View Full Version : Opposite of love of (addictive substance) is ... ....


SB_UK
01-06-16, 05:22 AM
What's the opposite of love of (addictive substance) ?

... ... ie where love = deriving reward which leads into tolerance and deletirious consequences for the individual [an addiction is by definition bad for the individual ie associated with negative health outcomes] to eg money,heroin,gambling,internet usage

"Here we will focus on recent advances in understanding the neural circuits mediating reward and aversion in the VTA and how stress as well as drugs of abuse, in particular cocaine, alter circuit function within a heterogeneous midbrain DA system."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S0028390813001159 (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscien ce%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS0028390813001159&h=xAQF5JViZ)

SB_UK
01-06-16, 05:24 AM
Opposite of love of (reward from) (addictive substance) is ... ....
aversion to (addictive substance)

SB_UK
01-06-16, 05:24 AM
Opposite of love of (reward from) (money) is ... ....
aversion to (money)

SB_UK
01-06-16, 05:27 AM
So how do you know whether you have ?
addiction to ie love of ( ie reward from) (money) [ie greed] is

Do you have ?
aversion to (money)

If you do not have
aversion to (money)

Then you are somewhere on the spectrum of irrationality (addictive propensity) characterized by
addiction to ie love of ( ie reward from) (money) [ie greed]

dvdnvwls
01-06-16, 05:23 PM
This idea is a false dichotomy.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 05:24 AM
This idea is a false dichotomy.

It's the most important (from the perspective of human survival) true dichotomy which exists.

It underlies human greed.

And it defines human greed/irrationality to be a placeholder which rationality transcends.

Once rational (wise) one loses addictive propensity (broad sense greed) and are free.

It cannot be underestimated how important the idea of reward/aversion is - and (of note) - I've seen most of these terms dissected in studies on 'appetite regulation' ... ... ie just standard control of eating behaviour.

The reason for the connection relates to blood glucose elevation (stimulation) - and the nature of the reward system which precedes wisdom of needing to be stimulated.

Now - move to Peripheral's Broccoli addiction thread (for comments relating to blood glucose elevation) -

- and we see the nature of the pre- and post-wisdom reward systems.

Pre -- stimulation (blood glucose elevation but with each high comes a low)
and
Post -- no requirement for stimulation

Very important consequences for profile of food eaten.

Definitely carb to fat (but from animal ? vegetable ? biomic soluble fibre digestion ? neuromelanin ?) transition.

Definitely change in profile of attractive behaviours -
from 'stimulatory' to 'not' ie loss of attraction to behaviours which 'excite'.

Should relate to increased information upload from the senses occurring through a mechanism unlocked at wisdom; we know that information can activate the dopaminergic system.

-*-

So - all makes sense.

Most important idea though - is the reward / aversion dichotomy - because it unambiguously opens people's eyes to the fact that they (despite protesting that they don't love money) are the problem - because they're able to use money for reward (ie gain enjoyment from it) - are therfore not displaying aversion to it -

and are therefore on the 'love money' spectrum.

-*-

This is a REALLY important idea.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 06:13 AM
To put it simply we live in a world where everybody thinks that it's somebody else that is greedy.

This idea allows people to see (since they can see from their behaviour that they're deriving reward ie happy feelings from the use of money) - that they are the problem.

That they are greedy.

It's really such an elegant idea - because people are no longer able to 'pretend' that they're not greedy - their own behaviour 'outs' them.

So - what'd you expect from somebody who has overcome greed - relating to the use of money ?

You have no choice other than to pay your electricity bill.
You have no choice other than to pay for a basal supply of food eg frozen vegetables.

You can use money - but only because you have NO choice in the matter.

The important point would be that there is no REWARD from the use of money.
There's no reward from paying your electricity bill.

In fact there's pain associated with paying for even these survival essentials.

But even so - ANY use of money feels bad - as if each time we use money - it's an infringement of our own personal liberty.

Even paying for the electricity bill and buying vegetables produces pain ie use of money in these ways.

Which is why we're going to need to start a local zero carbon positive energy community house building, electricity generation and food production facility - and then teach others to do the same.

Anybody who derives reward (not aversion) from the use of money IS greedy.

Nobody will agree with this idea - because the finger points at pretty much everybody - globally - as the problem.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 06:16 AM
The important point is that this is not the miser standpoint of not wanting to spend one's own money.

It's very much a standpoint (which the mind reaches at wisdom) of not wanting money to exist.

Yes - the wise individual might have plenty of money - but the difference between a miser and a wise man - is that the miser would be crushed in a world without money
- whereas wisdom would rejoice despite the potential loss of what would be considered a 'small' fortune.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 07:43 AM
Summarising

Change of reward system occurring at wisdom.
Reward system change appears to have occurred with ADHD.

At wisdom - information appears to take over as reward system activation.

How ? see Markram's 'Intense World Theory'

With ADDer - pretty sure that the same basic mechanism associated with the onset of wisdom (ie information acquired as reward system) is gifted at birth ... ...

which is interesting - because it shows the 'end-point' of a species being the starting-point of child species.

it gives a shape to evolution.

Haven't tried working how this idea pans out in any transition other than Homo sapiens sapiens to Homo sapiens neosapienses (ADDer) ... ... but the idea is that the novel property at 'completion' of a previous stage then becomes the starting point for the daughter (subsequent, more evolved) species.

-*-

Take-home message

A shift from animal (materialism) + mind (understanding) -> information as reward systems ie deriving reward from mechanisms relating to eating (consumerism) to mechanisms relating to beauty.

Little Missy
01-07-16, 10:15 AM
Blanket statements on, AGAIN, the same things you post continually.

When you incorporate what you preach into your own life, share the pictures. I'm dying to see the commune.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 10:30 AM
The key issue though is -

- that switching from consumerism/materialism to beauty as reward system *should* run alongside eliminating the need to eat (mechanism exists via neuromelanin - we have a pigment that has been shown to have similar properties to the chloroplast in radiotrophic fungae)

SB_UK
01-07-16, 10:34 AM
Blanket statements on, AGAIN, the same things you post continually.



1+1 = 2

1+1 = 2

1+1 = 2

the point is that we live in a society which over-complicates

1+1 = 3

1+1 = 4

1+1 = 5

The point is that the response to 1+1=3,1+1=4,1+1=5 is 1+1=2 which of course will appear as though it's repetition.
The point being that repetition is required to weed out nonsense.

When you incorporate what you preach into your own life, share the pictures. I'm dying to see the commune.Funding requested for project - but the project is perhaps too avant garde for standing funding bodies.

Impossible to buy yourself out of slavery without money - where we live in a world where the slaves aren't rich enough to buy themselves out.

-*-

This idea isn't wrong - it simply drives an automatic defensive reaction in people - because people see that the finger is being pointed at THEM - as the problem.

The opposite of love of money is AVERSION to money.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 11:02 AM
The opposite of love of money [root of all evil] is AVERSION to money.

This one idea could change everything - but instead you'll just observe people coming up with a 1001 reasons why it's wrong.

Isn't though - it's an actual visceral aversion to money.

The important point to make is that it isn't only to money - it's the reward system which money operates through and so we can assess whether we're ahold of this reward system in this world of money everywhere - by our relationship to it.

This basic reward system yes results in aversion to money, but also to power, to beating other people (competition), to any form of unsustainable practice ... ... simple take home message is that what we're observing is the acquisition of a moral reward system ie the incapacity to obtain reward from ANY immoral practice - where immorality has a scientific definition of contributing to a worsening of the collective lot - at any level.

Wisdom (capacity for the mind to exert control over an individual's behaviour ie free will) requires an individual to have shifted reward systems - the clearest way for an individual (at least in this world) to know whether they've shifted - is to see whether they have an aversion to the use of money.

Aversion to {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}} are just a whole lot harder to assess than aversion to money - as we can (with a natural aversion to {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}}) negotiate ourselves into a situation where we live a life without {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}} (ie do it without realising) - and so cannot feel the pain of having to engage in the pursuit of {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}} - since we've subconsciously shifted from that aversive set - but money is different to {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}} - as the very vast majority of people are required to live a life which involves the acquisition of money.

All people (this will represent the very vast majority of human beings) who 'love' money (ie obtain reward from its usage, want more, like money) will be preparing to destroy this idea - but they won't

- it's absolutely correct.

Note - though that we're looking at the reward system (love) of money and NOT money itself.
The reward system to money is the reward system to a whole series of addictively destructive behaviours - it's just that its allure is most clearly seen in this world of an all pervasive global economic system - in money.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 11:29 AM
Aversion to {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}}

-- also aversion to stimulatory agents with a glycaemic index or high glutamate level eg sugar / starch / parmesan (high in glutamate) -> actual pain
-- also aversion to stimulation (horror movies, fireworks)

So - aversion to money is only useful as an objective test (since nobody can hide from whether they feel pain when using money) to their own state of 'greed'.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 11:56 AM
So ... .... ... the simplest way of putting this is that when you get a mind (wisdom) you're happy - and ADHD - represents the same basic 'quality-centric' nature (neural mechanism) but at birth.

So - we're predisposed to 'learning' in which we become of materially higher intrinsic quality (which self-reinforces with practice) -
- and are naturally repelled by practices which do not associate with activation of the reward system which does not leave us 'better' than we were before we attended.

It's just (the basis to ADD) the definition of an association to a reward system which represents learning to become of higher intrinsic quality.

Of course - intrinsically moral.

Becoming a better painter, musician, poet etc has no adverse impact on society - in fact quite the opposite - if you're any good and give away all that you produce - of course for free.

-*-

We can see the nonADDer transition wisdom as representing the transition from 'stimulation' to 'quality' and the ADDer default state as 'quality' where our apparent attraction to 'stimulant' is simply distress alleviation at being forced attendance in activities which carry with them no activation of our reward system ie behaviours where we do not become better as a consequence.

So

nonadder
genome reward system -> wisdom -> neural reward system

adder
neural reward system -> wisdom

Eliminating genome reward system (drive for stimulation) is all important as this represents the basic reward system which is fleshed out ^^^ and which the 'love of money' represents a specific (one of many ie the allure of addictive (addictions are by definition harmful) pursuits) representation of.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 12:23 PM
So it all balances apart from one thing.

We should be observing emergence of a novel type with altered metabolic requirements by virtue of (most likely) something like EM conversion ie melanin-mediated human 'photo synthesis' - but of fat (SCFA) not carbs (as we see in plants) ie underlying switch to pro-mitochondrial aerobic respiratory profile pushing glycolysis into the background.

Back to the idea of a general shift from carb to fat as key metabolite - occurring in this transition.

Fuzzy12
01-07-16, 01:31 PM
Isn't the opposite of love for money, indifference towards money? Money is just a means. It serves its purpose. I'm sure there are better systems of economy than what we currently use but I guess whatever system we have, humans are unlikely to take to your proposed way of living unless you force them. Maybe because mainly it just doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

SB_UK
01-07-16, 02:14 PM
Isn't the opposite of love for money, indifference towards money? Money is just a means. It serves its purpose. I'm sure there are better systems of economy than what we currently use but I guess whatever system we have, humans are unlikely to take to your proposed way of living unless you force them. Maybe because mainly it just doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

What's the opposite of addiction to heroin ?

Indifference to heroin or aversion to heroin (bearing in mind that we know what it (or money) do to physical and mental (respectively) health).

What would happen if someone with complete indifference to something were made to throw themselves headlong into it ?

So -
Indifference.
Incapacity to attend
Forced attendance
Pain
Aversion

I believe that we're allowed to talk economics here - many trusted sources are forecasting an imminent collapse similar to 2008 -
- people may be forced simply by virtue.

Lunacie
01-07-16, 03:45 PM
This idea is a false dichotomy.

