-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Listen my opinion is that what the op experienced is most likely placebo effect. Either accept my opinion or provide me with evidence that a gold necklace will change certain facial features.
YourUniverse
Member
Placebo is very powerful nonetheless. I see no downside to wearing gold, if available. I wouldn't break the bank for it until scientific proof becomes available, though.
Yes placebo is powerful.
Stop acting like a child.
tankasnowgod
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,131
But there sure are a lot of photos of kids with Santa! Which, getting back to your original demand, would imply that even if the OP did post a photo, it wouldn't change your mind in any way.
Completely different.
Inaut
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2017
- Messages
- 3,620
Cuban link$$$$$$
I’m going shopping
I’m going shopping
What makes you think I'm young from my recent posts? It's @Literally who is acting like a kid lol
tankasnowgod
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,131
How?
Because someone taking a before and after picture is different than a picture of santa who all adults should know it's just someone dressed up in a costume.. op could take a picture of himself without the necklace and then one with the necklace and we should see in the after picture he looks more feminine.
Man I wish there was a like button on here, I would be passing some out.
I am pretty much done with "clowning" him @lampofred. It's no fun when he doesn't get any of the jokes. And making me feel cruel. @Jing I do feel I owe you a clear explanation of some of the things I have said or suggested elliptically in the above thread, once I decided further interchange with you was likely to be unproductive and turned to amusing the crowd.
So I will explain my recent posts directly -- whether the "or something" above refers to a limiting IQ, or perhaps English not being your first language, or health problems that can get in the way of clear thinking, or a complete lack of exposure to formal reasoning -- which unfortunately applies to a lot of people, who don't get the same benefits of medieval peasant children in terms of schooling (Trivium - Wikipedia) because of our "wonderful" modern education -- it does seem like you have missed some of the points I've made and I want to give you a clear account of my allegations.
Yesterday certain criticisms of your underlying philosophy were made explicit, not just by me but by others. (Incdentally: these were not the kind of claims you could evaluate by taking any sort of picture.) Today I linked to a few videos riffing on these criticisms. If you look at the lyrics of the Devo song I linked to, you might notice some similarities with another member's assessment of you, yesterday. Specifically this part
"Laugh if you want to or say you don't care
If you can not see it, you think it's not there
It doesn't work that way"
To be clear, by linking to these videos I was implying that your world view is actually a childish one. It wasn't a very nice move on my part, because I expected you to miss the sophisticated philosophical point, which you did. Accusing me of being childish confirmed this to others here, who let's just say are picking up way more from this conversation that you have so far.
What I have been doing, despite using pop culture, is referencing some of the very grown up epistemological questions that have come up in this here awesome thread.
You have stated that you DO actually tend to agree with the proposition (in terms of probability, at least):
"pics or it didn't happen"
which is equivalent to
"if there are no pics of x, then x did not occur"
People who have learned the most elementary sort of logic -- which let's be honest, is a category that does not include you, @Jing -- will immediately notice that the two equivalent statements above are FALSE. Why? Because it's easy to generate counterexamples. And you only need one counterexample to reject the statement. There are no pics of me eating bagels this morning, but I can assure you that it did occur. To the extent that there actually NO PICS of most things, the statements are going to fail generally, even in terms of probability -- at least, most of the time.
Interestingly the converse of the above proposition is, strictly speaking, valid (always true, regardless of what you plug in for x):
"If x did not occur, then there are no pics of x."
Some of your previous statement demonstrated to me a confusion or blurring of these distinct propositions (i.e. the prior one it's converse just above) and I have noticed in other cases that your logical errors might result from this same kind of blurring. For example, when you say
and some related things around this time, you seem to be thinking of the second proposition (the converse) even though your statement refers to the first one. Bluntly, you cannot hope to think clearly without learning how to avoid these kinds of errors. Logical conditions are directional, and it's necessary to get the direction correct or you immediately get into trouble.
But we do have pictures of Santa, as it has been pointed out! Isn't that a counterexample of the "converse" proposition, proving IT to be false?!
"If x did not occur, then there are no pics of x."
"If Santa visiting on Christmas did not occur, there are no pics of Santa visiting on Christmas" for example?
If there ARE pics of Santa visiting on Christmas, then the last proposition I wrote must be false!
It's easy enough to see what's going on though. You were referring to "the real Santa Claus" or let's say, "the One True Santa Claus". It turns out there are pretty good ways to resolve these little ambiguities in formal logic. In this case we can just say
"If the One True Santa visiting on Christmas did not occur, there are no pics of the One True Santa visiting on Christmas" for example?
