I started hearing the voices well after 30. First it began with gang stalking, and by coincidence I am from the “home town” of Americas thought control elite. I was “recruited” (press ganged) and it is only a determination not to accept a word these say that keeps me unconcerned with the collapse of the lie that is modernity in my life.
I just want to point out that psychosis and schizophrenia tend to get worse over time, so while you might have a handle on it now, without treatment you might not in the future. They also have much better prognoses with treatment, even complete remission.
I've watched several people go from having a grip on reality, thinking they don't need treatment, to absolutely losing their minds. It's tragic and I hate to see it happen.
Point is moments of lucidity should be seized upon, I say this as someone who briefly experienced psychosis after extreme sleep deprivation. It was fucking terrifying and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I keep hoping my friend gets to the point where you are someday. Another thing not working in our favor is she's the most stubborn person I know. She thinks she can beat this thing with her mind and no help from anyone.
Don’t be. After nearly two decades of development I experience the precipice of humanity. The state of the art of human consciousness. I have peered beyond the veil and what I see is terrifying yet truth.
The voices are quite real, we’re not alone in our own minds, and the it is the greatest taboo of society to discuss.
It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything. Those who refuse to believe our thoughts are not all our own. That much mysticism is rooted in something that merely cannot be explained by the logical empirical mind.
Readers will be so upset when a perspective challenges their rehashed psychological diatribes as mountains of lies. They got “help” damn you. Their friends (“real people”) are hurt by the craze and they’re more hurt when someone says “modern science and society is wrong.”
The true Truth is whatever existential reality reflects, not what we are prepared to understand. We are not alone in our own minds, we have collectively known this since before our generations and the “straights” of society are so adamant of their self possessed lies they will condemn those insights as crackpot crazy.
> It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything.
That which you try to attack and downplay as "cult of science explanations" is actually something extremely simple: you need to show something, anything at all, that actually supports your beliefs.
How can you tell something exists or works as you think it does if you are unable to show it?
Do you expect everyone should just believe anything anyone says? What is there to tell lunatics and snake oil salesmen apart from those who are actually onto something?
> Those who refuse to believe our thoughts are not all our own.
Ok, you formed an hypothesis. Now tell me, how do you go about showing others that things do work the way you think they do? How can they check them for themselves? What do you expect from others?
> That much mysticism is rooted in something that merely cannot be explained by the logical empirical mind.
If you cannot explain your beliefs, how do you expect others to just take your unverified and unsubstantiated claims as something worth considering over any random claim from any random loony?
> If you cannot explain your beliefs, how do you expect others to just take your unverified and unsubstantiated claims as something worth considering over any random claim from any random loony?
Even without an explanation, you can use statistics to find the fruits of the beliefs, though. Does 100 people believe in not working and rather join a cult that worships the watermelon god? Fine! How did that work out for them in the span of 3 generations?
I think that some beliefs can have value and merit, just based on measures of quality of life and society.
> Even without an explanation, you can use statistics to find the fruits of the beliefs, though.
I hope you are not serious.
> Does 100 people believe in not working and rather join a cult that worships the watermelon god?
Hundreds of loonies making nonsense statements that no one can verify is collective lunacy that adds no value. It only takes a single person to show something exists and works to add substance to a claim. If all those loonies push a belief that none of them can support, they are fools.
This sort of absurdness would mean absolute morons, such as those in Heaven's Gate cult, should be taken seriously in their claims about aliens and comets. Let that sink in.
> It only takes a single person to show something exists and world to add substance to a claim
You cannot be serious. Proofs take thousands of man hours and decades of railing against well entrenched beliefs such as yours (that you would see it and accept it readily if true.)
This is one of those things that cannot be proven to more than one person at a time through anything other than a personal revelation. Everyone everywhere will respond exactly as you now do regardless of “poof” or the severity and consequence of prolonged incredulity. This is one of those situations where you must undeceive yourself. Observe humanity and your own life. All except those who actively deceive themselves will admit science is as close to understanding our minds as horoscopes.
