The most important person ever

#30

Postby Augusto » Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:04 am

Mmm... I did not expend my time consulting books. My work is not a collage, it is about 99% the result of my own conclusions with about 5 concepts (already proven and considered basic facts) taken from other people.

I would like you to remain open minded while I explain you my work, particularly on the subject of who I am. Your first paragraph suggest I am a fraud who builded a shitty thesis by taking (stealing) ideas from everywhere in order to build a collage and call it "The-Ultimate-Turbo-Theziz"...! While it may be a legit concern, I would like you to keep it as a possibility, rather than assuming it as a fact before hand.

In other words, you have a man explaining you his work, please offer him the benefict of doubt.

As for your question, I'm not sure I understand it, but I'll give it a try:

You will find the "daiia" at the core of my theory, it basically says we are selfish and driven by the search of emotive reinforcement. This means we do everything for a benefict, although it is a bit more complex, just like our taste for certain female figure can be explained in terms of usefulness for procreation. It is a taste, a preference. We like athletic women rather than fat women, and it happens that there are beneficts in that preference. I guess you should know what I mean by now.

Well... selfishness is at the core of everything and explains human behavior. It actually explains, for example, why socialism creates a dramatic increase in corruption and is destined to fail. It explains why Marxism is so popular even when it is a void ideology. It explains religion and it also explains why it is a disease.

Mmm... human behavior can be predicted in many ways without my theory. My theory simply explains why people act like that in that particular situation. It is a tool in the sense that it can be used in different ways...

In an effort to answer what I think you're asking me, I may have to go a little bit far and tell you that one of my personal convictions is that this theory can be used as a guide to program human-like artificial intelligence. That should be a very definitive prediction, but it's not something you can personally test.

What you can test, everywhere, is "daiia". I would recommend you to check those concepts in the first page and see how they basically explain human nature.

I hope I somehow answered your question. Let me know if you're satisfied or not, so I move forward with maybe one more post tonight.

One more thing: my theory has the potential to enrich your perception of reality. If you understand it, you will be able to apply it to virtually anything on daily basis. It is something with very good chances of becomming part of you.
Augusto
Full Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:43 am
Likes Received: 4


#31

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:40 am

Augusto wrote: Your first paragraph suggest I am a fraud who builded a shitty thesis by taking (stealing) ideas from everywhere in order to build a collage and call it "The-Ultimate-Turbo-Theziz"...!


Nope. I'm not saying you are stealing anything. This is a public forum, not a peer reviewed journal.


You will find the "daiia" at the core of my theory, it basically says we are selfish and driven by the search of emotive reinforcement. This means we do everything for a benefict, although it is a bit more complex, just like our taste for certain female figure can be explained in terms of usefulness for procreation. It is a taste, a preference. We like athletic women rather than fat women, and it happens that there are beneficts in that preference. I guess you should know what I mean by now.


Are there individual differences in "daiia"? Are some people born more selfish than others, i.e. genetic differences? Is "daiia" influenced by culture, i.e. people in one region of the world are more selfish than another region?
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10433
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1074

#32

Postby Augusto » Thu Dec 24, 2015 5:02 am

Good questions...! +1

Daiia is not something you are born with. You are born with the conscious level, which you can understand as the ability to choose and focus your attention in something. This ability does not equate to having "criter". You develop that criter during your life, and that criter is called "daiia".

3.4 Daiia: It is the result of emotional learning and operates based on the systematization of the ideas of beneficial and prejudicial, concepts that are deeply rooted in its constituent elements; the pillars of interest, beauty and justice:


Now, this is the tricky part: that conscious level is an inherited systematization, something that "works", and what it does can be found in the "principles of thought" under the name of fixation...

1. Fixation: Is the criterion that allows us to dwell on any given stimulus to guide the work of the semiconscious. According to the nature of the object, we can talk in terms of abstraction or recovery:
1.1 Abstraction: It happens when focus is on a raw representation.
1.2 Recovery: Occurs when focus is on a matured representation.


This two things, abstraction and recovery are all there is in the conscious level, but in order to understand how everything human can come out of it you'll need to compare this level with the semiconscious, as they work together.

Notice that the semiconscious can work without the conscious, because it is a much older system, but the conscious is builded on top of the semiconscious, so it cannot work by itself.

I'm going to leave it like this by now. Let me know if I was too vague. My intention with this post is to invite you to check the theory on the light of this explanation, so you can understand it by yourself and ask me anything you don't understand from it. Another way would be to explain it all directly, but I would preffer that you learn how to read the theory because a linear straightforward explanation of something like the mind is really not possible. It is better to understand it like browsing in a dictionary, from one concept to other implied concepts and so on.