(or in other situations, we could just insist that a specific person is identified, e.g.
"If Jing's Dad dressed as Santa visiting on Christmas did not occur, there are no pics of Jing's Dad dressed as Santa visiting on Christmas" for example? )
Let's just say we resolve any such ambiguities. Well here we get to the whole point.
I can't think of an objective method of some disagreeable people coming to agreement about whether they are looking at the real Santa Claus just through a photo. (For that matter, if your Dad is dressed in a Santa suit, we may not be able to identify him from just seeing the picture either). Or just through any kind of images, really. The claim that evidence is as simple as taking pictures, I assure you, is one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Thinking so IS in fact a child's philosophy, a peek a boo philosophy. Some people never really grow up out of it. Whatever you think see so plainly is in fact highly cognitively processed; it's not at all like a "video feed" that just gives you the raw pixels. Your beliefs and knowledge affect what you see. Heavily. People literally are capable of seeing different things because of what they know. Even to the extent that we can "the same thing", in almost every situation (e.g. Santa Claus) it is interpretations that matter. This holds for almost every important question.
Does it mean a photo can never resolve a question to anyone's satisfaction? Of course not. Sometimes it can. But that it seems so obvious to you that it COULD BE resolved so easily hints at that childish, peek a boo philosophy. Although I think you are a grown up. Even if this could be resolved objectively by sharing one photo -- which it can't -- there are things you clearly don't understand about burden of proof. Consider that sometimes what you don't know can make you look really ignorant to other people who know it. You need that self critical ability to be able to grow your views on things. I realize I am probably the last person you want to hear any of this from right now, but there it is.
I am pretty much done with "clowning" him @lampofred. It's no fun when he doesn't get any of the jokes. And making me feel cruel. @Jing I do feel I owe you a clear explanation of some of the things I have said or suggested elliptically in the above thread, once I decided further interchange with you was likely to be unproductive and turned to amusing the crowd.
So I will explain my recent posts directly -- whether the "or something" above refers to a limiting IQ, or perhaps English not being your first language, or health problems that can get in the way of clear thinking, or a complete lack of exposure to formal reasoning -- which unfortunately applies to a lot of people, who don't get the same benefits of medieval peasant children in terms of schooling (Trivium - Wikipedia) because of our "wonderful" modern education -- it does seem like you have missed some of the points I've made and I want to give you a clear account of my allegations.
Yesterday certain criticisms of your underlying philosophy were made explicit, not just by me but by others. (Incdentally: these were not the kind of claims you could evaluate by taking any sort of picture.) Today I linked to a few videos riffing on these criticisms. If you look at the lyrics of the Devo song I linked to, you might notice some similarities with another member's assessment of you, yesterday. Specifically this part
"Laugh if you want to or say you don't care
If you can not see it, you think it's not there
It doesn't work that way"
To be clear, by linking to these videos I was implying that your world view is actually a childish one. It wasn't a very nice move on my part, because I expected you to miss the sophisticated philosophical point, which you did. Accusing me of being childish confirmed this to others here, who let's just say are picking up way more from this conversation that you have so far.
What I have been doing, despite using pop culture, is referencing some of the very grown up epistemological questions that have come up in this here awesome thread.
You have stated that you DO actually tend to agree with the proposition (in terms of probability, at least):
"pics or it didn't happen"
which is equivalent to
"if there are no pics of x, then x did not occur"
People who have learned the most elementary sort of logic -- which let's be honest, is a category that does not include you, @Jing -- will immediately notice that the two equivalent statements above are FALSE. Why? Because it's easy to generate counterexamples. And you only need one counterexample to reject the statement. There are no pics of me eating bagels this morning, but I can assure you that it did occur. To the extent that there actually NO PICS of most things, the statements are going to fail generally, even in terms of probability -- at least, most of the time.
Interestingly the converse of the above proposition is, strictly speaking, valid (always true, regardless of what you plug in for x):
"If x did not occur, then there are no pics of x."
Some of your previous statement demonstrated to me a confusion or blurring of these distinct propositions (i.e. the prior one it's converse just above) and I have noticed in other cases that your logical errors might result from this same kind of blurring. For example, when you say
and some related things around this time, you seem to be thinking of the second proposition (the converse) even though your statement refers to the first one. Bluntly, you cannot hope to think clearly without learning how to avoid these kinds of errors. Logical conditions are directional, and it's necessary to get the direction correct or you immediately get into trouble.