I'm not sure there are any true dichotomies.

Maybe everything exists on a spectrum, with each extreme shading towards the mid point.

Trying to make a change from one extreme to the other may not be possible.

Fuzzy12
01-07-16, 05:15 PM
I don't have an aversion to heroine. I'm also not addicted to it. I've never tried it and the thought of it leaves me cold.

Unfortunately I can't talk economics because I don't know anything about it. I just know that I don't crave to live in the world that you describe. I doubt it's feasible to create this world but I could be wrong about that. Even if it's feasible I'm not sure I want to live in it. It just sounds a bit boring to me.

Well, that depends. What sounds boring to me is the idea of living in some sort of agricultural community where I'm constantly forced to interact and work with others. It sounds like giving up too much of my freedom and individuality. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you though. If I could have all modern amenities and pretty much do what I want and live the way I want to and didn't even have to fund it that would be great. And if everyone could live like that and there was no war or poverty or suppression of any kind that would be even better.

If the whole world was like Norway... ;)

mildadhd
01-08-16, 12:03 AM
Opposite of like of addictive substance is dislike of addictive substance.

Dislike of addictive substance and like of addictive substance.

Dislike of non-addictive substance and like of non-addictive substance.

I keep wondering about the relationship between visceral-somatic (implicit-explicit) consciousness and somatic-visceral (explicit-implicit) consciousness, involved?

Lunacie
01-08-16, 12:21 AM
Opposite of like of addictive substance is dislike of addictive substance.

Dislike of addictive substance and like of addictive substance.

Dislike of non-addictive substance and like of non-addictive substance.

I keep wondering about the relationship between visceral-somatic (implicit-explicit) consciousness and somatic-visceral (explicit-implicit) consciousness, involved?

The OP didn't ask about the opposite of "like of addictive substance", he asked about "love of addictive substance."

Many believe that the opposite of love is not hate, it's actually indifference.

mildadhd
01-08-16, 12:46 AM
The OP didn't ask about the opposite of "like of addictive substance", he asked about "love of addictive substance."

Many believe that the opposite of love is not hate, it's actually indifference.

Love and like can be interchangeable.

Opposite of like, is dislike.

SB_UK
01-08-16, 09:31 AM
Opposite of like of addictive substance is dislike of addictive substance.
Opposite of like of addictive substance is indifference to addictive substance.

I'm not too sure that it matters.

Forced attendance to dislike (absence in reward obtained, pain)
Forced attendance to indifference (absence in reward obtained and pain if forced to comply (pain results from forcing oneself to engage in a behaviour which is not rewarding))

The difference between the two is that in the former you feel aversion from first engagement, in the latter we feel aversion through immersion.

Heroin - we do not love (become addicted to) heroin until we've tried it.

So - in the case of heroin - we're forced to be immersed in it before we adopt (and adopt we will) the love (addiction) for heroin.

From above
Aversion to {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}} are just a whole lot harder to assess than aversion to money - as we can (with a natural aversion to {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}}) negotiate ourselves into a situation where we live a life without {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}} (ie do it without realising) - and so cannot feel the pain of having to engage in the pursuit of {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}} - since we've subconsciously shifted from that aversive set - but money is different to {{power, competition, unsustainability, immorality}} - as the very vast majority of people are required to live a life which involves the acquisition of money.
- we have forced immersion in money much like forced immersion in heroin is required to activate 'love'.
There's an underlying propensity but it doesn't become activated unless the individual is immersed within that specific environment.

Problem - I'm suggesting that it's the same basic propensity which gives rise to
reward from {{power, competition}} ie having power over somebody, beating somebody.

Problem - how do we show people that this weakness exists (addictive propensity).

Solution - force all people to be immersed in an addictive substance and then demonstrate that since AVERSION is not occurring through repetitive exposure - that the individual is demonstrating 'GREED'.

Side note - why is this necessary ?
Because people seem to be programmed when 'greed' is mentioned to think that it's everybody else that is greedy - I haven't yet found a person who will own up to being greedy.

OK - so you've identified a mechanism by which people can see that they themselves are greedy - so what ?
First step to eradicating a problem is to realise that there's a problem there in the first place.

OK - there's a problem - what's the solution ?
Simply - the generation of a mind which is defined on morality escapes addictive propensity - so all one need do is launch an in-depth analysis of what is right ? what is wrong ? and the net consequence of this will be for an individual to grow an aversion to money.
The aversion to money can be used to indicate an individual's progress towards overcoming greed, becoming wise, being happy.
IE it's a barometer which the individual can use to assess how intelligent they are - since - we're about to realise that intelligence is a scale to morality (wisdom).
When wise - we're at optimal intelligence - are defined moral.

-*-

The key part of this idea is to show an individual how to assess whether they themselves are greedy and hence in need of change - but not for reason other than -
at state wisdom - the individual, through overcoming addictive propensity - becomes happy without need for any external (money,power,competition,entertainment etc) factor.

-*-

Yes but won't a world without money be boring ?
Not entirely fair to suggest this - as I'm describing a world in which all people discard a construct which they've grown an aversion to - ie - it'll be a common consensus to do away with it.

But will it be boring ?
It'll be a world in which nobody can force anybody else to do anything against their will.

Yes but will it be boring ?
Imagining the future - I see individuals in local co-operatives contributing approx an hour a week towards community activities (mostly food production) - and the rest of the time as yours to voluntarily assemble into interest groups - which'll look a lot like the current workforce - except everyone there will be there voluntarily - with NOTHING in the way to stop them leaving, if that's what they choose to do.

-*-

Return to (and slightly extending) the basic idea then -

The global economic system (I believe) may have been a deliberate attempt to immerse the world ie all people in a system which could expose their own greed - through demonstrating that individals failed to demonstrate aversion; a 'benign' conspiracy (of sorts).

You can't solve a problem until you see one exists.
Open an individual's eyes to the problem.
Furnish a solution.
Offer an objective test to indicate an individual's progress towards overcoming greed (and becoming happy).
Explaining that an individual (with complete mechanism) will never achieve happiness until they've followed this basic path (transcended addictive propensity)

And you're there.

Peculiar feelings of deep dislike for money - but perhaps - an understanding that it (a global construct to expose ALL individual's predilection to greed in the absence of insight into one's own flaw) WAS required.

Just trying to work out now if there were another way.
I do not believe that I'm going to find an alternative.
Basic problem (we see this in children) - it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault.

SB_UK
01-08-16, 09:45 AM
So in one sentence.

Immersion of the global populace in a global economic system was simply to expose greed in a manner that the individual could not shield themselves from culpability to by simple act of joyful immersion.

The path to morality within a global economic system (ie exposure) is a graded aversion from none to complete - and the failure for people to demonstrate ANY aversion ie chase money (exclusively owned material possessions etc) as if it's going out of fashion (;-) which it is) ... ... unambiguously points the finger (when people stare at themselves in the mirror) straight right back at them self.

But what if people now claim an aversion to money even if they continue to love it ?
:-)

That's a funny idea - all people (most lying) wanting to do away with money because of this idea.

Not a problem - the ones who lie (because they now see they need lie) will grow (with mind and their own happiness) to hate money -

- and so we need not fear a global population lying about their aversion to money.

It'll come.

SB_UK
01-08-16, 09:53 AM
Other important point - has recurred here for years.

Do we take dexedrine to supply reward
or
Do we take dexedrine to overcome stress

Reward and Stress are deeply tied constructs.

Resolution - posted over last 6 months.
We actually feel stress when we're engaged in an activity which doesn't produce reward.

Now back up to the idea above ^^^

Opposite of love/like is hate/dislike or indifference.


Forced attendance to dislike (absence in reward obtained, pain)
Forced attendance to indifference (absence in reward obtained and pain if forced to comply (pain results from forcing oneself to engage in a behaviour which is not rewarding))
In both cases we're observing absence in reward obtained and so in both cases forced attendance will lead to stress.The paradoxical effect of stimulants - to relax and not stimulate us emerges from this.

The general point then being that enforced engagement in behaviours which do not produce reward, automatically and by virtue, result in stress
- this stress is [of course] overcome by supplying
exogenous
reward.

(ie pushing the distress-reward axis from the left to the centre (ie equilibrium) by 'cheating' with meds)

Everything then fits.

Little Missy
01-08-16, 09:53 AM
You have an addiction to discussions on the same topic. You seem to have an unhealthy view that involves other people, money, and slavery ad nauseam.

Maybe you can find happiness within yourself. I truly wish that for you.

SB_UK
01-08-16, 10:00 AM
Brimnging it all together then -

the ADDer is a little different to nonADDer in that we're incapable (through informational sensitivities) of 'cheating' our reward system into kidding it into believing that we're having fun (ie expressing dopamine) -

- all that's required is for us to identify what it is that we do not find motivational

(which is ever so easy) -

- and to realise that at its heart - it's co-ercion which is the problem.

Not having the option to opt out.

Interesting add on idea - many activities can become rewarding solely by virtue of dropping compulsion.

Where ^^^

Yes but won't a world without money be boring ?
Not entirely fair to suggest this - as I'm describing a world in which all people discard a construct which they've grown an aversion to - ie - it'll be a common consensus to do away with it.

But will it be boring ?
It'll be a world in which nobody can force anybody else to do anything against their will.

Freedom from co-ercion.

Little Missy
01-08-16, 10:02 AM
Are you being coerced into doing things against your will?

Little Missy
01-08-16, 10:11 AM
You have an addiction to discussions on the same topic. You seem to have an unhealthy view that involves other people, money, and slavery ad nauseam.

Maybe you can find happiness within yourself. I truly wish that for you.

And no heroin or coercion.

SB_UK
01-08-16, 10:13 AM
You have an addiction to discussions on the same topic. You seem to have an unhealthy view that involves other people, money, and slavery ad nauseam.

Maybe you can find happiness within yourself. I truly wish that for you.

I'll try and simplify - here's a list of only the first 25 problems which come to mind which'll be solved if the idea as presented in this thread can be understood.
You'll note that each idea by itself has 000,000s thrown at it - and I'm only listing 25 of them - where I can list another 25 if you like - and keep on going - where each list will consist of items all of which have 000,000s similarly thrown at them ... ... in this current world ... ...


How to combat climate change ?
How to ensure all people have a home ?
How to ensure that all people have access to energy ?
How to overcome child abuse ?
How to prevent the stress of daily commutes ?
How to cure cancer ?
How to achieve religious community equilibrium ?
How to be happy ?
To free sufficient time for exercise ?
To find sufficient energy to be able to exercise ?
To see the world ?
To end all war ?
To end the toxic waste generation ?
To stop all cigarette-related deaths ?
To overcome alcoholism ?
To prevent crime ?
To eliminate prisons ?
To end refugees ?
To overcome seasonal (most deaths occur in Winter) premature death ?
To overcome loneliness ?
To eliminate organic pollution ?
To prevent human-sanctioned animal death, cruelty ?
To prevent inequality driven distress ?
To prevent children with learning disabilities growing up believing themselves to be stupid ?
To ensure justice to all as opposed to injustice (legal systems) for all ?

That list was knocked up in seconds - I can generate another list in a similar period of time ... ... and that ^^^ is what you're saying no to - if you don't understand this thread - and how it relates to eg the list of 25 points made above.

SB_UK
01-08-16, 10:14 AM
^^^ if you can't connect this thread to all of the above - then you don't understand the underlying point of this thread.

Which is fine.

But generally nicer to ask for explanation rather than to suggest that there's some error in the logic.

There really isn't - the key problem - is that human beings have become confused with information overload and are no longer able to think clearly.

