What really pisses you off? please no posts about nexus lol

[gregathit]

1 minute ago, steelpanther24 said:

Now it seems at college universities that tenure is a goal, not a result, so professors are more worried about that then about being right.  I do not know if other countries are in similar situations, but gender studies and sociology are fields for people who lack critical thinking.   

My folks are both prof's and even did stints as admin (Dean and chair positions) and yea, this is the case pretty much.  Tenure is king.  Publishing is required, but no one cares about the content of what is published.  Those who publish lots of rubbish are rewarded over those who just publish a few things that are useful and helpful or even needed (field's or area's that are lacking in research).  Politics has very much overtaken and swallowed up many universities.  As for gender studies..........yea, basket weaving involves more critical thinking.  Talk about emotion over logic.  Emotion has ZERO utility in science or academia.  ZERO.  That it is found in academia just shows you how far the rot has progressed.  It is sad beyond words to express it.

[KoolHndLuke]

4 hours ago, gregathit said:

Emotion has ZERO utility in science or academia.  ZERO.  That it is found in academia just shows you how far the rot has progressed.  It is sad beyond words to express it.

Yes Man sold us out. Be angry, not sad as if it will somehow spare you and yours.

[Darkpig]

11 hours ago, gregathit said:

My folks are both prof's and even did stints as admin (Dean and chair positions) and yea, this is the case pretty much.  Tenure is king.  Publishing is required, but no one cares about the content of what is published.  Those who publish lots of rubbish are rewarded over those who just publish a few things that are useful and helpful or even needed (field's or area's that are lacking in research).  Politics has very much overtaken and swallowed up many universities.  As for gender studies..........yea, basket weaving involves more critical thinking.  Talk about emotion over logic.  Emotion has ZERO utility in science or academia.  ZERO.  That it is found in academia just shows you how far the rot has progressed.  It is sad beyond words to express it.

I might as well put this no emotion thing to bed. You can have all the emotion in the world as long as you follow the scientific process. In fact there is a creative aspect in science that isn't directly linked to the logical left side of the brain. In fact the first two steps of the scientific process which are to formulate a question and form a hypothesis do in fact require creativity. The reason Facebook and Twitter are such hot messes is because people skipped the rest of the steps or did not provide sufficient evidence to disprove or add onto a previous scientific discovery. I'm mostly going with the former.

 

[endersgame]

12 hours ago, gregathit said:

My folks are both prof's and even did stints as admin (Dean and chair positions) and yea, this is the case pretty much.  Tenure is king.  Publishing is required, but no one cares about the content of what is published.  Those who publish lots of rubbish are rewarded over those who just publish a few things that are useful and helpful or even needed (field's or area's that are lacking in research).  Politics has very much overtaken and swallowed up many universities.  As for gender studies..........yea, basket weaving involves more critical thinking.  Talk about emotion over logic.  Emotion has ZERO utility in science or academia.  ZERO.  That it is found in academia just shows you how far the rot has progressed.  It is sad beyond words to express it.

 

8 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Yes Man sold us out. Be angry, not sad as if it will somehow spare you and yours.

 

It's not science. It's Scientism. With a capital S.

 

Centuries ago Geocentrism was the established truth and anyone who dares question it's authenticity or endorse Heliocentrism were persecuted and even burned at the stake.

 

We'd like to imagine that we are now more enlightened, but the truth is we never really moved beyond that mindset. We no longer believe the universe revolves around the Earth, but we've taken on new sets of 'self-evident' scientific dogmas that we hold to be above reproach. Any one who question the orthodoxy are then castigated as heretics of the faith.

 

We just don't burn them at the stake anymore. 

[gregathit]

3 hours ago, Darkpig said:

I might as well put this no emotion thing to bed. You can have all the emotion in the world as long as you follow the scientific process. In fact there is a creative aspect in science that isn't directly linked to the logical left side of the brain. In fact the first two steps of the scientific process which are to formulate a question and form a hypothesis do in fact require creativity. The reason Facebook and Twitter are such hot messes is because people skipped the rest of the steps or did not provide sufficient evidence to disprove or add onto a previous scientific discovery. I'm mostly going with the former.

Sigh.  Did you read your statement before you hit send?  Emotion is a "feeling".  It has no agreed upon universal measurable scale.  It is subject to each persons personal judgement.  So explain to me how in the blue balls of Santa Claus you can subject something like this to the scientific method?  You can't.  Whoopie you can do the first three steps.  Then you are fucked.  Seriously.  You're fucked.  How are you going to conduct experiments?  What are your controls?  What are your test groups?  This is NOT science.  It is psychological gobbly gook.  Sorry, but the facts are facts, they are not feelings.  

 

And not to pick you apart, but the second step in the scientific method is to "research".  Only after you devise your "question" (step 1) and do your research (step 2) do you then have the ability to write your Hypothesis (step 3).

