Schizoid Personality Disorder and Buddhism

It logically follows that you seem to believe that you hold some "Universal Truths" that are not possible for most normal persons - "laymen" or scientists to know or understand due to their (willing) ignorance. It also logically follows that you consider yourself somehow superior in your ways of thinking due to your clearly inherently more "philosophical" and "logical" view on things. It logically follows that you project your own certainty in the things you seem to believe unto the universe at large whether or not any stupid scientists would agree with any of your arguments about the meaning of random, infinite, nothing or whatever.

I didn't turn your laughable example into a strawman by substituting a word that you subsequently misunderstood. You once again assumed I would've insinuated things I did not, such as belief in god, when quite clearly I said such a god of the gaps position is more common to theists than any scientifically minded people. Not you specifically.

The strawman was yours to begin with, by ignoring the actual premise of those using the words, like random (such as myself,) and keeping on constructing your own easily toppled down versions of the use of this word, such as the one in your example. A definition that I've agreed is indeed impossible in anything in reality aside from thought experiments, which only supports the notion that nothing beyond our knowable universe can interact with ours; anything acting from outside of our natural universe that can't be measured or understood is... random, as in completely unpredictable. Random numbers, like I said, have a cause, but due to a lack of better word, for all intents and purposes, they're "random."

The word atheist has been hijacked? Oh my... how many times have I and other atheists said the same. Fine, I'll use the word "anti-mumbojumboist" to describe my lack of theistic beliefs. Pointless semantics when someone explains their use of the word to you. Instead of dissecting the opponents' arguments, you seem to just keep on and on, arguing about the meanings of the words they use. Just how petty are you?

One final question:
When you make any statement (umm... still an assertion without presenting evidence using the word in its non-philosophical meaning) of logic simply follows, do you believe it to be objectively true, or is it really objectively true? If true, can you give us an example of the deductive, inductive or abductive reasoning you or others have used to reach this conclusion you hold, because "it logically follows that" isn't any justification in on itself.

OneRinger wrote:

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:I wonder whether a psychiatrist would diagnose a Buddhist monk with SPD if he were told to analyze the Buddhist's behavior. Certainly, as mentioned, it would seems so.

Not if he knew it was part of a religion. They don't diagnose people that follow a particular creed. If you were in a society that was all like that, they would not diagnose either. Those diagnostics are relative to the environment.

So difference = disorder?

Haha ... I guess thats why SPD exists ...

What the fuk.. the second page was the longest one I ever saw on PF. My finger hurts from scrolling that much.

effre44 wrote:

OneRinger wrote:

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:I wonder whether a psychiatrist would diagnose a Buddhist monk with SPD if he were told to analyze the Buddhist's behavior. Certainly, as mentioned, it would seems so.

Not if he knew it was part of a religion. They don't diagnose people that follow a particular creed. If you were in a society that was all like that, they would not diagnose either. Those diagnostics are relative to the environment.

So difference = disorder?

Haha ... I guess thats why SPD exists ...

Not entirely, but there are cultural factors that are taken into account. So what might be considered a disorder in one culture is not in another. There are also culture specific disorders.

But yeah, I guess in a sense being too different is always a bad thing.

Miyuki wrote:It logically follows that you seem to believe that you hold some "Universal Truths" that are not possible for most normal persons - "laymen" or scientists to know or understand due to their (willing) ignorance. It also logically follows that you consider yourself somehow superior in your ways of thinking due to your clearly inherently more "philosophical" and "logical" view on things. It logically follows that you project your own certainty in the things you seem to believe unto the universe at large whether or not any stupid scientists would agree with any of your arguments about the meaning of random, infinite, nothing or whatever.

It doesn't follow - logically. Yes, I believe these things, and I have good grounds to do so - but it is not necessary of me to believe these things.
Secondly, I have not argued over the meaning of the words; I have simply asserted my definition to be the true one.