It is not too difficult, I promise.
Augusto
Full Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:43 am
Likes Received: 4

#33

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:21 pm

Augusto wrote: Daiia: It is the result of emotional learning and operates based on the systematization of the ideas of beneficial and prejudicial, concepts that are deeply rooted in its constituent elements; the pillars of interest, beauty and justice:


Okay, so it is not something innate, not something an individual is born with. Fair enough.

My next question then, is how do you measure differences in Daiia between individuals?

On the surface it makes sense that the degree of Daiia at any moment in time will be the sum of the 3 pillars, which then presents the question, how do you plan to measure the pillars?
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10433
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1074

#34

Postby Augusto » Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:30 pm

I do not think it is possible to measure them. It is personal inclinations, you know, like enjoying certain types of movies, or sexual activities... or disliking certain religion or being a racist, or all the opposite. The pillars are there to explain why people like certain things and dislike other things. It serves as an explanation of behavior in absense of emotional pressure.

You cannot measure how much someone likes certain kind of food and hates certain political ideology (and so on) with one number. What I offer is the underlying elements from which all preferences and behavior arise, and how the incredible diversity of behavior spring from trully simple elements.

This is your field, right? What do you think so far? "Selfishnes" at the heart of everything. Patterns of usefulness. If you see this estatement from an evolutionary angle, you'll notice how straightforward and economic the mind actually is. It's all in the concept of thought: reacting to stimuli in an efficient, adaptative, way.
Last edited by Augusto on Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Augusto
Full Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:43 am
Likes Received: 4

#35

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:37 pm

Augusto wrote:I do not think it is possible to measure them.


Then it is a philosophy, not a theory. Not being a theory, it is then not subject to the development and testing of hypotheses which then eliminates it as a functional/predictive tool. It also eliminates it from being a scientific endeavor.

Academic journals basically never publish works of philosophy. Online blogs and magazines might, but even then it is rare.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10433
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1074

#36

Postby Augusto » Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:04 pm

No, waaaaaaait a second.

First of all, you cannot measure evolution, can you?

Now, I do not think you can measure taste and every single personal inclination with a single number because there is not one single place in the brain that does the "taste" function for anything and everything. The question, the request, is unfair by nature, also let me remind you that psychology itself is kind of a social science, which means "not quite a real science". Whatever psychology is, right now it is sort of like a car without a motor. It doesn't have an answer for consciousness, for the dinamic of emotions, in short: psychology fails to answer anything central to thought and builded a house without a central structure, without a heart.

I am bringing the heart to that structure, so please don't act as if psychology were mathematics and be careful when trying to dismiss my work as philosophy. It is actually supported by every single piece of study I am aware of. Every discovery in neuroscience harmonizes with my thesis and there is nothing in it like a secret love for the mother or guilt over killing an ancient father.

Daiia is not measurable but it is testable in the sense that its existence and functioning can be reasonably concluded by indirect means, such as how we know dark holes exist or that the big bang happened. I did not make anything up.

Simple enough:

1. Newborn babies do not have daiia. Grow up men do = it is adquired.
2. Patterns of usefulness have been observed = it is adaptative.
3. A conection to emotional conditioned have been stablished = it is related to the self image.
4. As a result of the 3 observations, and because other things that come into the game, the daiia is a systematization.
5. Systematizations are usually called "automatisms" in psychology, so I'm not making that up. I just explained how they come into existance (see "psychic matter").

I am happy to be challenged. I want this. I would have preffered to explain you some more before you started, but it is great to see you're showing such an esceptic attitute. I encourage you to seek and try to find at least one weakness in my thesis. That's what science is all about.

I'm going to move forward in my next post to explain some more stuff to you. The complexity (and simultaneous simplicity) of this theory is something I am very proud of.

Thanks a lot for your interest. I will do my best to convince you that you made the right choice by listening to me, but I will also keep my mind open to any possible objection you may have. I am enjoying our exchange so far, and I am relieved to see you have managed to keep interacting with me regardless my social problem. +1
Augusto
Full Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:43 am
Likes Received: 4

#37

Postby Augusto » Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:34 pm

Richard, I really need to ask: Do you believe in God? What is your personal position regarding faith and religion?

I am an atheist. I am asking because there are things related to the religious experience, just like there are things related to linguistics and so on, and religion tend to be a delicate subject (maybe even more on Christmas, right?), so, please let me know.

