Kevin's Watch

So, some of you may have noticed my increased activity recently. It is time to share a reason why this occurring.

Before you worry I get too much internet, consider that I have an active, fruitful life off the internet, and that I seem to be better at orienting myself - whether exploring a city, a zoo, a restaurant menu or a museum - than most others.

Now, I was recently writing a brief review on a page on the book "Bandits of the Marsh", a story of 108 chinese outlaws. What happened in the middle of writing? The textbox began shrinking. The captcha (letter and number combinations you insert to get past security) became a flag waving in the air, though it had been still earlier.

Then, as I prepared to submit, a message appeared in the text describing the book something along these lines.
"I'm the author. Why are you trying to communicate the message to me?"

WTF

so we get to vote?

hallucination.

You taking anything psychoactive?

--A

so we get to vote?

hallucination.

If you want to vote, riddle me this.

Economists sometimes make a distinction between nominative and positive claims. As I remember it, nominative claims are factual - for instance, to claim that the US's GDP is a certain number is a nominative claim. A positive claim is to suggest change. A positive claim is to say that the US's GDP should rise or fall in order to benefit the economy, or that if it does so it will have some other sort of effect which will be good or bad for the economy, people, etc.

(NOTE that I believe that a truly intelligent economist would not say that, for example, a rise in production is a good thing, definitely, unless it happens ceteres paribus (SP?), aka with all other things held constant, or they are holding certain things constant. This condition is hard to find in the real world, since GDP affects and is affected by a host of other issues.).

With this in mind, are you voting nominatively or positively? Do you think I hallucinated, or do you want me to have hallucinated? I fall into the latter category. I DO NOT WANT any messages from "god" or the internet. Thankfully I have received only one, and that, my friends, is that.

Personally, I want and believe it to be a hallucination. But, I am not making any decisions until I have evidence. And I am not trusting any one person to provide me with trustworthy evidence.

Avatar wrote:You taking anything psychoactive?

--A

Not for quite a long time (we are talking months if not years for most if not all of these). I am still hoping to consult a recent edition of DSM at some point to see what that has to say relative to what experts in mental health have to say. Moreover, I have done a fair amount of research into those I was taking, and their effects should have ended by this point.

Plus, there are a variety of other factors which would play into this.

Are you serious? Or is this a joke?

If you're serious, this sounds like nothing more than a prank by the author, his website manager, or an Internet virus. Occam's Razor, dude. Don't jump to an infinite, supernatural answer when a finite, natural one will suffice.

No one hallucinates clear, distinct written messages. In fact, true hallucination--even on strong psychedelic drugs--is very rare.

Holsety wrote:I seem to be better at orienting myself - whether exploring a city, a zoo, a restaurant menu or a museum - than most others.

I have no idea how you could possibly know that you're better at exploring a menu than "most others." My menu reading skills, for instance, are wickedly-good. I'm like a menu ninja. I can pick out the appetizer section from the entree section in like, 2 seconds flat!

Given the evidence here, I'd say it's more likely you suffer from narcissism than hallucination or direct communication from God.

Have you seen any holy shapes in your toast lately?

After a quick Google search, I realized that this can't possibly be a prank by the author. Shows how little I know about classic Chinese literature!

How about giving us the website so we can try to replicate your results?

Ah, Holsety... I have something I would like to ask. Does knowing as much as you know about Economics kind of suck? I mean, do you go in a store, and walk around seeing what messy economic systems contributed to the items you see on the shelf?

Btw, belated congrats on your degree. You've earned that, and nobody can take that away from you.

Z- hahah, you crack me up. Menu-reading skillz!

EDIT: Looking for website.
EDIT2: The next time you have a message from god or hallucination, make sure you bookmark the goddamn URL.

GODDAMNIT

Zarathustra wrote:Occam's Razor, dude. Don't jump to an infinite, supernatural answer when a finite, natural one will suffice.

The rationality of jumping to the simple is itself subject to rational exploration. Don't you consider yourself a man favoring science more than religion? Do the laws of science result from simple observation, or a complex condensation of millions of experiences from millions of people?

Consider that, for instance, to formulate the scientific method, and justify it, one must consider what methods of inquiry most often lead to the truth. Consider also that there may be times when the scientific method, with our current level of knowledge, fails to find the best answers to our problems.
(Have done enough research to be able to articulate a fairly good explanation as to why, if this is necessary.)

Holsety wrote:I seem to be better at orienting myself - whether exploring a city, a zoo, a restaurant menu or a museum - than most others.

I have no idea how you could possibly know that you're better at exploring a menu than "most others." My menu reading skills, for instance, are wickedly-good. I'm like a menu ninja. I can pick out the appetizer section from the entree section in like, 2 seconds flat!