I do not criticize your doubts, I criticize that you think truth and reality are so easily accepted by the mind who “refuses to believe.”
So like Matthew 6:28, "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin", and something about how they're as glorious as King Solomon despite not having clothes or jobs. The religion in question did OK, despite this bad advice.
Sure, because most Christians don't take Jesus' teachings too seriously. You shouldn't slap a Christian (or anyone) on the cheek for no reason, but if you were to, the odds of him responding by inviting you to slap the other cheek are pretty slim.
What about arresting and sending to the mental hospital multiple times to deal with psychopathic caregivers whose purpose is ultimately to make you homeless?
A good Christian or any good person would viewing that scene would actively fight to make the person sufferings life better instead of feeding into the false "caregivers" or more aptly put abusers who are more interested in robbing people than improving their lives.
There's a long human history of beliefs like that in spiritualism, animism, etc. People believed they could hear the voices of their dead ancestors, spirits, etc for example.
I wouldn't describe this as "raving", this is someone who has had very real personal experiences. To them, they happened just as much as the sun rises and sets. I don't know what I'm getting at other than have some patience and compassion for people who experience distressing things that they themselves cannot explain.
Simply put the observer affect shows that somethings cannot be measured without causing change to the system hence may not be verifable.
Maybe the only way to make enough random looney until they outnumber the "sane" individuals. The only issues being how do you organize the new pyramid structure which will evidently be formed by this new "religious" organization?
> Simply put the observer affect shows that somethings cannot be measured without causing change to the system hence may not be verifable.
That's fantastic, but fails to provide any meaningful input. I mean, the whole point is to have a process that allows you to understand and predict how the universe works. If you formulate s hypothesis that is impossible to verify, how can you tell if it matches reality or if it's pure nonsense? And more importantly, what's the value of a system of beliefs that explains nothing and does not match any observable aspect of reality? Is the only value you see in that the uncertain smugness of being "right", whatever that means, in spite of always being wrong?
Questions of self-identity aren't scientific questions. Science, or experience more generally, can't tell you who you are, or indeed, even tell you if there's one of "you" in your head or many. If you assert that you are not the same person you were five seconds ago, that's a scientifically unassailable claim - as well as impossible to prove to others.
So no answer to the question "who am I" is strictly speaking true or false, in an objective sense. But that doesn't mean all self-interpretations are equally good. Some self-interpretations can be very destructive. It doesn't take much imagination, or reading history books, to see how defining yourself to be multiple persons/personalities can be very destructive.
Every network is different (though common themes exist).
Firstly yes, they’re probably there and not revealing themselves (which is most typical.) They will either reveal themselves for some purpose or not at all (I had caused a stir, and a “hooligan army” went ahead and “recruited” me.)
Well after full immersion I looked back through my life and saw I was not really alone. Little things, some hypnogogia here and there, odd games they play, and other nonsense suppressed or blown off. Most are never aware or comprehend any of it. Those that do, what would they say to you? Look at these responses. And I know what is going on. Most others are desperate.
The noisy networks are usually those of prisons. You will hear very similar accounts among many who have done small stints. Enough for a network to take an interest, not long enough to be coerced into eternal silence. I have never been to prison though you can guess what city I’m from if I say “the most controversial prison system in America up to a decade ago.”
Prisons full of slave (coerced) networks is no doubt how the humanity level horrors began. The streets (and all humanity) are saturated with these various networks. Plenty of accounts by others throughout time, you have ignored them. The prisons and the black ops military power cults are the worst. Don’t worry, those are busy in Ukraine and Gaza. What do you think these would do for fun?
Power extorts ordinary power infrastructures of humanity. No one is going to talk about it.