Miyuki wrote:I didn't turn your laughable example into a strawman by substituting a word that you subsequently misunderstood. You once again assumed I would've insinuated things I did not, such as belief in god, when quite clearly I said such a god of the gaps position is more common to theists than any scientifically minded people. Not you specifically.

I'll assume you don't know this, but it is more common to use the science-of-the-gaps fallacy, than it is to use the God-of-the-gaps fallacy, by both laymen and scientists.
Once again, I have not once committed the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Miyuki wrote:The strawman was yours to begin with, by ignoring the actual premise of those using the words, like random (such as myself,) and keeping on constructing your own easily toppled down versions of the use of this word, such as the one in your example. A definition that I've agreed is indeed impossible in anything in reality aside from thought experiments, which only supports the notion that nothing beyond our knowable universe can interact with ours; anything acting from outside of our natural universe that can't be measured or understood is... random, as in completely unpredictable. Random numbers, like I said, have a cause, but due to a lack of better word, for all intents and purposes, they're "random."

The strawman fallacy is committed when one misrepresents an argument to then conclude its falsity based on the misrepresented argument. You have not argued for anything, nor have I committed the fallacy of strawman.
I have made it clear why these words are used incorrectly, by I have not argued for this.
Something which is random is also unpredictable. All things which are unpredictable are also uncaused.
A random number generation in computer science works on an algorithm. This algorithm is more complex in nature than the thoughts of the scientist who concludes its randomness.
Thus, something which is complex is also deterministic in its nature. You can predict the outcome of all random number generators, as they work like encryption algorithms work.
This proves how the word is misused. As for the others, you should get reading on my earlier post.

Miyuki wrote:The word atheist has been hijacked? Oh my... how many times have I and other atheists said the same. Fine, I'll use the word "anti-mumbojumboist" to describe my lack of theistic beliefs. Pointless semantics when someone explains their use of the word to you. Instead of dissecting the opponents' arguments, you seem to just keep on and on, arguing about the meanings of the words they use. Just how petty are you?

If I have to say this a thousand times, then I'll surely do so, as long as it gets into your realm of comprehension.
A position of "lack of belief" is a non-position. A non-position can not be held. You can not be an atheist if atheism means the lack of belief.
"Lack of belief" is a personal characteristic; Jack lacks a belief in his own existence.
A philosophical position can NOT under any circumstances be a lack of belief. Thence, if atheism WERE a lack of belief, then the imbeciles who defined it as such wouldn't need to argue for their position... Thus, we're faced with my previous comment, exactly that the REASON for redefining it as a lack of position is to ESCAPE philosophical debates - hence their title, "imbeciles."
Once again, to make you understand the obvious: they redefined their position to not encompass a position - hence, you can not debate for a non-position.

Miyuki wrote:One final question:
When you make any statement (umm... still an assertion without presenting evidence using the word in its non-philosophical meaning) of logic simply follows, do you believe it to be objectively true, or is it really objectively true? If true, can you give us an example of the deductive, inductive or abductive reasoning you or others have used to reach this conclusion you hold, because "it logically follows that" isn't any justification in on itself.

Okay... Here's an example of a logically necessary truth, via simple premises (deductive logic):
Jack is a human.
Humans have feet.
Jack is wearing shoes.
Therefore, Jack's feet are covered.

As for your question, asking if I believe it to be objectively true, or whether it is objectively true, it doesn't make sense when I read it. Do I believe what to be objective true? If I don't believe it to be so, should I believe it to be subjectively true--what is a subjective truth even?

Here is another example of deductive reasoning, which I used:
A lack of belief is a personal characteristic.
Personal characteristics can not be philosophical positions.
Atheism is a philosophical position.
Therefore, atheism can not be a lack of belief in something.

Or, an example for randomness:
All things which are caused are deterministic.
Random means functioning without logical order.
For a thing to be random, it must not have a previous causal event which defines it.
Therefore, random means uncaused.

