calling themselves "agnostic", for fear of being accused of -- the usual
line -- "having all the answers". How disbelief in gods is supposed to
translate to belief that one knows everything continues to escape me,
but it really is a terribly popular accusation among the godly crowd.
What I don't understand is why anyone would care. I am one of the godly
crowd and I don't give a rat's ***** what you or anyone else believes in. To
each his own.
--
rhianon@sympatico.ca
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
26 Mar 2005 10:58:27 PM |
|
|
In article <7Dq1e.12461$JK1.1099819@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
What I don't understand is why anyone would care. I am one of the
godly crowd and I don't give a rat's ***** what you or anyone else
believes in. To each his own.
But what if you believe that atheists are damned and will suffer in Hell
eternally for failure to recognize God? Isn't "to each his own" kind of
selfish, in that situation? This is kind of a bind I find myself in,
regarding evangelicals. I find them annoying and obnoxious, but I can't
really fault them if they truly believe they're saving me from an
eternity of pure horror. Likewise for the so-called "pro-life" crowd: I
think they're wrong, wrong, wrong... but relative to their beliefs, how
can they behave otherwise?
Sigh. I think I need a dose of Alvin right about now!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 11:20:24 AM |
|
|
"RGB" <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote in message
news:T3r1e.2546338$Zm5.414896@news.easynews.com...
In article <7Dq1e.12461$JK1.1099819@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
What I don't understand is why anyone would care. I am one of the
godly crowd and I don't give a rat's ***** what you or anyone else
believes in. To each his own.
But what if you believe that atheists are damned and will suffer in Hell
eternally for failure to recognize God? Isn't "to each his own" kind of
selfish, in that situation?
First - let me be very clear by saying that I *don't* believe that. I can't
possibly know the mind of God and would never presume to know whether an
atheist, or anyone else for that matter, is going to Heaven or Hell. On the
other hand, the atheist, or anyone else, can't have it both ways. Choose
the path, choose the consequences. One cannot condemn or reject my chosen
path, my faith, only to cry "you're selfish" in the final moments upon
discovering they were wrong. Nor can I upon discovering I was wrong.
Part of my responsibility as a Christian is to *impart* the word of God and
Christ. That does not mean I am required to beat non-believers with my
faith until they are senseless and bloody and willing to convert. Truth is,
I don't feel I have the right to do that, it's disrespectful, and in my
mind, respect and tolerance for one another is everything.
This is kind of a bind I find myself in,
regarding evangelicals. I find them annoying and obnoxious, but I can't
really fault them if they truly believe they're saving me from an
eternity of pure horror. Likewise for the so-called "pro-life" crowd: I
think they're wrong, wrong, wrong... but relative to their beliefs, how
can they behave otherwise?
Again - tolerance. When it comes to matters of faith, I would never fault
anyone for anything. It hardly matters if I think they are right or wrong.
It just is. And whatever is at work in their minds, their hearts, and their
souls, is between them and whatever God they worship - or as it applies to
the atheist - don't worship. It is not up to me to judge anyone and it
would be profoundly arrogant of me to think otherwise.
Sigh. I think I need a dose of Alvin right about now!
I am beginning to think we all need a dose of Alvin at least once a day. :)
--
rhianon@sympatico.ca
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 11:19:47 AM |
|
|
In article <t5B1e.109$w63.47268@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
What I don't understand is why anyone would care. I am one of the
godly crowd and I don't give a rat's ***** what you or anyone else
believes in. To each his own.
But what if you believe that atheists are damned and will suffer in
Hell eternally for failure to recognize God? Isn't "to each his
own" kind of selfish, in that situation?
First - let me be very clear by saying that I *don't* believe that.
I can't possibly know the mind of God and would never presume to know
whether an atheist, or anyone else for that matter, is going to
Heaven or Hell.
The problem is, there are apparently sincere theists who *do*, and that
complicates the ethical situation.