 

As for creativity being involved, sure a little. However, the main part is facts.  But so what?  Neither of these are emotions.  That one of the scientists feels sad today doesn't alter any facts.  If it did, what is the ratio effect based on the level of sad that they feel?   That is so absurdly ridiculous that any actual scientist would likely suffer a major medical condition from laughing so hard if you tried to pawn this off on them as legitimate science.  Let's agree not to cheapen the word science by proposing absurd crap like this should fall under its umbrella.  Please.  It does science no actual good and much harm.

[gregathit]

2 hours ago, endersgame said:

It's not science. It's Scientism. With a capital S.

I'd agree.  The really tragic part is the masses are for the most part too ignorant to understand the difference between the two.  Or that one is a dangerous cult that undercuts our society.

2 hours ago, endersgame said:

Any one who question the orthodoxy are then castigated as heretics of the faith.

And this is what does the most harm.  Science does and SHOULD question everything.  What we think of as facts today are simply based on our current level of understanding.  That doesn't mean it can't change.  As you pointed out, we already have experienced a shit ton of changes to what we thought we knew or was settled.

2 hours ago, endersgame said:

We just don't burn them at the stake anymore. 

Physically no.  However, they do so now virtually.  If you break the narrative you won't be published and will be insulted and/or relegated to irrelevance.  So much for our enlightenment right?

[Darkpig]

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

Sigh.  Did you read your statement before you hit send?

Yes I did.

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

Emotion is a "feeling".  It has no agreed upon universal measurable scale.  It is subject to each persons personal judgement.  So explain to me how in the blue balls of Santa Claus you can subject something like this to the scientific method?  You can't.

I can. Emotion inspires creativity. Interpretation is also fueled by emotions.

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

As for creativity being involved, sure a little. However, the main part is facts.  But so what?  Neither of these are emotions.  That one of the scientists feels sad today doesn't alter any facts.  If it did, what is the ratio effect based on the level of sad that they feel?   That is so absurdly ridiculous that any actual scientist would likely suffer a major medical condition from laughing so hard if you tried to pawn this off on them as legitimate science.  Let's agree not to cheapen the word science by proposing absurd crap like this should fall under its umbrella.  Please.  It does science no actual good and much harm.

So you do admit there is creativity in science and thus emotions. In short I agree that In the grand scheme of things facts are facts. But science is not simple never was. Many scientists will make a breakthrough for it only to be disproven by somebody else because said scientist missed a step or missed a variable. Even a user of scientific data has to be careful. The main question being how do we know what is fact and what is fiction? Did you check sources? Is the scientist credible? Did they go off of somebody else's work and is that scientist credible?  Have they followed the scientific method? Have you checked the biases of each scientist whether political or business? Have you compared it to the results of other scientists? Has the website its on actually put down what the scientist has said word for word? Possibly more questions than that. Small things add up. Early science should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Of course some idiots are going to use the scientific no emotions bullshit to start their own bullshit that is ironically filled with emotion. It is mostly said conspiracy theorists who likely have their own research with a hint of science but missing several variables.

 

In short science is partly the pursuit of knowledge and another part the application of knowledge. A pursuit like art filled with emotion with the result hopefully being success in whatever they are trying to achieve.

 

So if you tell me there is no emotion in science my response is obviously check again. I ask you to do this because the internet doesn't give a whole lot time to do research.

[gregathit]

51 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

I can. Emotion inspires creativity. Interpretation is also fueled by emotions.

Sigh.  I'd ask you to furnish proof of either of these claims, but we both know that they are false.  Why are they false?  Because they are unprovable.  Again.  Back to the scientific method, you can't measure these things.  They are by their very nature subjective.  You can't duplicate the experiments to obtain a consistent outcome.  None of this shit is science.  It is instead the realm of something like Psychology.  

 

On a personal level, I've interpreted a fuckton of stuff and was never emotionally involved in the slightest.  I think you are trying to ascribe a one sided interpretation of things and missing that you are only looking at one side of the mountain.  Experiences can inspire creativity.  A problem can inspire creativity.  All sorts of shit can inspire creativity.  

51 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

So you do admit there is creativity in science and thus emotions.

No.  There doesn't have to be ANY creativity involved at all.  It can be as simple as a scientist seeing a problem, and then researching and crunching numbers to find a solution.  What emotion was involved and to what degree (or unit of measure) was there when Einstein postulated the theory of general relativity?  Take your time, I'll wait. 

51 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

A pursuit like art filled with emotion with the result hopefully being success in whatever they are trying to achieve.

Art is art.  Science is science.  A scientist having a piece of artwork hanging on his wall doesn't make art part of science.  A scientist feeling a might horny while he is working on something doesn't make lust a part of science.  To make leaps in logic like this are so absurd that it is laughable.  Seriously.  This is not a hill you want to die on.  There is a reason we have different disciplines like Psychology, Philosophy and Science.  Hell, science involves math, so by your leap in logic math IS science.  Except it is not.  They are distinct in at least one way: how ideas are tested and accepted based on evidence.  