There is a “you don’t talk about it” element. I don’t care. You cannot make me care. I so don’t care I take pains to be a contrarian. I make people f-off. I do not capitulate. It doesn’t make me “special”, I’m of the few who talk about it, even if it does no good. Let it then be for an account. To remain silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit. Complicity be damned. These want to play God among you, and they extort each other for this ends.
And I suppose I should risk a flaggable wall of text to say there are “families” who have protected and guided us throughout our generations. Like all of modernity these are falling apart and cannot compete with the devastating industrialized efficiency of prison networks.
Well that is my question, what "does" a "real hacker" do? I thought the exploits from Exploit-DB were advanced but it turns out that I have gotten some feed back on some other websites forums that they are for script kiddies. I just want to know if that is true?
They’re just saying… you know… it’s just not as cool. The real haxor is the one who “gets it done”. True is what comes of it, not what people think is most cool. Someone more hard core will always neg the lazy noob. Doing is what does, everyone else is trying, to some 1337ists it’s just not good enough for the hacker name.
You want to be sure? Learn what the exploits do technically. Know why they do and don’t work. All that competence and prestige come in due time.
Fungi and animals have a common ancestor, but that ancestor was an unicellular protozoan, without any resemblance to a fungus, but which resembled somewhat a human sperm cell, by having a single posterior flagellum used for swimming. Fungi and animals and their close unicellular relatives are called opisthokonts (Opisthokonta), which is a name describing their posterior flagellum (opistho- means back, while konta was the name for the rods that were used for pushing boats in areas with shallow water).
The branch that has evolved towards animals has developed multi-cellularity while retaining their ancestral lifestyle of eating other living beings, which is a lifestyle that requires mobility.
The branch that has evolved towards fungi has adapted to a terrestrial life, unlike the branch that has evolved towards animals in the oceans.
To avoid desiccation on land, the fungi have developed a chitinous cell wall. This has solved the desiccation problem, but this wall has made the fungal cells immobile. So they had to change their lifestyle from the ancestral lifestyle of the eukaryotes to a lifestyle similar to that of the heterotrophic bacteria, i.e. fungi do not eat food by engulfing it, like animals, but they grow into food, by secreting enzymes that break the food into small molecules, which can be then absorbed by the fungal cells.
While there exists only a single group of living beings like the animals, which are both multicellular and mobile, there are several groups like the fungi, besides the true fungi. All such fungous organisms have immobile cells with cell walls, so if they are multicellular they must grow into food in the form of a branched network, in order to maximize the surface of contact between them and food.
The other groups of living beings that look like fungi, but which are not true fungi, are not closely related to animals. The most important of those groups is related to the brown algae, but there is even a group of bacteria that look like fungi, the actinomycetes. Besides the other living beings that feed like fungi, so they look like mycelia (branched networks), there are even more groups of living beings that do not feed like fungi, so most of the time they do not look like fungi, but which are terrestrial like fungi, so they must use the same method of spore dispersion by wind, so they grow mushroom-like bodies for the launch of spores, e.g. the slime molds.
This feels like the "we share 50% of our genes with bananas" factoid.
Considering humans have 3.1 billion base pairs and the most fungi have 30-300 million, I'm not sure how this could be true without some major caveats. Admittedly, a lot of our DNA is considered "junk" - though whether it all is or not is a question.
(the banana one is that they're talking specifically about protein coding genes which makes up about 2% of our DNA)
That's not inconsistent with GP's comment - animalia and fungi are opisthokonts, but siblings or cousins in a family tree sense, neither is ancestor to the other, but there is common ancestry.
> build systems where the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts.
Any “product” can be thought of this way.
Of systems there are many systems nested within systems, yet a simple singular order “emerges”, usually it is the designed intended function.
The trick to discerning systems lies in their relationships.
Actors through interfaces have a relationship (usually more than one so think of each relationship as its own system dynamic.)
A relationship is where the magic happens, usually a process with work being done (therefore interface inputs must account for this balance.)