On the other hand, the atheist, or anyone else, can't have it both
ways. Choose the path, choose the consequences. One cannot condemn
or reject my chosen path, my faith, only to cry "you're selfish" in
the final moments upon discovering they were wrong. Nor can I upon
discovering I was wrong.
I'm not talking about what some hypothetical atheist might say
on Judgment Day upon finding himself sent to Hell. I'm talking about
what's right and wrong, here and now, on the part of people who regard
themselves has having the duty to "save" such atheists. I'm admitting
to an ethical difficulty in invoking the principle of "to each his own"
to justify objecting to the behavior of evangelicals who sincerely
believe they hold the keys to the kingdom..
Analogy: we're in a chem lab, and you pick up a bottle of cyanide,
thinking it's grape soda, and start to drink it. I yell out, "Stop,
that's poison!" You reply that it's just soda and if I don't like your
drinking preferences I should keep it to myself. I think it's pretty
reasonable to suggest that I would be justified in doing anything I
could to keep you from drinking that cyanide, including using physical
force. In this hypothetical situation, it's grotesque to suggest that I
should just say "to each his own" and let you unknowingly drink lethal
poison because you think it's soda and don't want to listen to me.
But that's the way some theists see their mission, as protecting
unbelievers from ignorantly poisoning themselves with their unbelief. My
question is, how are the situations different? Why is the cyanide
intervention OK, even obligatory, but non-intervention the rule in the
case of religion?
Let me make clear, I think the cases *are* different. It's just that
when I play devil's advocate like this, I find it's not as easy to
justify the "to each his own" attitude as I wish, as an atheist, it were.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
28 Mar 2005 04:00:56 AM |
|
|
"RGB" <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote in message
news:TWB1e.6401738$f47.1185086@news.easynews.com...
In article <t5B1e.109$w63.47268@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
What I don't understand is why anyone would care. I am one of the
godly crowd and I don't give a rat's ***** what you or anyone else
believes in. To each his own.
But what if you believe that atheists are damned and will suffer in
Hell eternally for failure to recognize God? Isn't "to each his
own" kind of selfish, in that situation?
First - let me be very clear by saying that I *don't* believe that.
I can't possibly know the mind of God and would never presume to know
whether an atheist, or anyone else for that matter, is going to
Heaven or Hell.
The problem is, there are apparently sincere theists who *do*, and that
complicates the ethical situation.
On the other hand, the atheist, or anyone else, can't have it both
ways. Choose the path, choose the consequences. One cannot condemn
or reject my chosen path, my faith, only to cry "you're selfish" in
the final moments upon discovering they were wrong. Nor can I upon
discovering I was wrong.
I'm not talking about what some hypothetical atheist might say
on Judgment Day upon finding himself sent to Hell. I'm talking about
what's right and wrong, here and now, on the part of people who regard
themselves has having the duty to "save" such atheists. I'm admitting
to an ethical difficulty in invoking the principle of "to each his own"
to justify objecting to the behavior of evangelicals who sincerely
believe they hold the keys to the kingdom..
Analogy: we're in a chem lab, and you pick up a bottle of cyanide,
thinking it's grape soda, and start to drink it. I yell out, "Stop,
that's poison!" You reply that it's just soda and if I don't like your
drinking preferences I should keep it to myself. I think it's pretty
reasonable to suggest that I would be justified in doing anything I
could to keep you from drinking that cyanide, including using physical
force. In this hypothetical situation, it's grotesque to suggest that I
should just say "to each his own" and let you unknowingly drink lethal
poison because you think it's soda and don't want to listen to me.
But that's the way some theists see their mission, as protecting
unbelievers from ignorantly poisoning themselves with their unbelief. My
question is, how are the situations different? Why is the cyanide
intervention OK, even obligatory, but non-intervention the rule in the
case of religion?
