A text segment

[williamashley]

My philosophy included examination of Science I tend to see anything that I contemplate or examine to be a segement of thing.. of course philosphy and 'mental' or soft science disciplines from a mental perspective come before science, science itself loops back on mental in an attempt of explaining how the mental processes occur such as cognative sciences utizing quantum mechanics. Which is neuroscience, but it is also psychology and philosophy if the world is 'whole' all the peices fit together to create a unified model of 'existance' rather than saying x semgment works y segement doesn't ect.. I'm not biased against science I do put it in a certain class, much like I put philosophy as a house of a number of different items or mental identities, mostly just aesthetics.

I would tend to agree that the scientific method seeks empirical evidence and science tends to be theorm based by using politicaly accepted models that untilize 'engineerable' methods with closed instances of occurance. Science as R&D is not necisarily purely empirical and contemplative, it also rests on 'recording' and automation, in the modern context. Humans are not even required to deduce, they can simply set up a system and milk results.

I did not say philosophy was science but attaining a PhD in Science or some of the like such as Nanotechnology one relized that Philosophy of Science is very much a real existance. The application of philosphy to science exists as much as the application of science to philosophy. Things work interactively.
For instance the science of philosophy could examine the interchanes based upon scientific experimentation for resusts such as the cognative sciences scanning brain regions and correlating them to different philsophy characteristics or modes of thought.. such as in environmental psychology or testing for photon response to advertisements,
"asking an unknown question"
"answering an unkown question"

there are correlations it is just where you draw the line to many the examination of theoretical physics may be an adventure into the philsophical realm. However you definition of philosophy may alter somewhat I see philosophy as a study of logic, primes, metaphysics, aesthetics, morality etc.. I think science atleast shares some of those but is very much a child of logic, primes, and metaphysics but also a form of 'mathematical rhetoric' it really does share a handful of the schools.

I would say math is mental... in some cases especial physics it is psuedo physical if it uses 'physical variables' then it is physicall but solid state math such as geometry of static objects and non interactive constants are mental. It is only when you add vectors and other spacial characteristics that it becomes a 'hard science'

Math is somewhat special.

I see soft sciences as using non closed systems thus they cannot be accurate, the joke is offcourse if the universe isn't static and completely know then it cannot be a closed system.. but dupication.. it is said there are too many varible and we are no so defined as to respond the same way all the time as an object because we have free spirit. That is a stimulus response based reality is not overly welcome. Making humans robots or 'same acting systems' is basically souring the humanity of course if you reduce us to a mass of chemicals it is much the same.

I came to the idea of Earth Simulator modeing physical sciences with social sciences etc... in that case it is hardening the soft sciences. I think it is a matter of undefined rhetoric vs. defined rhetoric, with modern science most everything is defined, it is just adding more to it, with social sciences there are a number of still living competeing schools.

I woud think math is largely defined because systems are very structured. But I have discused number theory in the past and considered it very much philosophy, also discusing the 'meaning' of a number, it because mostly physical in ideas of units of anything or units of nothing and an opposable balance of forward moving scale or backwards moving scale increment etc... although the base identities of math seem very much defined, I think that there is still room to introduce new mathematical methods or even ways of manipulating value symbols... I think the ground exists in logical and illogical models of non defined pattern sets or algoryhtms which is largely the world we face, there are still some undefined concepts, but I would largely agree getting a PdD in Math may be interested to read on how they got theirs.......

So these two cannot be considered "sciences", as such. They are "hard logic".

here is a link to one from 1995 http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/j ... tract.html

I'm geussing there is some philosophy to it...

I see computer programming as a mental or soft science as well except in it's interaction with computer hardware... or computer engineering...

I think the more levels you can deconstruct yourself the more room you have to make new interconnections and discern new ideas.
NO an object is something that creates experience
a symbol is part of an object
and interactor is a dormant symbol
and a feeling is a composition of thoughts that are rendered to create a symbol

it is a stage of communication, if it all exists as one thing you cannot be critical of the stages or 'create'.


