Posts by Keith Lee2

Man, I just realized there aren't any answers provided.🤔
How are we supposed to know if we actually nailed it?😕

redmarlin3 said:I managed to breeze through the first question, but then I hit the second one—you know, the "connect the dots" type? Well, I grabbed a marker and actually tried to draw on my screen, and now there's this permanent red line stuck right on my monitor. Does anyone know how I can get this off without ruining the thing?...
😕

Grab some sandpaper 🤷

redmarlin3 said:Alright, let's do this.

Drop a link to some IQ test. Anyone who jumps into this thread needs to take it, grab a screenshot of their results, and list what they actually do for a living. Let's see if anyone here actually has a brain... 😁

http://www.anvari.org/cols/IQ_Test_for_Blondes.html

Here's one to kick things off ☕

Jesse Adams said:Why should I bother tolerating people when they don't even make up my entire life?

You’re being ridiculous—who would even bother stalking you? Are you having a paranoid breakdown or something?

No. I’ve got my "spy" badge right here:
I can't believe people are still falling for this. Honestly—how many times do we have to go over the same arguments before it sticks? It’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes. The logic being used here is completely broken—it’s flawed from the jump. You can't just ignore the actual data and expect anyone to take you seriously. If you want to make a point, at least try to make one that holds up under scrutiny. Is it really that hard to look at the facts? And don't even get me started on the "experts" being cited. Most of them couldn't find their way out of a paper bag without a map. It’s all just noise at this point.

Using animalistic outbursts in polite society—or even just in a decent, well-bred household—is something most people just don't do. Personally? I'm not even going to bother reciprocating. It’s beneath me. Besides, looking back at how that was handled during my childhood... it’s honestly just pathetic.😂

Funny?

You can't handle a little criticism, sarcasm, or irony—it’s like you're constantly wound tight. Honestly, sounds like a pretty exhausting way to live.

Who cares what you "think"?

Look, I’ve got the stats background—I was a math major—and I'm still drilling into econometrics, time series analysis, multivariate analysis, stochastic processes, and all that. So, you can skip the lecture on how to actually use mathematical tools. I get it.

Props to you—you clearly know your stuff. 👍 Way to go!

When I talked about being condescending, I was actually talking about that high and mighty attitude you have toward anyone who hasn't spent years mastering your specific field. Capisce?☕

If this discussion is happening in my neck of the woods—so why shouldn't I have an opinion?

You're honestly a joke—your ego is hilarious. Your actual arguments make up maybe a quarter of what you write? The other three-quarters is just mindless screaming and insults thrown at everyone else.

My average is better than yours on that front—at least within this thread. I haven't bothered looking at your other posts because, frankly, I don't care about you.

If you actually respected diversity and truly possessed such a vast range of knowledge, you’d be aware of your own limitations. You wouldn't just flat-out deny something exists based solely on the argument that it doesn't...

Give me an example.

Good luck....this is my last email regarding this topic of yours....

An email? Santa Claus!
Bye now! I’ll certainly miss your "constructive" contributions to the debate (and then you have the nerve to claim I can't handle sarcasm). 😉

Look, if you're really bothered by people reading your posts on here—just don't post.🤷
Honestly though, I think it’s kind of a ego boost for you that anyone even bothers to read your stuff.😉

And man, seriously, stop accusing me of stalking you.
Just say the word and I'll stop reading anything you write—end of story.

Here's another one.

Jesse Adams said:How did you even pull that off? If that LIQ Troll hadn't mentioned I'm studying physics, I definitely wouldn't have.
Once again, I have to clarify for the group: we're talking about psychometrics at a group level here, not an individual one.

P.S.

Location: Dugopolje

Seriously? You could never tell.

🤣

Here’s another chart for ya:

Jesse Adams said:You're just trolling.

Moderators, please look into this. Doxing other users is a direct violation of the rules!

