Home › Olivia Carter25 › Posts

Posts by Olivia Carter25

37 posts shown.

What are your thoughts on Natasha Kampusch? in Psychology · Sep 8, 2006

Quote: She speaks incredibly calmly, but look at how tightly she's clenching her fists—her knuckles are turning red.

driftingstag8 says:
shadowowl9
that if she had been kidnapped at an older age, maybe, but a ten-year-old just can't act like that. Kids are supposed to be wild, living their lives, hanging out with friends, slamming doors and driving their parents crazy. I don't buy it.
And the reason her story sounds so unnatural? I think it’s exactly what
Harold Adams5
wrote. This isn't her actual story; it’s just what they coached her to say.

Oh, please, kids can be incredibly manipulative. Especially if there's a narcissistic streak involved, and from what I can see, she had the perfect breeding ground to build a false persona as a defense mechanism. They say her family was anything but stable—divorced parents, an unstable grandmother, constant fighting, and a huge blowout the night before she vanished. And how does she respond to that? "I had a family that loved me and always showed it." To me, that smells like immediate denial, the kind of thing you see in a child who simply cannot accept that their parents aren't perfect.
Furthermore, half of her story doesn't hold water for me either. The idea that an eight-year-old wouldn't have had a single chance to run away while being kept in the house the whole time? Come on. We're talking about a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome at the very least, if not something else entirely. The problem is, there's nobody to actually corroborate her account.
So, it all feels like she’s dealing with some sort of serious narcissistic disorder—that "strength" she displays can't be anything other than a defense mechanism, a way of denying reality, developing this "strong personality" just to survive. The question is whether she would have developed it if that guy hadn't kidnapped her. Given the circumstances, it was almost a guarantee that she'd develop it, since he spent those years viewing her as the "woman of his life" and, in some twisted, perverse way, as an ideal.

Why does every other psychiatrist act like Freud? in Psychology · Aug 28, 2006

Carol Lee4 said:It’s pretty interesting how, out of that entire post, only four factors actually ended up being singled out.😕 So, what does it actually take to work as a therapist? What are the baseline requirements just to get your foot in the door? You can't juggle a law degree and a full-time job at the same time. It’s just not happening. As a therapist—
The final part of my post. , Either they skipped over it entirely, or they just didn't want to bring it up. And honestly, I think that’s the most critical point in the entire post.

Look, I don’t have a problem with people sticking their noses into professional fields, but if you’re going to do it, you better actually know what you're talking about. You need to bring real competence and solid arguments to the table. It shouldn't just be based on your own anecdotal experiences—everyone’s life story is different, and your personal perspective isn't some universal truth. You can't just rely on a few news clips or a couple of those "pop psychology" books that American corporations churn out just to grab a quick buck. If you want to weigh in, back it up with more than just your feelings and some trendy media buzzwords.
I honestly can't stand that entire genre of literature. Aside from a few rare exceptions, most of it belongs in the same category as cheap romance novels—no offense intended to anyone who actually enjoys reading them, but that’s exactly where it sits on the scale of literary merit.
Well-reasoned proposals are always welcome—not just within a specific field, but in every aspect of life.
One of the absolute essentials for effective therapy is objectivity. You can't get swept up in the emotions; you have to maintain as much professional distance as possible. It’s pretty simple: the more objective the therapist stays, the more successful the treatment becomes. That’s just the fundamental rule of the game.
Look, this doesn't mean a therapist lacks empathy for their client. It just means a therapist should never—and I mean never—act as a shoulder to cry on. The second you step into that role, you lose all objectivity and slip straight into subjectivity. There is no such thing as a friendship between a client and a therapist. At a certain stage, a specific kind of "bond" inevitably forms, but a skilled professional knows exactly how to manage that connection and keep it strictly within its proper boundaries.
Clients get angry sometimes, but that friction is actually for their own good. If a patient comes in looking for a shoulder to cry on—expecting a therapist to just nod and say, "I hear you, things are really tough right now"—that isn't therapy. That’s just grabbing coffee with a friend. Look, I'm not saying therapists shouldn't have empathy; you can't just switch that off. But acting as a mere emotional crutch is incredibly damaging to the patient. I know that sounds harsh written out like this, but explaining why it's so toxic would honestly take me several pages.
Hey there.🙂