The self is the mind. I see things dualistically I see things as both a united conscienceness and a fragmented conciousness. We are aware of a mirror of our own united understanding of all of reality, while we can also critically examine a portion of this object. THe self is not just our body, but the whole of reality, the universe and the metaphysical realm.

It is not what I beleive is true is true for me, what is true for me is true for you but you do not necisarily recognize that same instance the same way as me because we are different things with different experiences, in the overall balance of identity it works out as equal in meaning we gain the same value of what we experience but our overall meaning may differ. We are still creating future value as a team. Just because i am saying it does not mean you are not assisting me say it, it is just that there tends to be barriers placed in connectivity to very outward and 'intentional' roles of assistance, but all in all everything anyone does effects anyone else. Thus causes things to occur. Individuals may not be willing to accept this becuase they find it hard to accept 'blame' for someone else killing someone or an accident or someone using property recklessly. It is a model to create an authoritarian system where we create 'wrong' or 'sin' rather than working as a team wholely for just positive values.

Statements that are neither true nor false are non objective.
Meaning the instance that they were made in does not reflect the testgauge being used.

ie 1+4 =
a. 9
b.3
c.-29
d. 0

Obviously there is no answer

is a true or false.. it is false..

ok what is an isntance that it is neiter true nor false.

e.) rabbit

well what does rabbit equal?

etc... see niether only exists when you introduce a foreign system.. which is actually undef.

until you find an interactor the sets have no equivlent.. although this works as a partial answer it does not fully answer you need to create a bridge

In 'real life' everything bridges.

Now does this mean qualities don't exist...
NO.. qualities do exist.. but if you are introducing a system that is meant to be 'logical' it will all be relative.

Now I'm not saying that an illogical world isn't posible.. I am mearly saying for a prefuturist 'sane' discussion logic is required.

How do you examine pure math.. ask potolmey or pythagrea etc.. or newton .. to say the least math is very old. but I think to say that the 'general' understanding of math isn't science.. if you are an expert or find popular studies to be non philosphical I think you are acting the cow to a world of thought that is still explorable but much like the bronx it may be hard to find a new street that no one has found before.. you may find an ant thought... or even an ant hill.. .. AN ANT!!! colony!!!

It works for everything else.. I think you just like to segregate them cause they are your favorites and 'the MAJOR' divisions where there are lines and grey areas galore..

they do connect.

and it ain't philosphy at the root.. its faith but that ain't prefuturist... so I can't give all the answers.. unless I go into predivinity..
I can direct you to one of my pages...(may or may not be avialable)

http://here.no-ip.info/OCIDS/ocids.htm

it is an uncomplete and general heirarchy of occurance...

[Kevin Solway]

It is not what I beleive is true is true for me, what is true for me is true for you but you do not necisarily recognize that same instance the same way as me because we are different things with different experiences, in the overall balance of identity it works out as equal in meaning we gain the same value of what we experience but our overall meaning may differ.

Leaving all the other stuff aside, I have no idea what you are saying here. Let's say you are insane, and hold insane beliefs, and I am sane and have sane beliefs; then how can the experience of an insane person and a sane person be equal in meaning? . . . Equal in meaning to who?

The experience of a sane person has more meaning than the experience of an insane person.

In 'real life' everything bridges.

Not for insane people it doesn't. And insanity is the normal state for human beings.

[williamashley]

We create artifacts of memory. Take for instance language, or script, take for instance hieroglyphs. You cannot understand them but then comes along the rossetta stone and you translate them....

Or you get dropped in a foreign country that speaks Bantua.. you don't understand them, but with time you may learn their customs. It is all illogical to you, they make no sense, but inreality they are not insane... or the script is not just chicken scratches you learn to beleive there is communitcation. The whole world is this way but you must see it from their perspective. No one is truely 'insane' it is just that their philosophy or way of thinking is not the same as yours.

You have to take into accont that psychology and psychiatry 'police' social norms, social norms are artificial? Say evolution is real, and you put a gorrilla and a psychotic human and a 'well groomed peaceful human who goes to church and seeks revenge when they are wrong' in the same room. First off that is like 5 and rabbit to a human psychologist or a human psychiatrist. Insanity is a poltiical tool, to create acceptance in society of individuals who do not fall in line with cultural totalitarian policy, such as valueing their life more than living, etc.. etc..