The "personal info" you're complaining about was actually posted by you—and honestly, everyone on this board already knows you think you're God's gift to the internet.
😁Just being real.

Jesse Adams said:These figures are based on GRE scores for prospective PhD candidates:
http://www.econphd.net/guide.htm
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/12...s-them-in.html

* 130.0 Physics
* 129.0 Mathematics
* 128.5 Computer science
* 128.0 Economics
* 127.5 Chemical engineering
* 127.0 Material science
* 126.0 Electrical engineering
* 125.5 Mechanical engineering
* 125.0 Philosophy
* 124.0 Chemistry
* 123.0 Earth sciences
* 122.0 industrial engineering
* 121.5 civil engineering
* 120.1 Biology / medicina
* 120.0 English / literatura
* 119.8 Religion / theology
* 119.7 Political science
* 119.7 Academic disciplines
* 118.0 Art history
* 117.7 Anthropology
* 116.5 Architecture
* 116.0 Business
* 115.0 Sociology
* 114.0 Psychology
* 114.0 Nursing
* 112.0 Communication
* 109.0 Communication and Education
* 106.0 Public administration

The average undergraduate IQ sits at 115—which implies your typical Psychology TA is actually less intelligent than their own students. Makes you think, doesn't it? 🙂

Fluffy is a physics major who can't stand psychologists—actually, he can't even stand female psychologists because they smell bad, or so I've gathered from lurking around his posts.
But the one thing he’ll actually admit to a psychologist is this intelligence ranking that—get this—puts physicists at the top.
Since he's gonna be a physicist one day—which, hey, I truly hope he does—
he's hoping that makes him the smartest guy around, which I also wish for him.
My advice? You don't really need to wait until you're a physicist to find out if your IQ is 130—you could just go take a test right now.

😁

Olivia Evans8 said:My whole truth was that might doesn't actually make it right!

So you basically lied about being tougher.
Since it’s pretty clear you aren't—so yeah—the truth is still on my side.
Like I said, there's just no way I'm wrong here.😁

Olivia Evans8 said:But wait! If I just act stubborn right now and prove I'm "stronger" by totally shutting you down, then your whole theory about the strong person being right completely falls apart. See? That's just pure logic at work. 🙂

Power changes what's true.
If I've got more muscle, my truth wins.
And honestly, that pretty much proves my point.
I guess I just can't lose.😁

Olivia Evans8 said:In any philosophical debate, you can totally see where someone is standing. It’s super obvious because they lay out their views, break them down, defend them, and then go all in attacking the other side. At the end of the day, solid argumentation is everything... it's not about just going on a solo monologue.

But honestly, is our logic actually strong enough to override those gut feelings we attach to certain ideas? Take the whole free will versus determinism thing, for example. No matter how deep we dive into the tiny details or try to dissect the issue, there’s always someone in the debate (on both sides!) who just *feels* like they’re right and everyone else is dead wrong. We spend all our energy trying to tear down someone else's point before we even think about questioning our own.

So, my take—which is super rough, by the way—is that this is just how everyone works. You can't really peel away that inner "I am right" feeling, even when it's buried under massive layers of rationalization and heavy-duty arguments.

What do you guys think about us being slaves to that little hit of dopamine we get from just being right?

How can we actually reach the truth?
We just gotta use our ability to reason.
Basically, every debate about what's true is really just a contest over
who's got better logic.
Or, to put it bluntly—who's smarter.
Take religion, for example—it’s not even about whether God exists or not,
it’s just a battle of wits.
Once someone proves they're smarter, then their "truth" becomes
the "smarter" or more valid one.
But how is the guy who looks stupid in that situation supposed to back down, especially since
the smarter person is the one who's supposed to yield?
In the end, the truth belongs to whoever refuses to budge—and you need
real strength to pull that off, so you have to be the stronger one.
So yeah, truth ends up being on the side of the strongest.

