 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 123 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613408 Today 0 Topics 127499 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Excuse me. Would you mind to reveal your handwriting? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
may i ask why? you make a study over it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't have any hands I lost them in an industrial accident so I type with my chin |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my writing is all smeared |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not consciously. I just like to look at people's handwriting and then think "Aha, so that's what XY's handwriting looks like!" .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok hold a minute |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Very pointy! (If that's the word. Sharp edges.) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Post it! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thanks. i think i written 'woul' instead of would, sorry about that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
um... or something |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That is a satisfactory excuse, sorry to hear |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its ok I was only joking! you would think I had no hands though the state of my handwriting |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
best counterjoke |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wasn't actually assuming that you're typing with your chin. It seems nigh impossible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
unless I had this guys chin, his chin has more muscles than my arms |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my style |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Looks reasonable to me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it looks reasonable, but does it sounds reasonable to you? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm afraid i don't have a recording of the sound my handwriting makes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wat's going up |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ha ha |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
still better than watmm |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
when i fucked up i used to make similar schemes but with drug connections that i thought the arabs were trafficking into human bodies recycled to make kebab, write them into little piece of papers and threw them at police stations, go figure |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
psychosis do really fuck up your senses, cant trust your ears nor your nose, i swear on my mom the smell outside kebab shop transformed into that coming outside a crematorium, if you happened to live nearby one |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can't tell 100%. Would you care to explain the diagramms conrasting the one-dimensional "you" and the two-dimensional "you-thot" structure, EMT? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you really are studying something and need "samples", it would be (somewhat.. not really) interesting to know what that is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just find handwriting interesting because it's (a) something that very clearly belongs to a specific individual person with a specific history born out of individual decisions and it's (b) something that one can't control very well - your handwriting looks as it naturally does (thus it's very difficult to fake others handwritings well and so on). Handwriting is the space were uncontrollable nature and controlled personel decision meet, so to speak. I'm actually serious, even though perhaps it sounds like I'm bullshitting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, i really don't think you're bullshitting... and i certainty agree handwriting is something unique and one of a kind to each and every person... But can this knowledge of a certain person's handwriting be of use, can you learn something? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(of that person) ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
when i fucked up i used to make similar schemes but with drug connections that i thought the arabs were trafficking into human bodies recycled to make kebab, write them into little piece of papers and threw them at police stations, go figure i read horoscopes daily to establish a sort of cadence, then i also watch the GOES x-ray, which monitors solar flares. i've been checking it regularly for over ten years now and i feel i've entered a certain degree of strange feedback with it -- ditto for horoscopes. but, really, it's just a little game i play to help sort out how i feel, to feel more in control of life, etc. and it never goes quite this far. i'm sort of nervous to know that someone might take me completely seriously |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can't tell 100%. Would you care to explain the diagramms conrasting the one-dimensional "you" and the two-dimensional "you-thot" structure, EMT? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
perhaps works in a similar way. a wandering mind is like the episodic plot device of "quantum leap" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you think of knowledge in the sense of quantifiable data, information or practical know-how, no, then I don't learn anything from looking at handwriting. It's more like going into an art-gallery and looking at a piece of art. Let's say you look at a piece of medieval art. It looks very alien in comparison to contemporary art. In a way the piece of art shows you what the world looks and feels like if you lead a specific type of life (as a medieval person). And this life is possible (because people obviously lived it). .... So you get a murky glimpse of the different possible human forms of life. That's, sort of, the kick I get out of looking at handwriting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's just like you make about other drivers when you're driving. accurate in the broad-strokes, but hardly a real window into someone's mind. also perhaps one of those things where the judgement says more about the judge than the judged |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If the basic idea is to look at mental events not in a merely one-dmensional linear way in which one event follows the prior event "A->B->C->D->E->F...->Z" / "January --> February --> March --> Deecember" ... but to look at the mind as a more "level" field in which mental events can stand in non-linear relationshipss to each other " A-> <-Q-> v v ^ ^ <-Z-> <-C-> v v" ... then I think there might be a point |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
people often ask me what the point is, man. a point is a [sphere of context] with zero diameter. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