Let me make clear, I think the cases *are* different. It's just that
when I play devil's advocate like this, I find it's not as easy to
justify the "to each his own" attitude as I wish, as an atheist, it were.
I don't speak for *some theists*. I only speak for myself. And I don't
have a
problem. For me it isn't complicated. In fact, it is downright simple.
The information is out there. Everyone has an opportunity to access it.
Everyone has the right and the freedom to explore. Gain knowledge.
Consider all possibilities. And once armed with that they make their own
choices. Believe or don't believe. Their call. I do not feel a *duty* to
convince anyone of anything, particularly against their will. I can impart
what
I believe. Share my life experiences. Set a worthy example. Encourage the
seeking to consider. And hope it makes a difference. Beyond that there are
boundaries. Limitations. Over which I have no control. I have neither the
power nor the inclination to save those who choose not to believe. I have
to accept that and respect that and let it go. As for your analogy - it is
possible
to knock a bottle of cyanide from his hand in order to save his *life* - but
quite
impossible to save his *soul* when he flat out denies he even has one in the
first
place.
--
rhianon@sympatico.ca
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kerfoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 02:29:44 PM |
|
|
RGB wrote:
Analogy: we're in a chem lab, and you pick up a bottle of cyanide,
thinking it's grape soda, and start to drink it. I yell out, "Stop,
that's poison!" You reply that it's just soda and if I don't like your
drinking preferences I should keep it to myself. I think it's pretty
reasonable to suggest that I would be justified in doing anything I
could to keep you from drinking that cyanide, including using physical
force. In this hypothetical situation, it's grotesque to suggest that I
should just say "to each his own" and let you unknowingly drink lethal
poison because you think it's soda and don't want to listen to me.
But that's the way some theists see their mission, as protecting
unbelievers from ignorantly poisoning themselves with their unbelief. My
question is, how are the situations different? Why is the cyanide
intervention OK, even obligatory, but non-intervention the rule in the
case of religion?
Let me make clear, I think the cases *are* different. It's just that
when I play devil's advocate like this, I find it's not as easy to
justify the "to each his own" attitude as I wish, as an atheist, it were.
The cases are different in that cyanide is an inanimate substance
and God is not. So it is a conscious being who will be facilitating
the conditions of eternal damnation with red hot needles being stuck
into someone's eyeballs over and over again. Well maybe another analogy
would be a 'believer' warning someone not to go into some woods where
an escaped mass murderer who tortures his victims is believed to be.
But that analogy would mean 'believers' would be worshipping and content
to be in bliss in the company of that diabolical torturing mass
murderer even while his victims, including the 'believer's' family,
friends,
etc. writhe and scream in agony forever and ever...
-Fred
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AlvinTChase" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 04:28:43 PM |
|
|
Rhiannon wrote:
"RGB" <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote in message
Sigh. I think I need a dose of Alvin right about now!
I am beginning to think we all need a dose of Alvin at least once a
day. :)
--
rhianon@sympatico.ca
Thank you...although I'm not sure what you both mean...
-"Alvintchase"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
26 Mar 2005 11:04:18 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
RGB wrote:
In article <7Dq1e.12461$JK1.1099819@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
What I don't understand is why anyone would care. I am one of the
godly crowd and I don't give a rat's ***** what you or anyone else
believes in. To each his own.
But what if you believe that atheists are damned and will suffer in Hell
eternally for failure to recognize God? Isn't "to each his own" kind of
selfish, in that situation? This is kind of a bind I find myself in,
regarding evangelicals. I find them annoying and obnoxious, but I can't
really fault them if they truly believe they're saving me from an
eternity of pure horror. Likewise for the so-called "pro-life" crowd: I
think they're wrong, wrong, wrong... but relative to their beliefs, how
can they behave otherwise?
Sigh. I think I need a dose of Alvin right about now!
What about pro-life agnostics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
26 Mar 2005 11:15:18 PM |
|
|
In article <42463EC7.1070402@comcast.net>,
Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
What about pro-life agnostics?