I just arrived at this conclusion through simple logic, so why shouldn't I
feel like it's the absolute truth?
Since I both know it and feel it deep down, there's really nothing else it could be
but the truth.☕ 😉

amberviper said:Since animals are capable of thought, they act accordingly. But their behavior isn't governed by logic or reason—their primitive "consciousness" just lacks that cohesive sense of self...

Then again, we haven't even fully explored that yet.
Even if they are thinking, animals aren't driven by intention, but strictly by instinct. It's obvious they bury food for later, but it isn't a conscious choice; it's just baked-in biological drives. When you see a jaguar in the jungle covering its extra food with leaves, it's clearly instinctive... because if it were truly intentional, the animal would find a secure shelter first and then go store the food there. It doesn't do that, so it's clear it's not acting with intent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P8Nwl7FAJk

You guys have probably seen this already, but watching these crows... I feel like there's
something more going on than just pure instinct.🤷

Samuel Miller21 said:My internet cut out on me this morning, so I didn't get a chance to tell you how much I appreciated your words. You truly managed to comfort me—and honestly, you even put a smile on my face. 😘
Thank you.

Honestly, I don't really care if my car breaks down or gets totaled. I’m not exactly the type of person who obsesses over technical specs or demands high-performance engineering. As long as it gets me from point A to point B, I'm satisfied. 😁Honestly, I sometimes find myself wishing I could just be tucked away in an intensive care unit somewhere, maybe with a medical wrap over my mouth so I wouldn't even have to deal with the burden of answering questions. Wouldn't it be something? To simply lie there, existing in a state of total stillness, just vegetating until the world around me finally shifts into something different.
Or perhaps it is simply my own attempt to find a justification for being lazy.
I felt a wave of embarrassment this morning when I realized my last post sounded so incredibly dark... please believe me when I say I’m not actually in that headspace. Writing those kinds of things is just how I process stress and try to find some sense of calm. Still, it feels a bit heavy to look back on. To make matters worse, I ended up failing another exam, so I think I’ll give myself permission to wallow just a little bit today. I am officially postponing all self-control until tomorrow; today, I'm just letting myself feel the weight of it all.

At the very least, you have managed to forge a single association with the concept of fairness that isn't steeped in nothing but shame and guilt. 😘

Quincy:

So, what is your major? You mentioned that you see yourself reflected in the opening post; does that imply you have a completely different set of interests—perhaps an affinity for the arts as well? It’s funny how things work out. I went ahead and enrolled in exactly what I thought I wanted—Computer Science at MIT—thinking it was my true calling. Yet, even that didn't bring me any sense of fulfillment. Now, looking back, I feel like I'm losing interest in that field entirely. Reading this introductory post, I almost find myself envying the author. Sure, the path isn't easy, but at least there is some semblance of passion involved. There are plenty of obstacles to face, certainly—but isn't it actually worse when you become completely indifferent, where nothing seems to pull at you anymore?

And I am the computer science department.

My interests lie elsewhere, and I'm honestly not quite sure if I could even classify what I do as art. I write certain things, though I struggle to decide whether they truly qualify as poetry or if they fall into a different category altogether. 😁
To be honest, poetry just isn't how I define myself. I don't look at my own work and see someone like Sylvia Plath or anything of that caliber; I simply don't feel that level of creative abundance within me. 😁 In order to truly be perceived as a potential artist, perhaps even a poet, one must consider what is required to inhabit that identity authentically. Is it enough to simply possess the inclination, or does one need to cultivate a certain presence? To be taken seriously in those creative circles, there is an art to how one presents their soul to the world.
Perhaps I should view this as a facet of my own identity that I am compelled to weave into something greater. It is, quite frankly, the most intense passion I possess. There is this profound, driving desire to truly grasp the human condition—specifically when navigating the complexities of mental health and psychological struggles. This pull toward psychology and its various analytical branches isn't just an interest; it is a fundamental part of who I am.
I have recently found myself quite fascinated by astrology—though I am fully aware that such an interest might cause me to lose some standing in the eyes of the rationalists among us. 😳Even without any grounding in actual reality, I find the whole concept absolutely fascinating. There is something deeply captivating about such an ancient way of interpreting the human condition—it represents perhaps the most complex system of personality typing ever devised. To me, it isn't really about using it as some sort of predictive tool; rather, I see it as an inexhaustible collection of symbols, a truly remarkable architecture of the human psyche.
If I were to distill everything we’ve discussed into a single concept, I would point toward psychology—specifically, something akin to a psychoanalytic approach.
That is more or less my take, 🙂