51 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

So if you tell me there is no emotion in science my response is obviously check again.

For what?  This is common sense, or at least it should be.  Perhaps it is just that I have a higher level of education and have been exposed to more by having folks who were college prof's.  As for a quick test, google up units of measure for emotions.  You'll get several hits with this among them:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756702/

Here is a direct quote:  From an intuitive layperson perspective, it should be easy to determine whether someone is experiencing a particular emotion. However, scientific evidence suggests that measuring a person’s emotional state is one of the most vexing problems in affective science.

It goes on to state it comes down to subjective observations.  Throw repeatability out the window along with the science, the baby and the bath water.

 

Bottom line, emotions are a part of the make up of human beings.  However they are also WILDLY subjective and subject to being skewed.  You can test this by starting an otherwise innocuous argument with a female of the species during a particular time that they have of the month (remember to social distance first.....it could save your life!).  Are you now going to claim that the uterus "fuels" emotions?  But only on certain days?  This is all absurd.  Let's argue about something that isn't quite so silly.

[Darkpig]

11 hours ago, gregathit said:

On a personal level, I've interpreted a fuckton of stuff and was never emotionally involved in the slightest.

I doubt that. If there was no emotion then all science would be discovered by computers independently of humans.

11 hours ago, gregathit said:

No.  There doesn't have to be ANY creativity involved at all.

Wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/11/the-creative-scientist/382633/

If for some reason the article doesn't appease you then look for something contradicting my statement. I'll give you a list to start: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+there+any+creativity+in+science&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS870US870&ei=DZGHX_XMOIu-tQbh9ZX4Cw&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwi1h-uopbXsAhULX80KHeF6Bb84ChDy0wN6BAgKEC4&biw=1920&bih=1089

11 hours ago, gregathit said:

Art is art.  Science is science.  A scientist having a piece of artwork hanging on his wall doesn't make art part of science.  A scientist feeling a might horny while he is working on something doesn't make lust a part of science.  To make leaps in logic like this are so absurd that it is laughable.  Seriously.  This is not a hill you want to die on.  There is a reason we have different disciplines like Psychology, Philosophy and Science.  Hell, science involves math, so by your leap in logic math IS science.  Except it is not.  They are distinct in at least one way: how ideas are tested and accepted based on evidence.

The repetitions in that paragraph indicate you are less interested in containing sentences of the same subject and more interested in repeating sentences with nothing new to give. My stance is obviously that science is both art and math not either exclusively.

11 hours ago, gregathit said:

  Let's argue about something that isn't quite so silly.

Science is anything but silly. If this is too serious for you we could talk about grills.

[27X]

4 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

My stance is obviously that science is both art and math not either exclusively

Your stance is a subjective meta interpretation that ignores that AI exists.

[Darkpig]

20 minutes ago, 27X said:

Your stance is a subjective meta interpretation that ignores that AI exists.

AI is basically the wild card that nobody expects. I remember reading somewhere of an AI that can do art. Maybe it was this one: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/10/18529009/ai-art-marcus-du-sautoy-math-music-painting-literature

 

if they can in fact do art then people are more like AI than expected.

[gregathit]

7 hours ago, Darkpig said:

I doubt that. If there was no emotion then all science would be discovered by computers independently of humans.

Again, you are not looking at this logically.  I never stated that a person was emotionless.  What I stated is that emotion is NOT the catalyst that you claim it to be.  Do you go around everyday happy and grinning like an idiot?  Of course not.  You have a range of emotions each day.  So does the scientist.  Despite "having" those emotions, they need not be any more of a part of the science than the lab coat the scientist is wearing.  That is what I am saying.  If you disagree then fine.  And yes, AI can do science.  Which should show you that emotions are less involved than you claimed (remember you said emotions were the "fuel").

7 hours ago, Darkpig said:

Wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/11/the-creative-scientist/382633/

If for some reason the article doesn't appease you then look for something contradicting my statement. I'll give you a list to start: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+there+any+creativity+in+science&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS870US870&ei=DZGHX_XMOIu-tQbh9ZX4Cw&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwi1h-uopbXsAhULX80KHeF6Bb84ChDy0wN6BAgKEC4&biw=1920&bih=1089

You are taking one little thing and trying to make it the central piece of the puzzle.  That is absurd.  Science studies a ton of shit.  They observe something and decide it warrants investigation.  Nothing creative there.  Then they spend weeks, months, even years REASEARCHING and compiling data on the subject.  They then postulate based on said data.  You want to call that creativity and close the books, but I would disagree that very little if any creativity is often involved as they are really just making rational and logical judgements based on the data they have (seeing how those puzzle pieces fit together).  The weeks, months, years of researching is the fuel that drives them formulating their hypothesis.  If it wasn't, if it was based on emotion, then we as a species would still be barely above the stone age.  Again, humans are creative, it is a part of us.  That creativity is not always central to the activity we are engaged in.  If it was, then was stated before, how come AI can duplicate what we are doing and it has neither creativity or emotion?  Again, the lab coat or the glasses the scientist is wearing when he makes his breakthrough isn't something we consider central to his breakthrough.  I don't know how I can break this down any more simply than I have.