Equal in meaning to who?Equal in meaning to all time.. we can with time learn, thus our actions are interpreted as equal. You may say we all interpret things differently, in many ways this is true, but with morality we can communicate and create a sense of empathy and 'intetion' in people actions. While some may say the gorrilla and psychotic don't make sense, but the religious person who they see every sunday does, cause they are like them. It is largely about acceptance, and the capacity to interact. If you are insane and I am sane it means someone has made a judgement. For me to say that an individual is sane if they use logic or not is to say an expectation of making sense and communicating require using logic, which is a relative proposition. There has to be some points of definition.

Although each mind is like a different dialect of a language, and we may see it foreign, we call that foreign mind 'insane'', there is still hope to translate it.


It has no less or more 'meaning' everything holds value, it just holds a 'different value'. Insanity is no different then contuinued social discomboblement.

In 'real life' everything bridges.

Not for insane people it doesn't. And insanity is the normal state for human beings.

I think that it is does make sense for people being labled insane in some cases but not for 'sane' people communicating with insane people.

When one deems themselves insane for lack of understanding it is them not reflecting long enough on their own experiences. Say someone is hearing something from nowhere.. that must be insane, but if everyone heard someting from nowhere it would be the norm and you could say that in a sane model of reality people hear things from nowhere becuase some 'stimulus' causes a firing pattern in the aural sense. It is not odd it is just there is some trigger. What causes someone to move their arm. Just because there is not an instantaneous connection does not mean that there isn't a reason down the line.

See people arn't insane, they are only insane if they don't agree or think like us; and fit into our models of reality. BUT that is why a nontotalitarian open society is so vital, we have to make sure we free everyone from oppression, by upholding a model that protects everyone.

What exactly do you mean, "the normal state for humans is insanity?"

[Kevin Solway]

It is all illogical to you, they make no sense, but inreality they are not insane.

In my example I am speaking of a person who really is insane, and not just misunderstood.

You are arguing that there is no such thing as insanity, which is unrealistic.

No one is truely 'insane' it is just that their philosophy or way of thinking is not the same as yours.

If a person reasons that "A" is "not A" then they are by definition insane. For example, if they define 2 + 2 to equal 4, and then arrive at the conclusion that 2 + 2 is not equal to 4, but is equal to 5.

Such a person is truly insane, and it is not just the case that they are thinking in a different way. They are not thinking.

Equal in meaning to who? Equal in meaning to all time.. we can with time learn, thus our actions are interpreted as equal.

We can also devolve. There may currently be consciousness in the world, but in future there may be no consciousness at all. In this case we will not be learning, but we will be going backwards. In this case meaning will be decreasing.

It has no less or more 'meaning' everything holds value, it just holds a 'different value'.

This confirms that your philosophy is in fact "extreme relativism", and is closely allied with postmodernism.

It is wrong.

What exactly do you mean, "the normal state for humans is insanity?"

They are unable to think logically. That is, they reason that "A" is "not A".

[williamashley]

It is all illogical to you, they make no sense, but inreality they are not insane.

In my example I am speaking of a person who really is insane, and not just misunderstood.

You are arguing that there is no such thing as insanity, which is unrealistic.

I think you may be misunderstanding, I am not saying there is no insanity, I am saying that insanity is used to classify 'unwelcome' or 'misunderstood' personality traits, i.e. mental disorders and the like. It is purely an exercise of rhetoric to define these, and in many cases it is purely based upon capacity to conform using predefined social skills and expectations.

I think from the perspective of someone saying someone else is
insane it is a form of totalitarian behavior, saying that x person does not meet up with social expectations or mannerisms. Psychiatry on the other hand makes connections between behaviors and neurology tieing in the two ideas where if for example a brain exists a certain way it makes it more likely for a unwelcome 'behavioral trait' to manifest. It is only unwelcome because y person says it is. Now if you can put yourself in another pespective, say sudently walking was 'seen as non desirable behavior' everyone who walked would have a personality disorder. Although this is not likely it is a comparitive to someone who dresses with their clothes inside out.

