# A $350 “anti-5G” device



## gpw928 (May 29, 2020)

Ars Technica has the lowdown on a company that sells the 5GBioShield:





> The product's website charges £283 for a single 5GBioShield, which converts to nearly $350. That's what it costs to get "protection for your home and family, thanks to the wearable holographic nano-layer catalyser, which can be worn or placed near to a smartphone or any other electrical, radiation or EMF emitting device."


Spoiler: save $350 and use an aluminium foil hat...


----------



## sand_man (May 29, 2020)

_Cathy herself was profoundly affected by the 5GBioShield, saying that the product restructured reality itself. "The first night just before going to sleep I felt an increasingly deep sense of relaxation as if I was sinking down into something," Cathy wrote. "As this went deeper I experienced the understanding that reality was being restructured at a very deep level."_

I want whatever Cathy is on.


----------



## SirDice (May 29, 2020)

> Although the product maker says the device works without being plugged in, some of its users seem to think otherwise. "One minute and a half after I plugged it [in], I felt something wrong disappeared in the air," Daniela wrote.


Yes, Daniela, that was your sanity disappearing. 

I'm not too familiar with UK law, but aren't there consumer protection laws for this? It's clearly snake oil,


----------



## Alain De Vos (May 29, 2020)

Offcourse there are also good working crystals which vibrate a certain frequency. The frequency of the universe.


----------



## SirDice (May 29, 2020)

Alain De Vos said:


> Off course there are also good working crystals which vibrate a certain frequency.


You can buy these at any good electronics store. 









						Crystal oscillator - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Birdy (May 29, 2020)

They could have called it 5G-Lockdown or 5G-Mask. Could sell even better.


----------



## PMc (May 29, 2020)

sand_man said:


> I want whatever Cathy is on.



No, trust me, you don't.


----------



## kpedersen (May 29, 2020)

SirDice said:


> I'm not too familiar with UK law, but aren't there consumer protection laws for this? It's clearly snake oil,



Nah, we are all so miserable over here, if some absurd placebo manages to make some of us happy, then we say go for it XD.

However if my dear sweet mother was interested in buying one, my opinion might change haha.


----------



## George (May 29, 2020)

It says nano layer. That's a very thin physical layer (surface). Like some glue, or paste.


----------



## a6h (May 29, 2020)

Elazar said:


> It says nano layer.


Nano is the wrong buzzword, it's deprecated. They should try AI or DevOps.


----------



## SirDice (May 29, 2020)

vigole said:


> They should try AI or DevOps.


Machine learning is the new buzzword


----------



## Jose (May 29, 2020)

Your buzzword-fu is not strong. Mine is powered by deep learning.


----------



## Menelkir (May 29, 2020)

SirDice said:


> Machine learning is the new buzzword



And Kubernetes!


----------



## Jose (May 29, 2020)

Don't make me use infrastructure as code to orchestrate my containers at you.


----------



## 20-100-2fe (May 29, 2020)

The new rage is the fusion of those technologies, Nano and AI, and this is precisely what drives the success of the product we're talking about.
This is called Nano I, standing for "Nano Intelligence", the key to this prodigious user experience.



vigole said:


> Nano is the wrong buzzword, it's deprecated. They should try AI or DevOps.


----------



## D-FENS (May 29, 2020)

gpw928 said:


> Ars Technica has the lowdown on a company that sells the 5GBioShield:
> Spoiler: save $350 and use an aluminium foil hat...


Tinfoil hats are classics!


----------



## 20-100-2fe (May 30, 2020)

On a more serious note, such scams thrive not on stupidity, as one might think, for their most of their customers have a higher education, but rather on suffering. More and more people tend to lock themselves in illusions in an attempt to bear a little longer, if not forget their suffering. Cannabis being gradually legalized in more and more countries is a hint public authorities are aware of this and actively foster the diversification of the "palliative care" offer. And this is really no good news.


----------



## gpw928 (May 31, 2020)

20-100-2fe said:


> ... such scams thrive not on stupidity, ... but rather on suffering.


I'm afraid I'm a little more cynical.  I have seen it most recently described as the youtube phenomenon.