7 hours ago, Darkpig said:

My stance is obviously that science is both art and math not either exclusively.

I'd disagree.  Science often involves a shit ton of math, that part is VERY true.  No math, no science.  

Art however is art.  One proof I could offer is you won't find many (if any at all) that practice both.  They are different folks.  Art feeds on emotions.  Song writers often compose their best stuff when they or someone they are close to suffer tragedy.  Scientists are coldly logical.  They are methodically disciplined.  They try to remove all emotion from themselves because it has no useful application in their field.  This is the classic right brained folks versus the left brain folks.  Of course we all have whole brains and use them, but which is the primary driver?  Again, this is as simple as I can break this down.  If you can't understand or just don't agree, fine.

7 hours ago, Darkpig said:

Science is anything but silly.

Nice try.  I was clearly saying that your absurd stances on science being fueled by emotions/creativity were what was silly.  As if all of the research involved was meaningless.  

7 hours ago, Darkpig said:

If this is too serious for you we could talk about grills.

I'd love to, however, based on your previous behavior I'm scared you are going to get all emotional and creatively state that the only good grill is a pink one.

(See......I can play that same game)  ?

Spoiler

 

[GrimReaper]

Emotions are the fuel for our actions. Scientists do science because they want to know how the world operates, because they want to make money, because they want to be famous. Point is, if something doesn't make you feel good, you ain't going to do it. But emotions aren't ethereal, they're quite physical and you can measure them or at least the neural activity in your brain that correlates with said emotions. Fear, joy, anger or any other emotion you can think go hand in hand with certain neurological processes and those are physical and can be measured. You can also simply collect data by asking people 'what does this make you feel and on a scale from 1 to 10, how strong would you rate it?' It won't be as accurate, but it will be objective data and it can easily be replicated.

 

Emotions also aren't right or wrong, they simply are present. An agoraphobe saying that he's afraid of open spaces and an arachnophobe saying he's afraid of spiders make factual, measurable statements. This doesn't mean it's sensible to be afraid of these things, but the fear is factually present.

[Darkpig]

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

Again, you are not looking at this logically.  I never stated that a person was emotionless.  What I stated is that emotion is NOT the catalyst that you claim it to be.  Do you go around everyday happy and grinning like an idiot?  Of course not.  You have a range of emotions each day.  So does the scientist.  Despite "having" those emotions, they need not be any more of a part of the science than the lab coat the scientist is wearing.  That is what I am saying.  If you disagree then fine.  And yes, AI can do science.  Which should show you that emotions are less involved than you claimed (remember you said emotions were the "fuel").

It isn't just the fuel. It is the catalyst the driving force of actions. It is the step 1. As a few examples: Fear is fight or flight which is a necessity for survival. Sadness is a feeling of loss a pain necessary to avoid future problems. Happiness is a sign that everything is in order. Tears... I don't know what tears are aside from a leaking human but my point stands that emotions are logical. That said it does turn out some weird results. Like flat earthers. I'm sure we can both laugh at flat earthers. Unless you are a flat earther... but I am still going to laugh.

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

I'd disagree.  Science often involves a shit ton of math, that part is VERY true.  No math, no science.  

Art however is art.  One proof I could offer is you won't find many (if any at all) that practice both.  They are different folks.  Art feeds on emotions.  Song writers often compose their best stuff when they or someone they are close to suffer tragedy.  Scientists are coldly logical.  They are methodically disciplined.  They try to remove all emotion from themselves because it has no useful application in their field.  This is the classic right brained folks versus the left brain folks.  Of course we all have whole brains and use them, but which is the primary driver?  Again, this is as simple as I can break this down.  If you can't understand or just don't agree, fine.

Funny I heard that depression makes art worse but maybe they're talking about the long term. Also as @GrimReaper said emotions can be numerically counted. I was going to say something about dopamine and norepinephrine but for some reason I didn't.

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

The weeks, months, years of researching is the fuel that drives them formulating their hypothesis.  If it wasn't, if it was based on emotion, then we as a species would still be barely above the stone age.

And yet so many people forget their roots.

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

Nice try.  I was clearly saying that your absurd stances on science being fueled by emotions/creativity were what was silly.  As if all of the research involved was meaningless. 

If that is how you feel I will respect your wishes.

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

I'd love to, however, based on your previous behavior I'm scared you are going to get all emotional and creatively state that the only good grill is a pink one.

(See......I can play that same game)  ?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Nonsense. I am always well behaved(Thats a lie).

Also Future advice: don't give this pig ideas?

Also also well done It reminds of a scene out of Wallace and Gromit. I wonder if we could make it move.

