4 major surgeries in 18 months, 6 hours under general anesthesia in October alone, and I'm still not "Better...stronger...faster", (well, maybe somewhat better 1 out of 3 ain't bad I guess) and I am still here, alive and kicking. Now to get my mojo back (working on that). Learning to trust external medical "providers" is a difficult task when you're under the knife, especially knowing what I know about healthcare. Latest full body CT yesterday shows NED so another 3 month reprieve. Insurance sucks
Last edited:
Sorry I did not read all the replies, so I don't know mine is duplicate of others'.
But welcome to the internet. No matter what you (or they) post, there will be woo woo. The longer you live with the internet, the better you sort out only posts that are useful for you, or the easier you can ignore those woo woos.
Anyone can post here. You're going to get wingnuts. If you start a thread and declare in the first post that the discussion is intended to have a scientific basis it is your prerogative to ask people contributing non scientific opinions to stay on topic. Unfortunately its only the moderators who can really enforce anything here.
I imagine if you want to have a discussion which is EXCLUSIVE to people who truly understand scientific discourse you'll have to find another venue. Would be interesting.
I imagine if you want to have a discussion which is EXCLUSIVE to people who truly understand scientific discourse you'll have to find another venue. Would be interesting.
Congrats. That sounds like one heck of a time.
--
Also somewhat agree with the guys saying welcome to the internet. But different parts of the internet have different norms, different subcultures. We decide how we want ours to be.
Hi John,
having worked in that line of business and having witnessed a lot of folks with LMS and any other kind of sarcoma, I've only seen the surface of the impact it must have had on your life over the last two years.
Just hang in there, be the Bad-A you can be, buddy.
(Pano, no evidence of disease is a professional term, they're fond of abbreviations in the med world)
Last edited:
"Who here actually understands and respects science"?
Personally I have always wanted to make an active attempt to understand science, so I have read and studied scientific literature all my life. My depth of understanding is a rather general one rather than a deep one of of any particular science.
Do I 'respect' science?
Of course; it's method of discovering what the universe 'is' and 'what' it is made of and how everything 'works' cannot be beaten. The scientific method of exploration is ultimately the best way of separating 'objectively' and 'subjectively' true statements. (as long as one accepts that it mostly only applies to our 'human scale' frame of reference)
In relation to the topic of all things 'audio' related, what proportion can be said to be 'subjectively' or 'objectively' true, and therefore based on scientific fact?
I would say, mostly the former!
Personally I have always wanted to make an active attempt to understand science, so I have read and studied scientific literature all my life. My depth of understanding is a rather general one rather than a deep one of of any particular science.
Do I 'respect' science?
Of course; it's method of discovering what the universe 'is' and 'what' it is made of and how everything 'works' cannot be beaten. The scientific method of exploration is ultimately the best way of separating 'objectively' and 'subjectively' true statements. (as long as one accepts that it mostly only applies to our 'human scale' frame of reference)
In relation to the topic of all things 'audio' related, what proportion can be said to be 'subjectively' or 'objectively' true, and therefore based on scientific fact?
I would say, mostly the former!
(In the bdsm galaxy, it would be a terrific top line. Or now that I think of it, bottom line for the bottom)
Glad you're still here.
Regarding the subject at hand, arguments about science and method of such, tend to circle back to the subject of logic.
To deal with logic, we have to go home to where science and method was borne out of... and that is philosophy. Philosophy being the parent of science.
Philosophy being the key point, as it is about, in a grander sense than science... the definition of logic and then the development of it's systems, ie human box as witness and motion/reflection in said systems--- as a definition of consciousness.
Most aren't aware of the base considerations as most people simply launch outward and egotistically (based) from a box of unknowns (a human body) and they have not put any real energy into internal reflection on origins of what they are, or what consciousness is..... or how and what they launch from. fear blocked, origins blocked, wiring blocked. This is all normal for how the given consciousness grew from the small monkey meat box to the adult monkey meat box.
Intelligence and it's willful expansion in the given individual requires firstly that the box be exercised and stretched to new capacities thus the root motion into philosophy of existence ....to reach new heights in science, either individually or collectively.
ie, fundamentally flawed (science/method arguments) 'as monkey see monkey do', unconscious repeaters.... and then spout and expound on the idea of science... in a way that is wholly seated in ignorance and darkness. This describes over 99% of the people reading this, whether they wish to understand it, or not.
From this blankness comes the eventual arguments, that cannot help but appear due to fundamental ignorance in the core idea and understanding of self.
Thus, it is circular to speak of science and method, in the form of augmentative positioning, as it will roll round eternally without resolve, unless the persons involve retreat to the fundamental questions of philosophy ----regarding the ideas of existence itself (in the deepest minutia).
Last edited:
OkeyDokey
Thanx. Appreciate the thought
Not necessarily. A bit presumptive and strawman-ish. You can do better
Redundant ^^ see above Cart B4 the horse... more or less
Redundant and oxymoronic ^^ see above
rest deleted... once you've "been down the rabbit hole" so to speak, clarity of vision and understanding become paramount. The rest is so much baggage. We should all reflect upon our "horizon of intellect"
How can "black holes" induce photonic emissions, if gravitational pull is so immense as to capture photons?
Scientists Observe Visible Light from Black Hole
BTW: How's the search for monatomicity going?
John L.
Thanx. Appreciate the thought
Not necessarily. A bit presumptive and strawman-ish. You can do better
Redundant ^^ see above Cart B4 the horse... more or less
Redundant and oxymoronic ^^ see above
rest deleted... once you've "been down the rabbit hole" so to speak, clarity of vision and understanding become paramount. The rest is so much baggage. We should all reflect upon our "horizon of intellect"
How can "black holes" induce photonic emissions, if gravitational pull is so immense as to capture photons?
Scientists Observe Visible Light from Black Hole
BTW: How's the search for monatomicity going?
John L.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.