Indeed; if you were a child molester or axe murderer, you'd have all kinds of people coming to help you paint yourself the victim. If you're a terrorist, you can go to Club G'tmo and get square meals a day and get the state to help you practice your religious beliefs. Spammers -- well, I don't know about spammers, nobody seems to care, which blows my mind, because none of these penis enlargement things seem to work.
But make file-sharing software -- well, now you've crossed the line, buddy.
The fear of something I write on Slashdot coming back to hurt me is the whole reason I choose this exotic name. I've already made that mistake before and had to petition Google to remove newsposts I did in 1992 because I was being just like Mr. Cohen -- looking for a rise.
Those aren't the kind of changes I mean -- I mean the kind of changes like replacing a power supply. It is easy to replace a hard drive, but that is an item you spent money for, so yeah; Apple likes it when you spend money, they're going to make that easy.
They get after-market money for replacing things like PSU, so I think they keep us out of there to force us to go to some stupid no-talent loser with the right tool that no hardware store sells, charging $100+ an hour to do something that would take you 5 minutes (drunk, even). This is how they sell their 3 year warranty too -- if you don't buy that warranty, you're screwed.
I found it interesting that the author noticed that Apple wants its users "out of the machine". I've recently (within the last year) bought a PowerMac G5 and, although it really doesn't resemble the original Macs much at all since Mac OS X, there still is this "keep the user out of the machine" attitude.
Unfortunately, I had a bad fan on my Power Supply that was driving me nuts. I wanted to replace it myself, but Rev 3 of the G5 is specially designed to make that impossible for me (the earlier revs actually had instructions on how to replace it -- this rev didn't any more and I couldn't figure out how to take it apart). Naturally, because I live in Wisconsin, I got nasty customer service. Two places refused to admit there was even a problem. The third place I TOLD to replace the PSU and they did -- and the problem went away. I bought an iBook from them for their trouble. It isn't easy owning a Mac in Wisconsin, since so few engineers even know it exists. Living in an M$ dominated area, it is good I stay so far away from razor blades and Tylenol.
Back in the day, Apple had the LC III, which was a flip-top pizza-box like affair that made it extremely easy to get in to and make changes. Then, they immediately went to the Quadra's, which were directly responsible for many cuts and bruises trying to take that beast apart (but it was still possible). What is up with Apple having a good idea and then dropping it? Just like the cloning idea. At least they drop their bad ideas, too, like the hockey-puck mouse (WTF was up with that, I'll never know).
As an aside, I think the idea of going to Intel is a really bad one. The PowerPC architecture is far superior to Intel. Another bad decision by Apple. I miss the beige-box days before the Jobs takeover.
I understand your frustration, but I'm going to bet the article was rejected simply because somebody posted it even earlier than you. I get rejected a lot for that reason. I don't think it's personal -- it's just that, with so many people, it's likely that someone already beat us to the punch.
What would help is if there was some sort of feedback as to why it was rejected. But, I'm sure this horse has been beaten, resurrected, and beaten again.
There is a law with communciation: no communication is always seen as negative. I'm betting it isn't negative, although it seems that way.
Well, Chevy makes better cars than Ford, IMHO, but they both suck compared to a Toyota.:-) I don't think Mac Office is Cadillac:Geo level, though; Mac Office is still one of the slowest and clunkiest Macintosh applications you pay money for (Of course, IMHO). I cannot -- will not -- put such filth on my Mac.
On a related topic, AppleWorks 6.5 is an 8 year Yugo that has never had an oil change. Total sh*t. OpenOffice is the best thing going for Mac right now, even if the interface is X-Windows style -- but, I'll try NeoOffice now and see if it is more consistent with the rest of the system. I'd sacrifice a bit of speed for usability. I think some parts of OO are very oddly designed.