But we do have pictures of Santa, as it has been pointed out! Isn't that a counterexample of the "converse" proposition, proving IT to be false?!
"If x did not occur, then there are no pics of x."
"If Santa visiting on Christmas did not occur, there are no pics of Santa visiting on Christmas" for example?
If there ARE pics of Santa visiting on Christmas, then the last proposition I wrote must be false!
It's easy enough to see what's going on though. You were referring to "the real Santa Claus" or let's say, "the One True Santa Claus". It turns out there are pretty good ways to resolve these little ambiguities in formal logic. In this case we can just say
"If the One True Santa visiting on Christmas did not occur, there are no pics of the One True Santa visiting on Christmas" for example?
(or in other situations, we could just insist that a specific person is identified, e.g.
"If Jing's Dad dressed as Santa visiting on Christmas did not occur, there are no pics of Jing's Dad dressed as Santa visiting on Christmas" for example? )
Let's just say we resolve any such ambiguities. Well here we get to the whole point.
I can't think of an objective method of some disagreeable people coming to agreement about whether they are looking at the real Santa Claus just through a photo. (For that matter, if your Dad is dressed in a Santa suit, we may not be able to identify him from just seeing the picture either). Or just through any kind of images, really. The claim that evidence is as simple as taking pictures, I assure you, is one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Thinking so IS in fact a child's philosophy, a peek a boo philosophy. Some people never really grow up out of it. Whatever you think see so plainly is in fact highly cognitively processed; it's not at all like a "video feed" that just gives you the raw pixels. Your beliefs and knowledge affect what you see. Heavily. People literally are capable of seeing different things because of what they know. Even to the extent that we can "the same thing", in almost every situation (e.g. Santa Claus) it is interpretations that matter. This holds for almost every important question.
Does it mean a photo can never resolve a question to anyone's satisfaction? Of course not. Sometimes it can. But that it seems so obvious to you that it COULD BE resolved so easily hints at that childish, peek a boo philosophy. Although I think you are a grown up. Even if this could be resolved objectively by sharing one photo -- which it can't -- there are things you clearly don't understand about burden of proof. Consider that sometimes what you don't know can make you look really ignorant to other people who know it. You need that self critical ability to be able to grow your views on things. I realize I am probably the last person you want to hear any of this from right now, but there it is.
Last edited:
What a pointless post for an opinion saying what op experienced is most likely placebo. End of. I believe what he experienced was a placebo or perhaps it was different lighting or he was looking at himself in a different angle or something, if you want to believe the necklace changed his appearance go ahead it doesn't change anything to my life. You don't seem to understand that most of my comments was to just get a reaction from you and it worked.
I'll say it again my opinion is the necklace didn't change the ops appearance. He got fooled by the placebo effect. If my opinion angers you so much I truly don't care.
My opinion is actually the most logical tbh.
This is what people post on reddit.com/r/iamverysmart
I don't get the ganging up on Jing. His pov is reasonable.
biffbelvin
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2017
- Messages
- 154
I think the effect is probably psychosomatic. People always talk about ‘power dressing’ as a way to improve mood or confidence.
I personally find that I will be more listless and demotivated if I don’t get properly dressed in the morning. It’s not that trousers lower estrogen, just that it puts me in the mindset of getting on with things (probably due to social conditioning, or the fact that it’s unacceptable to go outside in your underpants)
With respect to appearance; I personally find my ‘satisfaction’ with my appearance largely depends on my mood (I.e self esteem). If I’m in a good mood I see a pretty handsome dude but if I’m down I can’t help but fixate on the receding hair line, asymmetrical Jaw, pointy ears etc.
To be clear, It’s not my face thats changing here, it’s my perspective.
I personally find that I will be more listless and demotivated if I don’t get properly dressed in the morning. It’s not that trousers lower estrogen, just that it puts me in the mindset of getting on with things (probably due to social conditioning, or the fact that it’s unacceptable to go outside in your underpants)
With respect to appearance; I personally find my ‘satisfaction’ with my appearance largely depends on my mood (I.e self esteem). If I’m in a good mood I see a pretty handsome dude but if I’m down I can’t help but fixate on the receding hair line, asymmetrical Jaw, pointy ears etc.
To be clear, It’s not my face thats changing here, it’s my perspective.
Pretty much what I have been saying.
biffbelvin
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2017
- Messages
- 154
I wholeheartedly agree with your points in this thread and think that your treatment has been bizarre
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