To re-iterate - pretty much every single one of the problems that human beings suffer from can be traced back to the idea presented in this thread - ie - the 'flaw' as evidenced by the failure to demonstrate aversion to money as indicative of incompleteness of mind (our evolutionary imperative is to complete mind (acquire wisdom) - carrying with it the emergent property of 'enforced moral consistency'.)

SB_UK
01-08-16, 10:22 AM
Opposite of love of (addictive substance)
[when forced to take addictive substance]
is ... ....
Hate (aversion) to addictive substance.

SB_UK
01-08-16, 10:23 AM
^^^ All of man's pressing problems solve (preventative strategies emerge) if this one idea is understood.

Even the big question of
-- How do I avoid dying ?
(which I'll answer as it's less obvious (ie the connection) than the answers to the 25 above)

At state wisdom you no longer fear death.
The question (of how to avoid death) therefore no longer arises and so can be seen as a problem which is prevented from occurring (rather than 'prevented from occurring in the first place' - 'prevented from occurring in time' would be better citing the time required to accumulate sufficient information to attain wisdom).

Little Missy
01-08-16, 10:26 AM
^^^ All of man's problems solve (preventative strategies emerge) if this one idea is understood.

I understand the idea. I don't know where you live, but where I live I am not forced to do anything.

The only person I am able to control is myself.

Little Missy
01-08-16, 10:32 AM
I understand the idea. I don't know where you live, but where I live I am not forced to do anything.

The only person I am able to control is myself.

Now, you are laying blanket statements upon comprehension and whom does or does not comprehend.

I comprehend, but tell me what are you actually doing about all of the aforementioned? Now, that would be interesting.

Unmanagable
01-08-16, 11:00 AM
I've always felt the opposite of love is fear. I embrace what I love and run from, or hide from, what I fear. However, fear can be just as addictive.

We can become addicted to the fight or flight sensations and the emotional charges it all brings about, most especially if that's been our conditioned response for a lifetime.

Without an awareness of what the others experience is like, it seems most are wired to simply choose what we know or what brings the most possible comfort in the moment.

We are conditioned to fear lack of money for survival purposes, conditioned to think lack of money equals low status or "less than" in their human value, conditioned to think many unnecessary things are quite necessary, and conditioned to think we can continue to "improve" upon nature via test tubes and such. WE have become the silly savages, NOT the tribal folks naturally living off the land.

Not sure many will ever be able to think of existing outside of the current scene, by design, nor will many ever wish to. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. It's my greatest heartaches, greatest loves, and greatest forms of entertainment, all wrapped up into one big beautifully freaky package called life.

Lunacie
01-08-16, 12:29 PM
Love and like can be interchangeable.

Opposite of like, is dislike.

To me, they are very different.

Like is a friendly feeling; love is stronger, more profound.

If you like an addictive substance, you could probably stop using it.

If you love an addictive substance, it would be much harder to stop using it.

sarahsweets
01-08-16, 01:20 PM
^^^ if you can't connect this thread to all of the above - then you don't understand the underlying point of this thread.

Which is fine.
Great so because I dont understand the thread, and I dont understand your examples, I am missing the grand gems of wisdom about the world in this thread? Why should anyone bother asking for and explaination when its just going to be a repeat of the same ideas?

But generally nicer to ask for explanation rather than to suggest that there's some error in the logic.[/quote]

Little Missy
01-08-16, 01:33 PM
^^^ if you can't connect this thread to all of the above - then you don't understand the underlying point of this thread.

Which is fine.

But generally nicer to ask for explanation rather than to suggest that there's some error in the logic.

There really isn't - the key problem - is that human beings have become confused with information overload and are no longer able to think clearly.

To re-iterate - pretty much every single one of the problems that human beings suffer from can be traced back to the idea presented in this thread - ie - the 'flaw' as evidenced by the failure to demonstrate aversion to money as indicative of incompleteness of mind (our evolutionary imperative is to complete mind (acquire wisdom) - carrying with it the emergent property of .)

Blanket statements again.
These are things that YOU suffer from continually, over and over and over.
What have YOU done to alleviate YOUR suffering?

Socaljaxs
01-08-16, 02:38 PM
Few concerns I'm having... From the start of this thread, there is already an issue... The "opposite of love" already has a debate, as it stands as to what the opposite of love actually is.... Some will argue "indifference"(apathy no feelings) others like yourself will argue "hate or dislike, or aversion". Many will argue that hate, adversion dislike, are considered on the same side of the coin as love. Both considered strong feelings. Indifference as an opposition due to no strong feelings" so it's difficult to form a discussion when the opposite has yet to be agreed upon!

What's the opposite of addiction to heroin ?

When another poster brought up the indifference option as a considered opposite . Your original question changed to not include love.. Plus people that are addicted to a substance may not love the substance and can truly hate their drug of choice, however the addition aspect and the feelings of the drug is not always grouped together. Example, I smoke cigarettes I'm addicted. Do I love cigarettes... No, however I'm addicted to the entire process of smoking. My feelings are not a causation of my addition

Love and like can be interchangeable.

Opposite of like, is dislike.

"like and love" are not always interchangeable. I can love someone but not like them very much! People love their parents but may not actually like them at times.

^^^ if you can't connect this thread to all of the above - then you don't understand the underlying point of this thread.

For myself at least, this has nothing to do with understanding or not understanding your argument. For me, I personally find the style of your writing not very engaging. Nor is it presented in a way that would open a conversation. It comes across as you lecturing and in a forum, it isn't very inviting to discuss ideas! Also, the blanket dismissal if someone doesn't agree with you. Makes continuing discussing even less engaging because to say someone doesn't understand because they don't agree with you, keeps your views limited and delievery of info less welcoming

mildadhd
01-08-16, 09:23 PM
animosity,
dislike,
enmity,
hate,
ill,
will,
indifference,
neglect,
apathy,
coolness,
disloyalty,
misery,
sorrow,
treachery,
unhappiness

http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-opposite-of/love.html


We could include the actual neurophysiology of love to help us to try and avoid the games words alone can play.

mildadhd
01-08-16, 10:12 PM
Neurophysiological forms of love?

-enthusiasm for life
-sexuality
-attachment
-separation
-joy
-

Lunacie
01-08-16, 10:24 PM
We could include the actual neurophysiology of love to help us to try and avoid the games words alone can play.

Do you think it's a 'game' to determine if we're all discussing the same thing or not?

mildadhd
01-08-16, 10:33 PM
Do you think it's a 'game' to determine if we're all discussing the same thing or not?

Yes, instinctual.

Socaljaxs
01-08-16, 11:00 PM
Yes, instinctual.


Well considering your word hippo paste. That pretty much answered the opposite of love problem pretty easily.. Considering the words listed are not equal of one another as an opposition. Nor would some of them be valuable replacements of adversion to the beginning hypothesis!

You may think wording and proper definitions are just considered a game. But, In order for one to form a proper theory and state the hypothesis, that can be conversed and have ideas and options and objections involved or to have it be proven or disproven, you can't make up words as you go along.. Well I mean you can, however, but it would discount your credibility pretty quickly! If ones goal would be to have others believe they to be the smartest one in the room" making up definitions pretty much will have an opposite reaction.

It's like I can saw the word "PINK"now means "harm" but that doesn't actual mean it's true

Lunacie
01-08-16, 11:16 PM
Yes, instinctual.

Sorry, but now I'm even more confused.

Does your instinct say that I'm playing word games?

Or should we all instinctively know what the word "love" means to each and every person who posts on this thread?

Or something else that I haven't thought of?

mildadhd
01-09-16, 12:35 AM
...Considering the words listed are not equal of one another...


Exactly. Games considering the neurophysiology of the words would help strengthen the discussion, rather than games without considering the neurophysiology of the words alone.

dvdnvwls
01-09-16, 12:39 AM
SB_UK: In the original post on this thread, you had an unfortunate fundamental error in your use of the word "opposite". The things you're claiming as opposites are not opposites at all.

Until you clear that up - that is, either until you use the word "opposite" correctly or until you give up talking about opposites in this context - the thread has no chance of making sense.

Socaljaxs
01-09-16, 07:15 AM
Exactly. Games considering the neurophysiology of the words would help strengthen the discussion, rather than games without considering the neurophysiology of the words alone.

What are you talking about?:scratch::confused: :umm1: I'm really hoping, that this is an autocorrect error of the word neurophysiology and/or is a misspelling of another word.. Otherwise, stumped on how/why you would pair this with the word. if you in fact actually meant to use this form of study and there isn't a spelling/grammatical error. I can't follow how or why you would use this and pair it with vocabulary

Twiggy
01-09-16, 11:13 AM
It's because this "modern" society of ours (where we stare at screens all day long and rarely talk regularly) relies on a man-made currency and man-made markets to live.

It's pretty sad. But this is how we are evolving.

Fuzzy12
01-09-16, 12:37 PM
I like not talking. I think talking is overrated. :scratch:

That's what scares me about sb's world. It sounds too communal. Where will I find peace and space in there?

dvdnvwls
01-09-16, 01:16 PM
I like not talking. I think talking is overrated. :scratch:

That's what scares me about sb's world. It sounds too communal. Where will I find peace and space in there?
Since "SB's world" as described in this thread is a fantasy world anyway, you can simply add a "Peaceful Space Dimension" to the fantasy for yourself, without having to worry about how that might happen.

mildadhd
01-09-16, 01:47 PM
Everyone has a world. A universe within oneself. I think people would understand other people's worlds better by adding the neurophysiological perspective. The problem I have understanding the discussion/perspective of SB_UK's world, is partly due to the lack of the neurophysiological awareness, in my world. (and vice versa)

mildadhd
01-09-16, 01:54 PM
Everyone has a dopamine reward system, everyone has a opiate reward system, etc.

mildadhd
01-09-16, 02:05 PM
It's because this "modern" society of ours (where we stare at screens all day long and rarely talk regularly) relies on a man-made currency and man-made markets to live.

It's pretty sad. But this is how we are evolving.

The whole topic really is fascinating. Almost every person on the bus are glued to the screens on the ride to work. This must influence human development. I wonder if we should look at both the pleasures and the pains of our modern worlds. Money would be in the same human boat.

Socaljaxs
01-09-16, 02:34 PM
Everyone has a world. A universe within oneself. I think people would understand other people's worlds better by adding the neurophysiological perspective. The problem I have understanding the discussion/perspective of SB_UK's world, is partly due to the lack of the neurophysiological awareness, in my world. (and vice versa)

And how would one learn and understand how another person's inner world operates by learning and adding neurophysiological perspective?

Fuzzy12
01-09-16, 04:00 PM
I wish it was easy as getting rid of money. Not that getting rid of money, or the current financial system rather, is easy but I wish happiness was just as easy as living in the right system. I think we missed that boat long ago. Humans haven't evolved to be happy. We've evolved to survive...at least long enough to spread copies of our genes.

Fuzzy12
01-09-16, 04:08 PM
Since "SB's world" as described in this thread is a fantasy world anyway, you can simply add a "Peaceful Space Dimension" to the fantasy for yourself, without having to worry about how that might happen.

Is it? I think there might be a possibility that we really just aren't understanding it. I'd like to keep an open mind. To be honest I don't understand it at all but that's got no bearing on the question of if it's feasible and more importantly if it is desirable.

SB_UK
01-09-16, 04:11 PM
This thread is becoming an exercise in engineering dissent through redefining words.

Here's a great example.

I used symbiotic recently to mean mutually beneficial.
2. A relationship of mutual benefit

But symbiotic can also mean:
1. Biology A close, prolonged association between two [...] that may, but does not necessarily [ie can harm each member], benefit each member
which !! is not compatible with
symbiotic:
2. A relationship of mutual benefit

-*-

There is every chance that 2 people arguing with different meanings for symbiotic will disagree and BOTH be correct.

So I'm going to simplify.

