General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

oops sorry. Tell me what is true? I was drunk last night and what i percieved was "true". In the morning, sober,your saying i still accepted this as true. How patronising!
Ever slept with someone drunk and in the morning thought " oh noooooo".
Whats the difference.

You misunderstood. Their experiences are definitely real to them but that doesn't mean that their experiences are actually happening in reality. I could hallucinate Donald Duck and it could be very real to my mind, but we both know Donald Duck isn't really there.

The point is our senses and past experiences all carry with them limited information and bias and imperfect processing so we can't trust them completely.

My point is that until you have had a spiritual experience how can you empathise with believers in god etc???

I used to be a Christian and I had a couple of overwhelming religious experiences in my life. But when I allowed myself to step beyond what I experienced and looked at it objectively I became convinced they were confined to my head.

And taking acid or magic mushrooms is more like empathizing with a schizophrenic person or psychotic than anything else..

and being drunk and sleeping with a stranger is the same as empathizing with a sex addict!(irony alert for US posters)

hey guys - i just found a great excuse!

giggidy giggidy giggidy goo!

But when I allowed myself to step beyond what I experienced and looked at it objectively I became convinced they were confined to my head.

All experiences are in your head mate - you know worra mean?

All experiences are in your head mate - you know worra mean?

When you are involved in a car accident you went through that particular experience. But the car accident is something that happened separate from you, and it might have happened differently from how you remember it. And if you hadn't been there, it might have happened anyway.

When you do acid and talk to Donald Duck, you were involved with that particular experience as well, except that Donald Duck wasn't in reality there to talk to. It was completely in your head.

Know what I mean?

People's experiences might reflect some things that are happening in reality but then again they might not; experience is not all there is to reality.

If God was real, the evidence would be pretty overwhelming. There isn't any evidence that what people are experiencing when they experience god is actually happening outside their head; all we have are people's experiences, which could just as easily be written off as a mass delusion or mass acid trip.

If it's only happening inside their head, then it's not really real. It's just a function of the mind.

First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.

@mastertex (if you continue reading despite not posting)

explanation of scientific theory, fact, and law

there is no such thing as immutable truth in science. which is what i think you mean by "not a theory but a scientific law." these are separate things in science and not related in a hierarchy.

but it is true that scientists can't explain the origin of matter as of now. but to theorize that a supernatural force is behind it creates more questions than it answers.

the biggest one being, if some force had to create the universe, then what created that force? going back one more step doesn't actually answer the problem at all.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.

This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.

But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a theory against my law, I'm going to settle for the law, thank you very much.

this is using a description of the world to invalidate an explanation of the world.
[i tried to read the links that SCS posted, but that confused me even more!]

so i'll just use an analogy.

thermodynamics is the description such as "John always goes home at 5pm everyday."

evolution is an explanation such as "When John's job closes for the day, he must leave the building."

so even if both statements concern John, they are not some opposing beliefs or levels of beliefs or levels of truthiness that try to contradict each other.

and just to clarify something, evolution isn't about complexity and order at all. it's about suitability to the environment. the environment could be such that simpler organisms survive and more complex organisms die off, or that everything dies. it's not a theory concerning complexity.

but the religious believe (because they've been told) that evolution means living beings become more complex over time. Example is moderns replacing homo erectus. Then, as the logic they espouse goes, the universe cannot make itself MORE complex than it already is, and therefore either evolution is flawed, or there is a God making it happen.

FYI, I do not believe what I wrote, I'm just stating some beliefs in different terms

Epictetus assumes the fact it is even possible for the illiterate man to understand or that he desires the truth in the first place. I discount that. The people in this thread either can't understand or don't want to understand so it becomes pointless to argue with them. The conversation is over before it even begins.

@tHeBoYmUsTdIe

well this is the point at which i'll have to get religion and say i have more faith in people than you. i never said i was completely logical!

i'm sure we could have some interesting talk about psychological and behavioral economics experiments to change my opinions on people, however.

Radiolab - The Good Episode

Radiolab is fantastic. Did you listen to the one on stochasticity?

When you do acid and talk to Donald Duck, you were involved with that particular experience as well, except that Donald Duck wasn't in reality there to talk to. It was completely in your head.

Know what I mean?.

Whats with the Disney monopoly on psychedilc experiences? Was i on holiday during the board meeting?
I have never talked to a cartoon character in my entire life! High or sober.
Maybe it was about not being freaked about the distance of stars, the impossiblity of gravity, the life-cycle of the star. Maybe i just felt really close to it all - dare i say it - comforted and warmed by my surroundings/ the universe, trees, the stars - yes - the stars - distant lights mocking us daily - yet i felt no fear but connected and PART OF the whole. (Yes, but in the morning went to work and did my job)

THAT to me is spiritual - not talking to invisble cartoons or "seeing shit".
How far off the mark are you sir? Folk who have smoked, toked and swallowed - they aint talking 'bout no cartoon Duck. How dare you assume my experiences are based on your readings of the accounts of some wretched herion/codeine addict in a hick town in the middle of nowhere. Every person on this earth is caught up in the mystery - and no f*cker, and there has been countless genius, has worked it out. How dare you say that i spend my time getting off talking to cartoon Ducks.
How fricking narrow-minded is that?