If a person reasons that "A" is "not A" then they are by definition insane.

I think I may have hit the A=A cult. But who defines A? is A constant? or is it varible if it is varible and let A=6 and B=6 then A=B. Things can both be and contradict IF another element is introduced.

The Law of Contradiction

A=A but a may =B

If A is varible then A in instance 1 may not = A in instance 2.

Thus

FirstInstance(A) |= SecondInstance (A)

of course in a static motion sure A=A but A holds no value because it is a non relative singularity, or rather it holds whatever meaning you give it. You could say optimisticaly it had the most value.




Sure if you define your answer and agree to it, and would like it to be correct it most likely will be.

Now if you define 2+2=5 and they do not agree are they insane and you blow their head off with an explosive collar?

A few years back I did the whole "devolution theory" funny stuff but it entered into a quantum probabilitistic priniciple of feilds of occurance for there being no progression or regression just environmental change, enthropy of course ensued, I've moved beyond that.

A prime is that conciousness will always exist and if it doesn't I couldn't care less.

Learning is a given if we experience we grow; of course, sometimes people feel they need to brush up on skills previously learned. We can't help but learn if we experience new things. It may not be profound but it makes us more capable at interacting with the environment we are learning in.

I go beyond relativism I am both relative and singular. The break from relativism is that we are the source of all things, of course for deductive reasoning and empathy we can 'put ourselves' in the position of what we think something else is, although we cannot know we can 'geuss' but this opens up to other issues, but none the less it is a social skill either latent or conceived.
I don't see relativism as wrong as long as time occurs there are relations to thoughts and ideas. If reletavism doesn't exist, symbols don't exist and symbols very much do exist.

I tend to have more confidence in 'humans' I think humans are capable of logical thought.

Ok so say A is not A then you define that as your set logic for you it is logical for me if A=A then that is my set logic

If using the Law of Contradiction we come at relizing that

{A=B .||. my (A=A) = your (A|=A)}

so at that instance that set is logical
now call my A A and your A B

so A=B

using the law again we introduce a third set

A=6 B=6

6=6
A=A
B=B
6=A
6|=A

which means that A is varible.

We define our own logic.

Lets say we are going to rome though, If the every road leads to rome we will get there if we keep going straight.

---

Oh and as far as saying prefuturism is wrong..

I AM NOT ALLIED WITH POST MODERNISM YOU INFEDEL YOU DEFILE THAST MOST"ED SACREDIST OF THINE OWN AND UPON ALL THOUST HAS HASTEN A LOST OF WHAT IS SHALL BE IT.

Just curious what do you think is wrong with post modernisnism and relativism?

[Kevin Solway]

I am not saying there is no insanity, I am saying that insanity is used to classify 'unwelcome' or 'misunderstood' personality traits.

That's the same as saying there is no insanity.

You're saying that all people are sane, but they appear to be insane just because we don't understand them, or we do not value their views.

If a person reasons that "A" is "not A" then they are by definition insane.

But who defines A? is A constant? or is it variable

"A" denotes any "thing".

So a sane person is able to think that any thing is identical to itself, while an insane person thinks that a thing is other than what it is.

If A is varible then A in instance 1 may not = A in instance 2.

Thus

FirstInstance(A) |= SecondInstance (A)

This would be a case of talking about two different things. However, each of the two would be identical to itself.

"A" can also denote a "changing thing".

For example, "changing thing = changing thing".

Now if you define 2+2=5 and they do not agree are they insane and you blow their head off with an explosive collar?

No, a person is only insane if they are unable to think logically.

Lots of things are unable to think logically, but we have no reason to destroy them.

Learning is a given if we experience we grow.

Some people experience less and less, and they remember less and less, and so they diminish.

An obvious example would be an old person who doesn't remember their own children or their own name.

I tend to have more confidence in 'humans' I think humans are capable of logical thought.

I think it is extremely rare. Unconsciousness is the rule.

Those who become conscious experience "enlightenment", in the Buddhist sense.

We define our own logic.