1. Thread title Opposite of love of (addictive substance) is ... ....
2. More specifically Opposite of love of MONEY is ... ....
3. Opposite of love of MONEY is ... .... when enforcedly immersed in money

4. Opposite of love of MONEY (when enforcedly immersed in money) is Aversion to money
and
What is the saying ? The love of money is the root of all WHAT?

So - aversion to money [through completing mind/wsidom] can be considered to represent an individual pulling up the roots (his/her own capacity to commit) WHAT?

-*-

It's hard to simplify this idea any more.

SB_UK
01-09-16, 04:15 PM
So - aversion to money [through completing mind/wsidom] can be considered to represent an individual pulling up the roots (his/her own capacity to commit) WHAT?

If you feel aversion to money you are on the way / have overcome 'greed'.
If you do not feel aversion to money you are under the control of an addictive reward system (which greed is a reference to).

It's important to note that NOBODY thinks that they're greedy.

This is an 'objective' test which an individual can use to assess their own progress towards wisdom (ie the extent to which they're under the spell of a reward system which is fundamentally detrimental to the individual's own health).

Lunacie
01-09-16, 05:14 PM
This thread is becoming an exercise in engineering dissent through redefining words.

Here's a great example.

I used symbiotic recently to mean mutually beneficial.


But symbiotic can also mean:

which !! is not compatible with
symbiotic:


-*-

There is every chance that 2 people arguing with different meanings for symbiotic will disagree and BOTH be correct.

So I'm going to simplify.

1. Thread title
2. More specifically
3. when enforcedly immersed in money

4. Opposite of love of MONEY (when enforcedly immersed in money) is Aversion to money
and
What is the saying ? The love of money is the root of all WHAT?

So - aversion to money [through completing mind/wsidom] can be considered to represent an individual pulling up the roots (his/her own capacity to commit) WHAT?

-*-

It's hard to simplify this idea any more.


I don't love money.

I use it and I'm more comfortable when I have enough not to worry about needing it.

But I don't love money.

And I'm not greedy.

It's not important to me that I have money except that in order to live in this world it seems we need money.

It's not important to me that I have shoes except that many places won't let me in the door unless I'm wearing shoes.

Again I point out the idea of our feelings, about rewards as about anything else, lie on a spectrum from indifference through hate to like to love to greed.

I just can't buy into the idea that this is as black or white as either love or aversion.

SB_UK
01-09-16, 05:39 PM
I don't love money.

I use it and I'm more comfortable when I have enough not to worry about needing it.

But I don't love money.

And I'm not greedy.

It's not important to me that I have money except that in order to live in this world it seems we need money.

It's not important to me that I have shoes except that many places won't let me in the door unless I'm wearing shoes.

Again I point out the idea of our feelings, about rewards as about anything else, lie on a spectrum from indifference through hate to like to love to greed.

I just can't buy into the idea that this is as black or white as either love or aversion.

The point of this thread is that

YOU LOVE MONEY (ARE ON THE GREED SPECTRUM) IF YOU SHOW NO AVERSION TO MONEY
AND THIS IDEA IS NEEDED BECAUSE
[1] NOBODY THINKS THAT THEY'RE GREEDY
[2] NOBODY THINKS THAT THEY LOVE MONEY

Little Missy
01-09-16, 05:57 PM
The point of this thread is that

YOU LOVE MONEY (ARE ON THE GREED SPECTRUM) IF YOU SHOW NO AVERSION TO MONEY
AND THIS IDEA IS NEEDED BECAUSE
[1] NOBODY THINKS THAT THEY'RE GREEDY
[2] NOBODY THINKS THAT THEY LOVE MONEY


Hallelujah, now that is finally out of the way.

Lunacie
01-09-16, 06:23 PM
The point of this thread is that

YOU LOVE MONEY (ARE ON THE GREED SPECTRUM) IF YOU SHOW NO AVERSION TO MONEY
AND THIS IDEA IS NEEDED BECAUSE
[1] NOBODY THINKS THAT THEY'RE GREEDY
[2] NOBODY THINKS THAT THEY LOVE MONEY


Doesn't matter whether you whisper or shout ... you are sharing your opinion, not a fact.

mildadhd
01-10-16, 12:19 AM
The point of this thread is that

YOU LOVE MONEY (ARE ON THE GREED SPECTRUM) IF YOU SHOW NO AVERSION TO MONEY
AND THIS IDEA IS NEEDED BECAUSE
[1] NOBODY THINKS THAT THEY'RE GREEDY
[2] NOBODY THINKS THAT THEY LOVE MONEY


I think I partially get it.

I could be addicted to money if I have no dislike for money?

I have always been scared of cocaine and opiates because I know I would like them to much.

But I have never thought of money in the same way?

Money to make it through the next day, yes.

But not any long term goals for wealth.

Interesting discussion.

Socaljaxs
01-10-16, 01:20 AM
Why are you shouting in big colored letters?

By the way, I have zero issues admitting that I am greedy! I'm spoiled too and enjoy both cheap and expensive things and activities and places and most (nouns) in excess. I also have reversal greed where I want the entire world to have none of it as well.. And less wil never be enough... I always want more than I have and not very good at sharing toys either...Do I love money.. Nope don't really care about money either way.. Money just exist for Me... I don't sit there and puffy heart money and want and get warm fuzzy because of money. .. However, I am a greedy and stubborn and i like pretty things/animals/people colors and plants/ and glitter and cats. But my greed is not rooted or a cause of my love of money. Greed goes beyond monetary items and goes way beyond just dollars.

But Seriously! Why would you even generalize the entire population and make a general false assumption that "nobody thinks they are greedy"

Some People won't admit this type of truth, due to social rules.... That doesn't mean people won't think this of themselves or even have any issues with it as well...

Considering I think your entire hypothesis is wrong, and from the beginning (first line) from there couldn't get past the first error in logic I.E. "love of addictive substance" .. and find that this is based on your opinion/possible your own experience, demographic location(no idea) and what a few people wrote.. You haven't offered any conclusive evidence that will support this.

And side note. The style of writing which may not be your intention gets delievered in a way that comes across to others as you Talking/shouting at us, and the condescending talking down to others writing, that implies we are less intelligent due to different opinions.

anonymouslyadd
01-10-16, 01:55 AM
I'll try and simplify - here's a list of only the first 25 problems which come to mind which'll be solved if the idea as presented in this thread can be understood.
You'll note that each idea by itself has 000,000s thrown at it - and I'm only listing 25 of them - where I can list another 25 if you like - and keep on going - where each list will consist of items all of which have 000,000s similarly thrown at them ... ... in this current world ... ...


How to combat climate change ?
How to ensure all people have a home ?
How to ensure that all people have access to energy ?
How to overcome child abuse ?
How to prevent the stress of daily commutes ?
How to cure cancer ?
How to achieve religious community equilibrium ?
How to be happy ?
To free sufficient time for exercise ?
To find sufficient energy to be able to exercise ?
To see the world ?
To end all war ?
To end the toxic waste generation ?
To stop all cigarette-related deaths ?
To overcome alcoholism ?
To prevent crime ?
To eliminate prisons ?
To end refugees ?
To overcome seasonal (most deaths occur in Winter) premature death ?
To overcome loneliness ?
To eliminate organic pollution ?
To prevent human-sanctioned animal death, cruelty ?
To prevent inequality driven distress ?
To prevent children with learning disabilities growing up believing themselves to be stupid ?
To ensure justice to all as opposed to injustice (legal systems) for all ?

That list was knocked up in seconds - I can generate another list in a similar period of time ... ... and that ^^^ is what you're saying no to - if you don't understand this thread - and how it relates to eg the list of 25 points made above.
In the 7,000 years of recorded human history, your scenario has never been achieved. Why now? What dramatic event will create the climate for your utopian society?

mildadhd
01-10-16, 02:13 AM
And how would one learn and understand how another person's inner world operates by learning and adding neurophysiological perspective?

Addictive substances change our internal affective feelings, right?

Socaljaxs
01-10-16, 03:31 AM
And how would one learn and understand how another person's inner world operates by learning and adding neurophysiological perspective?

Addictive substances change our internal affective feelings, right?

Ok, :scratch: not sure what addictive substances has to do with my above response/question, of your question about USING neurophysiological perspective In order to understand how a person's inner mind works.

But what you said above was in regards to find out how using neurological and neurophysiological perspective can help one understand the inner worlds of another ... .. But ok I'll bite...if this is to answer the question above that I asked. Woohoo score!

"Addictive substances" is a very broad overview term, and not all are considered a negative.... but to answer this question I will generalize... yes. Addictive Substances can change a person state of feelings(being)...if something has the potential to change your state of being even temporarily it has a possibility for addiction.... but yes almost anything that has the potential to change how you feel even temporary (cake for example has additives and sugar which have both been proven to have addictive qualities to them... So if a substance has the potential being both positive or negative it will have the possibility of addition..


Now explain your response please :thankyou:

SB_UK
01-10-16, 05:47 AM
Doesn't matter whether you whisper or shout ... you are sharing your opinion, not a fact.

It's repeated to explain in 1 simple sentence what this thread is about not to use re-statement to 'prove' that it's true.

Your comments don't yet show that you understand the point of the thread - and so clarification is required until you can state that either it's right because or it's wrong because.

Now define fact.

It is a fact that London is the capital of the UK ?

Anybody (as happened in India) can rename a city ?

Nothing's a fact - a major principle of empirical science (eg in Higgs Boson sigma/alpha value probability of existence) is statistical unlikelihood.

How could one turn this idea into a statistical likelihood ?
I could do it by attempting an intelligently worded ratings questionnaire aimed at relationship to money and relationship to morality without in any way allowing participants to know the purpose of the survey - and one would see a strong negative correlation.

Note that the Higgs Boson was believed to exist 50 years before empirical evidence ie you don't really need to obtain empirical evidence if there's no alternative hypothesis.'Not something' isn't a scientific model of understanding.

This would prove strong statistical evidence and coule be used to turn the idea towards a fact - noting that statistical evidence is completely confounded by confounders ie inability to understand reality turns highly significant empirical data into nonsense.
Imagine a car plant had 'red' car day - yes every car in the plant would produce red cars - and this'd be very strong statistical evidence that the manufacturer sold only red cars ...... but this is in the absence of knowing that it's 'red' car day. Identifying confounders requires understandign which is, in turn, strengthened by empirical evidence - all in all meaning that 'fact' is a difficult term to use.

We've covered this idea over and over on site - as it relates to the idea that science doesn't prove anything - Amtram,Dizfriz.

If only medical researchers would stop wasting time proving that when we become diseased we break (particularly the oncology people) and started looking at mechanisms (and this idea IS the mechanism) for prevention of the problem in the first place clue - 1931 Nobel prize in physiology and the relationship between

'love of money' love definition - reward from = positive reward reinforcement
==
'love of carb' love definition - reward from = positive reward reinforcement

ie it's the SAME reward system.

ie if you get no reward from (see research into reward / aversion partic with respect to appetite regulation) ie IF you demonstrate an AVERSION to money (carb -> anabolism) - then we starve the cancer cell which is predominantly driven into existence through glycolytic flux + absence of autophagy ie both behaviours consistent with an alcoholic not being able to resist alcohol <- definition of 'love' here is 'addiction'.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 06:03 AM
neurophysiology

Trying (unlike above not sure if this works)

Transition

ONSET OF INCOMPLETE MIND (5 YEARS)

No mind (reward system - love of money) -> dopaminergic activation related to money acquisition

-> transition to wisdom ->
aversion to money grows -> pain -> requirement for pain relief (opioid activation) -> most commonly ingestion of sweet/fatty foods (cf T2D epidemic)
So - reducing dopaminergic activation and increasing opioid activation required to allow an individual to comply

ONSET OF COMPLETE MIND (CANNOT OCCUR (if it occurs) EARLIER THAN 30s)

-> mind (aversion to reward system money)
Now ZERO dopaminergic activation from use of money and ZERO functionality of opioid system in relieving pain from enaging in activities which ordinarily obtain their draw from the motivation which 'love' / desire of money gains its power from.