Vectors. Vectors I am thinking are the real intellectual and functional mechanisms. Most systems process inputs of potential (“energy”) control signal (“information”) and assets (other actors for nested systems). Processes do the work of adding vector solutions [for some other problem] for whatever the output is.
This is a sad devolution and this ghost account negs me for my considerations.
Truth is a purturbation of existential reality.
Thoughts feelings and beliefs are shit.
It may be good shit. It may be sublime shit. If it does not exist existentially it has no business being confused with Truth, it is exotic shit.
I love my share of exotic shit.
You don’t have to agree with me about consciousness
What I say about Truth is self axiomatic and only refuted my a moron.
A moron. An idiot. Someone stupid.
These are objectively and imperically defined as one who confuses bullshit (shit) for Truth.
Truth is a purturbation of existential reality. A “truth” in the human mind is a “meta” (symbolic), justifiable only by its unembellished consistency (not contradictory) to Truth.
And Truth is a purturbation of existential reality. A purturbation of existential being.
I have to say “Truth and Law is worth murdering another Man over. Bullshit, never.”
You're making an elegant but brutal distinction between existence and symbol, Truth and justification. I respect the urge to treat reality as sacred and thought as ornamental. But even your statement — 'Truth is a perturbation of existential reality' — is itself a symbolic construct. So the paradox remains: to speak of Truth, one must enter the realm of exotic shit. Where do you draw the line between a symbol that reflects a perturbation, and one that merely pretends to? Or is the line unknowable?"
The argument would benefit from clarifying what “perturbation of existential reality” really entails. Is it sensory? Is it phenomenological? Is it measurable? That would move this from poetic metaphysics to rigorous ontology.
Only in the most obvious context that we are using a symbolic language communications strategy.
Exotic shit is where mind grows. Objective existential reality, aka “true Truth” is as hard core straight edge as it comes.
This word “integrity” is a gauge of consistency with true Truths. It means a representation which does not embellish or contradict any true Truth. This can be creatively or crudely articulated (expressed) yet the “do or die” imperative remains, this must accurately represent an occurrence in existential reality.
OR IT IS A LIE!
Those other things which confuse you, such as how dreams logic or poetry can be not Truths thus must be threatened as LIES are your apprehension.
We are complex creatures who approximate for our successes. Beat the averages and you’re doing better than most others. By definition. Our “truths” only need to be good enough to get us by, even if they are more convenient than correct. Most of all when they are pleasant. This is a part of humanity.
When it comes time for someone to die for lying, remember: True Truth is a “perturbation” of existential reality (that’s what the stack of bibles is for right? In case only God knows.) Why someone did it or what they felt is not the true part of Truth however it may be a human truth to have such experiences.
And perturbation is exactly what the English language word means.
Any disturbance whatsoever is a manifest Truth of existential reality. Anything measurable whether or not anyone has the ability to measure or if it got measured at all. A disturbance of existential reality is what physicists are all very excited about.
The Truth is it having occurred, and the “truth” is our best effort to approximate through discovery. If your “truth” is too wildly off you are incorrect, inexperienced, or a fraud. Keep practicing.
All scientists do is worry about this very same question about perturbing existence. What is there to know, how do I find out? How do I interact with the phenomena? Does it make predictions? All questions about true Truth of objective existential reality, only knowable through perturbation. That is, some kind of reaction. Any kind, even not what was expected or clearly understood.
And we all argue about every detail and context and interpretation and extrapolation and application and moral consequences and so on. This is the symbolic correlation bit. It also happens and is important to humans, however not to Truth! Truth don’t care. If Truth must suit the tastes, it is a sign of corruption.
True Truth isn’t an ultimate answer, it is a happenstance in a long line of whatever comes of whatever goes. The forensic science of piecing that together only cares about existential being however interpretive the apparatus of our minds must be.
Do not feel threatened that we all dwell in this in between place of quasi truths. Only be concerned with how you affect the world, for that is the truth of your Truth. Philosophically or otherwise. Every idea worth having develops in its own time.