Only a few hours for my son to open his gift under the tree...! :D
Last edited by Augusto on Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Augusto
Full Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:43 am
Likes Received: 4

#38

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:35 pm

Augusto wrote:Daiia is not measurable but it is testable in the sense that its existence and functioning can be reasonably concluded by indirect means...

I encourage you to seek and try to find at least one weakness in my thesis. That's what science is all about.



The scientific method involves the testing of hypotheses. That is what science is all about. It is about establishing variables, control groups and measurements.

Saying, "can be reasonably concluded"...the key term "reasonably" meaning to reason is a function of philosophy. It is saying if A = B and B = C then it can be reasonably concluded that A = C. That is philosophy, not science.

I'm not sure what you have against philosophy. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle used philosophy to make arguably a huge impact on the world. They are not known as scientists, they are known as philosophers.

And certainly there can exist overlap between philosophy and science, but thus far you have not presented any testable claims that would fall under the realm of science. That is why I asked to provide a hypothesis developed from your theory and then followed up by asking how you plan to measure. Your answers just lead me to believe you don't have a thesis, but a philosophy you are looking to proof.

And it appears you are relying on propositional logic to proof your philosophy. In doing so, you use philosophical concepts like justice and beauty...neither of which is scientific...and based on assumptions you have developed are trying to then draw conclusions. And there is nothing wrong with that, more power too you.

It simply goes back to why the scientific community is rejecting your work thus far. You are not presenting a scientific work, you are using science to present a philosophical work.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10433
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1074

#39

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:43 pm

Augusto wrote:Richard, I really need to ask: Do you believe in God? What is your personal position regarding faith and religion?

I am an atheist. I am asking because there are things related to the religious experience, just like there are things related to linguistics and so on, and religion tend to be a delicate subject (maybe even more on Christmas, right?), so, please let me know.

Only a few hours for my son to open his gift under the tree...! :D


Great. I'm sure he will enjoy the gift.

It is actually against forum rules to discuss religion, precisely because it tends to be a topic that can be delicate. Not my rules, but the owner of the forum.

I will say that some questions science cannot answer. Science is not the holy grail of truth. Some questions can only be best answered using philosophy. Others are better answered with science. For instance, science can never answer questions such as, "What is the purpose of life?" or, "What is justice?"

Science can help guide philosophies and vice versa, but they are two different tools used to answer different questions.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10433
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1074

#40

Postby Augusto » Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:19 pm

So, you are a theist. Correct?

I read the rules. I am not planning to discuss religion.

---------------------

Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Thesis: a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.

Theory: is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories.

In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[12][13] Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources.

---------------------

Please read carefully. I had too many ideas in my mind and my answer may be lacking content or be too erratic, depending on your knowledge of the things I am going to reffer, so please let's try our best to understand eachother, as I think this is a very important matter and I want that we both are on the same page. If this needs to be turned into a debate, so be it. The important thing is that we find a point of agreement, as it is impossible to move forward if we disagree from the beginning.

Is my theory scientific or philosophical?

There is some general missunderstanding regarding what science really is and values. Science is a bunch of ideas useful to understand reality. It seeks to create simple ideas appliable to a whole lot of things and it is always an aproximation of the truth. NOT the actual truth.

If you add to this that maths are some sort of philosophy, and that evolution is not falsifiable, and that the string theory is getting closer to sci fiction than to the scientific method, you will understand that it is not easy to say: "This is not science" with property.

Most of the elements and phenomena I used to build my hypothesis can be observed every single day on human beings. The vastness of the cases it explains also serves as evidence by means of internal and external coherence. I draw the skematics of a car. Those skematics harmonize with every known piece of scientific evidence and are contradicted by NONE. Those skematics accurately explains how and why every single car works, and goes even further, explaining everything with a motor and even roads and highways.

Please check "The Scientific Outlook" by Bertrand Russell (philosopher AND mathematician among other things). It is a nice reading and it should help you see the complexity of what I am telling you in a more elocuent speach AND with better grammar.

Did you got my meaning? :?
Augusto
Full Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:43 am
Likes Received: 4

#41

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:46 pm

Augusto wrote:So, you are a theist. Correct?


Agnostic.

Science is...

Did you got my meaning? :?


It doesn't matter what you personally think "science is...". As it relates to getting your work published it is the scientific community which defines what science is, what will or will not meet the criteria, not you or I or Bertrand Russell.