No difference, if the position is sincere. The "pro-life" position has
gotten all tangled up with right-wing Christianity and politics, but at
bottom the reall issue isn't really a religious one at all, any more
than this Terri Whatshername business is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
26 Mar 2005 11:30:20 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
RGB wrote:
In article <42463EC7.1070402@comcast.net>,
Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
What about pro-life agnostics?
No difference, if the position is sincere. The "pro-life" position has
gotten all tangled up with right-wing Christianity and politics, but at
bottom the reall issue isn't really a religious one at all, any more
than this Terri Whatshername business is.
I can't get into this religious debate you're having, it's kind of
flying over my head. I would say I'm agnostic not in the sense of being
an atheist who's afraid to say so, but simply that I have no clue what
to think. I feel tugs in both directions. Cognitively I'm an atheist,
but emotionally I'm Christian. And I can't get past the "why does
matter even exist" thing, my mind blanks out. (But then if God exist,
who or what created God?) I can't get past these sticky points, and
you're explanation on the wiki didn't really help me understand it
better. So I really have no idea what to think, other than that I am
indeed a speck in the greater scheme of things, so I'm just trying to
focus on my own little life, I have a hard enough time keeping my own
head above water.
Hi Lulu, yes, this post is about me me me me me, tough too bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
26 Mar 2005 11:45:22 PM |
|
|
In article <424644DE.6000306@comcast.net>,
Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
I would say I'm agnostic not in the sense of being an atheist who's
afraid to say so, but simply that I have no clue what to think.
Sounds agnostic to me! "Agnostic", after all, just means "one who does
not know".
And I can't get past the "why does matter even exist" thing,
my mind blanks out.
Try imagining a Universe in which there is no matter, in which there is
no anything. Doesn't the question arise in your mind, hey, why isn't
there anything here? I don't think it's matter or no-matter that's the
issue, I think it's the question of "Why is the Universe one way out of
all possible ways as opposed to being any other way?" And that's a
toughie. But hey, nobody ever said it was gonna be easy.
I can't get past these sticky points, and your explanation on the
wiki didn't really help me understand it better.
But I control it all there! I am The Control Voice! I control the
horizontal, I control the vertical, I can change the focus to a soft
blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity! What do you MEAN my explanation
on the wiki didn't help you understand it better???!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I'm serious, though: much as questions like "why is there matter?" may
incline you emotionally toward belief in God, when you really think
about it, injecting God (or a peer predictor) doesn't really solve
anything, it just consolidates and postpones the hard questions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 12:07:22 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
RGB wrote:
Try imagining a Universe in which there is no matter, in which there is
no anything.
I can't even do that. All I see is black empty space. But I can't help
but see black empty space with an invisible intersecting x,y, & z axis.
Even with nothingness, you have something, at least how it looks to
me: 3 dimensions. Even if those dimensions aren't being utilized by
anything, they COULD be there.
I can't get past these sticky points, and your explanation on the
wiki didn't really help me understand it better.
But I control it all there! I am The Control Voice! I control the
horizontal, I control the vertical, I can change the focus to a soft
blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity! What do you MEAN my explanation
on the wiki didn't help you understand it better???!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
There are groups for personality disorders, you know. This is a mood
disorder group. Plus this is usenet, you'll never control it, so give
it up.
I'm serious, though: much as questions like "why is there matter?" may
incline you emotionally toward belief in God, when you really think
about it, injecting God (or a peer predictor) doesn't really solve
anything, it just consolidates and postpones the hard questions.
No, these questions don't make me emotionally inclined to inject God as
the solution. In fact, that's why I added the question "How did God get
created?" It's the same problem.