Regarding that final point you made, a close friend of mine actually said something very similar... there is a certain happiness found in knowing there is an underlying force pulling at you, but I am not entirely sure. It also seems to trigger this sense of hysteria or suffocation; you find yourself physically doing one thing while your mind is occupied by another, eventually resulting in complete paralysis and total resignation.

As for you, I get the distinct impression that you have the potential to be a philosopher. I have gathered the sense that you genuinely relish these philosophical debates, and you possess a rather divergent way of thinking—one where a single starting point can blossom into a vast array of potential questions. I don't know... I certainly wouldn't claim to be an expert capable of offering a truly competent critique, but that is simply my impression. 🤷

Oh, and if you ever decide to work on that little gadget again, perhaps you could integrate a function for a painless shutdown... (unless I am being too dark here) just a way to facilitate a temporary shutdown.
It would save him from having to loop endlessly while dealing with those "index was out of range" errors and similar exceptions.

Honestly, lucky is the person who doesn't have to justify being lazy to anyone.😁

Jerry Green59 said:The professor's name is Professor Miller, the building is the Liberal Arts college, and the lectures used to be held over on Oak Street.

(You missed the entrance; the pub is actually located in the Liberal Arts building)

@nina333: Who exactly is defending free speech here? Did someone actually advocate for getting rid of free expression?

@Sanjo
Just wanted to say—you can never be too careful.
You never really know who’s being genuine and who’s just messing with you.

There's this old fable about a sparrow, a cow, and a cat—pretty vivid stuff.
It goes like this:

Poor little sparrow freezes on a branch and drops like a stone.
A cow wanders by and... well, leaves a mess right on him.
The sparrow thaws out.
He starts getting all worked up.
The cat hears him.
She digs him out of the mess and eats him up.

But honestly, there are some real life lessons in there.
1. Just because someone screws you over doesn't mean they meant any harm.
2. Just because someone pulls you out of a hole doesn't mean they've got your back.
3. If you're already stuck in the mud, sometimes it's best to just stay quiet.

So, my takeaway? Even if Jerry Green59 leaves me in a mess, it doesn't mean she's out to get me.
Same goes for when you tell someone to "cut the crap"—it isn't always an insult.

Jerry Green59 said:During my very first psychopathology lecture—held over at the university clinic—some guy walked into the classroom, looking incredibly serious. He gave us a quick nod, introduced himself as our professor, and... well, he got straight to work.

He talked about illnesses.
About disorders.
And various diagnoses.

The man was throwing around heavy terminology like he was getting paid by the syllable, just rattling off terms while we all sat there staring at each other, desperately trying to scribble everything down.

Then he moved on to case studies and patients, though it was impossible to ignore the palpable sense of contempt in his voice whenever he mentioned them.

Suddenly, a woman walked in accompanied by two nurses.
She greeted the class, acknowledged the "professor," and took her seat at the head of the room while the nurses escorted our "colleague" out. She then turned to us and asked one question.

"Which one of you actually believed he was a professor?"

Every single one of us raised our hands.

Unbelievable.

Kenneth Peterson5—whenever someone on a forum starts handing out clinical diagnoses or life advice based on thin evidence like "I didn't grow up with my father"—just know you're likely dealing with a "professor."

