How do you know if you are brainwashed? or mad?

[Vortex_Marauder]

CuAnnan

Vortex_Marauder

Welcome to Japan

Not really.
I've been.
I found none of what you talk about.
I have friends from Japan.
They display nothing of what you talk about, despite being quite conservative.
The term "gaijin" was used jokingly once to describe me by a grandparent. I expressed that I understood the term and found it disrespectful, the grandparent apologised and expressed that its literal meaning had not

Me too, been there and done that, but the racism is sometimes a bit subtle. Im not saying that EVERYONE is nazi-tier racist ( That would be illogical). There ARE japanese people who doesn't mind outsiders at all, unfortunately the majority ( mostly the ones in power ) are the ones who do it in a more subtle way, you can see it for example when going for a job interview.

CuAnnan

Vortex_Marauder

Spend
Not earn
Implying its Japan who does the translations

The context here was "the anime studies", not the nation.

You do realize that most translations are fan-made, right ?



[[ Im a bit sleepy, sorry for the amount of engrish in my post ]]

[CuAnnan]

Vortex_Marauder

You do realize that most translations are fan-made, right ?

Bones and Gibli produce their own (both subtitles and dubs)
Only the majority of subs (which is not to say, as you imply, that most translations used by companies are fan made) are fan made. That's not where the cost is.
The cost is in the dubs.

[Vortex_Marauder]

CuAnnan

Vortex_Marauder

You do realize that most translations are fan-made, right ?

Bones and Gibli produce their own (both subtitles and dubs)
Only the majority of subs (which is not to say, as you imply, that most translations used by companies are fan made) are fan made. That's not where the cost is.
The cost is in the dubs.

I'll give you that, although most dubs are made in other countries rather than in Japan ( with the exception, if i remember correctly, of the two you mentioned and another one i cant remember its name )

Edit :

[CuAnnan]

Vortex_Marauder

I'll give you that, although most dubs are made in other countries rather than in Japan

Perhaps. The only two studios I'm particularly fond of are Bones and Ghibli.

[Ask Jappleack]

if you believe something that isnt real.

[haruki_jitsunin]

We Are Organisms

if you believe something that isnt real.

I believe that the square root of negative 9 is 3i. Yet have no physically-real way to prove this. In fact, I have no way to prove that negative 9 exists. In the physically-real world, you cannot have negative amounts of things. Have I brainwashed myself in math?

[CuAnnan]

haruki_jitsunin

We Are Organisms

if you believe something that isnt real.

I believe that the square root of negative 9 is 3i. Yet have no physically-real way to prove this. In fact, I have no way to prove that negative 9 exists. In the physically-real world, you cannot have negative amounts of things. Have I brainwashed myself in math?

For the love of... Math is a means of expressing things.

There are real world analogs of i. Electric fields, for example, can only be described using imaginary numbers. Flight data requires i to be calculated in real time.

Negative accelerations. In fact, any vector.

Your position is pretty bad. You're arguing from ignorance.

What WAO stated was "if you believe something that isn't real", not "if you believe something you have no real understanding of".

[haruki_jitsunin]

CuAnnan

haruki_jitsunin

We Are Organisms

if you believe something that isnt real.

I believe that the square root of negative 9 is 3i. Yet have no physically-real way to prove this. In fact, I have no way to prove that negative 9 exists. In the physically-real world, you cannot have negative amounts of things. Have I brainwashed myself in math?

For the love of... Math is a means of expressing things.

There are real world analogs of i. Electric fields, for example, can only be described using imaginary numbers. Flight data requires i to be calculated in real time.

Negative accelerations. In fact, any vector.

Your position is pretty bad. You're arguing from ignorance.

What WAO stated was "if you believe something that isn't real", not "if you believe something you have no real understanding of".

Oh and my position was bad because I didn't actually define a position. In fact, that whole last statement I made was a question... I do things like that to get people engaged with the "point" rather than reject it out-rightly.

I completely understand how to prove math, I understand physics and vectors, surprisingly. I am not arguing from ignorance. I was not making a point justifying delusional thought. The relation I was trying to point out is that like math is a system invented to express physical things, similarly, all thought is a way of expressing things. Every idea itself is a a way to understand our world, a means of internal, personalized expression. By saying something like "if you believe something that isn't real." My point was that NO thought is" real." I was using Math- a universally accepted mental language that doesn't necessarily fit his description to point out the contradiction of his statement. It was more a call for further definition. Such as: "if your beliefs do not accurately represent reality." I would go for that definition.

You are actually the one arguing from a point of misunderstanding of my point. Now, if you would like to discuss things outlined within the scope of the point I'm trying to make, I'd love to continue this discussion.

[CuAnnan]

haruki_jitsunin

Oh and my position was bad because I didn't actually define a position. In fact, that whole last statement I made was a question... I do things like that to get people engaged with the "point" rather than reject it out-rightly.