So - the important part here is that the 'opposition' of dopaminergic and opioid systems is tied ie when one loses activity in one - one loses activity in the other.

That idea could well work.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 06:12 AM
That idea could well work.

So we've a balanced pleasure - pain equilibrium and as we develop mind what we observe is -

STARTING POINT - REWARD SYSTEM 'LOVE' MONEY (GREED)

PLEASURE ----------------- <- COLOUR (INDICATIVE OF INTENSITY OF PLEASURE IE DARK - HIGH) GRADED FROM DARK TO LIGHT
PLEASURE ----------------- PAIN <- COLOUR (INDICATIVE OF INTENSITY OF PAIN IE DARK - HIGH) GRADED FROM LIGHT TO DARK
PLEASUR^

+ UNDERSTANDING -> MORALITY

PLEASURE -----------------
PLEASURE ----------------- PAIN
PLEAS--------------URE^
ie reducing pleasure, increasing pain
- until

WISDOM -> Transcend axis


EFFECTIVE ENDPOINT - REWARD SYSTEM 'LOVE' MONEY (GREED) TRANSCENDED - ONLY AVERSION REMAINS

PLEASURE -----------------
PLEASURE ----------------- PAIN
PLEAS--------------U-------RE^

ie zero dopaminergic activation
zero capacity for opioid pain relief

- only pain


Therefore aversion represents an independent measure of 'enlightenment' (wisdom)

SB_UK
01-10-16, 06:13 AM
The diagrams have a larger font to aid understanding.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 06:20 AM
Haven't thought enough to ensure that the figures above work - but superficially they're fine.

The important point is that from around 3 years of age we are supposed to accumulate a mind which IS moral - and that this results in the fulcrum shifting off the paired - stimulant - narcotic axis into a position at state wisdom - the individual is no longer characterized by greed where -


YOU LOVE MONEY (ARE ON THE GREED SPECTRUM) IF YOU SHOW NO AVERSION TO MONEY

Socaljaxs
01-10-16, 07:28 AM
Now define fact.

all in all meaning that 'fact' is a difficult term to use.

We've covered this idea over and over on site - as it relates to the idea that science doesn't prove anything - Amtram,Dizfriz.

If only medical researchers would stop wasting time proving that when we become diseased we break (particularly the oncology people) and started looking at mechanisms (and this idea IS the mechanism) for prevention of the problem in the first place clue - 1931 Nobel prize in physiology and the relationship between
if you get no reward from (see research into reward / aversion partic with respect to appetite regulation) ie IF you demonstrate an AVERSION to money (carb -> anabolism) - then we starve the cancer cell which is predominantly driven into existence through glycolytic flux + absence of autophagy ie both behaviours consistent with an alcoholic not being able to resist alcohol <- definition of 'love' here is 'addiction'.

with everything that you are saying/claiming, and not just in this current thread but in general of all your post, that touch on subjects of science.... I'm not in disagreement, with how easy it is to manipulate data and to move points around to serve your own purpose....

Based on this quote above however, If you can't ever truly prove or disprove your hypothesis, nor do you seem to find interest in hearing or examining others opinions. And all science as you stated above and quoted doesn't prove anything, what exactly is your point or purpose in posting and sharing your studies and findings and opinions? If it all can be made up and changed at will.. Why waste the time? These studies you post about aren't going to change the way we live or change the world views? Or even attempt too change the masses.. Honestly confused on your reward that you gain by doing this? They aren't group discussion exchanging ideas as so on.

Little Missy
01-10-16, 09:13 AM
I think the money I'm using is just Monopoly money anyway since I'm exchanging printed paper for whatever sundries are necessary.

Gold!, baby, gold! Diamonds! Silver! Platinum! :yes:

Lunacie
01-10-16, 11:52 AM
It's repeated to explain in 1 simple sentence what this thread is about not to use re-statement to 'prove' that it's true.

Your comments don't yet show that you understand the point of the thread - and so clarification is required until you can state that either it's right because or it's wrong because.

......................................

'love of money' love definition - reward from = positive reward reinforcement
==
'love of carb' love definition - reward from = positive reward reinforcement

ie it's the SAME reward system.

ie if you get no reward from (see research into reward / aversion partic with respect to appetite regulation) ie IF you demonstrate an AVERSION to money (carb -> anabolism) - then we starve the cancer cell which is predominantly driven into existence through glycolytic flux + absence of autophagy ie both behaviours consistent with an alcoholic not being able to resist alcohol <- definition of 'love' here is 'addiction'.

I do understand your point ... but I don't agree with it.


You keep presenting this as black or white, love or aversion.

Those are both strong feelings.

I have no strong feelings either way about money.

I don't love money. I don't hate money.


We live in a monetary economy and I work with that system.

If we lived in a barter economy I'd work with that system.



Using money does not make me immoral, or even amoral.


I base morality on how we treat each other. Nothing more, nothing less.


... sits back and waits for SB to tell me once again that I don't understand his point because if I did, I'd agree. Since I don't agree, therefore I don't understand. Ad nauseum.

sarahsweets
01-10-16, 12:04 PM
I cant even begin to tackle everything in this thread especially because I must be dumb if I dont get it or agree with it, and this is usually why I avoid these threads anyway.....
But, as an alcoholic...
I used to like drinking years ago when I drank like a normal person. Once I crossed that threshhold about 8 or so years ago from someone who drank in good times to someone who drank all the time, there was no love of alcohol for me. I loathed it. I felt like the weakest, useless piece of crap because I couldnt stop like normal people. Someone who regularly wakes up at like 4 anyhow, but has to drink wine so they dont shake, and then throws up- and then drinks to fix that problem- does not love alcohol. I was a slave to it. I hated every breath I took. I cant begin to explain what withdrawal was like, and I should have had a medical detox, but I didnt know any better. If I hadnt been on lamical for bipolar I know I would have had seizures. Drinking has never been a love for me. It has always been filled with pain. Not sure if this plays into the thread in anyway but its what came to mind.

Little Missy
01-10-16, 01:59 PM
You know what, SB? You may very well be a lightworker and not know it. Really. :)

dvdnvwls
01-10-16, 02:09 PM
Drinking has never been a love for me. It has always been filled with pain. Not sure if this plays into the thread in anyway...
Clearly it does have a bearing on this thread - it shows that loving or not loving something is actually unrelated to addiction in your case, and because it only takes one counter-example to disprove a blanket statement, therefore your post conclusively disproves SB_UK's main point.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 02:28 PM
I don't love money. I don't hate money.



The point is that NOBODY can tell whether they love money.

Nobody can tell whether they're 'greedy'.

People don't have the tools to tell whether they love money.

Nobody ever thinks that they themselves are greedy.

The point is - is that you can't make the statement that you don't love money.

Nobody can make the statement that they do not love money.

Because it's impossible to tell.

It's only possible to tell how much pain arises through attachment to money - and the extent to which pain is felt is indicative of one's own progress towards wisdom

- where wisdom relates to transcending the reward system which money operates through.

The figures above are easy enough to understand.

You don't understand this thread if you're stating that you don't love money.

A key part of this thread is that nobody can tell whether they love money.

Nobody can tell whether they're 'greedy'.

People don't have the tools to tell whether they love money.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 02:30 PM
I have an external reference which explains the point I'm making but it can't go in open forum.

If you really can't understand this point - I'll scan several pages in from a book and put them in debates.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 02:56 PM
This is more painful than going to a dentists - I've had to take photographs and put onto facebook and put links on in debates in order to get the document shown.
Won't upload here.

PRIVATE DEBATES SECTION - THIS IS EXPLANATORY MATERIAL AND CONTAINS A COUPLE OF LINES WHICH CANNOT BE DISCUSSED OUTSIDE OF THE PRIVATE AREA.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1780341&postcount=1

OK DONE - and typically I've lost this bit off the first page.

Heading
WE CAN'T SEE OUR OWN GREEDI've typed it out from the page so the 4 pages are complete.

Now note - I'm making the point:
The point is that NOBODY can tell whether they love money.

Nobody can tell whether they're 'greedy'.

People don't have the tools to tell whether they love money.

Nobody ever thinks that they themselves are greedy.
The author is making the statement:
WE CAN'T SEE OUR OWN GREEDThose 4 pages (if understood) will help to explain what this thread relates to.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 03:19 PM
So - what I can write is .

p50 We can't see our own greed
p51 It's because greed and avarice are especially hard to see in ourselves
p52 Some years ago I did a 7 part series on common problems and my wife told me that the week you deal with greed you will have your lowest attendance. She was right. People packed it in for every other session but not greed. I cannot recall anyone ever saying 'I spend too much money on myself, I think my greedy lust for money is harming my family, my soul and all other people.'
Greed hides itself from its from its victim.
The money god's modus operandi includes blindness to your own heart.
Why can't anyone in the grip of greed see it ?
p 53 Nobody thinks they're guilty of greed. We should all start with a working hypothesis that this could easily be a problem with me. If greed hides itself so deeply nobody should be confident that it is not a problem for them. How can we recognize and be come free from the power of money to blind us ?

-*-

Note there are 4 or 5 words in those 4 pages which ADD forums do not permit to be mentioned - they are not included in the sections above.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 03:23 PM
The point is - repeating it because the point still hasn't been understood.

And taking somebody else's words.

1
We can't see our own greed
2
It's because greed and avarice are especially hard to see in ourselves
3
I cannot recall anyone ever saying 'I spend too much money on myself, I think my greedy lust for money is harming my family, my soul and all other people.'
4
Greed hides itself from its from its victim.
5
The money god's modus operandi includes blindness to your own heart.
6
Why can't anyone in the grip of greed see it ?
7
Nobody thinks they're guilty of greed.
8
We should all start with a working hypothesis that this could easily be a problem with me. If greed hides itself so deeply nobody should be confident that it is not a problem for them.
9
How can we recognize and be come free from the power of money to blind us ?
-- and now in my words
10
The point is that NOBODY can tell whether they love money.
11
Nobody can tell whether they're 'greedy'.
12
People don't have the tools to tell whether they love money.
13
Nobody ever thinks that they themselves are greedy.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 03:28 PM
I don't love money.

But I don't love money.

And I'm not greedy.



Now look at the section above and can you see the problem with it ?

clue

1
We can't see our own greed
2
It's because greed and avarice are especially hard to see in ourselves
3
I cannot recall anyone ever saying 'I spend too much money on myself, I think my greedy lust for money is harming my family, my soul and all other people.'
4
Greed hides itself from its from its victim.
5
The money god's modus operandi includes blindness to your own heart.
6
Why can't anyone in the grip of greed see it ?
7
Nobody thinks they're guilty of greed.
8
We should all start with a working hypothesis that this could easily be a problem with me. If greed hides itself so deeply nobody should be confident that it is not a problem for them.
9
How can we recognize and be come free from the power of money to blind us ?
-- and now in my words
10
The point is that NOBODY can tell whether they love money.
11
Nobody can tell whether they're 'greedy'.
12
People don't have the tools to tell whether they love money.
13
Nobody ever thinks that they themselves are greedy.

Socaljaxs
01-10-16, 03:43 PM
Seriously!!! Pay attention! It has been stated many many times already that everyone on this thread ( minus mild add) UNDERSTANDS your opinion we just don't agree with your theory


It has been stated many times already by different people, for various and different reasons as to why, we don't agree with your opinion of this proposed theory of yours! We all understand what you are proposing... We just don't agree with it.. Not the same thing...