Look, it’s interesting how you keep trying to frame one specific therapeutic method—and the theoretical framework behind it—as if it’s the only valid way to operate. I don't subscribe to that kind of narrow-minded approach, so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. By the way, your little "debate technique" is pretty predictable. It’s a classic move: when you run out of actual substance or logical arguments, you pivot to personal jabs and provocations. Unfortunately, in any serious discussion, that’s considered a bottom-tier tactic. Honestly, I don't even see the point in engaging with it. I could just as easily start picking apart your credentials or your degree if I wanted to, but I’m not going to stoop to that level. 😉I’ve defended my points just as much as you’ve defended yours; I don't see why I should have to sit here and lecture you on psychoanalytic literature.

Regarding empathy, you completely misread my point—take another look at what I actually wrote. I said a therapist needs to empathize with a client’s struggles, NOT identify with them. Even then, the specific dynamic between therapist and client that you described is just one single way of doing things. It’s certainly not a one-size-fits-all solution, and it definitely doesn't work for every type of mental health disorder.

Look, I think this entire debate is a waste of breath. Your fundamental understanding of how the human psyche actually works is miles away from what I believe is reality—and honestly, we've already established that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on that. So, let's just leave it at that. I'll step back for now, but don't expect me to stay quiet; I'll jump right back in the moment I feel you've missed something crucial. 😁 😛

Why does every other psychiatrist act like Freud? in Psychology · Aug 25, 2006

Carol Lee4 said:This piece is all about how people just don't know what's actually going on.
Psychiatrists and psychologists—all those therapists out there—are required to have mandatory... Supervision. so-called. Guided psychotherapy and ongoing support. Depending on where they're stationed, support should happen at least once a month—though ideally, we’re looking at once a week or every couple of weeks. This shouldn't be handled by anyone within the organization itself; you need an independent therapist from the outside. It’s not about employees seeking out therapy on their own time; it’s about the therapist coming directly to them. This needs to be a mandatory, non-negotiable part of the job description. No exceptions.
Regarding the choice of fax, I’ve already gone into quite a bit of detail about my personal reasons. It seems our stances are essentially identical—we might just be using different words to say the exact same thing, but the core point remains unchanged.
I’ve also written quite a bit regarding the distinction between what we label as "normal" versus "abnormal." It stands to reason that pathology exists within the field of therapy itself—after all, doctors aren't exempt from being human. Every single person carries a bit of pathology within them. That’s just human nature. The real issue isn't the presence of those flaws, but rather whether you have the discipline to control them and the self-awareness to acknowledge them—which is exactly why professional supervision is so vital.
This theory...If you’ve never experienced pathology firsthand, how can you possibly claim to understand it? That’s how it looks.It doesn't exactly "hold water"—to put it this way, for example...
Is it actually true that the best pediatricians, teachers, and educators are the women who have plenty of children of their own, while those without kids are somehow less capable? Or is that just a tired old assumption?
The best family doctors are the ones who have actually dealt with a laundry list of their own health issues. I mean, how can you honestly claim to know how to treat someone if you haven't lived through the struggle yourself? You need that firsthand experience—you need to have felt the symptoms under your own skin to truly understand the patient's reality. Otherwise, you’re just reading from a textbook.
Is it better to have a mother with a huge brood, or...
If you've never actually dealt with a migraine, how on earth are you supposed to know how to manage one? It’s a circular logic trap that just goes on forever. It's like expecting someone to treat a condition they've never even experienced. And don't even get me started on oncologists...😲
It’s about...
1.faxu-College life.
2.praxi
3. Lifelong learning, keeping a constant pulse on global scientific breakthroughs... Literature is nothing without constant, relentless engagement. You can’t just skim the surface and expect to actually grasp anything meaningful; true mastery requires a commitment to continuous learning and a deep, ongoing work ethic. It’s about the grind—staying engaged with the material day in and day out until it becomes second nature.
4. Participating in major seminars, specialized courses, national conferences, and industry summits...
Let’s get into it: an open floor for sharing real-world experiences, practical case studies, and those recurring headaches we deal with on the job. This is the space to dive into new methodologies, fresh insights, and a genuine exchange of ideas. Whether you want to vent about a specific hurdle or pitch a breakthrough approach, let's hear it.

