Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's Not All In Your Head

firstthings.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#91

Post by mbrodersen »

smeej wrote: post #26

I think doctors aggravate this problem of people believing they're ill even when the clinical evidence doesn't support it. I can't tell you how many doctors I've had tell me, explicitly, within 15 minutes of having met me that they know my body, symptoms, and experience better than I do. It used to come much later in the process, after I'd spent months following their instructions to the letter and having my symptoms…

The average doctor is an expert in memorising text books but has no ability to think.

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#92

Post by ganzuul »

Borrible wrote: post #71
ganzuul wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the source of the maladaption lies in the use of money to make people do things they would never otherwise do. Asking ourselves who we would be to others if we had money at least somewhat insulates us from the effect of this mental wildfire.

I don't think that the origin of the problem is this or that social structure. I think that these structures bind it in one way or another to make this basic human condition bearable. Both for the individual and for society. But they determine to a large extent who benefits from the dichotomy of being and consciousness. Nor do I believe it can be overcome or cured. To be human is not just to have knowledge of and ins…

That defeatist philosophy was an excruciating read. I wonder about your purpose sharing it.

Keep your tools of torture. If we all die in the end why take them into our hands. You don't make sense to me.

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#93

Post by Borrible »

ganzuul wrote: post #92
Borrible wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that the origin of the problem is this or that social structure. I think that these structures bind it in one way or another to make this basic human condition bearable. Both for the individual and for society. But they determine to a large extent who benefits from the dichotomy of being and consciousness. Nor do I believe it can be overcome or cured. To be human is not just to have knowledge of and ins…

That defeatist philosophy was an excruciating read. I wonder about your purpose sharing it. Keep your tools of torture. If we all die in the end why take them into our hands. You don't make sense to me.

Gotcha.

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#94

Post by bena »

mistermann wrote: post #88
bena wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you are simply wrong.

It's certainly plausible, but considering your epistemic track record I am skeptical.

Only if you are coming into the discussion in bad faith to try and score points on what you see as technicalities.

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#95

Post by mistermann »

bena wrote: post #94
mistermann wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly plausible, but considering your epistemic track record I am skeptical.

Only if you are coming into the discussion in bad faith to try and score points on what you see as technicalities.

There can be no other way than bad faith? Not something you may not have thought of or perhaps never encountered before?

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#96

Post by floor2 »

V-2 wrote: post #44
niea_11 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a native english speaker. First time I encountered the word ecumenical in a tv show (Frasier) and understood it in the same way it was used by gp. Maybe it's specific to american english. I checked cambridge dictionary and it confirms that definition : tending to support and encourage unity among different religions Merriam-webster has a similar definition : Worldwide or general in extent, influence, or appli…

"Merriam-webster has a similar definition : Worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application" Yes, but that's the broader understanding, not related to religion. You can even find somewhat bizarre (to my ear at least) examples like "ecumenical meal of German, Italian, and Chinese dishes" , but it's a turn of phrase, and not necessarily applicable in the religious context. In the religious context the very sa…

FWIW as someone who is both a native English speaker and who grew up in a community where 90% of residents went to church every Sunday, the only usage of "ecumenical" that I'm familiar with would be "open to all religions" or "including people of all faiths", not Christian only.

It's not a super commonly used word, so I'm unsurprised that the definition you were taught is not how it's contemporarily used in middle America. Probably a case where if enough people use a word "wrong" then the "wrong" definition becomes a valid usage.

Post reply on HN