Woo hoo, ridiculously long post incoming >.<

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:It doesn't follow - logically. Yes, I believe these things, and I have good grounds to do so - but it is not necessary of me to believe these things.
Secondly, I have not argued over the meaning of the words; I have simply asserted my definition to be the true one.

Does not follow logically? I deduced from your previous posts and responses those and other logical possibilities and chose certain ones based on the amount of evidence. You admit you actually partly or fully believe while at it. Your inability to follow the logic used to arrive at these conclusions doesn't make it illogical, considering that I didn't even make any absolute statements.

I'll assume you don't know this, but it is more common to use the science-of-the-gaps fallacy, than it is to use the God-of-the-gaps fallacy, by both laymen and scientists.
Once again, I have not once committed the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Any statistics to quote? If by science-of-the-gaps "fallacy" you mean making an educated guess on whether or not something currently unknown could one day be understood through the scientific method, and considering this belief is based on mountains of prior evidence on the voracity of it, then I'm all for using "science-of-the-gaps." However, if someone states that science will be able to answer every unknown, then there is no rational basis for this statement and would raise my eyebrow. Still I haven't heard it being used, ever, unlike the god of the gaps.

Yet again, are your for real? How hard can it be to understand that I was not pointing a finger at you by making the statement that it is more common to theists in general to fill gaps with god than for scientists to fill unknown with "random"? Seriously? One thing is for sure, you fill a lot of gaps in your comprehension with what could best be described as wild assumptions.

The strawman fallacy is committed when one misrepresents an argument to then conclude its falsity based on the misrepresented argument. You have not argued for anything, nor have I committed the fallacy of strawman.

You.. made the statement that "scientists" use "random of the gaps" argument. Yet, supposedly I didn't argue for anything but still made a strawman argument without an argument? Curiouser and curiouser.
It doesn't come unexpected that your definition of strawman does not cover your wild misrepresentation of an unspecified number scientists and their points of view on these matters and further concluded that these views of theirs are imbecilic and that these people are ignorant on the subject and many others, based solely on your personal interpretation of the matter at hand.

In all its simplicity, a strawman fallacy is to misrepresent someone's views through various means so as to make it easier to attack. Also: "Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical."
In other words, you pulled out an overly simplified example out of your ass, or paraphrased someone's quote way out of context, proceeded to refute it and presented your conclusions without actually refuting anything other than your own construct. Never did you even specify whom you're talking about to help the audience to draw their own conclusions. Dishonest and unintellectual.

I have made it clear why these words are used incorrectly, by I have not argued for this.

I suppose you should rewrite the Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster and remove any and all definitions that you do not agree with. Perhaps then you might actually make some sense to others. More importantly; maybe then, what others are actually saying might make more sense to you.

Something which is random is also unpredictable. All things which are unpredictable are also uncaused.

Yes yes, ignore the generally accepted definitions yet again. Feel free to disagree with the use of the words all you like. You really remind me of a certain YouTube user by the username NephilimFree. He also has quite the few definitions of his own that he brandishes over whatever else anyone else tries to say, not to mention sharing certain other traits...

I agree with the first part, but your definition of unpredictable is utterly useless in any context, so I suppose it's no wonder if you believe that random means uncaused. Unpredictable: difficult or impossible to foresee or foretell. Go ahead, tell me the dictionary got it wrong. Even so, suppose we could make a supercomputer that could calculate the state of the Earth one day from now with a high degree of certainty. Do you suppose it could divine this answer before the events have actually passed, considering all possible outcomes?

As I've said it before, I'll say it again: For all intents and purposes, there are events that we can not currently predict with high enough certainty, let alone absolutely certainty, considering the endless number of things we do not even begin to comprehend the causes of; these events are "random." If your science-of-the-gaps-fallacy does refer to the belief that science will be able to discern everything there is to know about the universe, then there is no place for randomness at all. But considering how you used it as a derogatory statement, I take it that you do not believe it to be possible that us humans could know everything... and this leaves room for unpredictability. If supernatural anything does exist and it could at any point in time or space converge with our known universe, then unpredictability would be an understatement.

