https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2015/entries/anomalous-monism/
Looks like we'll have to consult our opinions on psychology with anomalous monism. Highly accurate source, it's from STANFORD.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
your comments show great ignorance about psychology in general and narcissism in particular. to be bold.. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck?
bullseye !...hes a quack...lol !!
thing is that its kinda bore me to make this thread to be all about you..
probably the most diff person to treat is the narcissist. as their ability to be mindful, truthful, & accepting of disorder (the very nature) is basically in absentia from any session. top it all off w/ probable SA denial and there u have it. i mean its really that simple.
you already have 2 threads dedicated to that
its cuz they died a long time ago & were shelved in the area 51 warehouse. sci-fi aisle. and since he needs volumes of attn hes gonna try & hijack other popular threads as he speed-read rifles thru wikipaedia. lol !
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch: "I once did a test to see if I was narcissistic as well, out of interest. Turns out I am not. But I would say I would have been more so when I was younger."
im not in the mood of being politely correct so i'll just be transparent about it..
your comments show great ignorance about psychology in general and narcissism in particular.
to be bold.. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck?
To be more precise, that would merely indicate a high probability of being a duck. It could be a very well-designed robot, or a realistic animation of a duck.
But I am also aware about objectivity in psychology, which is where you seem lacking.
thing is that its kinda bore me to make this thread to be all about you.
It's not, so damn well stop doing it.
you already have 2 threads dedicated to that.. i'll try to take a second look at it when im sober.. lol
Hint, being inebriate causes errors like yours.
My contribution to this thread has been to explain how randomness is dealt with by those who work in relevant areas (physics, quantitative empirical science in general) point out that a definition of "true randomness" was needed to make the question meaningful, to derive a simple, natural definition based on physics, and to reason logically based on that definition, in particular relating it to key results based on Bell's experiments that show the violation of Bell's inequality. None of that is about me, any more than a typical university lecture is about the lecturer. Only minimal credit is due to me for what I have posted, since it mostly forms part of the body of scientific knowledge.
Likewise it is pathological to suggest that two other forums on branches of science where I typically contribute by drawing attention to research and news about the subjects are "about me".
I will observe that the ugliest thing in this forum is the snideness exhibited by some, for whatever reason.
dude !! are u 4real ?? u are one of the most snide, condescending, repulsive trolls that ive ever had the pleasure to read ! TG ur anonymous & way faraway. cuz ur s/o i would never-ever EVER wanna run into (omg pleez dont tell me hes on st croix ?).
DifferentialGalois wrote:
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2015/entries/anomalous-monism/
Looks like we'll have to consult our opinions on psychology with anomalous monism. Highly accurate source, it's from STANFORD.
I have great respect for Stanford and their excellent public domain resources. I am pleased you do too. Here they are reporting some esoteric stuff on the philosophy of science, which is not really my thing (concrete science suits me better, so I focus on that).
It seems pretty obvious that psychology can never be "a science like physics". It's because the subject matter is so very different. The idea of absolute laws in psychology would be a bit absurd: it is about the behaviour of extremely complex and varied high level behaviour, so all concepts are emergent, and are there are always likely to be competing ways to simplify them.
ohh !...and s/t else. since you WILL NOT ban me from that one dead thread ? im personally removing myself from it. 4ever. esp-ESP after narcissism compeled u to equate it to shakespeares works and lord of the rings and stuff like that. tho feel free to compare it to the comprehensive comic catalog of all the newspapers since 1900 !
I have never before heard of anyone complaining about not being banned. You are one of a kind, Ghostess!
I got the clear impression that you had previously understood that the post comparing the length of different famous publications and an Internet thread was for gentle amusement - your reply started "lol !!.". Of course, if you go out of your way to misunderstand, you can manage.
Note that online communication can lead to tensions and conflicts that would not occur face to face. Humans did not evolve to manage without seeing expressions and body language, and an occasional smiley does not seem to suffice.