To hell with the scientific method, randomized block experiments, competent statistical analyses, generations of earnest scientific endeavour, refereed publications, and the calamitous impacts on the career of any scientist required to print a retraction.

People will willfully discard mountains of competent, hard-earned, objective evidence in favour of memes they see on youtube.

That's dangerous to society in so many ways (vaccinations, climate change, pandemic management,...).


----------



## 20-100-2fe (May 31, 2020)

gpw928 said:


> That's dangerous to society in so many ways (vaccinations, climate change, pandemic management,...).



Exactly, and the problem is that the violence of society is responsible for behaviors that further increase the danger.
This positive-feedback loop is obviously part of a regulation mechanism, like those at work in the global climate change.
I wish we wouldn't be there to witness such times, but here they are.


----------



## PMc (Jun 1, 2020)

20-100-2fe said:


> On a more serious note, such scams thrive not on stupidity, as one might think, for their most of their customers have a higher education, but rather on suffering.



Suffering? From what would they suffer? (very serious question)

Then, let's get something important clear: We *Do Not Know* if G5 might have detrimental effects on health. At current we know of no such effects, but that is all that can be said - there is no proof of the contrary (and techically such a proof is not even possible). 



gpw928 said:


> To hell with the scientific method, randomized block experiments, competent statistical analyses, generations of earnest scientific endeavour, refereed publications, and the calamitous impacts on the career of any scientist required to print a retraction.
> 
> People will willfully discard mountains of competent, hard-earned, objective evidence in favour of memes they see on youtube.



And these mountains of evidence contain what? As just explained, they contain nothing.  
So do away with these mountains, because they again are only a believe-system.

Until today, nobody knows what makes a living being living. We have tons of data about the details of how life functions, but we have no idea how it comes into existance, or what exactly creates the difference between a functioning, self organizing living being and a heap of lifeless organic material - we just take life as a given fact. And nobody has ever succeeded in making a living being in any other way than letting nature (aka God[1]) do it.

Our medicine is crude at best. It has some means to sustain life by technical means, and some means to adjust parameters (in a very crude way, by just throwing some chemicals into the system), but it has no means to _heal_ anybody. Healing is always and only done by the self-healing abilities of life itself, the doctors can only improve some conditions.

So, as we actually have no idea about what sustains life (in a profound way that would enable us to rebuild it), we are in no position to say what could be detrimental to it's influencing factors (because we do not even know these).



> More and more people tend to lock themselves in illusions in an attempt to bear a little longer, if not forget their suffering.



They always did this. You will find no culture on earth that does not sustain some kind of religion, with the purpose to

give people a common ground to describe their experiences
regulate basic social behaviour
provide some _illusional_ answers on what it is all about.
We could talk about why this is the case - but let's just look at what has happened here: due to a couple of influences[2] our traditional religious culture has been dissolved. But what has not dissolved, is that urge of people to believe in something. Instead, that believe has found a new and now socially legitimate source: science. People do now believe in science and treat science as a religion. 
As shown above, science _does not have and cannot provide the relevant answers_, but nevertheless people tend to argue for a scientific viewpoint with the exact same vehemence and irrationality they would otherwise argue for their religion - mainly those people who are interested in and fond of modern technology.

Some other people are not satisfied with such a worldview - and certainly it is a very cold and sober worldview, leaving all the warm, emotional qualities of life unresponded and out-of-the-equation.

But then we hear the exact same thing as the priests have always said when challenged:


> That's dangerous to society in so many ways



The disbelievers are dangerous to society.
They do not make any attempt to fix the flaws in their religion, they just blame the others, and call for prosecution (i.e. witchburns).

Now back to my initial question: what do people actually suffer from? Why do they have that vehement urge to believe in something? Because, I do not understand that - I just followed Paracelsus' advice[3], and found all things becoming clear in these lights.

-----------
[1] for all practical purposes, "nature" and "God" can be considered the same word.
[2] in short: the cleric stand has been dethroned by Bauernkriege and Aufklärung, then the respectable authorities have been discredited by socialism, and finally social rules have been overthrown by the hippies.
[3] https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/learning-with-electronic-devices-at-early-age.66357/post-391732


----------



## PMc (Jun 1, 2020)

20-100-2fe said:


> Exactly, and the problem is that the violence of society is responsible for behaviors that further increase the danger.