Any spirituality I feel is for me really an emotional response. Maybe
it stems from having been raised Christian, and there is this sense that
God is watching you, even if no one else is. And sometimes I feel that,
even think it on some level. But cognitively, this could just be a part
of the Homo sapien brain that's programmed to make me think and feel
this way. Or it might be the result of being raised Christian and
having parents that employed middle class guilt to control me and mold
me into the kind of citizen that creates FUD in Thomas and Whiskers. I
really don't know. So I really do throw up my hands and say "I don't
know" when it comes to this issue. I just try to be a good person, and
hope it all works out in the end. That's the best I can do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 12:19:47 AM |
|
|
In article <42464D86.1090700@comcast.net>,
Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
Even with nothingness, you have something, at least how it looks to
me: 3 dimensions. Even if those dimensions aren't being utilized by
anything, they COULD be there.
That's the old Newtonian notion of space as something which exists
independent of matter, and which would exist even if there were no
matter at all. It didn't make it into the 20th Century.
But I know what you mean, of course. You can't really imagine nothing,
it's almost a contradiction to even try. But it's still a logical
possibility, and it's still a situation of which you could ask (if you
were there to ask, which of course you wouldn't be) "Why is it this way
as opposed to any other way? Why is there nothing rather than something?"
But I control it all there! I am The Control Voice! I control the
horizontal, I control the vertical, I can change the focus to a soft
blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity! What do you MEAN my explanation
on the wiki didn't help you understand it better???!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
There are groups for personality disorders, you know. This is a mood
disorder group. Plus this is usenet, you'll never control it, so give
it up.
It does get kind of frustrating.
Any spirituality I feel is for me really an emotional response. Maybe
it stems from having been raised Christian, and there is this sense that
God is watching you, even if no one else is. And sometimes I feel that,
even think it on some level. But cognitively, this could just be a part
of the Homo sapien brain that's programmed to make me think and feel
this way. Or it might be the result of being raised Christian and
having parents that employed middle class guilt to control me and mold
me into the kind of citizen that creates FUD in Thomas and Whiskers. I
really don't know. So I really do throw up my hands and say "I don't
know" when it comes to this issue. I just try to be a good person, and
hope it all works out in the end. That's the best I can do.
A lot of the time I wish there was a God. At least the Christian God. It
would be so nice to have somebody *that* competent running everything.
Really, wouldn't it be great to know that no matter how awful things
look, everything is for a reason, and everything is for the best? I hate
it when people tell me that *****, but man it would be nice if it were
true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 12:53:40 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
RGB wrote:
In article <42464D86.1090700@comcast.net>,
Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
Even with nothingness, you have something, at least how it looks to
me: 3 dimensions. Even if those dimensions aren't being utilized by
anything, they COULD be there.
That's the old Newtonian notion of space as something which exists
independent of matter, and which would exist even if there were no
matter at all. It didn't make it into the 20th Century.
But I know what you mean, of course. You can't really imagine nothing,
it's almost a contradiction to even try. But it's still a logical
possibility, and it's still a situation of which you could ask (if you
were there to ask, which of course you wouldn't be) "Why is it this way
as opposed to any other way? Why is there nothing rather than something?"
I avoided the hard sciences after high school, and I'm really regretting
it. I guess I can entertain the concept of a null universe. But, to do
that, there has to be a me to entertain the concept. And how do you
have universe where the basic laws of arithmetic don't apply? Even
Newton, wasn't Einstein an extension rather than a replacement of
Newtonian physics?
I have a feeling after a few goes of this, you're going to wind up
wanting to kick me a few times. It's discussions like this where I
start to realize the limits of my abilities.
I've always wondered what it is that makes some people be able to
comprehend the kind of math I would occasionally see in school. Was it
merely a function of time? COULD I learn that stuff, given enough time
and effort? Were they simply better at absorbing and being able to
process the information? Or are there some concepts out there that I'm
simply not going to get no matter how hard I try, while there are some
people who can understand them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 12:57:15 AM |
|
|
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message news:42465869.2030909@comcast.net...