I'm not sure what real is, so I can't guess probabilities. Maybe trying to define what is real is a driving force behind science? Ironically, the same driving force behind religion. A lot of religion is, unfortunately, just to fill-in the gaps because we need to know so badly. However, there are some aspects to religion that are helpful as well. For example, the Christian code of ethics works pretty well. We need to come to some common definition of what is good (a code of ethics). The good parts of religion are research to define that code of ethics. We need that, regardless of what you call it. All the world's a stage, as Shakespeare says. We need to learn how to act in it, though.
The way they came up with this was to trace the entire family tree back from Jesus to Adam and Eve which is actually available in the Bible (it's amazing, but true). When you do that, taking in to consider the ages when they die and when they were born, you'll find that reality is around 5,000 years old.
I don't want to sound like I'm quoting a movie here, but given how our perception works, isn't it at least feasible that we live in a simulation that is only 5,000 years old, complete with parts to try and fool us into thinking it is billions of years old?
No, the problem is "scientific" minds today are quick to throw babies out with bathwater. They are quick to stereotype you and attribute all kinds of things to you that are not true just based on adhering partly to that stereotype. It blows my mind how, in a society where everyone is so worried about stereotyping, that it is now more prevalent and openly done. If I say I believe in God, it means I'm a gun-toting, witch-burning, Republican loving conservative nut-cases. I don't want that label because it isn't true. After all, I don't burn witches (often).
I'm sorry that you feel the way you do about yourself. All I can do is assure you that you can be anything you want to be and that you can, with hard work, overcome your frustration what you perceive to be your level of intelligence.
You have examples of where people are at certain points in their journey. You don't have examples of their potential. There are factors that affect their journey; special stumbling blocks. Some groups have more than others for various reasons. It is unfair to, based on that, say they have limited mental potential.
A mental handicap describes where you start on your journey, not how far you go. A severely mentally handicapped person has exactly that: a handicap that gets in the way of how FAST they move down the path, sometimes so bad that they need to go through Herculean efforts just to get where the non-handicapped start. But, again, their potential is unlimited; their journey is just that much harder.
I am offended at having my mind compared to a Chimpanzee. Although we may share some basic building blocks for our bodies, our minds are very different. We're talking about Humans here.
As far as evidence, let's quote George Bernard Shaw. "When I was young I observed that nine out of every ten things I did were failures, so I did ten times more work." He got it. I'm hardly alone. You want me to dig up some study that shows that people can become more intelligent -- they can learn to aquire knowledge and apply it better. As far as boundless, how do you measure that? It is intuition. Every day, people expand their intelligence. Steven Hawking pushed past the rest in his journey. Someone will come and go even further. It could be you, if you work hard enough.
Do you dare to belittle Mr. Hawking's achievements and hard work by saying he didn't work for it? Look at his life: it was will and hard work to expand his intelligence that makes him who he is.
Or, perhaps you would accept the biological theory in fullness: that our intelligence is static and a gift from the creator, whoever you believe that to be. I assert that it describes a start, but our free-will gives us the ability to journey forth and better ourselves.
Oh, I guess I'll say it, even though it will just cause you to discount everything I say -- God helps us down this journey, if we ask for it. Soli Deo Gloria.
There's that word again -- religious. Where is that coming from? It's like a fly buzzing around my head. Why is there a religious aspect to this? Is it because I believe something that I can't quantify? In that case, you have to ask: do we really know anything? The world is too complex for us to fully understand -- or partially, really. It's arrogance to assume we're a knowledgeable. But, don't throw all the rest of the baggage in either; if we didn't need to believe in something, we all wouldn't be having this debate.
You are telling me that I deluding myself into thinking that I am capable of anything I put my mind to because there is a biological limit to my brain. To accept that, you have to first accept that we think wholly with our brain. I don't accept that: I see the brain as the strings the puppeteer pulls, but not the puppeteer himself. That is the core of this: of course, the human brain is only capable of thinking, say, so fast about something, and no matter what we do to it, the massively parallel network of synapses aren't going to go much past the small amount of hertz they work at no matter what we do to them. But, I don't accept that who we are is our brain. Our brain (and spinal column) is an organ that receives signals in ways we do not understand yet, but the creativity and wonder that someone, like Einstein, possesses, does not originate from inside the brain, any more than the dance of a marionette originates from the strings the puppeteer pulls.