Being able to toss around technical jargon certainly suggests a person is familiar with the subject matter.

But it doesn't tell you if they're familiar with it as an expert, or simply as a patient.

So, please, be skeptical when accepting "professional" advice from internet forums.

That’s all.

But get this—the next day, since you missed the lecture and I was there, the same
guy shows up again—the "Professor."
Naturally, we all give him a huge round of applause because, hey, he totally fooled us.
But then he goes:
"Who among you believed that woman yesterday when she said I wasn't the professor, but she was?"

We all put our hands up again.

Man, seriously...😁

quieteagle16 said:Here’s my take on this—from a purely practical standpoint. I feel like if an action doesn't directly jeopardize someone else's freedom or safety, society shouldn't have the right to condemn it. Yet, I keep seeing these constant crackdowns on individual liberties just to satisfy certain socially accepted dogmas—think mandatory schooling requirements, drug laws, religious finger-wagging... It feels like there are only a handful of instances where someone isn't actually infringing on anyone else's rights, yet we still force our views on them. We're living in the 21st century, for crying out loud. Even physicists—who used to be hardcore determinists—have embraced the idea of statistical probability (that gray area between black and white) rather than clinging to absolute certainty. Relativity has been part of the conversation for ages, stretching from Galileo all the way to Einstein 😁. But when it comes to morality, we’re still acting like we can dictate 100% absolute values and force those mandates onto minorities.

How do you guys even justify stuff like this? I honestly don't get how anyone can defend banning the mere possession of drugs (or using them in your own home, where the risk to anyone else is basically zero). Or how you justify mandatory education, where the state decides certain things are absolute facts and forces them down everyone's throats. Wouldn't it make way more sense to leave education up to the people, so anyone who wants to learn something—regardless of their age—can just dive into the subjects offered? It blows my mind that people are so bothered by someone using "illegal substances" in private, or that simply carrying them on a street in the US could land someone in a jail cell. Since when did we decide that prison is the answer to social infractions? I agree that people who are genuinely dangerous to the public should be separated from society, but it should be about rehabilitation and reintegration, not just punishment. And setting a fixed timer on that process just seems totally nonsensical
. How can any of this be justified in what we call a "liberal" society?

It’s hard to spot the irresponsible person or the idiot who’s going to become
aggressive and seriously threaten everyone else because of
substances, ignorance, or a lack of morals, so you can only ban *that* specific
behavior or mandate certain actions for them.
I mean, I still have to stop at a red light when there isn't a soul in sight just because of regulations
designed to protect society from the idiots who kill people with cars.
But protecting against those types is pretty ineffective.
So, first you have to prove you're a conscientious, responsible, moral person, and
then you can do whatever you want.
Since the system is set up to make you prove other kinds of things, then...

yeah, finish the sentence however you want.

placidharbor7 said:If we follow that logic, then you’ll also have to admit that consciousness is completely immeasurable, right? It evades any kind of objective check or observation.

Which makes this whole claim from Master Raman an absolute absurdity, so let me just apologize to everyone right off the bat!

Think about it: when you and Parsifal claim to be "conscious," you aren't actually *aware* of that awareness. Instead, you're both just projecting your own memories onto a concept of "self" and "identity." It's like a coroner measuring a corpse (the past) while loudly shouting about how full of life they are! Oh, the irony! Honestly, trying to define the "self" is about as productive as snoring through a lecture—it's just a much more polite way of being foolish.

placidharbor7 explained this ages ago: it is fundamentally impossible to achieve what you, Parsifal, and all those other misguided believers call being "here and now." Because if you are truly "here and now"—you aren't "YOU"; and if you are "YOU"—then you aren't "here and now." Makes sense, doesn't it?

That "here and now" which you two, and so many others, so desperately label as "consciousness" is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to grab God by the beard.

"Consciousness" and the observer can never actually meet. All these claims regarding "consciousness"—especially in your specific case—are nothing more than pure spiritual amateurism.