: x-no-archive: yes
:
: RGB wrote:
: > In article <42464D86.1090700@comcast.net>,
: > Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
: >
: >
: >>Even with nothingness, you have something, at least how it looks to
: >>me: 3 dimensions. Even if those dimensions aren't being utilized by
: >>anything, they COULD be there.
: >
: >
: > That's the old Newtonian notion of space as something which exists
: > independent of matter, and which would exist even if there were no
: > matter at all. It didn't make it into the 20th Century.
: >
: > But I know what you mean, of course. You can't really imagine nothing,
: > it's almost a contradiction to even try. But it's still a logical
: > possibility, and it's still a situation of which you could ask (if you
: > were there to ask, which of course you wouldn't be) "Why is it this way
: > as opposed to any other way? Why is there nothing rather than something?"
:
: I avoided the hard sciences after high school, and I'm really regretting
: it. I guess I can entertain the concept of a null universe. But, to do
: that, there has to be a me to entertain the concept. And how do you
: have universe where the basic laws of arithmetic don't apply? Even
: Newton, wasn't Einstein an extension rather than a replacement of
: Newtonian physics?
:
: I have a feeling after a few goes of this, you're going to wind up
: wanting to kick me a few times. It's discussions like this where I
: start to realize the limits of my abilities.
:
: I've always wondered what it is that makes some people be able to
: comprehend the kind of math I would occasionally see in school. Was it
: merely a function of time? COULD I learn that stuff, given enough time
: and effort? Were they simply better at absorbing and being able to
: process the information? Or are there some concepts out there that I'm
: simply not going to get no matter how hard I try, while there are some
: people who can understand them?
:
and if everyone was into maintenance we'd all be cleaner
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 01:03:29 AM |
|
|
In article <42465869.2030909@comcast.net>,
Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
Even Newton, wasn't Einstein an extension rather than a replacement
of Newtonian physics?
Einsteinian physics allowed Newtonian physics to stand as being "close
enough" for ordinary purposes -- but that "close enough" isn't good
enough for the kinds of metaphysical definitions we're seeking here. And
I believe if we're looking at the hypothetical situation in which
nothing at all exists, Einsteinian and Newtonian physics would be
absolutely opposed as regards the existence or non-existence of pure
empty space.
I have a feeling after a few goes of this, you're going to wind up
wanting to kick me a few times. It's discussions like this where I
start to realize the limits of my abilities.
I know only a very little bit about these things. But I'm pretty sure
about what I'm saying here.
I've always wondered what it is that makes some people be able to
comprehend the kind of math I would occasionally see in school. Was it
merely a function of time? COULD I learn that stuff, given enough time
and effort? Were they simply better at absorbing and being able to
process the information? Or are there some concepts out there that I'm
simply not going to get no matter how hard I try, while there are some
people who can understand them?
Math is hardware. I mean, you get these idiot savants who drool their
way through life but can multiply 10-digit numbers in their heads
instantly. You know, like "Rainman". I think certain kinds of math
ability really are very much a matter of either you're born with it or
you aren't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 04:02:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:53:40 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
I've always wondered what it is that makes some people be able to
comprehend the kind of math I would occasionally see in school. Was it
merely a function of time? COULD I learn that stuff, given enough time
and effort?
Stephen Hawking.
Thank god no one pulled *his* feeding tube..... so to speak.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 06:14:02 PM |
|
|
On 2005-03-27, wombn <wombnhearmeroar@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:53:40 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
I've always wondered what it is that makes some people be able to
comprehend the kind of math I would occasionally see in school. Was it
merely a function of time? COULD I learn that stuff, given enough time
and effort?
Stephen Hawking.
Thank god no one pulled *his* feeding tube..... so to speak.
He has never been 'in a persistant vegetative state', and the NHS and 'the
Welfare State' foot all the bills, so why would any tubes be pulled except
by him or at his command?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 04:00:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:07:22 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
Any spirituality I feel is for me really an emotional response. Maybe
it stems from having been raised Christian, and there is this sense that
God is watching you, even if no one else is.