If I may be so bold:
<<Anomalous Monism is a theory about the scientific status of psychology, the physical status of mental events, and the relation between these issues developed by Donald Davidson. It claims that psychology cannot be a science like basic physics, in that it cannot in principle yield exceptionless laws for predicting or explaining human thoughts and actions (mental anomalism).>>
This is a load of complete tosh. I don't blame Stanford. I blame the pseudo-philosophers who take a perfectly natural and accurate principle, that "psychology is a soft science", and then try to make it their own by affixing to it an absolutely idiotic name. No-one should even read academics who use names like that because it should be obvious that they have nothing to offer and they're trying to profit from obscurantism.
Perhaps the "monism" refers to an assumed unity of all "science" and perhaps not. "Anomalous" would refer to the fact that soft science is not capable of being rigorously tested, so it is anomalous with that principle. Or perhaps it doesn't mean that at all, but something else, equally reasonable.
Even so, only an idiot would call it that. Or a pompous, profiteering academic, of course!
TRUE RANDOMNESS DOES NOT ESIXT
You seem a bit random.
I have to admit the word "monism" was not in my vocabulary, and I can't really be bothered to add it. There is a fundamental problem that any question that remains within philosophy (rather than being reallocated to a science or a rigorous discipline like mathematics) never reaches a satisfactory conclusion.
As you know I studied philosophy and that was a favourite word of my favourite lecturer but it was because he was a monist, pronounced as "moan". I think it's supposed to imply "all is one" or "everything made of the same stuff". I promptly decided I was a dualist because I suppose I was a bit of a phenomenologist at heart and I think the human mind can transform phenomena, as well as accepting that the world of physics isn't straightforward but is ambiguous in a similar way. We perceive the ambiguity but our analysis of any ambiguity is bound to be ambiguous too, because we don't quite know whether probability is real or in what way it is real. I worked out a sort of philosophical system that encapsulates the problem you mentioned. What it can do is that it can help transform the way we can approach problems. Then I forgot it. Goodnight.
With probability, it's worth first remembering that the question applies to an application of probability theory, not the mathematical theory (which is an entirely rigorous branch of pure mathematics). With Bayesian probability, the question seems easy - belief states do exist, and the theory is the correct way to manipulate them. Frequentist probability, on the other hand, is an idealised abstraction that does not precisely apply to the real world, which lacks any infinite runs, never mind ways to observe them. Anyone concerned about that can avoid using it and stick to the Bayesian viewpoint (in practice it is often convenient to be a frequentist when the system is suited to it).
Optimissed wrote:
If I may be so bold:
<<Anomalous Monism is a theory about the scientific status of psychology, the physical status of mental events, and the relation between these issues developed by Donald Davidson. It claims that psychology cannot be a science like basic physics, in that it cannot in principle yield exceptionless laws for predicting or explaining human thoughts and actions (mental anomalism).>>
This is a load of complete tosh. I don't blame Stanford. I blame the pseudo-philosophers who take a perfectly natural and accurate principle, that "psychology is a soft science", and then try to make it their own by affixing to it an absolutely idiotic name. No-one should even read academics who use names like that because it should be obvious that they have nothing to offer and they're trying to profit from obscurantism.
As was implied in me wording, highly accurate source.
Optimissed wrote:
Perhaps the "monism" refers to an assumed unity of all "science" and perhaps not. "Anomalous" would refer to the fact that soft science is not capable of being rigorously tested, so it is anomalous with that principle. Or perhaps it doesn't mean that at all, but something else, equally reasonable.
Even so, only an idiot would call it that. Or a pompous, profiteering academic, of course!
Work on your alliteration. Pompous, profiteering pseudointellectual acnedemic. Come up with some neologisms at least, they make this whole psychological stance so much more credible. Keyword: acnedemic
In all seriousness, monism seems to have no clear cut definition, having additionally altered over time. For instance, back when it was associated with religion, it would deemed to philosophical to express religious systems and what not.
"When I actually manage to immerse myself into something, I can excavate it for a considerable time like a filthy archaeologist with ragged jeans. The comparison's probably not all too good, but mint humbugs."
lol. i meant that a youthful mind need only 5 minuts to perceive what will take a sticky mind forever. and i was surely sticky at the time : )
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
5 minuts may seem like infinity for youthful minds like the prawn cookie monster, or the average minute man.. i better sign off.. good night!
Keyword: may.
When I actually manage to immerse myself into something, I can excavate it for a considerable time like a filthy archaeologist with ragged jeans. The comparison's probably not all too good, but mint humbugs.