How do you even wrap your head around the idea that consciousness is immeasurable—especially when that "story of the brain" excerpt makes it feel like the exact opposite?
If what the author calls consciousness is actually the same thing placidharbor7 is talking about—then yeah...
He mentions it as consciousness—just kind of brushes past it.

A Quote from the book (well, technically a picture book) "story of the brain":
Susan Greenfield
I honestly think dreaming is just the lowest level of continuity—just my two cents anyway. consciousness... thoughts are wild, man.It’s basically just some weak logic mixed with a ton of feeling—kind of like how tiny clusters of neurons firing from leftover brain activity create something new. If we look at it that way, we could probably apply a sliding scale to... animal consciousness... man, what a trip.Maybe consciousness in animals scales up with brain size—kind of like how a human embryo develops. If that state... lower consciousness—just drifting... It’s mostly about how those smaller clusters of neurons act—you’d basically expect them to... animal consciousness—it's such a wild topic to dive into... honestly, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it all. It’s that moment where everything just hits at once—raw feelings totally taking over—and you can't even think, remember, or plan for what's next. It's just... there.
When it comes to people—whether we’re talking about childhood, dreams, schizophrenia, or those moments where emotions just hit you like a truck—it all boils down to these tiny little neural clusters firing away. Consciousness feels different. It’s like we step out of that usual mental loop—you know, where you’re constantly obsessing over the past or stressing about what's next. You just get stuck in the now, becoming this totally neutral observer of everything—the tastes, colors, smells, sounds... all of it. All those old memories and labels just sort of fade away. Honestly, maybe that's what true bliss is—that sweet spot where you finally stop worrying about your mortgage, or losing your job, or even that one kid of yours who's being a total handful—and just stay present. It happens during those intense moments, too—like when you're totally lost in a great song, dancing, playing sports, or just falling in love. consciousness... just a lot to wrap your head around, honestly. The more complex neural clusters start to lose their grip—it's just how it goes.

swiftcobra15 said:The sixth commandment of the Decalogue sounds incredibly powerful and authoritative,
but I honestly feel the translation is inaccurate—it’s almost intentionally misleading.

If we look at how the English version translates the original text:
"You shall not murder!" translates directly as "Do not commit murder!"
That specifically refers to the taking of a human life, not an animal.

In virtually every language, there is a clear distinction between killing people and killing animals.

You pluck them, chop them, or trim them, but we don't say they were killed (or are dead)
even though, biologically speaking, flowers in a vase are indeed dead.

Most languages utilize two different terms, sometimes more. For instance: murder, homicide refers to murder, while the corresponding verbs are used much less frequently (to assassinate); this is distinct from to kill—which applies to animals.

According to Merriam-Webster: murder 1) the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
& 5) to kill (someone) unlawfully with premeditation or …

So, the point is about one human being intentionally (and illegally!) killing another human being.

Setting aside the legal technicalities for a moment, I wonder how vital this distinction between
killing humans versus animals truly is, and why this commandment has been translated incorrectly here.
Looking at the comments, everyone seems to be discussing only the murder of a person, or a fetus.

To me, the Ten Commandments are basically just a guide for humans to spot the animalistic side of themselves—
that part where we let our raw instincts take the wheel.
Once you recognize that, you’re finally ready for the next step, which shows you how to
actually tame that inner beast.
In my humble opinion, that next lesson is found in the story of Christ's life.
So, "Thou shalt not kill" really means, "You're acting like an animal driven by fear for your own survival;
just recognize that fear, and you won't have to react so violently or impulsively."

Sandra Parker3 said:Not me, I'm telling you, it's 100% the same 😛 😁

Finally, someone who actually gets it🙂

Sandra Parker3 said:Me too, if it weren't for the exact same 🤷 🤔

No clue. I'm telling you—my brain is just blanking on it.🤷