Both Sarah and myself explained our reason as to why from the first line I.e very beginning the part of love of (additive substance) we disagree with you [/B(Sarah personal explainations was way better than mine) there isn't a love and in most cases even a positive state of being that are attached too with substance, if anything it would be different emotion one would feel, towards are drug of choice. Emotions are conscious.. We already told you we don't agree with you on the opposite of love as well.. And had few reasons as well to refute your claim

Your 25 questions had been refuted 2 times....it sounds like a utopian world one that can't and won't work. If it has it already would be.

Love of money and to claim greed I've already admitted and completely disagree with you on this as week and a generalized statement as well about people not knowing they are truly greedy.. Yes people do. I'm the first to admit this. My upbringing plays a very big part of it for me.. Definitions of greed and knowing it is how I am and what I do and my way of being... I'm not ashamed of this fact either.

Money, is part of our society and a big part of it as well. Money has been quoted many times as to not buy happiness. Yes it can provide temporary pleasure or temporary/permanent pain.. and the way our society operates...

Money represents many things to many different people. But thats not what your talking about
The point is that NOBODY can tell whether they love money.

Nobody can tell whether they're 'greedy'.

People don't have the tools to tell whether they love money.

Nobody ever thinks that they themselves are greedy.

The point is - is that you can't make the statement that you don't love money.

Nobody can make the statement that they do not love money.

Because it's impossible to tell.

It's only possible to tell how much pain arises through attachment to money - and the extent to which pain is felt is indicative of one's own progress towards wisdom

- where wisdom relates to transcending the reward system which money operates through.

The figures above are easy enough to understand.

You don't understand this thread if you're stating that you don't love money.

[B]A key part of this thread is that nobody can tell whether they love money.

Nobody can tell whether they're 'greedy'.

People don't have the tools to tell whether they love money.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 03:44 PM
I'll try again

you can tell (pain) when you have an aversion to money
you can't tell when you have a love for money (greed)

The point of this thread is to make the point that:
you can't tell when you have a love for money (greed)

but you can work it out dependent on whether:
you feel (pain) when you have an aversion to money

As aversion to money grows so does love for money diminish.

You can tell if you have an aversion to money (because you feel pain).
You can't tell if you have love of money (because we can't work this out for ourselves).

-*-

This idea is useful because an individual can't tell when they have attained wisdom.

ie

You can't tell if you're on the path to wisdom.
You can't tell if you love money (are greedy).

But you can tell how much aversion you have to money.

As the aversion grows we can tell 2 things about ourselves which we cannot tell in any other way.

We can tell the extent to which we love money (ie are greedy)
We can tell whether we're on the path to (or have attained wisdom)

SB_UK
01-10-16, 03:48 PM
Seriously!!! Pay attention! It has been stated many many times already that everyone on this thread ( minus mild add) UNDERSTANDS your opinion we just don't agree with your theory


It has been stated many times already by different people, for various and different reasons as to why, we don't agree with your opinion of this proposed theory of yours! We all understand what you are proposing... We just don't agree with it.. Not the same thing...

Both Sarah and myself explained our reason as to why from the first line I.e very beginning the part of love of (additive substance) we disagree with you [/B(Sarah personal explainations was way better than mine) there isn't a love and in most cases even a positive state of being that are attached too with substance, if anything it would be different emotion one would feel, towards are drug of choice. Emotions are conscious.. [B]We already told you we don't agree with you on the opposite of love as well.. And had few reasons as well to refute your claim

Your 25 questions had been refuted 2 times....it sounds like a utopian world one that can't and won't work. If it has it already would be.

Love of money and to claim greed I've already admitted and completely disagree with you on this as week and a generalized statement as well about people not knowing they are truly greedy.. Yes people do. I'm the first to admit this. My upbringing plays a very big part of it for me.. Definitions of greed and knowing it is how I am and what I do and my way of being... I'm not ashamed of this fact either.

Money, is part of our society and a big part of it as well. Money has been quoted many times as to not buy happiness. Yes it can provide temporary pleasure or temporary/permanent pain.. and the way our society operates...

Money represents many things to many different people. But thats not what your talking about

OK - do you understand the 4 pages that I've just typed out ?

SB_UK
01-10-16, 03:50 PM
Your 25 questions had been refuted 2 times....it sounds like a utopian world one that can't and won't work. If it has it already would be.This is a ridiculous statement.

It's like saying at the point of Big Bang that there will never be a mind because if it were a good idea then it would have already happened.

Surely you realise that evolution occurs along a temporal scale ?

It takes time for evolution to work ?

I don't think that anybody would argue this point of view.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 03:55 PM
This is a ridiculous statement.

It's like saying at the point of Big Band that there will never be a mind because if it were a good idea then it would have already happened.

Surely you realise that evolution occurs along a temporal scale ?

It takes time for evolution to work ?

I don't think that anybody would argue this point of view.


Please can you explain whether you understand what I've just written about your last comment ?

You're suggesting that if something is a good idea then it would have already happened.

Do you realise that things take time ?

Do you know how long we've had an Internet for ?
Do you know how long we've had TV for ?

How on earth are you going to arrive at global accord if people can't communicate with other people ?

Which is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I think that you're making up silly arguments to avoid the single basic problem which is described (NOT IN MY WORDS) in the 4 pages I've just typed out.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 03:58 PM
Here's an example of the line you're taking.

Human beings are made up of cells.

Comment >> no we're not

Human beings are made up of cells - here's the evidence

Comment >> no we're not

Here's some more evidence

Comment >> no we're not, I understand what you're saying - but no we're not

At some point you're going to have to point out to me an alternative approach for an individual to identify that they're greedy; in the absence of an alternative approach - you are not entitled to disagree.

You must supply an alternative hypothesis.

Comment >> human beings are made up of jelly, here's the evidence - I ate jelly yesterday <<<--- this is the idea - this is what I'm waiting for

SB_UK
01-10-16, 04:02 PM
VERY SIMPLY

You must give a mechanism which an individual can use to test whether they (themselves) are greedy in order to defeat the idea I've offered.

That's all.

Nothing else.

Here's a random person -> Fred.

What are you going to say to him to allow him to work out whether he is greedy ?

That's all.

Fuzzy12
01-10-16, 04:20 PM
I think, first you might have to define what exactly you mean by greedy and then we can discuss why that's a problem

Also, yes your comment about jelly is very valid. The statements you are making are not self evident at all.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 04:20 PM
quote=Socaljaxs;1780357

It has been stated many times already by different people, for various and different reasons as to why, we don't agree with your opinion of this proposed theory of yours! We all understand what you are proposing... We just don't agree with it.. Not the same thing...
1
NO - I CAN TELL WHETHER YOU UNDERSTAND THE THEORY BASED ON YOUR RESPONSES. YOU CANNOT TELL.
Both Sarah and myself explained our reason as to why from the first line I.e very beginning the part of love of (additive substance) we disagree with you
2
You're playing with the word 'love' - I've given you an example of 'symbiosis' to explain the problem.
[/B(Sarah personal explainations was way better than mine) there isn't a love
3
See point 2
and in most cases even a positive state of being that are attached too with substance,
4
I'm not talking about a positive state by the term 'love' in the context of this thread
if anything it would be different emotion one would feel, towards are drug of choice.
5
This is a simple confusion relating to the term of love - it's a word game.
Emotions are conscious.. [B]6
??
We already told you we don't agree with you on the opposite of love as well..
7
If you asked somebody random what the opposite of love was - it'd be hate. Hate = Aversion. Not sure what there's to debate here.
And had few reasons as well to refute your claim

Your 25 questions had been refuted 2 times....
8
The first 25 issues which came to mind as solving by virtue of this idea haven't been refuted.
it sounds like a utopian world
9
Only an idiot would describe a utopian world - it's a bit like asking what the largest number is. You can always add one.
one that can't and won't work.
10
Ridiculous statement which you are not entitled to make.
Nobody can know.
If it has it already would be.
11
Already addressed in 2 previous comments
Love of money and to claim greed
12
Doesn't make grammatical sense - if you mean that the love of money isn't an indication of greed - then that's a bit like disagreeing with a dictionary definition.
I've already admitted and completely disagree with you on this as week and a generalized statement as well about people not knowing they are truly greedy.. Yes people do.
13
Check out the 4 pages for in detail analysis of this problem by somebody else ie you're getting another opinion which isn't mine. I've asked approx 10 other people - all agree with the author.
My upbringing plays a very big part of it for me.. Definitions of greed and knowing it is how I am and what I do and my way of being... I'm not ashamed of this fact either.
14
Impressive - I have never met anybody who will claim that they're greedy. That's interesting.
Money, is part of our society and a big part of it as well.
14
Was it a big part of our society 5 - 20,000 years ago ie post-speciation event ?
Money has been quoted many times as to not buy happiness.
15
That is correct - but it will buy you alcohol and heroin as examples - which people will express a love (definition = addiction) for.
Yes it can provide temporary pleasure or temporary/permanent pain..
16
At last - I agree with 1 statement that you've made.
and the way our society operates...
17
Don't understand your point

SB_UK
01-10-16, 04:22 PM
I think, first you might have to define what exactly you mean by greedy and then we can discuss why that's a problem

Also, yes your comment about jelly is very valid. The statements you are making are not self evident at all.

Simple question

Do you understand and agree with the 4 pages I've just placed into a thread entitled 'greed' within the private forum ?

The person who wrote those pages is nothing to do with me - I've never heard of him before reading the book.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 04:26 PM
I think, first you might have to define what exactly you mean by greedy and then we can discuss why that's a problem

Also, yes your comment about jelly is very valid. The statements you are making are not self evident at all.

The idea as expressed in this thread is not self-evident.

Is there any obvious connection between 'not self-evident' and incorrect ?

The point is that this idea offers us a window into our state of greed, state of mind - NEITHER - of which can be divined using any other process.

In a very real sense - the idea as expressed in this thread is not self evident.

That's its power.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 04:29 PM
I think, first you might have to define what exactly you mean by greedy and then we can discuss why that's a problem

Also, yes your comment about jelly is very valid. The statements you are making are not self evident at all.

What's the definition of greed ?

Greed is the motivation that is referenced by the terms love/desire in the phrase 'the love/desire of money is the root of all evil' -

I'll offer multiple other definitions if required - but that's a relatively easy one to use.


-*-

Greed bears a close relationship to addiction.

Both greed and addiction are by definition deletirious for health.

The idea of 'denial' as it applies to addiction can be translated onto greed.

For pretty much the same reason that 'denial' is a cardinal aspect of addiction - so not being able to gain insight into one's own [=DENIAL] level of greed [=ADDICTION] - may be understood.

SB_UK
01-10-16, 04:44 PM
Also, yes your comment about jelly is very valid.

Exactly

Comment >> human beings are made up of jelly, here's the evidence - I ate jelly yesterday <<<--- this is the idea - this is what I'm waiting for

I can address the fact that when we eat jelly it doesn't simply fill us up like the bowl we make it up in. But I need to know what your equivalent to the jelly idea is as an alternative approach to giving an individual some mechanism of gaining insight into whether they're greedy.

You might be right - but who'll know unless you give your alternative approach ?

Lunacie
01-10-16, 07:29 PM
The point is that NOBODY can tell whether they love money.

Nobody can tell whether they're 'greedy'.

People don't have the tools to tell whether they love money.

Nobody ever thinks that they themselves are greedy.

The point is - is that you can't make the statement that you don't love money.

Nobody can make the statement that they do not love money.

Because it's impossible to tell.

It's only possible to tell how much pain arises through attachment to money - and the extent to which pain is felt is indicative of one's own progress towards wisdom

- where wisdom relates to transcending the reward system which money operates through.