So, that must be the disconnect here. I cannot think that this body is who I am. And, the insights that Einstein came up with he didn't directly observe, but they came from somewhere -- his mind. His creativity, his brilliance, is boundless, just like yours is, brain be damned.
Yes. You appear to believe you've acquired a trememndous insight (your emotional belief in the unlimited potential of the brain) that the rest of us (those who disagree with you) haven't. Your belief/claim that this is down to a failure of will on our part, as opposed to a failure of intellect, doesn't change the fundamental issue.
Let's turn this around then. You believe I haven't acquired some tremendous insight. Isn't that just as arrogant, saying that you know something you can't know? I've never said any of you have failed in any way. That is something you're reading. Potential is a destination. Unlimited potential is a destination you can never arrive at. But, the destination isn't important, it is the journey. That is why it is useless to think you're better than anyone else. Everyone is at a different part on many journeys and only your own journey is what you should be concerned about.
Saying that I think you have a boundless mental potential is very different from claiming the world is flat and telling you to zark-off if you don't believe it. First off, I've never told you to believe me -- you're one of the people telling ME that I shouldn't believe our mental potential is boundless. I wonder if you'd talk that way if you registered?
We do not have to understand every aspect of something before we create a belief. If we did, we would be forced to admit we know nothing. And, again, mental potential and physical potential are different.
The average person accomplishes less than the likes of others because they have an average amount of will and belief in themselves, yes. It's a lack of will. Or perhaps they died before they could apply all of that will. If you must compare yourself to these great people, then you have to choose a path and then say, "Am I further down this path than they?" If you are behind them, then you need to apply more will. If you spent just as much time applying that will, and you started the journey in the same place (starting the journey depends on physical factors, not where you end up), then you will be forced to admit that you applied less will power than the great one and that, if you want to be as great or better, you need to apply more.
Why is that an arrogant, egotistical, nasty thing to say to a person?
I used to think this way too. Now, certainly you'll see that as arrogant, but consider this: you have a belief here as well: you believe that you know I'm wrong. And your belief is founded on some studies done by some scientists.
This isn't an "Inherit the Wind" moment here, this is a belief in the infinite potential of the human mind. I've heard a few people say that belief is arrogant and egotistical. Why isn't lost on me: people are asking what gives me the authority to even say such a thing. They are assuming that I think I have the authority to say so and that is arrogant.
However, all things are equal here on/. because everybody believes they have the authority to speak on this matter. You and the others are, so if I am arrogant, I am being no more arrogant than anyone else. As far as egotistical -- although I do think I have limitless mental potential, I also believe you do as well, so it really doesn't fit the definition. I'd have to say I have limitless potential and you don't.
I think some people are internalizing me here. I truly believe what I'm saying here -- I truly do believe you have limitless potential and hope that you, kind readers, will believe this too and achieve great things in life.
I'm also one of those people who aren't playing the zero-sum-game too. Perhaps that is my problem -- I'm not saying that your limitless potential diminishes me here and that is a social faux pas. Whatever: we live in a strange time where our own pessimism and lack of hope destroys us.
But, I know at least one of you are reading this who agree with me. To you, I say this, and I say this with the authority I have inherited by being a human being: Your mind is limitless and you can achieve any mental feat you want in life through hard work and willpower. You might die without achieving that goal, but that doesn't mean your potential wasn't there, it just means that an external event cut the journey short. Same with a disease, like Alzheimers, which my grandfather died from three days ago, so I am fully aware that there are diseases that affect our perception.
I believe in you and I'm willing to take the abuse to say so. There are many others who do too. Don't let these few deter you from your goal because they are so vocal.
It's much more interesting for you to explore why you feel the need to tell me this. Why do you need, so badly, to assert that human mind has limits? I've got you guys all up in a tizzy about it. Fascinating.
One of the things I think is most interesting about human nature is that a person, like myself, can argue a point, but no matter what I say, people will perceive I'm saying the opposite, not because of what I'm saying, but because what they need me to say.