I have never been to the bronx before, at least on my own in an attempt to navigate the subways, yet ultimately discarded the instructions given to me by my dad - who people are always praising for his knowledge of NYC - and found a better, shorter route. I have not been to the bronx zoo in years. But I was able to beat my friends to a place they named in the zoo, even though they had been there for hours prior. I am praised for always "knowing what I want" though it sounds like you can figure out restaurant menus better than I can, dagnabbit!!!

Note that this is a fairly limited selection of my life. In general, I have a pretty meh sense of direction without some kind of map of an area I have not been in before, am far better at menus than I am right now. And when it comes to maps used in natural areas I suck ballz.

Given the evidence here, I'd say it's more likely you suffer from narcissism than hallucination or direct communication from God.

Eh, probably...but I am under the impression that everyone is as awesome as I am, does that sound like narcissm? Or insanity???

I am also, recognizing my position right now as narcisstic, looking for people to puncture my brain and let some air out, though also hoping to puncture other brains in the process.
(METAPHOR. I love brains, would never hurt one.)

Have you seen any holy shapes in your toast lately?

Eww, toast? I don't often eat breakfast...

How about giving us the website so we can try to replicate your results?

I wish I knew it.....Just believe me, I wouldn't pretend I had a "hallucination."

Ah, Holsety... I have something I would like to ask. Does knowing as much as you know about Economics kind of suck? I mean, do you go in a store, and walk around seeing what messy economic systems contributed to the items you see on the shelf?

Holsety: Strong on theory, mediocre at best at application. There are many others better at application.

I believe that, to paraphrase one of my teachers, economists - the best ones - were a product of their times, and made suggestions appropriate to those times. For instance, I think that if one examines Keynes's influence in Britain during their brief recession, one comes to the conclusion that Keynes's thoughts helped to serve Britain well. One can criticize his application to the American depression by saying that Roosy and co. did not do a particularly superb job in their attempt to understand him.

I appreciate the General Theory, but it has some important and unresolved contradictions. For example, at one point Keynes seems to be saying the economy can, as a result of "laissez faire" policies, be misdirected. In the conclusion, he seems to indicate that the economy cannot be misdirected, and that it is only the amount that needs fixing (thus, make moves to encourage near full employment so that labor is used sufficiently). Problems? Probably poor editing, but how can one expect an editor to follow an economist whose complexity ranks alongside Ricardo's? (IMO) I mean, seriously, it's Keynes's fault too if the General Theory doesn't make much sense.

Probably the single most dismaying economist - though I am sure he is quite bright, far smarter than me, most of the time - is Samuelson, simply on the basis of his attempt to summarize and deal with the Cambridge Capital Controversy, an argument primarily in the theoretical realm. In my view, it essentially destroyed some of the principal theories of economics taught in classes today, though it diid not destroy their ability to be applied fairly effectively to modern day scenarios. Samuelson, in his attempt to summarize one of the key thinkers, essentially showed utter incompetence with some very basic terms. Now, I am pretty sure it was not intentional when he did this, though if it was he is very devious, very calculating and very, very dangerous to read.

Zarathustra wrote:In fact, true hallucination--even on strong psychedelic drugs--is very rare.

*sniff* Pseudo is all I ever get.

Still, it could have been a case of the perception being substituted for the event.

--A

Avatar wrote:*sniff* Pseudo is all I ever get. Sad

Three letters: DMT.

One of the few things I've never tried. I dunno...quick and brutal I've heard. I like the drawn out process of acid or 'shrooms myself.

--A

Holsety wrote:

Given the evidence here, I'd say it's more likely you suffer from narcissism than hallucination or direct communication from God.

Eh, probably...but I am under the impression that everyone is as awesome as I am, does that sound like narcissm? Or insanity???

I am also, recognizing my position right now as narcisstic, looking for people to puncture my brain and let some air out,...

One of the best cures for that disease, I think; one of the best.

though also hoping to puncture other brains in the process.

Well, of course! Why stop trying to puncture brains? LOL.
It could happen, it could happen.
And it might be useful for aforementioned other brains, as well!
(They are not brains in jars, btw.)

(METAPHOR. I love brains, would never hurt one.)

Holsety wrote:Holsety: Strong on theory, mediocre at best at application. There are many others better at application.

Eh, it is so of many.
Do you think that's an inherent limitation of you though, or a temporary limitation of youth?
Are you good at communicating with those who are good at application?
(Dunno; those might be tough Q's.)

Holsety wrote:I believe that, to paraphrase one of my teachers, economists - the best ones - were a product of their times, and made suggestions appropriate to those times. For instance, I think that if one examines Keynes's influence in Britain during their brief recession, one comes to the conclusion that Keynes's thoughts helped to serve Britain well. One can criticize his application to the American depression by saying that Roosy and co. did not do a particularly superb job in their attempt to understand him.

I appreciate the General Theory, but it has some important and unresolved contradictions. For example, at one point Keynes seems to be saying the economy can, as a result of "laissez faire" policies, be misdirected. In the conclusion, he seems to indicate that the economy cannot be misdirected, and that it is only the amount that needs fixing (thus, make moves to encourage near full employment so that labor is used sufficiently). Problems? Probably poor editing, but how can one expect an editor to follow an economist whose complexity ranks alongside Ricardo's? (IMO) I mean, seriously, it's Keynes's fault too if the General Theory doesn't make much sense.