Also also you get the picture I don't know much about grilling. So that would make it even more stupid. Hmmm... this line of thinking is backwards. But how else am I supposed to know whether I am team charcoal or team propane if we don't argue about it?

[gregathit]

4 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

Emotions are the fuel for our actions.

Incorrect.  Fight or flight is not an emotion.  It is a near instantaneous reaction in which we don't have time to even understand the situation, let alone determine how we feel about it.  Interviews with folks who go through situations like this often can't tell you why they did what they did.  They often go into shock over it later not then.  So how to explain this basic contradiction?

 

Again, the point is emotions are obviously present in all of us, they just are not the central driving force for every decision.

4 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

Scientists do science because they want to know how the world operates, because they want to make money, because they want to be famous. Point is, if something doesn't make you feel good, you ain't going to do it.

Woops.  You just contradicted yourself and didn't even realize it.  Work.  We go to work to make money.  Some folks enjoy their jobs.  Many do not.  Yet both those who enjoy their jobs and those who don't STILL GO TO WORK.  

4 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

But emotions aren't ethereal, they're quite physical and you can measure them or at least the neural activity in your brain that correlates with said emotions. Fear, joy, anger or any other emotion you can think go hand in hand with certain neurological processes and those are physical and can be measured. You can also simply collect data by asking people 'what does this make you feel and on a scale from 1 to 10, how strong would you rate it?' It won't be as accurate, but it will be objective data and it can easily be replicated.

Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.  Pathetically Wrong.  Sorry but that is bullocks.  It is NOT objective data, it is SUBJECTIVE.  You can't measure it.  Hells bells, go back and read the article I linked to.  Emotions are in your head.  Each person reacts differently to the same stimulus.  What hurts some gives pleasure to others.  How in the fuck is that measurable?  Emotions are not science.  They won't be science until either technology improves to the point we can track it or some other breakthrough occurs.  It belongs to the world of Psychology.

 

What is the unit of measure for emotions?  No, it is not a bullshit 1 to 10 scale.  Give me a actual definitive unit of measure.  If you can't get that much down then how are you going to come up with an experiment that is repeatable by anyone on everyone?  Hell, what would your control group be?  The AI?  This is just absurd.

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

It isn't just the fuel. It is the catalyst the driving force of actions. It is the step 1. As a few examples: Fear is fight or flight which is a necessity for survival.

I'm done.  Seriously.  Fight or flight is not an example of emotions.  Fight or flight isn't "fear".  Read what I wrote earlier.  You are assuming that folks have time to observe and think about what is about to happen to them.  That is not always the case.  It is absurd to think that it is.  Oh, and how do you explain folks who are "paralyzed" by their fear?  They are neither fighting or fleeing.  Spend a few minutes and think about things from every side of the mountain and you will avoid getting trapped like this.

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

Sadness is a feeling of loss a pain necessary to avoid future problems. 

Sigh.  Sadness can be empathy for another persons fate or condition and be something that doesn't or won't impact you at all.  I was reading an engaging novel and I felt sad for the mother of the protagonist that was killed by the bomb meant to kill them.  Is there a bomb in my future? You are trying to put things into tiny little boxes that often only encompass a small fraction of what they are.  Expand your horizons.  Oh, and WTF does any of this shit have to do with science?!?!  Zip of course.

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

Funny I heard that depression makes art worse but maybe they're talking about the long term.

I never said depression.  Depression is not the same as experiencing tragedy.  Can you follow a logical thought train?  If you doubt this, google up the back story on damn near any big rock hit.  There are dozens upon dozens of examples.  Again, none of this has anything to do with SCIENCE.

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

Also as @GrimReaper said emotions can be numerically counted. I was going to say something about dopamine and norepinephrine but for some reason I didn't.

So Grim says something and we should believe it?  Define how it is numerically counted.  Did you read the article or the quote I dropped?  All of this shit is SUBJECTIVE.  Google up that word.  If that doesn't flip the light bulb on, then all of this is a waste of time and we just need to agree to disagree and move on.

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

But how else am I supposed to know whether I am team charcoal or team propane if we don't argue about it?

I could not agree more.  But in order to have that debate, which actually does help both parties, as well as other parties who follow along, certain basic truths have to be established.  Such as what is charcoal.  What is propane.  Is lighter fluid used.  And so on and so on.  They have to be tangible/measurable items.  Saying we are going to debate charcoal vs propane and then introducing magical unicorn dust just makes a serious conversation into a silly one.

 

That was a cool grill.  I was actually shocked that it was so easy to find and was so detailed.  The market for piggy grills is apparently much larger than I would have ever expected.

[GimmeBACON]

Currently trending on Twitter; "Joe Biden did not push out a Ukrainian prosecutor for investigating his son, The Washington Post confirms"

 

[MadMansGun]

i just had one of those "movie grade" dreams.....which pisses me off because i will never remember it fully and i can never watch it again:

Quote

bank heist comedy:

20+ guy team (different crime factions united together) where 2 try to covertly rob the bank directly and the other 18 or so disguise themselves as customers and other things that would help them out as much as possible without revealing themselves.

