The appearance of Gravity

Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality.

That was my statement, which is correct.

Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality.

That was my statement, which is correct.

Funny that you speak of this thing called reality. Are you able to define it?

Quote from: Idee Unfixe on May 19, 2010, 09:54:58 PM

Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality.

That was my statement, which is correct.

Funny that you speak of this thing called reality. Are you able to define it?

We are defining it.

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 09:58:26 PM

Quote from: Idee Unfixe on May 19, 2010, 09:54:58 PM

Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality.

That was my statement, which is correct.

Funny that you speak of this thing called reality. Are you able to define it?

We are defining it.

Congratulations.

That is a statement completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Only a fool would argue with a fool so good day/night sir.. enjoy your madness.

Only a fool with argue with a fool so good day/night sir..

This statement is completely incoherent.

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:06:56 PM

Only a fool with argue with a fool so good day/night sir..

This statement is completely incoherent.

lol

Simply saying a statement is devoid of meaning does not make it so... kind of like how saying the earth is flat or sky mirrors and ice walls exist does not make it so.

His statement "we are defining it," has absolutely no meaning unless you care to exegete one for me... the question was how he defined reality... and the answer "we are defining it" held absolutely no meaning in relation to the question asked...

Saying only a fool argues with a fool is actually not only coherent, it's a fairly common expression (i.e. not my own authorship) and the meaning is quite obvious to English speakers.

Are all FET'ers this cranially challenged?
Seriously?

Saying only a fool argues with a fool is actually not only coherent, it's a fairly common expression (i.e. not my own authorship) and the meaning is quite obvious to English speakers.

That's not what you said.  That makes sense; what you said makes no sense at all.

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:13:27 PM

Saying only a fool argues with a fool is actually not only coherent, it's a fairly common expression (i.e. not my own authorship) and the meaning is quite obvious to English speakers.

That's not what you said.  That makes sense; what you said makes no sense at all.

good grief that was a typo. seriously i didn't even catch it until now.. i think everyone knew what i meant especially considering that is a common egnlish expression.

(ps i meant english, get it?)

Quote from: Idee Unfixe on May 19, 2010, 10:01:22 PM

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 09:58:26 PM

Quote from: Idee Unfixe on May 19, 2010, 09:54:58 PM

Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality.

That was my statement, which is correct.

Funny that you speak of this thing called reality. Are you able to define it?

We are defining it.

Congratulations.

That is a statement completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever.

Incorrect. For example, the delusional disorders in the DSM IV are characterized by non-bizarre breaks from reality.


This is an attempt at definition of reality:

>99% of people in this world are sane and think they are sane. They do not have breaks with reality.
<1% of the people in this world are insane, but they think they are sane.

But it is a disreputable piece of amateur clinical psychology which can easily be discarded. With reference to the DSM, even, ironically enough.


It is indeed unwise to argue with a fool but education is some remedy in many cases.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2010, 10:15:49 PM

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:13:27 PM

Saying only a fool argues with a fool is actually not only coherent, it's a fairly common expression (i.e. not my own authorship) and the meaning is quite obvious to English speakers.

That's not what you said.  That makes sense; what you said makes no sense at all.

good grief that was a typo. seriously i didn't even catch it until now..

Of course.  How would you recognize you're being incoherent if someone doesn't point it out to you?

(ps i meant english, get it?)

You don't have a very good grasp of the English language.  The word "English" is a proper noun and should be capitalized (as should the word "I").  I'm not sure I'd pass judgment on other peoples' grasp of the language if I were you.

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:18:00 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2010, 10:15:49 PM

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:13:27 PM

Saying only a fool argues with a fool is actually not only coherent, it's a fairly common expression (i.e. not my own authorship) and the meaning is quite obvious to English speakers.

That's not what you said.  That makes sense; what you said makes no sense at all.

good grief that was a typo. seriously i didn't even catch it until now..

Of course.  How would you recognize you're being incoherent if someone doesn't point it out to you?

Quote

(ps i meant english, get it?)

You don't have a very good grasp of the English language.  The word "English" is a proper noun and should be capitalized (as should the word "I").  I'm not sure I'd pass judgment on other peoples' grasp of the language if I were you.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I accidentally found the English Grammar Nazi forum. Forgive my indiscretions.

How unfortunate that a moderator is completely derailing a discussion and is being distracted by typos and lack of proper punctuation. I can begin to see why this forum is in the shape its in. Don't you have more substantive things related to science and FET that you could invest your energies in?

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:06:56 PM

Quote from: Idee Unfixe on May 19, 2010, 10:01:22 PM

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 09:58:26 PM

Quote from: Idee Unfixe on May 19, 2010, 09:54:58 PM

Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality.

That was my statement, which is correct.

Funny that you speak of this thing called reality. Are you able to define it?

We are defining it.