My grandma is. Both of us. All the time. Mom's Mom. The one who
told me not to the let the gays in my dorm breathe on me ("cuz you
know what they do").
The one who sat in the upstairs window at the end of the cul-de-sac
and watched all us kids in the neighborhood-- and told on us. Her
name is Grandma Laura.
:-)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kerfoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 02:04:04 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
RGB wrote:
Try imagining a Universe in which there is no matter, in which there is
no anything.
I can't even do that. All I see is black empty space. But I can't help
but see black empty space with an invisible intersecting x,y, & z axis.
Even with nothingness, you have something, at least how it looks to
me: 3 dimensions. Even if those dimensions aren't being utilized by
anything, they COULD be there.
But there wouldn't be x, y and z axises, dimensions, without matter
and/or energy
defining them. How can you measure a mile in such a place without an
object A and
an object B?
Also there would be no time without things existing and moving in
relationship with each other.
On the other hand, what was there before the beginning of the universe?
Was
there nothing, no anything, or was there stuff here before the 'big
bang'?
-Fred
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kerfoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 02:05:19 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
RGB wrote:
Try imagining a Universe in which there is no matter, in which there is
no anything.
I can't even do that. All I see is black empty space. But I can't help
but see black empty space with an invisible intersecting x,y, & z axis.
Even with nothingness, you have something, at least how it looks to
me: 3 dimensions. Even if those dimensions aren't being utilized by
anything, they COULD be there.
But there wouldn't be x, y and z axises, dimensions, without matter
and/or energy
defining them. How can you measure a mile in such a place without an
object A and
an object B?
Also there would be no time without things existing and moving in
relationship with each other.
On the other hand, what was there before the beginning of the universe?
Was
there nothing, no anything, or was there stuff here before the 'big
bang'?
-Fred
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 03:52:25 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
kerfoker wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
RGB wrote:
Try imagining a Universe in which there is no matter, in which there is
no anything.
I can't even do that. All I see is black empty space. But I can't help
but see black empty space with an invisible intersecting x,y, & z axis.
Even with nothingness, you have something, at least how it looks to
me: 3 dimensions. Even if those dimensions aren't being utilized by
anything, they COULD be there.
But there wouldn't be x, y and z axises, dimensions, without matter
and/or energy
defining them. How can you measure a mile in such a place without an
object A and
an object B?
Also there would be no time without things existing and moving in
relationship with each other.
On the other hand, what was there before the beginning of the universe?
Was
there nothing, no anything, or was there stuff here before the 'big
bang'?
-Fred
Don't know. This stuff flies clean over my head.
I have an interesting book I started but never finished, "Godel, Escher,
Bach", about these strange loops in logic. I intend to actually read it
and finish it one day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kerfoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 06:23:38 PM |
|
|
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
kerfoker wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
RGB wrote:
Try imagining a Universe in which there is no matter, in which there is
no anything.
I can't even do that. All I see is black empty space. But I can't help
but see black empty space with an invisible intersecting x,y, & z axis.
Even with nothingness, you have something, at least how it looks to
me: 3 dimensions. Even if those dimensions aren't being utilized by
anything, they COULD be there.
But there wouldn't be x, y and z axises, dimensions, without matter
and/or energy
defining them. How can you measure a mile in such a place without an
object A and
an object B?
Also there would be no time without things existing and moving in
relationship with each other.
On the other hand, what was there before the beginning of the universe?
Was
there nothing, no anything, or was there stuff here before the 'big
bang'?
-Fred
Don't know. This stuff flies clean over my head.
I have an interesting book I started but never finished, "Godel, Escher,
Bach", about these strange loops in logic. I intend to actually read it
and finish it one day.
Ah, I don't understand much of it either so you're not alone there!