 

Bill Murray was in it and his job was to distract one of the guards, he ended up in a "abbandond staff room" in the basement that the guard converted into there home, they ended up distracting each other with moves on the staff tv & random drugs. (they mostly don't show up again until after the heist)

 

(rest of the heist that i can't remember anymore going on here, but i remember that i was fighting with some sort of com system trying to keep the team connected)

 

the morning long after the (successful) heist had already ended Bill had to disguised himself as a cop so he could escape, and also to help the guard hide the fact that he has been living in the bank's basement.

 

why the fuck can't my brain make shit like this when i'm awake? and why the fuck can't it remember anything 15 mins after it ends?

[gregathit]

Agreed.  When I do remember my dreams (only happens maybe once every 5 or 10 years) they are sweeping epics that are so fucked up that they are beyond description.  Yet at the time they make perfect sense.  Then I think about them and it is like..........what did I just dream??????  My subconscious is utterly insane.  Scarily so.  I guess if something has to be insane, that would the thing to pick.  I'm just glad I rarely remember my dreams to be honest.    

[GrimReaper]

5 hours ago, gregathit said:

Incorrect.  Fight or flight is not an emotion.  It is a near instantaneous reaction in which we don't have time to even understand the situation, let alone determine how we feel about it.  Interviews with folks who go through situations like this often can't tell you why they did what they did.  They often go into shock over it later not then.  So how to explain this basic contradiction?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response#Emotional_components

It's not a contradiction because emotions aren't fairy dust. It's neurons firing up in your brain. Emotions are completely seperate from your cognizant mind, they're a reaction to stimulus your brain receives through the things you hear, see, smell, taste and feel. Obviously, there's more to human behavior than that because we have a pretty advanced prefrontal cortex. In fact, most of the newer (evolutionary speaking) and more complex parts of our brain seem to serve as an inhibitor for our more ancient and primitive, but very powerful parts of our brain. For an arachnophobe, seeing a spider might trigger the fight or flight response and intense fear but with enough practice one might be able to overcome that response and the fear or at least alleviate it. And again, these are not conscious decisions. Those come later - which is why desensitization is important for certain fields like medicine so you don't freak out when things don't go as planned during a surgery, for example. It's like muscle memory for your brain.

 

5 hours ago, gregathit said:

 

Woops.  You just contradicted yourself and didn't even realize it.  Work.  We go to work to make money.  Some folks enjoy their jobs.  Many do not.  Yet both those who enjoy their jobs and those who don't STILL GO TO WORK.  

 

Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.  Pathetically Wrong.  Sorry but that is bullocks.  It is NOT objective data, it is SUBJECTIVE.  You can't measure it.  Hells bells, go back and read the article I linked to.  Emotions are in your head.  Each person reacts differently to the same stimulus.  What hurts some gives pleasure to others.  How in the fuck is that measurable?  Emotions are not science.  They won't be science until either technology improves to the point we can track it or some other breakthrough occurs.  It belongs to the world of Psychology.

 

What is the unit of measure for emotions?  No, it is not a bullshit 1 to 10 scale.  Give me a actual definitive unit of measure.  If you can't get that much down then how are you going to come up with an experiment that is repeatable by anyone on everyone?  Hell, what would your control group be?  The AI?  This is just absurd.

That's where delayed gratification comes into play. People may not enjoy their job, but they do enjoy having money. It's not rocket science.

 

I don't know what you think is in the head but it's not some magical black hole that devours all information. While the human brain is still some kind of a black box, it's not entirely so. We can measure brain activity and we can calculate the average response. This is how data processing works - it doesn't matter what the individual's response is. If you have a big enough sample size, you can accurately describe what the average emotional response is to seeing a cute kitten or a rotten corpse. It doesn't matter that each person is slightly different - each snowflake is indeed unique but that doesn't prevent us from recognizing a snowflake when we see one because while being unique individually, there's shared commonality between all snowflakes.

 

You can simply replicate any such study by sticking a big enough sample size of people into a neuroimagining device and compare the results afterwards.

[gregathit]

3 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

It's not a contradiction because emotions aren't fairy dust.

ROFL!!!  Yes.  It was a contradiction. You can't fight it with facts so you arm wave it away.  Pretty typical.

3 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

Emotions are completely separate from your cognizant mind, they're a reaction to stimulus your brain receives through the things you hear, see, smell, taste and feel.

Prove that they are separate.  Just saying it doesn't establish anything.......other than an unproven theory.  Besides, this is all a side show because now you are back tracking.  So are you now saying that folks have the ability to separate themselves from all emotion?  Going vulcan are we?  Is that how it becomes "science"?  This is so disjointed an argument from our original that it is laughable.