Whats with the Disney monopoly on psychedilc experiences? Was i on holiday during the board meeting?
I have never talked to a cartoon character in my entire life! High or sober.
Maybe it was about not being freaked about the distance of stars, the impossiblity of gravity, the life-cycle of the star. Maybe i just felt really close to it all - dare i say it - comforted and warmed by my surroundings/ the universe, trees, the stars - yes - the stars - distant lights mocking us daily - yet i felt no fear but connected and PART OF the whole. (Yes, but in the morning went to work and did my job)

THAT to me is spiritual - not talking to invisble cartoons or "seeing shit".
How far off the mark are you sir? Folk who have smoked, toked and swallowed - they aint talking 'bout no cartoon Duck. How dare you assume my experiences are based on your readings of the accounts of some wretched herion/codeine addict in a hick town in the middle of nowhere. Every person on this earth is caught up in the mystery - and no f*cker, and there has been countless genius, has worked it out. How dare you say that i spend my time getting off talking to cartoon Ducks.
How fricking narrow-minded is that?

Lol.

Lol.

Quack Quack

anyone here tried psilocybin?
Scientific experiments in america showed that a significant number of participants had a religious experience.

maybe if you really wanna know what this means (a spiritual experience blah blah blah) you should try this?

I'm not some hippy promoting drugs, far from it, but so far this is the only scientifically acknowledged observation of a religious experience.

How do the atheists feel about this?

Francis Crick, the man who won a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, did so while high on LSD.

You can't really debate belief. As I said in the thread earlier it's my opinion that, "You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into", so I generally don't try.

Again the above statement isn't exclusive to religious beliefs, but beliefs in general.

@bjordan

well that's just like, your opinion, man.

and it's odd that you say that on a training forum. are beliefs about poker exempt in some way?

re-reading my posts i think i might have come across as pro-God.
Not at all - quite the opposite.
Juss sayin' we all need to try and see where the other folk are coming from.
IF you want to see/feel what people who have close, personal experiences of God then this can be induced artificially.

Francis Crick, the man who won a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, did so while high on LSD.

UTTER BOLLOCKS
see snopes.com

its an urban myth.

@bjordan

well that's just like, your opinion, man.

and it's odd that you say that on a training forum. are beliefs about poker exempt in some way?

I realize it's just my opinion. I don't mean to come off as if I was scolding everyone for trying to debate it. I was mostly posting in regards to the few post complaining about this thread going in circles. Feel free to debate it though.

Perhaps, "beliefs in general", wasn't the best way to say it. I shouldn't have implied most beliefs.

Poker "beliefs" don't really fall in the same category. I see them as different because they're tangible things that can be tested. It may take a very long period to find out if X is correct, etc. Even the most hypothetical concept in poker is within an confined environment we all understand and can manipulate and test. E.g. The cards and rules.

Beliefs related to spirituality, etc, don't exist within an environment where they can be tested and evaluated.

I'm sure we could debate what constitutes a belief that can be debated and one that can't all day. So It's probably not the best example but hopefully it clears up what I meant.

Radiolab is fantastic. Did you listen to the one on stochasticity?

of course! that is probably my favorite of them all. and the choice and deception episodes are classics as well.

This should be required viewing for every debate:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

"If you really want to rediscover wonder, you need to step outside of that tiny, terrified space of rightness and look around at each other and look out at the vastness and complexity and mystery of the universe and be able to say, 'Wow, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong.'"

Ugh. This video is so bad.

Ugh. This video is so bad.

This comment is so bad.

This comment is so bad.

The video is bad because there's no science, no testable theory.... it's just someone drawing lines between the dots at their leisure, with nothing to back it up, holding an extremely arrogant position (where does she consider that she might be wrong about how to approach being wrong?). It's like a motivational speech or something.

The video is bad because there's no science, no testable theory.... it's just someone drawing lines between the dots at their leisure, with nothing to back it up, holding an extremely arrogant position (where does she consider that she might be wrong about how to approach being wrong?). It's like a motivational speech or something.

This comment is much better. And yes, I agree that it's a motivational speech. I like those. See below:

http://www.deucescracked.com/blogs/tecmosuperbowl/64761-Inspiration

A video doesn't have to include a scientific theory/law/whatever to produce a positive effect or get you to think about something in a different way.

I really really really dislike the pseudo science typically presented in motivational speaking, and I have to be skeptic to if motivational speakers actually help anyone who wouldn't have helped themselves just as well on their own.

I also have to wonder if motivational speakers actually hurt a lot of people. The simple one sided arguments(?) they present could be really hurtful to someone who might need professional help, like medicine or other forms of treatment.

Videos like the ones on my blog and the Ted talk inspire me to do various things, whether that is keep an open mind, hit the gym, or help someone. So wonder no more Sure, I might have hit the gym eventually, but watching X video might get me to go TONIGHT.

To generalize all motivational videos into one category though likely isn't fair. You're probably right that some portion of the people watching X video might perceive it incorrectly. I don't fault the producer of the video for someone misinterpreting said video though.

I also think we are likely talking about two completely different subsets of videos (which is why generalizing them doesn't work). I'm more on the "Jordan highlights" spectrum, whereas you seem to be more on the "listen to me (and pay me) and I'll improve your life" end.

Videos like the ones on my blog and the Ted talk inspire me to do various things, whether that is keep an open mind, hit the gym, or help someone. So wonder no more Sure, I might have hit the gym eventually, but watching X video might get me to go TONIGHT.

Hookay. Scientific evidence up in this bitch. Guess it's sorted.

EDIT: Come play me @pshomegame?

Hookay. Scientific evidence up in this bitch. Guess it's sorted.

EDIT: Come play me @pshomegame?

Will be on later. Heading out to dinner w/ the gf. Will def play if you're still on