Probably the single most dismaying economist - though I am sure he is quite bright, far smarter than me, most of the time - is Samuelson, simply on the basis of his attempt to summarize and deal with the Cambridge Capital Controversy, an argument primarily in the theoretical realm. In my view, it essentially destroyed some of the principal theories of economics taught in classes today, though it diid not destroy their ability to be applied fairly effectively to modern day scenarios. Samuelson, in his attempt to summarize one of the key thinkers, essentially showed utter incompetence with some very basic terms. Now, I am pretty sure it was not intentional when he did this, though if it was he is very devious, very calculating and very, very dangerous to read.

Oh dear... well, I don't understand a lot of that, because I don't know the context and am unlikely to learn it, but...

...that last bit; that's enough to make a person afraid to use the strength / intelligence / skill he has... knowing that a strength may be used for the wrong end, and cause so much harm...

Avatar wrote:One of the few things I've never tried. I dunno...quick and brutal I've heard. I like the drawn out process of acid or 'shrooms myself.

--A

I've never done it either, but I've talked to a lot of people who have. ":Quick and brutal" would describe it pretty well, but if you're after fully immersive hallucination, it's either DMT or a hell of a lot of any other psychedelic. A guy called Charles Tart used to induce full-immersive trips, and study the effects....using an injection of LSD the equivalent of seven tabs.

Yeah...I dunno if I actually want to go that far...

--A

Aaaaaanyway, Neale Donald Walsch says Conversations With God was written by God. As he was writing, with pen and paper, his hand started writing stuff on its own. So maybe you're about to write a huge, international sensation.

Fist and Faith wrote:Aaaaaanyway, Neale Donald Walsch says Conversations With God was written by God. As he was writing, with pen and paper, his hand started writing stuff on its own. So maybe you're about to write a huge, international sensation.

See, I would read that and go "creeepy!" "I find this extremely disturbing!"

But I bet your response was more like: "Ehh... okay, so this is part of this guy's schtick!"

There's a term for what Walsch experienced. I think it's "automatic writing" or something like that. (Too lazy to google it right now. )

That said, I've heard of numerous writers who feel like they're channeling through their pens -- that they're not coming up with the words consciously, that they're coming from somewhere else. I've felt that on occasion myself, when I was much younger. Nowadays, I think I'm probably tapping into a subconscious wellspring in my own head. So Walsch's God may simply have been his own subconscious, saying what he wanted God to say.

Of course, rus might say that a demon got hold of him.

aliantha wrote:There's a term for what Walsch experienced. I think it's "automatic writing" or something like that. (Too lazy to google it right now. )

That said, I've heard of numerous writers who feel like they're channeling through their pens -- that they're not coming up with the words consciously, that they're coming from somewhere else. I've felt that on occasion myself, when I was much younger. Nowadays, I think I'm probably tapping into a subconscious wellspring in my own head. So Walsch's God may simply have been his own subconscious, saying what he wanted God to say.

Of course, rus might say that a demon got hold of him.

Yea, some "diviners" and "mediums" use [claim] automatic writing.

But on the other: I think Carl Sandburg once said something like "When I was writing only God and I knew what it meant...now only God knows."
And quite regularly I read something I wrote and wonder where it came from...sometimes to the extent I'm not sure I actually DID write it. [most common on those all-to-rare occasions when it's something I think really good]...but that also is a divided weirdness...cuz I'm not FACTUALLY doubting...but kinda in a second-person emotional/experiential relation to the "I" that did it.

I do that too. Especially around here, if somebody resurrects a thread from years ago. "Hey, I shoulda said something in response to that!...Oh look, I guess I did."

Linna Heartlistener wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Aaaaaanyway, Neale Donald Walsch says Conversations With God was written by God. As he was writing, with pen and paper, his hand started writing stuff on its own. So maybe you're about to write a huge, international sensation.

See, I would read that and go "creeepy!" "I find this extremely disturbing!"

But I bet your response was more like: "Ehh... okay, so this is part of this guy's schtick!"

aliantha wrote:There's a term for what Walsch experienced. I think it's "automatic writing" or something like that. (Too lazy to google it right now. )

That said, I've heard of numerous writers who feel like they're channeling through their pens -- that they're not coming up with the words consciously, that they're coming from somewhere else. I've felt that on occasion myself, when I was much younger. Nowadays, I think I'm probably tapping into a subconscious wellspring in my own head. So Walsch's God may simply have been his own subconscious, saying what he wanted God to say.

I assume schtick, rather than subconscious. I think the dialog, in the tradition of things like Richard Bach and Dan Millman, was just his way of telling his thoughts.

aliantha wrote:Of course, rus might say that a demon got hold of him.