3 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

Obviously, there's more to human behavior than that because we have a pretty advanced prefrontal cortex. In fact, most of the newer (evolutionary speaking) and more complex parts of our brain seem to serve as an inhibitor for our more ancient and primitive, but very powerful parts of our brain. For an arachnophobe, seeing a spider might trigger the fight or flight response and intense fear but with enough practice one might be able to overcome that response and the fear or at least alleviate it. And again, these are not conscious decisions. Those come later - which is why desensitization is important for certain fields like medicine so you don't freak out when things don't go as planned during a surgery, for example. It's like muscle memory for your brain.

Which is a poor attempt to state a simple thing.  You make a decision before something happens and resolve to maintain that course.  It is called mental conditioning (or just training).  If you'd ever been in the armed forces, you'd already understand what conditioning is.  They want folks that will kill without bothering to "think" about it.  But all of this is still zero proof of science.  Sorry.  Still Psychology.

3 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

I don't know what you think is in the head but it's not some magical black hole that devours all information. While the human brain is still some kind of a black box, it's not entirely so. We can measure brain activity and we can calculate the average response. This is how data processing works - it doesn't matter what the individual's response is. If you have a big enough sample size, you can accurately describe what the average emotional response is to seeing a cute kitten or a rotten corpse. It doesn't matter that each person is slightly different - each snowflake is indeed unique but that doesn't prevent us from recognizing a snowflake when we see one because while being unique individually, there's shared commonality between all snowflakes.

Wait, it is. No wait, it is not a black box.  Which is it already?  And talk about a completely ridiculous choice for a descriptor like "black box".  Like all we need to do is find it and bang.....all the secrets are right there?  Come on, you aren't even trying.  We do know about the basic workings of the human brain (I never stated we didn't), however, what we know is just the very tip of a massive iceberg.  To claim otherwise is laughable.  Can we read minds?  Can we tell what others are thinking?  Can we predict what someone will do (minority report anyone)?  The answer to all of these questions is of course not.  Hell's bells, have you never played poker for crying out loud?  You again are assuming that all things are equal regarding emotions and their responses.  My response to a spider is to simply kill it.  So is my sisters.  My mom however screams and bolts.  There is no emotion involved in my killing the spider.  Again, all of this is still in the realm of NOT BEING SCIENCE.  Oh.......as for your measurements.........lie detectors can be beaten.  So much for measuring shit.  ?

[RitualClarity]

Live Long and Prosper!

[Darkpig]

8 hours ago, gregathit said:

Incorrect.  Fight or flight is not an emotion.  It is a near instantaneous reaction in which we don't have time to even understand the situation, let alone determine how we feel about it.  Interviews with folks who go through situations like this often can't tell you why they did what they did.  They often go into shock over it later not then.  So how to explain this basic contradiction?

Fight or flight is an emotion. It is called Fear. The fight part of fear is anger. As for the contradiction a lack of information is all that stops a person from processing it but still it is a potential threat that must be fought or fled from.

8 hours ago, gregathit said:

Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.  Pathetically Wrong.  Sorry but that is bullocks.  It is NOT objective data, it is SUBJECTIVE.  You can't measure it.

Neuroscience.

8 hours ago, gregathit said:

Sigh.  Sadness can be empathy for another persons fate or condition and be something that doesn't or won't impact you at all.  I was reading an engaging novel and I felt sad for the mother of the protagonist that was killed by the bomb meant to kill them.  Is there a bomb in my future? You are trying to put things into tiny little boxes that often only encompass a small fraction of what they are.  Expand your horizons.  Oh, and WTF does any of this shit have to do with science?!?!  Zip of course.

I never said depression.  Depression is not the same as experiencing tragedy.  Can you follow a logical thought train?  If you doubt this, google up the back story on damn near any big rock hit.  There are dozens upon dozens of examples.  Again, none of this has anything to do with SCIENCE.

You imagine yourself or loved ones in that situation because you don't know if there actually is a bomb in your future. Mental preparation so to speak. Your brain is a muscle.

8 hours ago, gregathit said:

So Grim says something and we should believe it?  Define how it is numerically counted.  Did you read the article or the quote I dropped?  All of this shit is SUBJECTIVE.  Google up that word.  If that doesn't flip the light bulb on, then all of this is a waste of time and we just need to agree to disagree and move on.

I agree to disagree that this is a waste of time. This is quite enlightening.

8 hours ago, gregathit said:

I could not agree more.  But in order to have that debate, which actually does help both parties, as well as other parties who follow along, certain basic truths have to be established.  Such as what is charcoal.  What is propane.  Is lighter fluid used.  And so on and so on.  They have to be tangible/measurable items.  Saying we are going to debate charcoal vs propane and then introducing magical unicorn dust just makes a serious conversation into a silly one.

 

That was a cool grill.  I was actually shocked that it was so easy to find and was so detailed.  The market for piggy grills is apparently much larger than I would have ever expected.

Interesting.

[gregathit]

27 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

Fight or flight is an emotion. It is called Fear. The fight part of fear is anger.