I truly believe anyone can be helped; you just have to master the art of active listening. You have to lead with positivity, communicate as equals, and keep things civilized. It comes down to respecting the individual—every living soul deserves that. Instead of judging, you should be offering support. For me, it’s about loving what you do, which in my case means helping someone find their way back to themselves.
Sometimes things move fast, sometimes they drag, sometimes you’re hitting a wall, and other times it feels like you're cruising on autopilot. But the bottom line is this: it moves. It's happening. And that's really all that matters.
I’ve always felt that "letting someone go" is best understood through the lens of birds—something I’m absolutely obsessed with. It’s like taking them in your hands for just a moment, giving them that little bit of extra strength they need to find their rhythm, and then simply letting them take flight. They head off in their own direction, following whatever path they believe is best for them.👋
We all claim to know our own path, but let’s be honest—sometimes we’re just too terrified to admit whether we're actually on it. 😕
Don't just hand someone a fish; teach them how to land their own catch.🤔
Hey there.🙂

So, if all we really need is to find ways to actually help people...

College.
Supervision and hands-on practice.
3. Professional literary adaptation and...
Conferences and stuff like that.

I’m genuinely curious why so many people in America struggle to find a decent psychologist or psychiatrist. It seems like everyone in the field just follows that exact same playbook you laid out, but it leaves a massive gap. Why is it so impossible to find anyone who actually offers effective solutions for their problems instead of just handing out a prescription pad and calling it a day?

In my view, this list is miles away from what actually makes someone a psychotherapist. I don't think patients give a damn about the diplomas hanging on the wall; they care about whether someone can actually help them. And that ability often hinges on factors beyond just the credentials listed here, such as
1. a genuine desire to help (for people who have been through hell, that drive is usually much stronger than for those who haven't)
2. empathy (not just identifying with a patient, but truly feeling with them) and
3. "intuition," as Robert Diaz7 puts it—that's absolutely vital to the whole process

When you look at the reality of how this plays out in America, I can tell you that the actual chance of finding someone who can help is incredibly slim. I don't know what it looks like from inside your office, but let me tell you what I see from "the other side"—I see
a massive crowd of people who, despite trying everything to find support—bouncing from psychiatrist to psychiatrist, psychologist to whoever else will listen—end up with wrong diagnoses, collect a stack of labels, or get an accurate diagnosis but unfortunately receive zero actual help. They end up meeting more unstable individuals who clearly need treatment themselves than sane ones, and over the years, what happens?
- they become totally embittered by the entire system, cursing psychiatry and psychology and fleeing to some cult or esoteric movement that actually helps them more than any doctor ever could
- or they spend years and years cycling through medications without their problems ever actually vanishing
- or they simply snap and decide to take matters into their own hands, educating themselves to try and fix their own lives

Now, I don't know exactly where the breakdown is happening. It’s certainly tied to the fact that the general state of things in this country is a mess, making modern training or a younger generation of therapists feel like an abstract concept. Maybe it's because people can't afford a decent private therapist, or maybe there are so few qualified professionals in America that you could count them on one hand, or perhaps the entire healthcare system is so broken that it can't even provide adequate staffing, let alone sufficient time per patient.

I'm sure all these factors play a role, but the core issue remains. And to me, it’s a massive issue that extends far beyond your specific profession. I get it—you’re going to fight tooth and nail to keep outsiders from meddling in your field, but if a profession fails to actually help the people suffering, it’s a bit ridiculous to start shouting when those same people decide to step in and do it themselves.

Why does every other psychiatrist act like Freud? in Psychology · Aug 21, 2006

Alex Foster6 said:I didn't even realize they were trying to flex with Freud in the first place... 😛
though honestly, I still can't get over this one child psychiatrist I had. She had me draw my family along with some other random subject. I’m actually pretty good at drawing, but I struggled with hands, so I just drew them tucked away behind my body. Based solely on how I hid those hands, she concluded I was suffering from emotional castration. 😕
Total nonsense. 😁

hahaha... if anything, that sounds more like a nod to Melanie Klein than Freud. 😁 Seriously though, damn, can these psychologists ever just develop an identity of their own? 🤣