The figures above are easy enough to understand.

You don't understand this thread if you're stating that you don't love money.

A key part of this thread is that nobody can tell whether they love money.

Nobody can tell whether they're 'greedy'.

People don't have the tools to tell whether they love money.

Thank you for refraining from shouting (large bold font). :)

Is greed immoral? Probably.

Does using money make people love money and become greedy? Not necessarily.

I believe some people (if not most people) can use money as a form of barter without placing money above how they treat other people.

Little Missy
01-10-16, 07:35 PM
Never been a jelly fan. I dig the jam.

Where do you get the tools?

mildadhd
01-10-16, 08:26 PM
I continue to learn new things about myself branching from the perspective of the discussion, thanks.

Socaljaxs
01-11-16, 12:18 AM
First,

My comment about the 25 questions you wrote was me telling you since that two people have ALREADY disagreed with your opinion... And summarized what they said. Below is the copy quote of them......either you miss it or you haven't been addressing it or truly comprehending that we don't agree with your stated hypothesis. We are not idiots like you are implying because we don't agree. BIG DIFFERENCE


In the 7,000 years of recorded human history, your scenario has never been achieved. Why now? What dramatic event will create the climate for your utopian society?

Since "SB's world" as described in this thread is a fantasy world anyway, you can simply add a "Peaceful Space Dimension" to the fantasy for yourself, without having to worry about how that might happen.

I do understand your point ... but I don't agree with it.


You keep presenting this as black or white, love or aversion.

Those are both strong feelings.

I have no strong feelings either way about money.

I don't love money. I don't hate money.


We live in a monetary economy and I work with that system.

If we lived in a barter economy I'd work with that system.



Using money does not make me immoral, or even amoral.


I base morality on how we treat each other. Nothing more, nothing less.


... sits back and waits for SB to tell me once again that I don't understand his point because if I did, I'd agree. Since I don't agree, therefore I don't understand. Ad nauseum.

This is a ridiculous statement.

It's like saying at the point of Big Bang that there will never be a mind because if it were a good idea then it would have already happened.

Surely you realise that evolution occurs along a temporal scale ?

It takes time for evolution to work ?

I don't think that anybody would argue this point of view.

dvdnvwls
01-11-16, 02:50 AM
SB_UK: It's clear from your recent responses that you have not been paying any attention to what others have said. Multiple people have pointed out fatal flaws in your basic premise. This topic is dead in the water. You have a long long way to go if you mean to salvage any of it at all - it isn't even worth considering trying to redeem all of it.

SB_UK
01-11-16, 09:59 AM
dvdnvwls and socaljaxsDo you understand the 4 pages from a book that I've just placed into a thread on debates labelled greed and do you agree that what he has written could be correct ?

Because what I am writing is not dissimilar.

The forum will allow me to use all of the sentences he has used bar 1 or 2 with a reference to a subject which is banned from public forum discussion.

If you won't respond to any specific sentence which I am going to write - can you respond to the author's comments ?

Little Missy
01-11-16, 10:18 AM
Why are you so fascinated with greed and money?

SB_UK
01-11-16, 10:30 AM
Maybe it's easier to list out in point form what I am suggesting.

You can put under each point whether it - see 5 options below.

1. Greed may be an attribute of a human being.
2. When a child is born the child cannot talk or know anything and must learn to talk and to know things (I am defining the child as starting with NO MIND because the child starts with no vocabulary, knowledge or morality).
3. As the child learns to talk and gains knowledge the child (dependent on the nature of the knowledge that they acquire) - may develop a mind which comes to know 'what is right ?' from 'what is wrong ?'
So education need not develop minds which know right from wrong, but a certain form of education can develop a mind which knows right from wrong.
4. When the adult acquires the ability to tell right from wrong, the adult can be said to have acquired wisdom.
As stated in point 2 - this represents a NO MIND (incomplete mind) to COMPLETE mind transition.
5. The reward system which is in place up until the transition to a COMPLETE mind (wisdom) is on the GREED spectrum (see explanatory figure elsewhere on thread in post 73).
post 73 - http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1780255&postcount=73
6. After acquiring wisdom, the individual is now no longer able to participate in behaviours which GREED may be associated with (most notably in this thread - GREED as it associates with money) with reference to pain from zero dopaminergic reward and which opioid pain relief cannot overcome (see explanatory figure elsewhere on thread in post 73).
7. Nobody can know when they have acquired wisdom.
8. Nobody can know whether they are GREEDy.
NOW THE POINT OF THIS THREAD
9. People can tell how much PAIN they feel (is degree of aversion) when they engage in the pursuit of money or use of money - and this is a surrogate for points 7. and 8. - as it gives the individual some method of ascertaining how far along the path to building a mind, they have travelled.
10. Upon completion of mind - the AVERSION to money (as a surrogate for ascertaining level of greed) is complete (see explanatory figure elsewhere on thread in post 73) and there is only pain when required to have any association with it.
11. The love of money is simply being used as a surrogate for the reward system which wisdom transcends - and is being used, because the majority are immersed within a society which requires money to exist and so it presents itself as an ideal means by which one may test one's progress towards wisdom.

-*-

So - to all 12 points - I don't want to know whether you like (emotional reactivity) the idea - because this idea is going to make pretty much everybody feel VERY bad - please choose a number and include an explanation using only a few words - so I can work out what your problem is with this idea.

1
IS IT DEFINITELY CORRECT ? THEN EXPLAIN YOUR CHOICE
2
DOES THE IDEA SOUNDS AS THOUGH IT IS LIKELY TO BE CORRECT (ALBEIT WITH NO EASY WAY OF TESTING) ? THEN EXPLAIN YOUR CHOICE
3
DOES THE IDEA SOUNDS AS THOUGH IT MAY BE CORRECT (ALBEIT WITH NO EASY WAY OF TESTING) ? THEN EXPLAIN YOUR CHOICE
4
DOES THE IDEA SOUNDS AS THOUGH IT ISN'T LIKELY TO BE CORRECT (ALBEIT WITH NO EASY WAY OF TESTING) ? THEN EXPLAIN YOUR CHOICE
5
IS IT DEFINITELY WRONG ? THEN EXPLAIN YOUR CHOICE

SB_UK
01-11-16, 10:33 AM
Why are you so fascinated with greed and money?


eg

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1779878&postcount=31
post 31

I'll try and simplify - here's a list of only the first 25 problems which come to mind which'll be solved if the idea as presented in this thread can be understood.
You'll note that each idea by itself has 000,000s thrown at it - and I'm only listing 25 of them - where I can list another 25 if you like - and keep on going - where each list will consist of items all of which have 000,000s similarly thrown at them ... ... in this current world ... ...


The section which is underlined is an example of why greed and money one must analyse the nature of greed.

Did you understand and agree with the 4 pages of the book that I've just placed in 'debates' on 'greed' ?
I had to type in the bottom of the first page because it was lost - it's in the 1st post.

Fuzzy12
01-11-16, 11:11 AM
Simple question

Do you understand and agree with the 4 pages I've just placed into a thread entitled 'greed' within the private forum ?

The person who wrote those pages is nothing to do with me - I've never heard of him before reading the book.

I've read the 4 pages and I agree that a lot of people probably do think the way the author describes. I'm not sure I agree that that is a problem. No, actually I do agree it's a problem when people believe that they are entitled to anything (but that isn't exactly what the author is stating, isn't it?) and if they believe that hurting, harming or damaging others is ok to get what they want (but again that's not something the author has stated). I definitely do disagree with all the religious claptrap but that's because I don't believe in religion.

However, nothing in those 4 pages has convinced me that there is a connection between loving money and being greedy or addicted. Most people don't love money. It's the power, control, security, opportunities, etc. that comes with it that they love.

Fuzzy12
01-11-16, 11:13 AM
The idea as expressed in this thread is not self-evident.

Is there any obvious connection between 'not self-evident' and incorrect ?

The point is that this idea offers us a window into our state of greed, state of mind - NEITHER - of which can be divined using any other process.

In a very real sense - the idea as expressed in this thread is not self evident.

That's its power.

No, self evident does not mean necessarily incorrect, it just means that you can't state that an idea is obvious and does not need careful explaining (and more importantly, careful scrutiny).

Fuzzy12
01-11-16, 11:23 AM
What's the definition of greed ?

Greed is the motivation that is referenced by the terms love/desire in the phrase 'the love/desire of money is the root of all evil' -

I'll offer multiple other definitions if required - but that's a relatively easy one to use..

That is not a definition of greed. The phrase does not even contain the word greed. I also disagree that love/desire of money is the root of all evil. A lot of atrocities have been committed throughout history where everyone involved in committing atrocities was not necessarily motivated by money but by other things..like faith.

If you ask me I'd say the root of all evil is love and attachment not just to money but to anything.

Actually, if you really ask me, I'd have to say that I don't really believe in evil.

(You see there are so many things that we can disagree on....)




-*-

Greed bears a close relationship to addiction.

No, it doesn't unless you redefine greed in clinical terms and take away any judgmental connotations.

Both greed and addiction are by definition deletirious for health.

Greed isn't necessarily bad for your health.

The idea of 'denial' as it applies to addiction can be translated onto greed.

Not everyone who is addicted to something is in denial and not everyone who is greedy doesn't realise that they are greedy.

For pretty much the same reason that 'denial' is a cardinal aspect of addiction - so not being able to gain insight into one's own [=DENIAL] level of greed [=ADDICTION] - may be understood.

The problem with measuring greed is not denial but that it's an abstract, unmeasurable and highly subjective term. It's as difficult to measure greed as it is to measure love...or altriusm.

Fuzzy12
01-11-16, 11:26 AM
Exactly



I can address the fact that when we eat jelly it doesn't simply fill us up like the bowl we make it up in. But I need to know what your equivalent to the jelly idea is as an alternative approach to giving an individual some mechanism of gaining insight into whether they're greedy.

You might be right - but who'll know unless you give your alternative approach ?


I'm sorry I don't understand this. I thought you gave the jelly example as a preemptive measure in case someone calls your ideas not self evident.

I don't have any approach of judging people as greedy or not. As I said it's too subjective a term. (Also, I'm not sure if it's necessary at all.)

Socaljaxs
01-11-16, 11:54 AM
I had a chance to read the 4 pages this Am, is that book where this theory you are proposing stems from?

I will respond to the points in more detail, in a little bit, when I have a time to do so.

Lunacie
01-11-16, 01:20 PM
SB ... while I know that many people are taught the axiom of the love of money being the root of AN evil (not all evil), that's not a universal belief.

My spirituality tells me "If it doesn't harm anyone, do what you want."

That "anyone" includes ourselves.

It seems you are saying that using money harms the person using it. Yes? No?

If yes, is that a blanket statement or are there some qualifiers?

Little Missy
01-11-16, 01:52 PM
Why are you so fascinated with greed and money?

You never answer any questions directly. You cherry pick which questions to direct to something to read.

You turn every thread into the economy, greed, money, etc. Over and over again. Just answer the question. :) Are you envious of those with more money than you? Do you live an impoverished life? Frankly, it is rather concerning that you seem to be addicted to money yet you direct it upon others.

Your addiction/obsession with these subjects are rather unseemly. I've read you post along with others pleasantly for awhile but it always turns into this money thing. Why are YOU so fascinated with greed and money?

Luvmybully
01-11-16, 02:54 PM
What you seem to be saying repeatedly is that you've read this information, you agree with it, and the possibility for anyone to disagree does not exist: you either agree or you misunderstand.

You give no evidence that this information is true other than "it's in the book and I also believe it".

Yet, you do not accept the same from others when they say they do not agree with you or this author.