Any limits you have on your mind are self-inflicted. Except for death -- but then, I happen to believe the human mind is immortal, so you'd have to buy-in to that belief to agree with me.
I have spent so much time arguing that everyone, which you are a part of, has limitless potential, and I'm being arrogant? It's like going to someone who comes up to you and says, "You can be anything you put your mind to," and responding, "Arrogant, egotistical jerk!" Or, perhaps I'm arrogant because I didn't add, "And you have more potential than I." Of course, if you need that statement, then clearly you are the one who needs the ego stroked.
Is it because I consider myself part of everyone that makes me an egomaniac? But, if that were true, I would want to say you DON'T have limitless potential, because to have limitless potential means you can be (and might be!) far beyond where I'm at.
Can you not see that the responses to my assertions far more adhere to the definition of arrogant and egotistical than anything I have ever said. The presumption to say that people have mental limits is so starkly arrogant and self-serving, it drops my jaw.
I love it. This is human nature we're watching here, folks. Lap it up. It's also a sign of the times.
I guess my point is that it is pointLESS to apply such measures since they are: a. based entirely on one's own perspective, and b. have too many factors to quantify, even if everyone HAD the same perspective.
It is also a psychological fact that people tend to consider themselves better than everyone else anyway, particularly analytical personalities, like most of those reading this thread. Since we know, deep down, this isn't true, we need to lash out to support our fragile egos. See any of that in the previous posts?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed; if you were a child molester or axe murderer, you'd have all kinds of people coming to help you paint yourself the victim. If you're a terrorist, you can go to Club G'tmo and get square meals a day and get the state to help you practice your religious beliefs. Spammers -- well, I don't know about spammers, nobody seems to care, which blows my mind, because none of these penis enlargement things seem to work.
But make file-sharing software -- well, now you've crossed the line, buddy.
The fear of something I write on Slashdot coming back to hurt me is the whole reason I choose this exotic name. I've already made that mistake before and had to petition Google to remove newsposts I did in 1992 because I was being just like Mr. Cohen -- looking for a rise.
Yeah, I'm an ex-troll. But I've grown up!
Hey, great point on the R&D thing. I see it differently now! I wish I had mod points. I hadn't thought of how Apple would get screwed in that way.
Those aren't the kind of changes I mean -- I mean the kind of changes like replacing a power supply. It is easy to replace a hard drive, but that is an item you spent money for, so yeah; Apple likes it when you spend money, they're going to make that easy.
They get after-market money for replacing things like PSU, so I think they keep us out of there to force us to go to some stupid no-talent loser with the right tool that no hardware store sells, charging $100+ an hour to do something that would take you 5 minutes (drunk, even). This is how they sell their 3 year warranty too -- if you don't buy that warranty, you're screwed.
I found it interesting that the author noticed that Apple wants its users "out of the machine". I've recently (within the last year) bought a PowerMac G5 and, although it really doesn't resemble the original Macs much at all since Mac OS X, there still is this "keep the user out of the machine" attitude.
Unfortunately, I had a bad fan on my Power Supply that was driving me nuts. I wanted to replace it myself, but Rev 3 of the G5 is specially designed to make that impossible for me (the earlier revs actually had instructions on how to replace it -- this rev didn't any more and I couldn't figure out how to take it apart). Naturally, because I live in Wisconsin, I got nasty customer service. Two places refused to admit there was even a problem. The third place I TOLD to replace the PSU and they did -- and the problem went away. I bought an iBook from them for their trouble. It isn't easy owning a Mac in Wisconsin, since so few engineers even know it exists. Living in an M$ dominated area, it is good I stay so far away from razor blades and Tylenol.
Back in the day, Apple had the LC III, which was a flip-top pizza-box like affair that made it extremely easy to get in to and make changes. Then, they immediately went to the Quadra's, which were directly responsible for many cuts and bruises trying to take that beast apart (but it was still possible). What is up with Apple having a good idea and then dropping it? Just like the cloning idea. At least they drop their bad ideas, too, like the hockey-puck mouse (WTF was up with that, I'll never know).