Why does every other psychiatrist act like Freud? in Psychology · Aug 21, 2006

I didn't catch the resemblance to Freud either, but I definitely noticed a few other annoying habits. For instance, if you mention you've ever tried marijuana or something similar, you usually get that condescending "aha" followed by them tapping away at their keyboard or scribbling something down... Like, "Ahaaa, so you tried drugs, so that's where all your problems stem from, even though your family was perfectly fine." 😁
And then there's the fact that they aren't up to speed with anything happening in the global field of psychology; I completely agree with Alex Foster6 on that... It's like, who are they even letting into the profession? People with more psychological issues than their own patients... That kind of thing.
On the flip side, I did appreciate the sense of humor of one woman I saw back when I was dealing with some paranoia. She sent me into a room to take a test and, noticing my hesitant look, she just said, "Don't worry, we aren't going to lock you in here."

😁

How do I stop racing thoughts? in Psychology · Aug 7, 2006

Stana said:they've told me this a million times... but I refuse to go because I don't see the point... who even cares over there... they'll just toss you straight into a psych ward and pump you full of meds...

I'd probably kill myself too

Greeting, Stana. Have you considered seeing someone in private practice? There are actually some really solid psychotherapists out there who won't immediately push pills or lock you up, honestly... The only catch is they aren't exactly cheap, but if you can swing it, it's worth every penny.

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 17, 2005

"Quote:"

Sandra Wilson68 said:Olivia Carter25:

Hmm. This actually left me more confused than anything else. Does this mean we’re actually self-aware even while we're asleep?

Why bother asking everyone else when you could just look it up yourself?

Not really.

Try an experiment. Lie down, drift off, and see if you can actually tell when you're dreaming.

Are you actually aware when you’re awake? You claim you are, so let's just take that as a given for a second. Now, really think about it. Are you truly conscious of every single micro-moment—every tiny action and every passing thought? As far as I can tell, you aren't. Which means you weren't actually aware of being aware, even though your logic dictates that if you were awake, you should have been fully conscious.

How am I supposed to conclude that just because I'm asleep—meaning, I lack any perception of being conscious—that is the very reason I am unconscious?

I can't draw any conclusions from that.

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 12, 2005

brezovka said:When I finally make it to heaven, I’m definitely bragging about the fact that I actually survived hell.😁

Haha, maybe they'll even hand out certificates for it. Like, "Awarded for surviving a crossfire of pure nonsense on the Philosophy subforum." 😁 😁

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 12, 2005

He says this:

F:: There is no `I am' in sleep.

I: Before you go making such massive generalizations, take a hard look at your waking life. You’ll quickly realize it’s riddled with holes—moments where your mind just goes blank. Pay attention to how little you actually retain, even when you're wide awake. You can't honestly claim you weren't conscious while you were sleeping; you simply have nothing to show for it. A lapse in memory doesn't automatically mean there was a lapse in consciousness.

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 12, 2005

Lisa Ortiz2, your question about unconscious people actually got me thinking because if we follow that logic, you could argue that anyone sleeping is technically unconscious.

But does that actually hold water?

One Easterner puts it this way:

Consciousness and the world appear and disappear together, hence they are two aspects of the same state.

Then, some guy responds: In sleep I am not, and the world continues.

I: : How do you know?

F: On waking up I come to know. My memory tells me.

I: Memory is in the mind. The mind continues in sleep

F: The mind continues in sleep f : IT is partly in abeyance.

I: But its world picture is not affected. As long as the mind is there, your body and your world are there. Your world is mind¬made, subjective, enclosed within the mind, fragmentary, temporary, personal, hanging on the thread of memory.

Hmmmm. Honestly, that just left me more confused than enlightened. Does that mean we’re actually conscious of ourselves even while we’re asleep?

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 12, 2005

Lisa Ortiz2 says:

Olivia Carter25 says:
Aww, come on. You aren't really going to give up that easily, are you? 😁 😛

Olivia, as sweet as you sound, you aren't dragging me under the knife of those philosophy experts. 😁 It’s not that I don’t trust them... it’s just that I don't hate myself *that* much.🙂
I’ve already got enough fire when it comes to religion.
Why did I show up? Because I actually enjoy reading.
I came here to unwind... the debates are civilized and interesting... and I’ve only just started reading.

That’s a shame, because I honestly think you could learn a lot from debating you. And if I can handle being out in the open line of fire...😁
But hey, if you won't, what can I do?