You post page after page after page of "this is what I believe", and any that do not also believe the same, you disregard as simply not understanding what you are trying to say.

SB_UK
01-11-16, 04:33 PM
My spirituality tells me "If it doesn't harm anyone, do what you want."



How do you know whether it harms anyone ?

SB_UK
01-11-16, 04:34 PM
I don't have any approach of judging people as greedy or not. As I said it's too subjective a term. (Also, I'm not sure if it's necessary at all.)

I don't have any approach of judging whether another person is greedy either.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.

SB_UK
01-11-16, 04:36 PM
It seems you are saying that using money harms the person using it. Yes? No?


Try this

It seems you are saying that using heroin harms the person using it. Yes? No?

SB_UK
01-11-16, 04:40 PM
You never answer any questions directly. You cherry pick which questions to direct to something to read.

You turn every thread into the economy, greed, money, etc. Over and over again. Just answer the question. :) Are you envious of those with more money than you? Do you live an impoverished life? Frankly, it is rather concerning that you seem to be addicted to money yet you direct it upon others.

Your addiction/obsession with these subjects are rather unseemly. I've read you post along with others pleasantly for awhile but it always turns into this money thing. Why are YOU so fascinated with greed and money?

Would you take a read of your posts on this thread and then explain how it'd be appropriate to reply to the posts on lightworker, platinum etc
Also - you're simply attacking person instead of exploring the idea - which doesn't have any effect on me - as I'd quite like the idea to be false.

SB_UK
01-11-16, 04:43 PM
You never answer any questions directly.

This isn't answering questions directly ?

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1780371&postcount=96

SB_UK
01-11-16, 04:50 PM
What you seem to be saying repeatedly is that you've read this information, you agree with it, and the possibility for anyone to disagree does not exist: you either agree or you misunderstand.


I want to break the idea.

I don't believe or disbelieve in the idea.

I don't care about the idea and have no attachment to the idea

I want to know if it's correct - and the interesting thing about the idea is that all that I'm observing is a reactive defensiveness which indicates that this idea makes people very uncomfortable; the capacity to dissect an idea without demonstrating irrational forceful emotion is what I'm looking for and failing to see.

And all that I'm observing in response to the idea are altered usages of words which do not address the point of this thread.

The thread title is:
Opposite of love of (addictive substance) is ... ....
1
I am using the love of money as a specific example of the love of addictive substance.
2
And I am defining the love of money as a measure of greed.
3
That human beings do not have the means to detect whether they're greedy or not.
4
And that I am offering a mechanism by which an individual can assess their underlying attribute/level of greed.


Here's a great example of trying to work out whether I care about the idea.
What could I possibly gain from this idea being correct ?
Read the 4 point summary above - just break it wit a logical argument and I'll adopt your stance.

And I need to remind you that pretty much everybody on this thread currently has been on my 'Ignore List' - and I'll use it again just to eliminate having to be exposed to rudeness.

SB_UK
01-11-16, 05:05 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

Addiction is a state characterized by compulsive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

Greed is an insatiatiable longing'compulsive addiction' - a hunger
and
'insatiable longing' - a hunger

By using 'a hunger' as an acceptable synonym with both - we can see the close relationship between addiction and greed which I'm trying to define.

-*-

The point of these comments is to suggest of course that -

Greed esp. for wealth, status, and power. SHOULD be considered as an indicator of addiction.

-*-

Therefore

This idea allows an individual to uncover for themselves whether they're ADDICTED to (see factors which're generally considered under the heading of greed).

Lunacie
01-11-16, 05:21 PM
You never answer any questions directly.



It seems you are saying that using money harms the person using it. Yes? No?

If yes, is that a blanket statement or are there some qualifiers?

Try this

It seems you are saying that using heroin harms the person using it. Yes? No?

You didn't answer my questions. Pretty easy to do so, just 'yes' or 'no.'

That would be a direct answer.

Changing a word and asking the question again is NOT a direct answer.


To answer your question directly ... NO, using heroin does not necessarily harm the person using it.

Heroin can be a useful pain reliever. Money also has it's uses.

dvdnvwls
01-11-16, 06:55 PM
Do you understand the 4 pages from a book that I've just placed into a thread on debates labelled and do you agree that what he has written could be correct ?

Because what I am writing is not dissimilar.

The forum will allow me to use all of the sentences he has used bar 1 or 2 with a reference to a subject which is banned from public forum discussion.

If you won't respond to any specific sentence which I am going to write - can you respond to the author's comments ?
I have already responded to your specific sentences. The topic of this thread (the one I am adding to right now) is based on false premises and has been thoroughly disproved more than once right here before your very eyes. There is no reason (except perhaps deliberate obfuscation on your part) to refer people to a different discussion thread. That other discussion may be a great one, and I'm happy if it is. On this thread, you have made your thoughts quite clear, and you have not been misunderstood. Your main point on this thread is not valid, because it has already been proven false, more than once and in different ways. Continuing to hammer away at an invalid point doesn't make for a worthwhile discussion. What is your real purpose in continuing to defend it?

Little Missy
01-11-16, 10:46 PM
Would you take a read of your posts on this thread and then explain how it'd be appropriate to reply to the posts on lightworker, platinum etc
Also - you're simply attacking person instead of exploring the idea - which doesn't have any effect on me - as I'd quite like the idea to be false.

Look up the qualities of a lightworker. They are beautiful and thoughtful and it made me think that possibly you are a lightworker and didn't know it yet.

mildadhd
01-11-16, 11:14 PM
Aversion of substance addicted to.

Lunacie
01-11-16, 11:22 PM
Aversion of substance addicted to.

I don't understand this.

If a person doesn't feel any aversion to the addictive substance, then what?

mildadhd
01-11-16, 11:31 PM
I don't understand this.

If a person doesn't feel any aversion to the addictive substance, then what?

Is the person addicted to the substance?

Lunacie
01-11-16, 11:59 PM
Re: Opposite of love of (addictive substance) is ... ....
Aversion of substance addicted to.

Is that what you mean?

That the opposite of love is strong dislike/aversion rather than indifference?

dvdnvwls
01-12-16, 12:53 AM
Addicted people do have an aversion to what they are addicted to, at least in some cases. Look above at sarahsweets's posts for confirmation.

mildadhd
01-12-16, 02:24 AM
I dislike methylphenidate when my body gets used to it. Then I need to take a medication vacation to get it to work again.

mildadhd
01-12-16, 02:36 AM
Are people who dislike money but still use money, considered addicted?

Are pandas addicted to bamboo?

SB_UK
01-12-16, 04:50 AM
OK - please no further posting - it seems that I have to respond to each and every word that has been posted on this thread so far.
This will take me a couple of days.
I'll post when I've finished.
I will dissect every word that has been written in the same way that I have dissected one of SJ's posts above - interspersed with red.
After reading all responses (which will be labelled) - please refer to the point which 'proves' the idea false - because all that I have seen thus far is an entirely understandable defensive reaction to a test which any individual can use for themselves to indicate whether the extent to which they are greedy and the extent to which they are moral (wise) - which ?presumably? they are failing.

This will take ages - and I will make a post when I've completed dissecting all posts - word by word.

SB_UK
01-12-16, 05:01 AM
I dislike methylphenidate when my body gets used to it. Then I need to take a medication vacation to get it to work again.

Prior to beginning - this is an excellent post and explains the nature of this thread.

opposite of love of (reward occurring by virtue) -> sensitivity
is
wikiP/physiological resistance (ie aversion) -> insensitivity

Homeostasis requires a sensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor) to detect changes in the condition to be regulated, an effector mechanism that can vary that condition, and a negative feedback (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback) connection between the two.

Peripheral's point is excellent because we've

overcoming sensitivity <- though through increasing sensitivity <- sensitivity -> insensitivity
wisdom/morality to <- .................................................. .........-> to greed/immorality
aversion <- .................................................. .......................-> love of (addictive substance)

ie aversion represents increasing sensitivity rejecting a previously manageable level of the addictive substance - so painful over-sensitivity - a bit like someone with sensitive ears listening to loud music with a person with insensitive ears - the individual that is sensitice experiences aversion.

EXCELLENT - that works.






To be explained in detail when I get to the end of these posts.

PLEASE DON'T POST UNTIL I'VE FINISHED OR I'LL NEVER GET TO THE END OF THIS EXERCISE; I WON'T MISS OUT A SINGLE WORD INCLUDING (PLATINUM, LIGHTWORKER) ... ...

Lunacie
01-12-16, 12:35 PM
OK - please no further posting - it seems that I have to respond to each and every word that has been posted on this thread so far.
This will take me a couple of days.
I'll post when I've finished.
I will dissect every word that has been written in the same way that I have dissected one of SJ's posts above - interspersed with red.
After reading all responses (which will be labelled) - please refer to the point which 'proves' the idea false - because all that I have seen thus far is an entirely understandable defensive reaction to a test which any individual can use for themselves to indicate whether the extent to which they are greedy and the extent to which they are moral (wise) - which ?presumably? they are failing.

This will take ages - and I will make a post when I've completed dissecting all posts - word by word.

I found that post very, very confusing. I could not tell who had written what.

dvdnvwls
01-12-16, 05:27 PM
OK - please no further posting
This is not your personal forum, buddy.

Fuzzy12
01-12-16, 06:03 PM
This is not your personal forum, buddy.

(No, but it's his thread. If he's asked for a bit of time and space so he can sort out his replies why not respect that?? :) )

sarahsweets
01-12-16, 07:25 PM
OK - please no further posting - it seems that I have to respond to each and every word that has been posted on this thread so far.
This will take me a couple of days.
I'll post when I've finished.
I will dissect every word that has been written in the same way that I have dissected one of SJ's posts above - interspersed with red.
There is no need for that. Red is very abrasive and wont make your post any easier to understand.
After reading all responses (which will be labelled) - please refer to the point which 'proves' the idea false
So basically you are going to dissect the thread but you are already assuming that your view reigns supreme.
- because all that I have seen thus far is an entirely understandable defensive reaction to a test which any individual can use for themselves to indicate whether the extent to which they are greedy and the extent to which they are moral (wise) - which ?presumably? they are failing. So because I dont agree, and I dont buy your koolaide, I must have a moral failing or be greedy??? You know whats greedy? Spamming one's own threads.

mildadhd
01-12-16, 09:19 PM
We are emotionally hypersensitive to the presentation of the letters.

What are the differences between

-sensitive
-hypersensitive
-tolerance
-sensitized
-(feel free to add to the list)

mildadhd
01-12-16, 09:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1Fh8yz6oE

mildadhd
01-12-16, 10:27 PM
Healthy balance of negative feedback and positive feedback required?

Lunacie
01-12-16, 10:58 PM
Healthy balance of negative feedback and positive feedback required?

I do wish you could form complete sentences.

Required for what?

dvdnvwls
01-13-16, 01:23 AM
Healthy balance of negative feedback and positive feedback required?
Absolutely. The healthy balance for this thread is 100% negative feedback, because the thread is based on a single premise and that premise is wrong. It's unhealthy and disingenuous to give positive feedback where it isn't remotely warranted.


It isn't uncommon for a person whose argument has failed to try to defend that argument by introducing an avalanche of irrelevant material and hoping everyone simply forgets what the discussion was really about.

Andi
01-14-16, 08:39 PM
Thread closed.

Folks, if you don't like his threads or his topics and you find his thought pattern broken or disturbing, then don't go into them. I realize it's like watching a car crash, you just can't look away but you will garner warnings and infractions for insults, which this thread has contained several. I appreciate those that were attempting to engage. I'm not giving out any infractions and consider this a formal warning...if you have nothing constructive to say in his threads, don't post. You don't want him inserting his ideas into your threads then please allow him to use his own threads to wax and wane.