Currently, in trying to publish your work it sits firmly within the realm of philosophy. No publisher is going to publish it under the domain of science even if the assumptions of your philosophy are rooted in science. Don't kill the messenger. You can disagree with me, but I'm just telling you that as it stands the scientific community will see your work as philosophy, not science. Not my rules.

If you want your work to be categorized as science you can. All you have to do is abide by the rules of the scientific community. This means develop a hypothesis, define your constructs so they can be measured, make your predictions and test your predictions, publish your findings. That is science as it stands today. It is not a semantic argument, it is neither right or wrong, it simply is the reality of today.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10433
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1074

#42

Postby Augusto » Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:29 pm

Mmm... I think your reply is full of baseless claims. "It is the way I say it is" doesn't quite cut it for a debate, and it sort of is a shame because I was interest in comming to an agreement on this and you're making it impossible.

I'll do one last effort at communicating with you on this subject:

I finished my book and I am not planning to alter it in any meaninful way. It is probably presented as a philosophical essay. I won't argue that. I am actually interested in present it as literature.

Aside from the presentation, let's say I present it as "a book", what I wand is to get the interest of experts in neurology and psychology. I want them to compare my work with what they have and I want them to conduct experiments and discuss the relevance and validity of my hypothesis.

Your last post ignored my questioning of the legitimacy of psychology as a real science, the examples I gave as a proof of the unstability of the "norm" known as the scientific method and the arguments on favor of the tangible ground of my work.

From my perspective, you simply don't know what you're talking about when refering to "science" and I'm really disapointed at your last response because it shows you're taking the high ground, like you're the master and I'm the child, so I just need to listen and shut up. That attitude is highly delusional and will only lead to a quick end of this exchange, as it is quickly turning into a pissing contest.

I will asume I am right, I know you will deny it, but I'm still betting on that horse. Do you know why? Because my theory predicts I won't be able to reason with you. It's not 99%, it is probably 100% but I take an 1% of blind HOPE because without that 1% I would be dead.

So this is what is going on right now: you are a machine, a dumb machine resulted from the insignificance of coral-like organisms, enhanced into a dumb butterfly, with a little extra piece that turns you into a cockaroach, only with more potency.

You don't give a **** about the world. A better world? **** it...! You are selfish and you are reading me and my thesis in reference to your self image. If me or my thesis makes you feel diminished, then you will automatically put the shields on and work in clever answers to destroy the menace.

In order for my thesis to be aproved by you, I need to make it look like a self image reinforcement but I CAN'T because we are actually insignificant pieces of nothing.

So... there is also the other message: I'm something like a master and you're something like a medieval guy who think the earth is flat. That doesn't sound nice, so I must be burned.

How are you gonna fight your very nature? You don't want to fight it. You want to fight ME. So, are we going to get to an agreement regarding anything? Are we...?

Now you know why my work is not published yet. I am Galileo and the world want me to shut up. Not the church, the whole world. Read Galileo's "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina" and you will know what I mean.

So, am I any different from you? Am I interested in "the truth"...? Well... it just happens that I am the author so there is a lot of benefict for me in this thesis. I'm also a little piece of nothing full of ambition and selfishness. I confort myself thinking I deserve to collect the price for my work, but I would collect it anyway, so...

Would it work if I tell you that there's money for you too? That I can give you money if you help me? Obviously no, because we don't really care about actual money. We care about respet, admiration, appreciation, friendship, dependance, love, recognition... "psychic money" and well... this is the tragedy. I know why but I don't know how to change the game in my favor.

This is like a movie, you know? Right now you're playing the role of one of the enemies of Galileo... like in movies, you're stuck in your role as I am stuck in mine. I don't know if any of us can actually take the director seat and change the story.

Be honest. I don't want to waste my time. Am I wasting my time? Am I talking Chinese?
Augusto
Full Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:43 am
Likes Received: 4

#43

Postby Augusto » Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:52 pm

Richard, I am very desperate...!

I can show you this very conversation with several different people with the same outcome. I can show you people freaking out. I can prove my case, but it wouldn't work unless you happen to be DIFFERENT. I need you to be different.

There is a lot of prestige and money for you in the table if you help me. Please, listen to me. I need your help...!
Augusto
Full Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:43 am
Likes Received: 4

#44

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Dec 24, 2015 10:08 pm

Augusto wrote:I can show you this very conversation with several different people with the same outcome.


You don't say? Given your charming approach I would have never guessed things don't seem to work out very well for you.

Anyway, thanks for offering up such an amazing opportunity, but I have decided that I have better things to do with my time. Best of luck to you.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10433
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1074


PreviousNext

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Practitioners' Lounge