Imagine an insane person (ie, an person incapable of logic) defining logic. They might say: "I define logic to be the fact that any thing is not itself." And they might then follow that up by sayng, "I never define logic, and I've never even heard that word before, and I don't even speak English."

What do you do with that? You can't do anything, since it is just insane ramblings.

The person might not be insane - they might be pretending to be insane - but the ramblings themselves are insane.

Lets say we are going to rome though, If the every road leads to rome we will get there if we keep going straight.

Yes, but not every road goes to Rome.

That would be a good example of relativism, and to an extent, postmodernism. They want every road to go to Rome, and are fanatical in their belief that it is so. The have a deep dislike for absolutes, which say that different roads can go different places, and some things aren't roads, and some things don't go anywhere.

Just curious what do you think is wrong with post modernisnism and relativism?

They ignore absolutes, such as logic.

[LooF]

oh, one question

A=A

this A must be in same exact time or could it be in different time?



because if it can be different time

it creates paradox

[Kevin Solway]

oh, one question

A=A

this A must be in same exact time or could it be in different time?



because if it can be different time

it creates paradox

As I say, "A" denotes any "thing". That's all. Any thing is always identical to itself.

However, some things are identical over time. The absolute truths of yesterday are the same as the absolute truths of today, since absolute truths are true for all time - by definition.

[DHodges]

I think you may be misunderstanding, I am not saying there is no insanity, I am saying that insanity is used to classify 'unwelcome' or 'misunderstood' personality traits, i.e. mental disorders and the like. It is purely an exercise of rhetoric to define these, and in many cases it is purely based upon capacity to conform using predefined social skills and expectations.

You may be interested in the book "Listening to Prozac." One of the ideas in that book is that mental illnesses (in this case, depression and OCD) are sometimes defined in terms of the drugs available to treat them. Prozac is more effective with milder forms of depression, and so the effective definition of depression was expanded to include milder cases, because they became treatable.

There is some discussion of the line between a mental illness and a personality trait or quirk, and in some cases what may come down to "cosmetic" treatments - e.g., other people like you better when you are on Prozac.

But that is on the extreme mild end of the spectrum. With more profound depression (or OCD, etc.), there is no question but that there is a disorder that stops normal functioning.

[kjones]

-

Bill: I am saying that insanity is used to classify 'unwelcome' or 'misunderstood' personality traits, i.e. mental disorders and the like. It is purely an exercise of rhetoric to define these, and in many cases it is purely based upon capacity to conform using predefined social skills and expectations.

You're defining mental health in terms of social conventions, like "Monday only exists in the Gregorian calendar". Kevin is defining mental health in absolute terms, like "There is only one Ultimate Truth". Your approach denies that the individual verifies his experience, ie. that Monday exists, at the same time as verifying it. So it's an insane definition of mental health (it doesn't represent reality correctly).


-

[williamashley]

Post subject: Reply with quote
williamashley wrote:
I am not saying there is no insanity, I am saying that insanity is used to classify 'unwelcome' or 'misunderstood' personality traits.

That's the same as saying there is no insanity.

No it isn't. Saying there was no insanity would be to say that it is ficticious or nonexistant, I am saying that the concept of insanity is slanted to another meaning. Insanity is a dated term true, but the connotations generally derive toward some uncontrollable sense, where as it is actually an 'egoist' totalitarian tool, for oppressors, in some cases.

You're saying that

Your once again trying to say what I am saying, my suggestion is that you leave it to me to say what I'm saying and you interpret for what you say.

that all people are sane, but they appear to be insane just because we don't understand them,

No I'm saying that some people may be sane and others are confusing themselves, or are not concious and or are dead. I myself would never 'force anyone into that class' and second no one would be able to put themselves in that class. So it means that an individual at some level would have to be tied into the concept of g-d. But I myself as a free person, would never place someone under my control and kill them and use their body without their permission, because I beleive in moral ethics. In such as one with g-d I would not support a reality in which this were actually the case, thus I must say that all persons are sane but may be miss understood. All people that would be insane would not be 'human' in any sense beyond chemical biology, which I cannot support that notion as it dehumanizes us.

or we do not value their views.