-Fred
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 06:28:26 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
kerfoker wrote:
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
kerfoker wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
RGB wrote:
Try imagining a Universe in which there is no matter, in which there is
no anything.
I can't even do that. All I see is black empty space. But I can't help
but see black empty space with an invisible intersecting x,y, & z axis.
Even with nothingness, you have something, at least how it looks to
me: 3 dimensions. Even if those dimensions aren't being utilized by
anything, they COULD be there.
But there wouldn't be x, y and z axises, dimensions, without matter
and/or energy
defining them. How can you measure a mile in such a place without an
object A and
an object B?
Also there would be no time without things existing and moving in
relationship with each other.
On the other hand, what was there before the beginning of the universe?
Was
there nothing, no anything, or was there stuff here before the 'big
bang'?
-Fred
Don't know. This stuff flies clean over my head.
I have an interesting book I started but never finished, "Godel, Escher,
Bach", about these strange loops in logic. I intend to actually read it
and finish it one day.
Ah, I don't understand much of it either so you're not alone there!
-Fred
I'm pretty wicked at cleaning toilets though! (At least when I stop
posting and get my butt out of this chair.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 06:34:20 PM |
|
|
In article <42474F9D.1030301@comcast.net>,
Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm pretty wicked at cleaning toilets though!
When you look into a toilet, do you ask,
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
27 Mar 2005 06:17:22 PM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: Yes
On 2005-03-27, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
snip
I have an interesting book I started but never finished, "Godel, Escher,
Bach", about these strange loops in logic. I intend to actually read it
and finish it one day.
It is heavy going, and not something to attempt with a short attention span,
but it doesn't answer questions it just tries to refine them. Of course, I
don't understand it either ;))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
28 Mar 2005 12:46:09 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Whiskers wrote:
X-No-Archive: Yes
On 2005-03-27, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
snip
I have an interesting book I started but never finished, "Godel, Escher,
Bach", about these strange loops in logic. I intend to actually read it
and finish it one day.
It is heavy going, and not something to attempt with a short attention span,
but it doesn't answer questions it just tries to refine them. Of course, I
don't understand it either ;))
Did you read that book? You know the one I'm talking about? I've been
carrying it around with me for almost 15 years. I swear to God, I will
read that damn book if it kills me. (Just not today.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special |
28 Mar 2005 05:47:40 AM |
|
|
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Whiskers wrote:
X-No-Archive: Yes
On 2005-03-27, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
I have an interesting book I started but never finished, "Godel, Escher,
Bach", about these strange loops in logic. I intend to actually read it
and finish it one day.
It is heavy going, and not something to attempt with a short attention span,
but it doesn't answer questions it just tries to refine them. Of course, I
don't understand it either ;))
Did you read that book? You know the one I'm talking about? I've been
carrying it around with me for almost 15 years. I swear to God, I will
read that damn book if it kills me. (Just not today.)
I read that tome back in the '80s. Abstruse yet thought-provoking. You
might do well by first reading _Metamagical Themas_, a collection of
columns Hofstadter wrote for _Scientific American_. It's a much more
accessible introduction to the ides he explores in _Gödel, Escher, Bach:
An Eternal Golden Braid_.
Once you make it through _GEB_, you just might be ready to tackle
_Finnegans Wake_ by James Joyce.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Final and Accurate Definition of Depression, (with special exceptions): |
28 Mar 2005 02:02:22 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:46:09 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Whiskers wrote:
X-No-Archive: Yes
On 2005-03-27, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
snip
I have an interesting book I started but never finished, "Godel, Escher,
Bach", about these strange loops in logic. I intend to actually read it
and finish it one day.
It is heavy going, and not something to attempt with a short attention span,
but it doesn't answer questions it just tries to refine them. Of course, I
don't understand it either ;))
Did you read that book? You know the one I'm talking about? I've been
carrying it around with me for almost 15 years. I swear to God, I will
read that damn book if it kills me. (Just not today.)
Why not store it next to the tub?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