As an aside, I think the idea of going to Intel is a really bad one. The PowerPC architecture is far superior to Intel. Another bad decision by Apple. I miss the beige-box days before the Jobs takeover.
I understand your frustration, but I'm going to bet the article was rejected simply because somebody posted it even earlier than you. I get rejected a lot for that reason. I don't think it's personal -- it's just that, with so many people, it's likely that someone already beat us to the punch.
What would help is if there was some sort of feedback as to why it was rejected. But, I'm sure this horse has been beaten, resurrected, and beaten again.
There is a law with communciation: no communication is always seen as negative. I'm betting it isn't negative, although it seems that way.
Well, Chevy makes better cars than Ford, IMHO, but they both suck compared to a Toyota. :-) I don't think Mac Office is Cadillac:Geo level, though; Mac Office is still one of the slowest and clunkiest Macintosh applications you pay money for (Of course, IMHO). I cannot -- will not -- put such filth on my Mac.
On a related topic, AppleWorks 6.5 is an 8 year Yugo that has never had an oil change. Total sh*t. OpenOffice is the best thing going for Mac right now, even if the interface is X-Windows style -- but, I'll try NeoOffice now and see if it is more consistent with the rest of the system. I'd sacrifice a bit of speed for usability. I think some parts of OO are very oddly designed.
Microsoft Office for Mac OS X is to Microsoft Office for Windows as Chevy is to Ford. No matter which you use, you should have bought a Toyota.
Fee fi fo fum, I smell the crack of a troll-boy's bum!
LOL: Okay, I should have added, "I'll find out," as the next answer.
LOL -- true
I'm not sure what real is, so I can't guess probabilities. Maybe trying to define what is real is a driving force behind science? Ironically, the same driving force behind religion. A lot of religion is, unfortunately, just to fill-in the gaps because we need to know so badly. However, there are some aspects to religion that are helpful as well. For example, the Christian code of ethics works pretty well. We need to come to some common definition of what is good (a code of ethics). The good parts of religion are research to define that code of ethics. We need that, regardless of what you call it. All the world's a stage, as Shakespeare says. We need to learn how to act in it, though.
The difference between being life and alive escapes me.
But, I agree with you -- science cannot define morality (what is good). So, how do we know what is moral?
I think a good way to show the problem with science is to say this: "Science shows an unborn fetus is life."
All the rest of the teeth-gnashing that statement makes shows why science alone doesn't describe truth.
They also did eventually get off the island by making a raft, too.
The way they came up with this was to trace the entire family tree back from Jesus to Adam and Eve which is actually available in the Bible (it's amazing, but true). When you do that, taking in to consider the ages when they die and when they were born, you'll find that reality is around 5,000 years old.
I don't want to sound like I'm quoting a movie here, but given how our perception works, isn't it at least feasible that we live in a simulation that is only 5,000 years old, complete with parts to try and fool us into thinking it is billions of years old?
"I don't know" is the most important answer in science. I commend you!
LOL -- great troll reference. Got a few of those from the AC, of course. I knew I was providing him lunch, but I was in the mood to that day.
/.!
I respect your belief and I really appreciate how you said this. I think we had a great discussion about this -- I love
No, the problem is "scientific" minds today are quick to throw babies out with bathwater. They are quick to stereotype you and attribute all kinds of things to you that are not true just based on adhering partly to that stereotype. It blows my mind how, in a society where everyone is so worried about stereotyping, that it is now more prevalent and openly done. If I say I believe in God, it means I'm a gun-toting, witch-burning, Republican loving conservative nut-cases. I don't want that label because it isn't true. After all, I don't burn witches (often).
I'm sorry that you feel the way you do about yourself. All I can do is assure you that you can be anything you want to be and that you can, with hard work, overcome your frustration what you perceive to be your level of intelligence.
You have examples of where people are at certain points in their journey. You don't have examples of their potential. There are factors that affect their journey; special stumbling blocks. Some groups have more than others for various reasons. It is unfair to, based on that, say they have limited mental potential.