I would say that the notion of insanity as a 'negative' context would indeed be stating that others do not value their view. All though this is misunderstanding, thus the creation of the concept of insanity having the meaning of being misunderstood.





If a person reasons that "A" is "not A" then they are by definition insane.


But who defines A? is A constant? or is it variable

"A" denotes any "thing".

but what is anything, if anything is not defined does that make it nothing. If it is both nothing and anything then could nothing not = anything as it is something?

There is always the rule of exclusion...

anything which is, is not wholely singular else it would not have a point of reference; however, that point of reference can be housed as an object which is or exists outside of a purely logical context, in which case logical rules do not apply, but falacy for the logical perspective is created.

talking about two different things. However, each of the two would be identical to itself.

so you are saying that there is no change? If there is no change then how would you be alive, if you are dead then you are not human, you would be quasihuman both dead and alive. But I am speaking of prefuturism not 'predivinity'.

"A" can also denote a "changing thing".

For example, "changing thing = changing thing".

why don't you just say A = undefined, you not talking about anything you are talking about somethin that doesn't exist, ther e is a distinct difference between something that is 'defined' as something and something that is yet to be defined.
That my friend is not the same thing. 0=0 but 0 is not 1.
if 0 = 1 then you have hit illogic true you get to it but that is not logical.

we have no reason to destroy them.

but illogically how is it distruction? if illogic exists then what guides me? There is no reason without logic. At that point consideration would not be reasonable it just would be. I could start saying spinach rudibaker rents halalalallalala and it wouldn't make a difference. True it is the quality that is created but it is largely redundant. When talking about prefuturism, true you can speak about something else but my response would be quite aparent, unless you were using illogic in which case I would translate it to logic. On a non logical front.

aehri sentasphast erentag uresiela ventak

back to logic meep meep

Some people experience less and less, and they remember less and less, and so they diminish.

I don't so much beleive this, it has to do with prioritzation, and if speaking of sceince purely it is due to restructuring of the electrochemical biocortex and that is not everything, the difference being 'communication' and 'experience of emotion' just because one does not have 'ordered' sequence hence febility it does not mean they experience less it just means it is experienced in a different order. In cases of sensory deprivation, they stilll sense it but it does not register as something meaningful. In cases of bio removal that sense is translated differently all sense route to emotion, the basic close senses are not the limit, but soundly discusing ESP is not something I feel confortable talking about with people with needles and a sense of obligation walking around.






I think I may have a general better opinon of humanities logical reasonableness than you, but I wouldn't wholely disagree with some of you statements.

Imagine an insane person ...,What do you do with that? You can't do anything, since it is just insane ramblings.

Actually my first thought was "oh", but I don't have a hard time imagining someone not exercising logic. The words made sense to me and the meaning made sense. If calling someone insane was meerly based upon their cultural immersion then that wouldn't be wholely true, I think a general dislike of their lack of knowledge is also required for the totalitarians requirement to start passing judgement on insanity or sanity.

the ramblings themselves are insane.

without knowing the persons background I couldn't make the judgements that the ramblings are insane, and even so there could be a number of reasons for saying it.

Quote:
Lets say we are going to rome though, If the every road leads to rome we will get there if we keep going straight.

Yes, but not every road goes to Rome.

Unless we are already there...

--------------------------------------------
WELCOME TO ROME
---------------------------------------
YOU MADE IT!!!
------------------





the book "Listening to Prozac."

Thankyou for the suggestion but my official response is G-D NO!!! READ ABOUT PERSONALITY DISORDER HELL NO!!!

I actually find the book idea to be somewhat disgusting as I could care less what other people care about while I'm on drugs. 'I'm a puritan in respect to chemicals in my body' I attempt to adere to ahimsa and am a vegan. I find many drugs damage the body and have adverse long term side effects to what I would consider a healthy mindset and physicality. I value my spirit as well and IMO psychotropics impare quality of life and 'primal' interaction with the 'intentional meaning' of objects thus distorting reality and creating disassosiative disorders.
The argument would be if you are already fked up.. my response.. why make it worse!