Congratulations.

That is a statement completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever.

Incorrect. For example, the delusional disorders in the DSM IV are characterized by non-bizarre breaks from reality.


This is an attempt at definition of reality:

Quote

>99% of people in this world are sane and think they are sane. They do not have breaks with reality.
<1% of the people in this world are insane, but they think they are sane.

But it is a disreputable piece of amateur clinical psychology which can easily be discarded. With reference to the DSM, even, ironically enough.


It is indeed unwise to argue with a fool but education is some remedy in many cases.

(Yes I am guilty of being a fool right now but here goes)

The whole point of calling someone a fool is that they cannot be educated... they are not just misinformed, they are lacking in several capacities.

Anyway since it seems like my comment woke you up and this time you actually had something substantive to say... let me ask my question again.. define reality. You speak of reality but it seems we have different definitions of it.

As for me, I did not define reality.. that was in no way a definition of reality.. it was a comment on the perceptions of people... in other words, virtually everyone, sane or insane, thinks they are sane. You say this comment contradicts the DSM... quote it.

Let me save you the trouble and tell you that you are wrong.. the definition of a psychosis is an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality and therefore, someone "insane" would not necessarily know it; therefore, even the insane think they are sane.

So getting back to your original statement of "Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality," you are essentially saying everyone suffers from psychosis.

I in turn say, speak for yourself.

So getting back to your original statement of "Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality," you are essentially saying everyone suffers from psychosis.

Why are you repeating VoR's error of confusing "bizarre breaks of reality" with delusional disorders when I've already pointed it out?

I am not essentially saying everyone suffers from psychosis at all.

You say this comment contradicts the DSM... quote it

Make shit up then demand a citation when tripped up does not get a pass.




 

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:56:21 PM

So getting back to your original statement of "Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality," you are essentially saying everyone suffers from psychosis.

Why are you repeating VoR's error of confusing "bizarre breaks of reality" with delusional disorders when I've already pointed it out?

I am not essentially saying everyone suffers from psychosis at all.
 

Oh really?

"Psychosis is a... a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

Your statement "Everyone has bizarre breaks of reality," according to the above definitions, is EQUAL to the statement everyone suffers from psychosis.

Who is talking about delusional disorders anyway?? Certainly not me... we are talking about your statement "EVERYONE HAS BIZARRE BREAKS FROM REALITY."

Quote

You say this comment contradicts the DSM... quote it

Make shit up then demand a citation when tripped up does not get a pass.

Pardon me for asking you to cite something pivotal to your own argument. I wasn't just asking you for the citation, I was asking you to explain why my statement was incorrect... simply saying so and not giving an explanation (that makes sense) is not very satisfactory.

Also, you may be interested to know that I know exactly from where in the DSM you got that tidbit of information... unfortunately, it doesn't seem you have any actual experience using the DSM or you wouldn't be making such idiotic conclusions, nor would you be looking at the entry for delusional disorder (which is a very specific illness and was **NOT** the topic of discussion, and is only being brought into the discussion because of your ignorance of these matters).

You've just repeated the same canard again.

If anyone thinks you know what you're talking about, more fool them.

You've just repeated the same canard again.

If anyone thinks you know what you're talking about, more fool them.

So you see now hopefully, and I am sure all others can see, there is no point in educating a fool.. he lacks the facilities required for education in the first place. I give you evidence and reasoning simple enough a grade-schooler could understand that your prior statement equals the statement everyone is psychotic.. and your response above (and the ones before) are notably devoid of any reasoning or logic whatsoever, and merely include passing references and innuendos... and in the end, you remain uneducated.

your prior statement equals the statement everyone is psychotic

No it does not.

Wikipedia is not recommended as a diagnostic tool.

Quote from: amazed on May 20, 2010, 07:17:23 AM

your prior statement equals the statement everyone is psychotic

No it does not.

Wikipedia is not recommended as a diagnostic tool.

Of course, when you have nothing to say disparage the sources.

I wonder if a recommended diagnostic tool is formal training in psychiatric medicine and experience with psychiatric patients, which I have. Does that make a difference to you? I used wiki because it's an easy read and written for the layperson.. easy enough for an idiot to understand (so I thought).

At any rate, find a reputable source that defines psychosis differently.. that's a direct challenge in case this is all getting too confusing for you. Any reputable source will define psychosis as a bizarre break from reality, in one way or another.

I wonder if a recommended diagnostic tool is formal training in psychiatric medicine and experience with psychiatric patients, which I have.

Sure you do.

Any reputable source will define psychosis as a bizarre break from reality, in one way or another.

This is becoming quite the fixed belief for you.

So has everyone ignored the the insanity of Parsifal's arguments in this thread, or am I the one who is insane?

So has everyone ignored the the insanity of Parsifal's arguments in this thread

Your question resolves to a whole true value.