A random number generation in computer science works on an algorithm. This algorithm is more complex in nature than the thoughts of the scientist who concludes its randomness.
Thus, something which is complex is also deterministic in its nature. You can predict the outcome of all random number generators, as they work like encryption algorithms work. This proves how the word is misused. As for the others, you should get reading on my earlier post.

Way to go, you merely reiterated my point about complex systems being ultimately predictable, and stated that an RNG in computer science working through algorithms indeed produces quite predictable outcomes. Still, those algorithms are not something inherent to nature, but a part of our arsenal to make sense of it. I wasn't even using the CS algorithms as my premise, as I used radioactive decay, but your point is kind of a non sequitur unless you yet again proceed to ignore or refute any other meaningful uses for the word "random" as I've explained time and again.

It is entirely besides the point whether or not something could possibly be predicted if given the required understanding of the phenomenon at hand. So... I guess I'll use the science-of-the-gaps to fill that gap in our understanding with the prediction that one day we just might have the necessary understanding of quantum physics and the computational power in our disposal to very accurately predict the decay patterns or even the subatomic fluctuations or a particle.

This lack of comprehension of the underlying mechanisms in seemingly "random" events such as the decay of radioactive elements only reinforces the usefulness of "randomness" in generating encryption keys among other things, until we get to the point where a quantum computer can crack even the strongest "randomly" generated encryption keys in mere seconds.

How is any of this a misuse of the word as it is used in the context?

Where does determinism come into play? Sure, I have a deterministic view on the world: anything that is about to happen, has been determined by earlier events whether or not we as humans could even remotely comprehend the full scope of the cascading causes and effects. Not (pre)deterministic in any metaphysical sense.

If I have to say this a thousand times, then I'll surely do so, as long as it gets into your realm of comprehension.
A position of "lack of belief" is a non-position. A non-position can not be held. You can not be an atheist if atheism means the lack of belief.

Good grief you and I alike... atheism is still not an affirmation of anything on its own. Other words with similar notions: amoral - absence of morals, apathy - absence of passion, emotion or excitement. Do you single out atheism for any particular reason?

If possible, since I'm obviously at a child's level in logical reasoning, point out mistakes in the following as unambiguously as possible.

The word "atheist" could've originated from a theist who simply noted the lack of theism in certain individuals and without holding the position as their own, used the simplest and most logical choice of words considering their origins in Greek as a pejorative for people lacking theistic beliefs:
atheos (without god/s / godless) -> a-theist ([person] without belief in a deity.)
Whatever other doctrines, active disbelief or rejection of theism some obviously biased people have connotated the word with in certain dictionaries has little bearing on the position of someone without theistic beliefs whether or not they use the actual word in their description or whether another person labels them as such.

Basically, just like apathy, it is a word with usefulness, and it does not necessarily carry any of the additional burden certain individuals seem to forcefully attribute to it.

The word atheist works on any number of deities: I and probably all Christians (for example) lack belief in the theistic views on Zeus, Odin, Ra, Hanuman. Therefore, even if they had never even heard of them to begin with, they lack the belief that these and many other such, are deities as much as they could reject them. I for one believe they are human constructs that some people believe(d) had godlike powers, or "supernatural" powers.

Atheism is simply having taken the single step further from a monotheist who already lacks belief in the godhood of every other deity conceived by a human or alien mind: atheist. More accurately, not having ever taken the step required to leave faith and abandon such theistic beliefs in the first place, that is, never having had said beliefs to begin with - in other words, having always lacked faith based beliefs in said theistic deities - thus an atheist whether described as such by an informed theist, or an informed atheist.

An uninformed person lacking beliefs, or a theist who hasn't ever thought of what it is to not believe due whatever reasons would not have said word, would have no use for such word, but could possibly become informed of the opposite views and form a descriptive term for said view - thus a/theism.

