On May 16, 11:49 am, Executive Function wrote:
>
> Let me see - any content beyond the personal....
Sure, the parts you keep ignoring. I'll post it again, below, since
apparently you have a difficult time scrolling up:
>>>> On 15 May, 21:50, mika wrote:
>>>> On May 15, 1:57 pm, Executive Function
>>>>> On 15 May, 20:26, mika wrote:
>>>>>> On May 15, 12:32 pm, Executive Function wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15 May, 16:11, mika wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 14, 3:48 pm, Executive Function wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> It's a philosophical issue
>
>>>>>>>> Not for Absorbed. Quite the contrary - it's a practical issue.
>
>>>>>>> It was a practical issue to start with until he started getting
>>>>>>> philosophical with the term 'belief' in a desperate attempt to pull
>>>>>>> his pants up.
>
>>>>>> No. *You* tried to turn this into a philosophical discussion when you
>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Personally, I take each thought and look for it's opposite, then try
>>>>>> and see what the two have in common, look for the opposite of that
>>>>>> thought, and try and see what they have in common. Follow any chain
>>>>>> like this for long enough and you come to an unanswerable, and that's
>>>>>> when you stop and *hopefully* live in the moment with a smile on your
>>>>>> face. :) Whatever thought it was you started with, doesn't matter by
>>>>>> then. "
>
>>>>>> Absorbed pointed out that your response comments were not relevant to
>>>>>> his post, which was accurate. You then tried to divert the
>>>>>> conversation further into some kind of philosophical discussion about
>>>>>> belief, which has even less to do with Absorbed's original post. So,
>>>>>> now you're scrambling to save face, and it's really sadly pathetic.
>
>>>>>> The conversation as it actually occurred is right up thread for you or
>>>>>> anyone else to see. Will you check it out, or are you too lazy for
>>>>>> that as well?
>
>>>>> Absorbed was talking about verifying belief, and the amount of effort
>>>>> he puts into that.
>
>>>> No, he wasn't. He was talking about *experiences* and the amount of
>>>> effort one puts into determining what they mean.
>
>>>> Apparently you really are too lazy to verify exactly what is being
>>>> discussed. Here, I'll do it for you. This is what was actually said:
>
>>>> Absorbed wrote:
>>>>> Tom wrote:
>>>>>> "Absorbed" wrote
>>>>>>> I find that spending a lot of time thinking about the things I've
>>>>>>> experienced, that I've begun to figure things out.
>
>>>>>> Yes, but is a lot enough? How do we know when to stop thinking about
>>>>>> our experiences and decide, once and for all, what these experiences
>>>>>> really mean? It seems to me that the more I think about things, the
>>>>>> more conclusions I start to question, whereas, for some people, it works
>>>>>> just the opposite.
>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> I think the way to approach this is to set strict boundaries about how
>>>>> much to think about something. It's similar to playing Blackjack in a
>>>>> casino; it's sensible to say "I'll quit when I lose X amount of money".
>
>>>>> The problem is how do you set such a boundary. With some decisions, you
>>>>> make the best decision with the evidence available and that's that. But
>>>>> if we consider a Chess position as an example, you could think about it
>>>>> for ages, reading ever deeper. So then I could say how long I consider
>>>>> it depends on the importance of the decision. And then the boundary has
>>>>> blurred, as how does one decide how important a decision is? ...
>
>> No comment on any of the above? A little too much reality for you to
>> deal with?
>
>>>>> As you can't verify belief (using the ordinary
>>>>> dict. definition) then I suggested a method where he could break out
>>>>> of a silly circular time wasting cycle.
>
>>>> Which was an irrelevant comment that had nothing to do with his
>>>> original statements.