Devil's advocacy only works when you can positively express the opponent's argument.

haruki_jitsunin

The relation I was trying to point out is that like math is a system invented to express physical things

Not really.

haruki_jitsunin

all thought is a way of expressing things.

Again, not really.

haruki_jitsunin

My point was that NO thought is" real."

But thoughts are, generally, expressions of things that are.
So, beliefs which are placed in things which are not are (according to the argument presented) a definition of madness.

[haruki_jitsunin]

CuAnnan

haruki_jitsunin

Oh and my position was bad because I didn't actually define a position. In fact, that whole last statement I made was a question... I do things like that to get people engaged with the "point" rather than reject it out-rightly.

Devil's advocacy only works when you can positively express the opponent's argument.

haruki_jitsunin

The relation I was trying to point out is that like math is a system invented to express physical things

Not really.

haruki_jitsunin

all thought is a way of expressing things.

Again, not really.

haruki_jitsunin

My point was that NO thought is" real."

But thoughts are, generally, expressions of things that are.
So, beliefs which are placed in things which are not are (according to the argument presented) a definition of madness.

Huh, seems as though someone isn't backing their burden of proof.

Sitting there and just saying "no, that's not true" is not a solid argument in the least. You ACTUALLY claimed in your previous post... and this is an actual quote here.

Quote:

Math is a means of expressing things.

I then project this idea into our ability to understand and comprehend our physical reality.

Quote:

Math is a system invented to express physical things

I can express the height, width and depth of a physical space; I can express the velocity of a car coming towards me; I can express the weight of an object or even how many objects there are using only math. I agreed with your statement, almost quoting it word for word and then you tell me I'm wrong. Could you please explain why?

Secondly, "all thought is a way of expressing things". It is a form of internalized expression. Language is not innate, math is not innate, culture is not innate. These are things we learn, things we structure in our minds to understand the physical world and then to be able to communicate it. They just happen to be logical and relatively universally agreed upon. That does not mean that other thought- just because it is not universal- is not the same process. Now, in more than 3 words, please ACTUALLY make a point to the contrary. Or maybe you agree... either way, fantastic, just explain yourself so that the rest of the internet might be able to glean insight into your vast depths of knowledge that allow you to absolutely claim truths without any explanation.

Thirdly (and in my opinion, the most interesting point) YOU COMPLETELY RESTATED MY SECOND POINT IN YOUR THIRD POINT. Seriously, an actual quote of what you said is below:

Quote:

But thoughts are, generally, expressions of things that are.

haruki_jitsunin

all thought is a way of expressing things.

And to conclude this post, I'm going to restate my original ideal definition of maddness:

Quote:

if your beliefs do not accurately represent reality.

Quote:

So, beliefs which are placed in things which are not[expressions of things that are] are a definition of madness

I sure as hell believe in the system of math. I feel it is stable, I feel it explains a lot. It is not real, though. It is an expression or mental representation of reality. Likewise, other thoughts can express or represent reality. I do not feel that putting your faith in something that ACCURATELY represents reality (no matter how non-universal it may be) is harmful. Yes, that means that if someone develops or follows a spiritual belief system that accurately helps the individual understand and communicate reality, I feel it's a beautiful thing. The problem comes, though, when there is a disconnect between that person's mental processes and reality.

Now, I know I use big words and complex sentences, but please actually try to pay attention to the content of the post(and your own posts) before just calling me wrong and in doing so, blatantly contradicting yourself.

Oh, and I've identified the disconnect between us and it's in the "realness" of math or ideas. I classify math as an unreal thing (i.e. it doesn't have a physical presence). It is however, an unreal thing that accurately represents a real thing.

TL;DR we agree completely, if you still feel the need to pick a fight, please do so without self-contradiction.

EDIT:
Also, it wasn't devil's advocacy. I never sought to MAKE a point, but to deconstruct one.

[Ask Jappleack]

haruki_jitsunin

We Are Organisms

if you believe something that isnt real.

I believe that the square root of negative 9 is 3i. Yet have no physically-real way to prove this. In fact, I have no way to prove that negative 9 exists. In the physically-real world, you cannot have negative amounts of things. Have I brainwashed myself in math?

So god/demons/ghosts/unicorns/mermaids is the square root of a negative number? xd

[haruki_jitsunin]

We Are Organisms

haruki_jitsunin

We Are Organisms

if you believe something that isnt real.

I believe that the square root of negative 9 is 3i. Yet have no physically-real way to prove this. In fact, I have no way to prove that negative 9 exists. In the physically-real world, you cannot have negative amounts of things. Have I brainwashed myself in math?

So god/demons/ghosts/unicorns/mermaids is the square root of a negative number? xd

Lol, I love where you went with it, but no... unicorns/mermaids/god/demons/ghosts fall into the same "mental" world as math, though. It is definitely something generated by our minds to understand reality/phenomena, but doesn't actually have a physical presence. I don't have any problem with someone that uses an imaginary friend to tell them how to live their life if they need it. I don't have any problem with someone blaming the devil for all their pain if they need it as a coping mechanism. (although I would HIGHLY suggest against it). If the thought helps us understand the world better, why not think it?