An uninformed person lacking beliefs and the basic knowledge and understanding of the concept of "supernatural" cannot hold a position on whether the existence of said concepts is knowable or unknowable; the basis of a/gnosticism as referring to deities. Therefore, a person cannot be an agnostic by default, as it requires an affirmative understanding of the concept of both natural and supernatural as well as whatever theistic views.

Were you agnostic about Maahes before you even knew of such a god, or did you lack belief prior to being informed and probably despite becoming informed?
How about the flying spaghetti monster? Some deity worshiped on another planet? Perhaps a deity briefly imagined by an exceptionally philosophical fruit fly high on fermented rowan?
Ignoring your version of the word atheist for a moment, which again was the default position - agnosticism, or atheism?

I made an example of the universe where not one sentient being has ever even thought of anything remotely theistic: an outside informed observer could very well use that attribute as a valid description for the total lack of theism and its opposite and for this purpose, these creatures are atheists in a way that supersedes your position on the falsehood of "holding" such a "non-position," when said position hasn't ever existed to the best knowledge of these creatures. Just as it is the case with anyone who hasn't ever heard of, say, Amaterasu.

Now, let's take this further: I, as the observer, know what theism is and happen have a describing term for the lack of theism and go to that world to tell someone there about our religions and show the holy books, scriptures, tell stories personal accounts etc. and let them study and absorb. I then ask this person "Do you believe in any of these deities now that you've seen the best evidence I have at my disposal to offer to you?"

If the answer is "no, I do not" did this information nullify the position of this individual's lack in theistic beliefs? Did it nullify it for anyone else in that universe?

If the answer is "yes, I now believe in the divinity of deus X, but these others didn't convince me" did the individual's newly founded theistic views on a certain god or gods nullify the lack of belief in others? Did it have an effect on anyone else?

Assuming this individual can reason and use logic, I now ask "what do you now have that these other creatures do not?" and their answer could be quite simply "my belief in deus X."
If you fail


Anyhow, what makes you assume with such certainty that I do not comprehend fully how utterly irrational and ultimately sad it is that there is even any need to advocate and use such a word as "atheist" to describe one's position on something when few other things are described by what they are not? The word still exists and unfortunately, no matter what other crap people like you pile up on the word, you would merely have to ask more questions from these people before you can draw any conclusions that just might actually be representative of whatever other things these people believe and think.

"Lack of belief" is a personal characteristic; Jack lacks a belief in his own existence.

Warmer... warmer...

A philosophical position can NOT under any circumstances be a lack of belief. Thence, if atheism WERE a lack of belief, then the imbeciles who defined it as such wouldn't need to argue for their position... Thus, we're faced with my previous comment, exactly that the REASON for redefining it as a lack of position is to ESCAPE philosophical debates - hence their title, "imbeciles."

Aaaand straight back to pretentious douchebaggery. Now you really quite unambiguously made a gross error in reasoning, but I guess if you ignore most anything these people could or do say as unintellectual blabber, then I suppose you could have a point, except...

Once again, to make you understand the obvious: they redefined their position to not encompass a position - hence, you can not debate for a non-position.

Thanks, I almost laughed. Is this all it boils down to? All that extravaganza and ridicule of whoever constitutes as an imbecile to you and it boils down to this?

To hopefully make you understand the obvious, assuming you're referring to people calling themselves atheists in general: your "they" encompasses people who are quite vocally arguing both for their position as well as against the effects of active practices of certain faith groups that are perceived as harmful to society. It also encompasses people who don't even know they're lacking beliefs, it encompasses self-identified agnostics who lack beliefs but do not (quite rightfully) care to identify with the stigma of calling oneself an atheist.

What you simply refuse to get past here is that there's no need to redefine the position of atheism when few atheists* base their debates on the lack of theistic beliefs, but have solid grounds and premises to debate philosophically or otherwise, on a multitude of sociopolitical, ethical, moral and other basis that may or may not be originated in any other fundamentally non-theistic worldviews that could just as well be held by the creatures of my example universe.