You didn't address being paralyzed "by fear", ie neither fleeing or fighting.  

28 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

 As for the contradiction a lack of information is all that stops a person from processing it but still it is a potential threat that must be fought or fled from.

Wait.  You claimed it is an emotional response and now you are interjecting logic and reasoning (processing) into the mix.  You can't keep adding ingredients.  This is just getting silly.  Are we baking a cake?????  ?

30 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

Neuroscience.

Nice try, but you need to read the fine print.  Another way of saying Neuroscience is neurobiology.  They are the same thing.  Google it up and what you will find is this is the study of the biological aspect of the nervous system.  Which is not the same thing as Psychology.  

34 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

You imagine yourself or loved ones in that situation because you don't know if there actually is a bomb in your future. Mental preparation so to speak.

ROFL!!!  Absurd rubbish.  Just because you may have a bomb phobia doesn't mean everyone does.  I certainly don't.  I read a book, felt sorry for the protagonist and then went on.  To do anyone more than that means you have some mental issues that you probably should see someone about.

37 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

Your brain is a muscle.

WTF???  No it isn't.  Just because you can say it has similarities to a muscle doesn't it make it a muscle.  Biology says you are wrong.  I'm sorry.

40 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

I agree to disagree that this is a waste of time. This is quite enlightening.

I can't see how, but whatever.  If you are getting something out of it, great.  This is all 101 stuff for me.

[gregathit]

Trigger Warning for those who are hooked on the coof fear porn:

This is Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD a board certified neurosurgeon who goes into a huge amount of detail on the nonsense of masks.  The vid is well over an hour as he goes into great detail on all aspects of mask wearing.

Spoiler

 

 

[GrimReaper]

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

ROFL!!!  Yes.  It was a contradiction. You can't fight it with facts so you arm wave it away.  Pretty typical.

 

No, if you're incapable of being afraid, you won't have a fight or flight response. Quoted from the wiki article: During the reaction, the intensity of emotion that is brought on by the stimulus will also determine the nature and intensity of the behavioral response.

 1 hour ago, gregathit said:

 

Prove that they are separate.  Just saying it doesn't establish anything.......other than an unproven theory.  Besides, this is all a side show because now you are back tracking.  So are you now saying that folks have the ability to separate themselves from all emotion?  Going vulcan are we?  Is that how it becomes "science"?  This is so disjointed an argument from our original that it is laughable.

They are seperate because you can't control what you are feeling at any given moment, but you can choose to not act on said feelings. It's the lizard brain vs. the prefrontal cortex, the unconcscious vs. the conscious. You don't will emotions into or out of existence, they're ever present. If you, for example, like the color blue, you'll experience certain emotions whenever you see said color if you want to or not.

 

 1 hour ago, gregathit said:

Which is a poor attempt to state a simple thing.  You make a decision before something happens and resolve to maintain that course.  It is called mental conditioning (or just training).  If you'd ever been in the armed forces, you'd already understand what conditioning is.  They want folks that will kill without bothering to "think" about it.  But all of this is still zero proof of science.  Sorry.  Still Psychology.

The idea is to not make a decision at all but to continue like you've learned. Making a decision costs valuable time. If you end up thinking about whether it's really justified to pull the trigger on someone you'll end up dead because the dude on the other end won't. Whether you want to handwave that away by calling it psychology or not doesn't really matter because it's how reality operates.

 

 1 hour ago, gregathit said:

Wait, it is. No wait, it is not a black box.  Which is it already?  And talk about a completely ridiculous choice for a descriptor like "black box".  Like all we need to do is find it and bang.....all the secrets are right there?  Come on, you aren't even trying.  We do know about the basic workings of the human brain (I never stated we didn't), however, what we know is just the very tip of a massive iceberg.  To claim otherwise is laughable.  Can we read minds?  Can we tell what others are thinking?  Can we predict what someone will do (minority report anyone)?  The answer to all of these questions is of course not.  Hell's bells, have you never played poker for crying out loud?  You again are assuming that all things are equal regarding emotions and their responses.  My response to a spider is to simply kill it.  So is my sisters.  My mom however screams and bolts.  There is no emotion involved in my killing the spider.  Again, all of this is still in the realm of NOT BEING SCIENCE.  Oh.......as for your measurements.........lie detectors can be beaten.  So much for measuring shit.  ?

No, I said it isn't a magical black hole but still somewhat of a black box. A black hole isn't the same as a black box.  The concept of a black box is that of a device or structure where you can measure the input and output but have a poor (if any) understanding of the inner workings of said device. A black hole is a singularity that devours any information, there's nothing ever coming out of it. Probably.

 

We are talking about emotions, not entire thought processes or reading minds. I don't know what your understanding of science is but generally, science is always concerned with things we don't yet know about reality and not so much about things we know, of which there are actually quite few if you really get into it. There still isn't a single theory out there that can desribe physical reality in its entirety.