I don't beleive in depression either, I think the actual term should be 'copeing', as once you learn the truth about reality you have no reason to be depressed or upset anymore, it is only a matter of having some faith that reality will be good, rather than just hell, and if even if it is hell you better try to have peace with it cause it stays forever. Sure you could kill yourself but what'll that do? You'll be dead.. would you rather be dead then tortured for all eternity, why not just change your psychology by getting a grip and adjusting.

You're defining mental health in terms of social conventions, like "Monday only exists in the Gregorian calendar".

Err sorta, I think that odd behavior is what started it all, then people started tying in odd behavior with physicality. Some is easier to see, but I think it is a highly analytical personality that is required to claim that disorganization is a bad trait, g-d would be commited and uncommited at the same time.

What would be your definition because I think that 'Disorders, and Illnesses' such as compulsive and shizio are defined in terms of character traits that are unwanted such as not having sensory perception that other people have (most likely the majority or atleast the doctor) or disorganization being that there is a 'set' ordered way to be.. I was speaking in terms of 'insanity' being a word to describe mental diagnosises that in some cultural groups warrent confinement or mind altering medication to subdue.

I tend to stand by my beleif that insanity and related concepts derive from undesired behaviorial traits.

[Kevin Solway]

Insanity is a dated term true

No it's not. If people are still using the word meaningfully today, then it's not dated.

. . . it is actually an 'egoist' totalitarian tool, for oppressors, in some cases.

Either you personally use the word "insane" as an egoist totalitarian tool, or you presume that all other people use the word in that way. You are wrong to do so.

You're saying that. . .

Your once again trying to say what I am saying, my suggestion is that you leave it to me to say what I'm saying and you interpret for what you say.

But you are interpreting what other people mean by the word "iinsane", so you can't complain if people interpret your words as they see fit.

. . . I must say that all persons are sane

Then I think you must have a very, very strange definition of the word "sane". If all people are sane, then the word is effectively meaningless.

All people that would be insane would not be 'human' in any sense beyond chemical biology, which I cannot support that notion as it dehumanizes us.

To the contrary, it dehumanizes us to regard all people as being the same, when in reality we are all different.

I would say that the notion of insanity as a 'negative' context would indeed be stating that others do not value their view. All though this is misunderstanding, thus the creation of the concept of insanity having the meaning of being misunderstood.

It is not necessarily a result of misunderstanding to not value views one regards to be insane.

I do not value the crazy views of fundamentalist Christians, and that is not because of a misunderstanding on my part. Rather, it is a result of understanding.

If a person reasons that "A" is "not A" then they are by definition insane.

But who defines A?

Only a sane person can define anything, by definition.

is A constant? or is it variable

"A" stands for any thing at all. So you decide.

"A" denotes any "thing".

but what is anything,

Any thing.

It can be an apple, an orange, a planet, a feeling, a number, etc. Any thing.

There is always the rule of exclusion...

"A" is a thing, and "not-A" is also a thing.

so you are saying that there is no change? If there is no change then how would you be alive

I answered this below, when I said that "changing things" are also things.

why don't you just say A = undefined, you not talking about anything you are talking about somethin that doesn't exist,

If there is a thing, then it exists (as a "thing"). And it is denoted by "A".

if 0 = 1 then you have hit illogic true you get to it but that is not logical.

That's what insanity is.

we have no reason to destroy them.

but illogically how is it distruction? if illogic exists then what guides me?

Only logic can guide you. I'm not sure what you are asking.

I could start saying spinach rudibaker rents halalalallalala and it wouldn't make a difference.

That's right. It would be insane. Exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians.

In cases of sensory deprivation, they stilll sense it but it does not register as something meaningful.

If people are not having meaningful thoughts they are either dead, insane, or unconscious.

I don't have a hard time imagining someone not exercising logic.

I don't have to imagine it, I see it everywhere around me.

Lets say we are going to rome though, If the every road leads to rome we will get there if we keep going straight.

Yes, but not every road goes to Rome.

Unless we are already there.

Even if we are already there, there will be roads leading out of Rome.

[SBN Charles]

What is truth, in your view?

-

i think truth is ultimate reality