Okay... Here's an example of a logically necessary truth, via simple premises (deductive logic):
Jack is a human.
Humans have feet.
Jack is wearing shoes.
Therefore, Jack's feet are covered.

A couple simple oversights, no biggie: Not all humans are born with legs, or arms for that matter. Ann doesn't have legs from waist down, therefore Ann is not human? Ann is wearing shoes, are her feet covered? Not all shoes cover the feet and Jack could be wearing the shoes on his hands or as a hat, or one on his hands an other only one foot covered for all I know.

I suppose you simply failed to understand that I was asking for a more specific clarification on some of the things that "logically followed" according to you, but I guess not. Here's where I got my earlier reference to child's level at logic and this time, to make it absolutely clear, I am implicitly stating that your reasoning (or reading comprehension for that matter) thus far hasn't exactly been exemplary, unlike your ability to rationalize seems to be.

As for your question, asking if I believe it to be objectively true, or whether it is objectively true, it doesn't make sense when I read it. Do I believe what to be objective true? If I don't believe it to be so, should I believe it to be subjectively true--what is a subjective truth even?

It was a trick question to get exactly this response, and it seems I got it despite your inability to fully comprehend the question. Even more simplified:
The statements in your earlier post about things that followed logically; if you believe these statements to be true, and if so, are they your opinions or do you consider them to be objectively true?

I'll get back to this...

Here is another example of deductive reasoning, which I used:
A lack of belief is a personal characteristic.
Personal characteristics can not be philosophical positions.
Atheism is a philosophical position.
Therefore, atheism can not be a lack of belief in something.

A lack of belief can also be attributed to non-sentient objects: a can of soda lacks even the basic function required to have theistic beliefs, but we don't need to specify that.

Personal characteristics, such as the tendency to form and hold certain subjective opinions over others, or the tendency to dismiss personally unpleasant objective truths, such as heliocentricism discarded for the geocentric model, can be given truth value, which is the very basis of psychology which has its roots in the philosophy of self and extending it unto others around you.

Though the opinions based on these premises may be subjective, their emergence can be objectively observed and studied and have been in the very core of quite the few philosophical debates. Questions such as "is euthanasia justifiable under any circumstances" relies without any ambiguity on a multitude of subjective personal characteristics that are often even harder to quantify than the position on the simple question of whether or not someone has theistic beliefs.

Considering the science-of-the-gaps again, it just may be possible to eventually hack into a human brain to physically quantify and measure the causal phenomenon linked to certain thought patterns, or the lack of said patterns, and to compare the "personal characteristic" of the lack of belief to someone who does believe.

Yes, assuming your definitions and arguments held water, your logic is basic enough so far to work. Sadly, like most anything else you've posted thus far, it relies entirely on definitions extant solely in your la-la-land.

Finally the end...

Or, an example for randomness:
All things which are caused are deterministic.
Random means functioning without logical order.
For a thing to be random, it must not have a previous causal event which defines it.
Therefore, random means uncaused.

*Gives a round of applause* Encore! This is absolutely fantastic! You refuted yet again one of your own facile definitions, color me impressed.

[quote="Miyuki"][/quote]
Holy sh1t.. what the fuk is that?

EmpathySucks wrote:Holy sh1t.. what the fuk is that?

What?!? WHERE?! I don't see anything? Is it behind that wall of text?

EmpathySucks wrote:What the fuk.. the second page was the longest one I ever saw on PF. My finger hurts from scrolling that much.

You're usually rather short on response, and sometimes cynical. But I agree with you that these are LONG-WINDED responses. There's no way that I'm going to weed through all of this. I'm a Buddhist, and nowhere does it say "write volumes of disputateous responses to criticisms." Buddhism is about the clearness of still water, and how it gets all churned up and muddy. Jeez! The AMOUNT of it! I have to go to another thread....

umadcuzimstylin wrote:Buddhism turned me into a schizoid.

Me too. Once you free your mind.. it is kind of hard to go back.