clark. what's clark? on this board, "clark" is a musician. on a message board about superman, "clark" is probably "clark kent." in missouri, california, colorodo, and a bunch of other states, "clark" is a city. we talk about stuff all day long without noticing that these ambiguities even exist, and this is because our perspective walls off possibilities not relevant to the current [sphere of context]. [sphere of context] is both a and a with a |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why not put the idea in a nutshell for efficient public consumption? ... When I was writing my PhD thesis I was writing very long, meandering chapters. It's necessary, I guess because most people think while writing. ...But then after writing a 90,000 words chapter and being wiser one can write it once again and boil it down to a neatly structured 40,000 or even 35,000 words. Then other rational living organisms can actually follow the train of thought. Why not do something like that? Y? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Wanker! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just want an overview over EMTs positions without first having to become an expert in EpicMegatroxology. Who could have the stamina for it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
many of these things i've explained six times in different threads in different ways. some of them i've explained many times in person, too. had arguments, debates, bullshit sessions. over time, yes, conclusions get clearer and explans more plane but then there's only so simple you can make something. an etch-a-sketch is simple, but it's not a particularly effective visualization tool. when i write this stuff, i actually spend ages rewriting it and cutting out loads of crap... but, then i get tangled up in knots, because if you oversimplify too much, things stop making sense. the best tool i really have is hyperlinks. it allows me to break explanations up into more managable chunks. instead of adding in a paragraph to define the term right then and there, it's a link to a definition. the definition is also clearer because it's not buried in something else. if anything, what i need to do is set it all up in a wikimedia and put some proper effort into an index page. nothing will be explained quickly, but it will be far more digestible |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, yes. If you oversimply things too much they stop making sense. So J´just stop before it's too much. The function of simplifications, I guess, also isn't too tell the "whole truth" at once. They are more like an entrance or guide-lines, which rule out certain natural mis-interpretations. You have to take them with a "grain of salt". But if you keep in mind that they have their obvious limitations they can direct you towards whatever complex issue it is they are pointing at. Be that as it may. I'm so tired these days that I feel like my mind is hovering circa 20cm above my head and circa 10cm left to my head. I should just sleep and sleep and sleep. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i guess it would make sense to explain i am a computer hacker / engineer by trade, and that the habits carry over. sort of a reverse-engineering attitude: treat the mind as a black box, run experiments, update theories as results warrant. as such, i've got a whole cluster of inter-related theories that i am constantly updating, disgarding, replacing, whatever. i have trouble succinctly explaining [sphere of context] without referencing other bits of theory, and i have trouble referencing those other bits without still more supporting bits... but, heck i'll try again. quoting what i wrote above: clark. what's clark? on this board, "clark" is a musician. on a message board about superman, "clark" is probably "clark kent." in missouri, california, colorodo, and a bunch of other states, "clark" is a city. we talk about stuff all day long without noticing that these ambiguities even exist, and this is because our perspective walls off possibilities not relevant to the current [sphere of context]. it's more commonly called "frame of reference," but "frame" implies a 2D-screen sort of image. it's more like if you labeled a point "clark" and then visualized a 3D fluffball dandelion of points connecting to "clark" with the satellite points being clark (musician), clark (county), clark (kent), etc. should the [sphere of context] clearly be clark (musician), that becomes the center point. a similar 3D fluffball dandelion of points connect to clark (musician), like "compressor" and "warp records" and "a man playing piano under a rock" etc. thought is associative and this is how one thought leads to the next. thoughts a sphere of context or two away will subconsciously influence your conscious train of thought, and the mind wanders from one thought to the next. i've dug into neurology papers and found some biological basis for this, but it's v. complicated and you can just dig through my nonsense if you want that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
do you prefer this or that? this/that are reference pointers to two seperate spheres of context, but you've no idea where they lead without knowing the current sphere of context for this/that. i know that, but this is something else. "i posesses the sphere of context you have just referenced, but i was referring to a different sphere of context." now the current sphere of context is, "what sphere of context was i just referring to?" once you're to the point of "the current sphere of context is determining whether or not the suggested context is equivalent to a recent context" you start to get tied up in loops thinking about it, and if you are comfortable making your brain fart over and over, you can learn some interesting things about language |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
scientists have wondered for years: why can't we take a brain that died ten minutes ago and "restart" it? the missing element is rhythm and timing data. once electrical activity stops completely, the rhythm and time data accumulated over the lifetime of the brain are lost. as such, i don't think you can simply scan the brain "hardware" and upload yourself into a computer, you'd need to read all of the active electrical activity as a gestalt as well. in the context of sphere of context, it takes time to move from one sphere of context to a next. if you think of something briefly, associations a hop or two away color your thinking. if you sit there and meditate on a single thing for five minutes -- if you can -- all sorts of noise comes out. this is why it's so hard to focus exclusely on anything for five minutes. it takes practice swatting things away: first the nearby associations, then the more distant ones... then you get into the odd stuff, like catching yourself thinking about not thinking about something, and then trying not to think about that... weird moments of aphasia... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as every word you read fires off networks of association, carefully presenting the right words in the right order can potentially allow me to use less of them. too many words and everything gets watered down... too few and it's ambiguous... then concepts have to build on top of each other or you'll never get anyone to the eye of the pyramid. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