[Ask Jappleack]

haruki_jitsunin

We Are Organisms

haruki_jitsunin

We Are Organisms

if you believe something that isnt real.

I believe that the square root of negative 9 is 3i. Yet have no physically-real way to prove this. In fact, I have no way to prove that negative 9 exists. In the physically-real world, you cannot have negative amounts of things. Have I brainwashed myself in math?

So god/demons/ghosts/unicorns/mermaids is the square root of a negative number? xd

Lol, I love where you went with it, but no... unicorns/mermaids/god/demons/ghosts fall into the same "mental" world as math, though. It is definitely something generated by our minds to understand reality/phenomena, but doesn't actually have a physical presence. I don't have any problem with someone that uses an imaginary friend to tell them how to live their life if they need it. I don't have any problem with someone blaming the devil for all their pain if they need it as a coping mechanism. (although I would HIGHLY suggest against it). If the thought helps us understand the world better, why not think it?

True, I guess I have a problem more with people who think they are priveleged int he name of god because I think it causes societal detriment, much like how it was either denmark or sweden whom recently allowed immigrants from the middle east and now they have a massive amount of rapes, its going to pressure their country I think. And I think other countries can be the same for certain belief types, but i do suppose its ok for the examples you gave but it troubles me when they actually go too far with it, which can be very often. I think if they need to cope also they probably are having a poor lifestyle but I guess not all lifestyles can be decent everywhere.

But philosophy involved the same manner of thought as religion did so technically it is similar to that math lol. Especially if it turns out no religion is true, or even further than that, that no belief in a god(s) are true. Also a common misconception can be devastating, like china is buying elephant and rhino tusks and horns because they think it can cure cancer and stuff. its not, really good I think to allow those kinds of behaviors.

[haruki_jitsunin]

We Are Organisms

True, I guess I have a problem more with people who think they are priveleged int he name of god because I think it causes societal detriment, much like how it was either denmark or sweden whom recently allowed immigrants from the middle east and now they have a massive amount of rapes, its going to pressure their country I think. And I think other countries can be the same for certain belief types, but i do suppose its ok for the examples you gave but it troubles me when they actually go too far with it, which can be very often. I think if they need to cope also they probably are having a poor lifestyle but I guess not all lifestyles can be decent everywhere.

But philosophy involved the same manner of thought as religion did so technically it is similar to that math lol. Especially if it turns out no religion is true, or even further than that, that no belief in a god(s) are true. Also a common misconception can be devastating, like china is buying elephant and rhino tusks and horns because they think it can cure cancer and stuff. its not, really good I think to allow those kinds of behaviors.

Yeah, I think the problem comes with unawareness or unmindfulness. As soon as someone allows themself to disconnect from humanity, from the world because of their mental processes, that's when problems can start happening. Our mind itself is very concerned with our own body at a primal level. It's easy for it to get overridden with personal thoughts or desires. I feel that's kind of the beauty of a good religion, though. It has a way of connecting people in this phenomenal way that no physical connection can match. If the religion(or belief system) is good and helps people be more aware of reality and people outside themself, I think it's doing great things.

It's just a problem when people use it to project their own personal desires into. That's when religion truly becomes an issue... when god truly becomes an issue.

[CuAnnan]

haruki_jitsunin

Quote:

Math is a means of expressing things.

I then project this idea into our ability to understand and comprehend our physical reality.

Quote:

Math is a system invented to express physical things

Oh, I'm sorry.
Let me bold the part that isn't true.
That it is used as a means of expressing things does not require proving.
That it was invented to do such does.

haruki_jitsunin

Secondly, "all thought is a way of expressing things". It is a form of internalized expression. Language is not innate, math is not innate, culture is not innate. These are things we learn, things we structure in our minds to understand the physical world and then to be able to communicate it. They just happen to be logical and relatively universally agreed upon. That does not mean that other thought- just because it is not universal- is not the same process. Now, in more than 3 words, please ACTUALLY make a point to the contrary.

I think not.
See, that's a really important phrase.
You used the phrase "all thought" excluding the thoughts which are not ways of expressing things.

haruki_jitsunin

Thirdly (and in my opinion, the most interesting point) YOU COMPLETELY RESTATED MY SECOND POINT IN YOUR THIRD POINT. Seriously, an actual quote of what you said is below:

Quote:

But thoughts are, generally, expressions of things that are.

haruki_jitsunin

all thought is a way of expressing things.

See bolded and italicised text

haruki_jitsunin

Now, I know I use big words and complex sentences, but please actually try to pay attention to the content of the post(and your own posts) before just calling me wrong and in doing so, blatantly contradicting yourself.

It's really unfortunate that I've just demonstrated using simple English that you are wrong.
Because it makes the condescension in this post look really ironic.
Perhaps you should avoid condescending me.