A mental handicap describes where you start on your journey, not how far you go. A severely mentally handicapped person has exactly that: a handicap that gets in the way of how FAST they move down the path, sometimes so bad that they need to go through Herculean efforts just to get where the non-handicapped start. But, again, their potential is unlimited; their journey is just that much harder.
I am offended at having my mind compared to a Chimpanzee. Although we may share some basic building blocks for our bodies, our minds are very different. We're talking about Humans here.
As far as evidence, let's quote George Bernard Shaw. "When I was young I observed that nine out of every ten things I did were failures, so I did ten times more work." He got it. I'm hardly alone. You want me to dig up some study that shows that people can become more intelligent -- they can learn to aquire knowledge and apply it better. As far as boundless, how do you measure that? It is intuition. Every day, people expand their intelligence. Steven Hawking pushed past the rest in his journey. Someone will come and go even further. It could be you, if you work hard enough.
Do you dare to belittle Mr. Hawking's achievements and hard work by saying he didn't work for it? Look at his life: it was will and hard work to expand his intelligence that makes him who he is.
Or, perhaps you would accept the biological theory in fullness: that our intelligence is static and a gift from the creator, whoever you believe that to be. I assert that it describes a start, but our free-will gives us the ability to journey forth and better ourselves.
Oh, I guess I'll say it, even though it will just cause you to discount everything I say -- God helps us down this journey, if we ask for it. Soli Deo Gloria.
There's that word again -- religious. Where is that coming from? It's like a fly buzzing around my head. Why is there a religious aspect to this? Is it because I believe something that I can't quantify? In that case, you have to ask: do we really know anything? The world is too complex for us to fully understand -- or partially, really. It's arrogance to assume we're a knowledgeable. But, don't throw all the rest of the baggage in either; if we didn't need to believe in something, we all wouldn't be having this debate.
You are telling me that I deluding myself into thinking that I am capable of anything I put my mind to because there is a biological limit to my brain. To accept that, you have to first accept that we think wholly with our brain. I don't accept that: I see the brain as the strings the puppeteer pulls, but not the puppeteer himself. That is the core of this: of course, the human brain is only capable of thinking, say, so fast about something, and no matter what we do to it, the massively parallel network of synapses aren't going to go much past the small amount of hertz they work at no matter what we do to them. But, I don't accept that who we are is our brain. Our brain (and spinal column) is an organ that receives signals in ways we do not understand yet, but the creativity and wonder that someone, like Einstein, possesses, does not originate from inside the brain, any more than the dance of a marionette originates from the strings the puppeteer pulls.
So, that must be the disconnect here. I cannot think that this body is who I am. And, the insights that Einstein came up with he didn't directly observe, but they came from somewhere -- his mind. His creativity, his brilliance, is boundless, just like yours is, brain be damned.
Yes. You appear to believe you've acquired a trememndous insight (your emotional belief in the unlimited potential of the brain) that the rest of us (those who disagree with you) haven't. Your belief/claim that this is down to a failure of will on our part, as opposed to a failure of intellect, doesn't change the fundamental issue.
Let's turn this around then. You believe I haven't acquired some tremendous insight. Isn't that just as arrogant, saying that you know something you can't know? I've never said any of you have failed in any way. That is something you're reading. Potential is a destination. Unlimited potential is a destination you can never arrive at. But, the destination isn't important, it is the journey. That is why it is useless to think you're better than anyone else. Everyone is at a different part on many journeys and only your own journey is what you should be concerned about.
Saying that I think you have a boundless mental potential is very different from claiming the world is flat and telling you to zark-off if you don't believe it. First off, I've never told you to believe me -- you're one of the people telling ME that I shouldn't believe our mental potential is boundless. I wonder if you'd talk that way if you registered?
We do not have to understand every aspect of something before we create a belief. If we did, we would be forced to admit we know nothing. And, again, mental potential and physical potential are different.
