3 ms·

What exactly is it about losethos's cognitive patterns that you find "insane"? (honest question) I have spent quite some time reading miscellaneous forum threa

What exactly is it about losethos's cognitive patterns that you find "insane"? (honest question) I have spent quite some time reading miscellaneous forum threads by him and have found nothing that shocks me as profoundly "mentally ill". Sure, the guy sees some strange patterns in the noise, but don't we all? Most of us just have enough sense not to share them publicly, or enough existential fear to censor our own thinking. If we take the lack of cognitive self-censorhip to be a criterion for establishing "insanity", then are we not guilty of the same intellectual laziness we point out when we discuss "thinking inside box"? That is, if someone professes to one "insane" (== not generally accepted as "true", to the point of ridicule) idea, does that invalidate the rest of ideas they originated? What about two? How many "insane" ideas must one express to have the rest of one's ideas invalidated? Or must the ideas be considered independently of the source? I found what could be losethos's pastebin: http://pastebin.com/68Rif0mv http://pastebin.com/68Rif0mv A few things there made me think. "Or, perhaps, we are all missing something and he is just always speaking in code." (OP) ^I think you might be onto something there. Regardless of whether what's encoded "makes sense", the use of doublespeak is evident.

mattdeboard 15y ago
If you don't find the slip-sliding from strangely-worded technical discussion into invocations of the Godhead as explanations for why he only runs at certain monitor resolutions as clear indications of delusion I think you may be trying too hard to be accepting. In doing so you're fooling yourself.
- tweak2live 15y ago
  I resent the accusation. But I do venture south of the "sanity" meridian quite often, so perhaps I have lost perspective. Perhaps I should watch more television. Do engage the substance of my inquiry, please. If it is "delusional" to invoke the Godhead as an explanation for running only certain monitor resolutions, is it not delusional to invoke same Godhead as an explanation for holding $moral_value or making $public_policy_decision? Rhetorical, obviously. My point is - if no objective metric is invoked in determination of "insanity", does it not then become a "house rule" of sorts?
  - mattdeboard 15y ago
    A reliable and objective metric for insanity is whether you believe not only that the supreme deity of the universe is telling you how to program, but also that passages in the Bible are coded references to the same written directly to you.

mattdeboard 15y ago

If you don't find the slip-sliding from strangely-worded technical discussion into invocations of the Godhead as explanations for why he only runs at certain monitor resolutions as clear indications of delusion I think you may be trying too hard to be accepting. In doing so you're fooling yourself.

tweak2live 15y ago
I resent the accusation. But I do venture south of the "sanity" meridian quite often, so perhaps I have lost perspective. Perhaps I should watch more television. Do engage the substance of my inquiry, please. If it is "delusional" to invoke the Godhead as an explanation for running only certain monitor resolutions, is it not delusional to invoke same Godhead as an explanation for holding $moral_value or making $public_policy_decision? Rhetorical, obviously. My point is - if no objective metric is invoked in determination of "insanity", does it not then become a "house rule" of sorts?
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  A reliable and objective metric for insanity is whether you believe not only that the supreme deity of the universe is telling you how to program, but also that passages in the Bible are coded references to the same written directly to you.