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 11, 2005

hiddenviper9 said:Olivia Carter25: just tell me the name of that ISP, maybe I could browse the cosmic fields too

hiddenviper9:
I realize that sentence might just be a "joke" you're throwing out, so I probably shouldn't take it seriously.

No, I am being dead serious 😁

- but I feel compelled to introduce you to this.

Outer space? 😁

What’s the point if it isn't WRITTEN that you should establish contact with a cosmic internet service?
And if it IS WRITTEN that you should connect with a cosmic internet service—you'll make that connection whether you want to or not.

Yeah, I get it. It's that idea where if the universe wants something to happen, everything aligns to make it happen; if not, it doesn't. It brings me right back to that eternal question regarding the other name for the universe—otherwise known as fate, or "it was meant to be," or the intersection of coincidence and causality.

But there is one thing you should know.
Those who are WRITTEN to make that contact can expect a reward—provided they do what is imposed upon them from the transnational realm.
And it's worth noting that from the moment of Connection, life is "steered" for those who are "connected," and they don't even have to actively participate; they are guided, which puts them in a position where they have the time to maintain mental connections with transnational fields, have everything necessary for a normal life, maintain a healthy psychological state, and live out the years destined for them by the SCRIPT...

So, basically, everything is predetermined and mapped out, already written down somewhere.

I'm speaking from my own and my wife's life experiences—as well as the experiences of others we know who clearly belong to the group of those Consciously connected to the cosmic internet.

But I really wasn't kidding when I asked about the internet provider 😁 :P Because just because it's "destined" that I start messing around in those cosmic fields doesn't mean it's destined for me to sit at home staring at a wall. Maybe it's destined that I meet you here on this forum, where you wrote something that prompted me to leave this post, which in turn prompted you to reply with more info. And now I'm looking for more. Maybe it's destined that I reach that point through this exact path. (Though I suspect it's destined for some moderator to kill this thread or kick me over to Spirituality 😁)

So, sorry if my joke made it sound like I didn't believe you; it wasn't meant to be.

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 11, 2005

Lisa Ortiz2 said:Olivia Carter25 ...we were thinking about the exact same consciousness... yet we don't agree. So what now?
That said... I have no desire to comment on your post. I'll leave that to the actual experts.

Aww, c'mon. Surely you aren't giving up that easily. 😁 😛

No, I still haven't decided if I actually agree with you or not; I'm trying to figure that out right now. The reason I didn't reply sooner is because your post actually forced me to stop and think—you posed a solid question and a genuine dilemma that hadn't crossed my mind before.
And honestly, I still don't know how to answer that question.
I feel like nobody else has even touched upon parts of what's swirling around in my head since I read your post.
But I don't know, do you really think we were envisioning the same kind of consciousness?
To me, this is essentially Descartes's "I think, therefore I am"—or as some might put it, "I am conscious, therefore I am" (Next time I decide to dissect a philosophical quote in a foreign language, I'm definitely hiring a translator so we don't end up with these ridiculous misunderstand'ings that turn out to be purely linguistic 😁 , hmm, isn't every misunderstanding just a linguistic glitch? 😁 , okay, but that’s a whole different story and a completely different topic 🙂). Essentially, it means the dividing line between humans and, say, animals, is that humans possess self-awareness while animals do not.
Where exactly is the disagreement here?

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 11, 2005

Lisa Ortiz2 said:Olivia Carter25 ...we were thinking along the exact same lines regarding consciousness... yet we disagree. So what now?
However... I don't actually want to comment on your post. I'll leave that to the experts.
Maybe you took offense because... I touched upon your opinion through someone else's perspective.
Based on how you read my words, you could have assumed I wasn't worried about what you wrote; rather, I was just looking for an excuse to joke around with nn.
From what I can gather by the way he writes... he enjoys a good joke too.
There... those are my personal motives. I felt the need to lay them out here.🙂
And... Olivia Carter25, go ahead and keep arguing if you must. It’s not always a laughing matter for me either.
Philosophy is serious business.😳

Look, I wasn't talking about you disagreeing with my post; I was reacting to that whole "woman, philosophy, nothing and everything" bit. What I meant was that if you guys can't keep your personal bickering out of this thread, at least leave me out of it.
Now you've really gone and put words in my mouth :P. To be blunt, it bothered me that you immediately went after me by labeling me a "woman," implying my views are being judged through a gendered lens—as if anyone agreeing with me is just being a "nice guy" or playing along. And you
probably didn't even mean it that way, but that's how I perceived it from my side, while you were likely just
"taking him down a notch" from yours. That's why I said we should keep these personal motivations out of the main discussion. But if you really want to dwell on 🙂