The average person accomplishes less than the likes of others because they have an average amount of will and belief in themselves, yes. It's a lack of will. Or perhaps they died before they could apply all of that will. If you must compare yourself to these great people, then you have to choose a path and then say, "Am I further down this path than they?" If you are behind them, then you need to apply more will. If you spent just as much time applying that will, and you started the journey in the same place (starting the journey depends on physical factors, not where you end up), then you will be forced to admit that you applied less will power than the great one and that, if you want to be as great or better, you need to apply more.
Why is that an arrogant, egotistical, nasty thing to say to a person?
I used to think this way too. Now, certainly you'll see that as arrogant, but consider this: you have a belief here as well: you believe that you know I'm wrong. And your belief is founded on some studies done by some scientists.
/. because everybody believes they have the authority to speak on this matter. You and the others are, so if I am arrogant, I am being no more arrogant than anyone else. As far as egotistical -- although I do think I have limitless mental potential, I also believe you do as well, so it really doesn't fit the definition. I'd have to say I have limitless potential and you don't.
This isn't an "Inherit the Wind" moment here, this is a belief in the infinite potential of the human mind. I've heard a few people say that belief is arrogant and egotistical. Why isn't lost on me: people are asking what gives me the authority to even say such a thing. They are assuming that I think I have the authority to say so and that is arrogant.
However, all things are equal here on
I think some people are internalizing me here. I truly believe what I'm saying here -- I truly do believe you have limitless potential and hope that you, kind readers, will believe this too and achieve great things in life.
I'm also one of those people who aren't playing the zero-sum-game too. Perhaps that is my problem -- I'm not saying that your limitless potential diminishes me here and that is a social faux pas. Whatever: we live in a strange time where our own pessimism and lack of hope destroys us.
But, I know at least one of you are reading this who agree with me. To you, I say this, and I say this with the authority I have inherited by being a human being: Your mind is limitless and you can achieve any mental feat you want in life through hard work and willpower. You might die without achieving that goal, but that doesn't mean your potential wasn't there, it just means that an external event cut the journey short. Same with a disease, like Alzheimers, which my grandfather died from three days ago, so I am fully aware that there are diseases that affect our perception.
I believe in you and I'm willing to take the abuse to say so. There are many others who do too. Don't let these few deter you from your goal because they are so vocal.
It's much more interesting for you to explore why you feel the need to tell me this. Why do you need, so badly, to assert that human mind has limits? I've got you guys all up in a tizzy about it. Fascinating.
One of the things I think is most interesting about human nature is that a person, like myself, can argue a point, but no matter what I say, people will perceive I'm saying the opposite, not because of what I'm saying, but because what they need me to say.
Any limits you have on your mind are self-inflicted. Except for death -- but then, I happen to believe the human mind is immortal, so you'd have to buy-in to that belief to agree with me.
I have spent so much time arguing that everyone, which you are a part of, has limitless potential, and I'm being arrogant? It's like going to someone who comes up to you and says, "You can be anything you put your mind to," and responding, "Arrogant, egotistical jerk!" Or, perhaps I'm arrogant because I didn't add, "And you have more potential than I." Of course, if you need that statement, then clearly you are the one who needs the ego stroked.
Is it because I consider myself part of everyone that makes me an egomaniac? But, if that were true, I would want to say you DON'T have limitless potential, because to have limitless potential means you can be (and might be!) far beyond where I'm at.
Can you not see that the responses to my assertions far more adhere to the definition of arrogant and egotistical than anything I have ever said. The presumption to say that people have mental limits is so starkly arrogant and self-serving, it drops my jaw.
I love it. This is human nature we're watching here, folks. Lap it up. It's also a sign of the times.
I guess my point is that it is pointLESS to apply such measures since they are: a. based entirely on one's own perspective, and b. have too many factors to quantify, even if everyone HAD the same perspective.
It is also a psychological fact that people tend to consider themselves better than everyone else anyway, particularly analytical personalities, like most of those reading this thread. Since we know, deep down, this isn't true, we need to lash out to support our fragile egos. See any of that in the previous posts?