Fine, whatever, it's all a mess. Let's get back to discussing consciousness.🙂

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 11, 2005

I wasn't talking about general consciousness—like the ability to feel pain—but rather self-awareness. As far as I can tell, humans are the only ones who possess it. Or at least, they should be the only ones with 😉

>, let's try being mindful of our own underlying motives and just leave them out of this discussion 😉

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 10, 2005

I have a question regarding consciousness and Descartes.

He famously said, "I think, therefore I am." Now, please feel free to correct me if I’ve missed the mark—calling all you trained philosophers out here—but this is how I’ve interpreted it: what separates humans from other living creatures is our ability to think. But animals think too, right? A dog can learn things, which means it possesses the capacity for thought. The real distinction between a human and a dog is that while a dog isn't aware that it's thinking, a human is. So, shouldn't it actually be, "I am aware, therefore I am"? Isn't "I think, therefore I am" a bit incomplete?

What does this have to do with consciousness? Well, according to the Cartesian definition, the difference between animals and humans would be that animals think "automatically"—driven by nature without being conscious of the process—whereas humans don't just think automatically; we think volitionally because we are CONSCIOUS of the fact that we are thinking.

But honestly, every single day I see massive crowds of people who aren't even the slightest bit CONSCIOUS of the fact that they are thinking. They are essentially slaves to "automatic" thought processes, with the added twist that this automation isn't just imposed by nature, but by society itself. They lack any awareness of their own existence outside the mental framework forced upon them by the world around them. For example, if you want a specific reaction from a dog, you perform a specific action to trigger it. You know exactly what to do: if you want it to chase a stick, you throw the stick. It’s the same with people; if you want to elicit a certain response, you know exactly which lever to pull. If you want people to buy a specific perfume, you know precisely what kind of marketing message to craft so it represents something a target demographic craves. Or, more simply, if you want to make someone angry, you know exactly which words will set them off. Maybe I'm not explaining this perfectly, but I think you get my drift. People strike me as being just as much slaves to their conditioning as animals are, completely unaware of their own feelings or where those feelings originate. They become like dogs—you just have to throw the right stick, and they'll run for it. And picking the right stick isn't actually that hard.

That’s why I think "I am aware, therefore I am" might be a better way to put it. The original version feels like it describes conditioned behavior that's just as much like animal instinct as anything else, only in the human case, the conditioning comes from society.

This probably drifts into the realm of spirituality, too, since philosophers in the West love to keep spirituality walled off from philosophy—and I won't pretend that doesn't bother me.

I read something in a book by an Indian master that might explain my take on consciousness better than I can:
"An experience must 'belong'. Somebody must come and declare it its own. without an experiencer The experience is not real. It is the experiencer that imparts reality to experience (This seems basically like Schrödingerian physics to me, and similar to what Arthur Grant4 was saying about the issue of interpretation)." I interpret this to mean that the fundamental difference between humans and animals is whether or not we are conscious of our "self." If we aren't aware of that self, if we aren't aware that we are experiencing things, then we aren't much more than animals. In other words, it's not "I think, therefore I am," it's "I am aware that I am thinking, therefore I am."

Anyway, I've tangled myself up in all this, so please, untangle me. I'm bracing myself for a wave of hardcore philosophical logic that will dismantle everything I've written in five minutes flat, just like the author of this thread did. 😁

Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips... in Philosophy · Oct 10, 2005

hiddenviper9 said:To keep it brief—long story short—my material consciousness is essentially "plugged in" to a Cosmic INTERNET, though it’s certainly not by my own choice or design.
That’s why I often point out that much of what I share isn't actually coming from my own material mind, but rather information I've intercepted from the High Sphere.

(178) [/B]

Well, go ahead and drop the name of that ISP, and maybe I'll finally get to surf those cosmic fields too. 😁

Honestly, though, it scares me how addicted I'd become. It's hard enough staying detached from this "earthly" reality as it is; I don't think I could handle being hooked on something else, too. 🙄 😉