This is no wonder. If you create a religion that excludes all the emotional qualities, then these qualities will not simply disappear (because they essentially belong to life); instead you will get the very worst of them. 

In order to create a working religion (which is identical to a functioning society) you need to explicitely foster the positive emotional qualities. That's the stress on love in christianity - but that was already flawed; earlier pagan religious systems went a lot further (see e.g. hieros gamos).

Lets dig deeper: as mentioned above, the hippies achieved the final overthrow of our established western culture. That wasn't too difficult, because they had LSD, and so they could understand what makes a god a god - and they also did understand the basic necessities of life, and it came down to "make love not war". 
But then, strangely, the AIDS-story did appear and put and end to that. So, what remained was the notion that social rules are just fabrications and can be done away with - but now nothing in replacement! The consequence was now not love, but a borderless and all-overspilling selfishness as the new lifestyle.

That was already bad. But then the Internet appeared, and I was deceived - because I thought something good might arise from it. I thought that people would now become able to exchange their minds&souls, freely and without being judged by appearance or social conventions - and that way they would detect that they are all just equal, that they share the same common desires, hopes and anxieties.
But instead the Internet was taken over by big corporations, and it's users were reduced to mere consuming robots, to functional NPCs.

And if that weren't bad enough, we now have the virus-hoax, which perfectly serves all the wet dreams of those in power: It gives an irrefuteable legitimation to unlimited overboarding governmental debt. It provides authorities with a legitimation for social repressions a nazi tyrant couldn't think of - and that without needing to fear any resistance. And it ensures that the consumer zombies stay locked up in their cages, without any social interaction whatsoever.


----------



## 20-100-2fe (Jun 1, 2020)

PMc said:


> And if that weren't bad enough, we now have the virus-hoax, which perfectly serves all the wet dreams of those in power: It gives an irrefuteable legitimation to unlimited overboarding governmental debt. It provides authorities with a legitimation for social repressions a nazi tyrant couldn't think of - and that without needing to fear any resistance. And it ensures that the consumer zombies stay locked up in their cages, without any social interaction whatsoever.



Because you understand this, I think you know what I mean when I talk about suffering. We are the only species whose arrogance goes well beyond insanity, up to the point we're destroying the ecosystem that allows us to live at an incredible speed and with an unwavering determination. However, we ARE part of nature, how could we not suffer while helplessly witnessing our self-destruction?

And those who understand what's happening suffer twice: once like all others, and once more because they feel so lonely, lost in an ocean of self-blinding peers.


----------



## free-and-bsd (Jun 1, 2020)

F


20-100-2fe said:


> Because you understand this, I think you know what I mean when I talk about suffering. We are the only species whose arrogance goes well beyond insanity, up to the point we're destroying the ecosystem that allows us to live at an incredible speed and with an unwavering determination. However, we ARE part of nature, how could we not suffer while helplessly witnessing our self-destruction?
> 
> And those who understand what's happening suffer twice: once like all others, and once more because they feel so lonely, lost in an ocean of self-blinding peers.


A, but there is hope.


----------



## PMc (Jun 2, 2020)

Now, as I'm already at it, let's look at another phenomenon of the modern worldview: the "experts". 

Whenever you meet a proponent of the modern, rational, well-researched non-tinfoil worldview, and you ask them something, they usually do not have answers. Instead, they point you to the experts, and You will have to listen to the experts.
Also, if you turn on the TV and watch a news show, on any impeding matter they will bring along some expert, and that expert then tells you what you ought to believe.

Now, what are these "experts", and where do they come from? Some personal story: in the early times, say, the late 80's, I used to be somehow associated with the ChaosComputerClub (you know the stories - NASA-hack, similar things). At that time it was really cool there, it was a space for all kind of unconventional thinking, great inspiration and exchange. 
Then, later on, say around the millenium change, in the TV shows I occasionally happened to see some of the people I had met there - they now did appear as the computer security experts. (Specifically, those people who were willing to say what those in power wanted to hear.) Also, at that time the club had changed. It still fostered critical thinking, but now it was the kind of streamlined "critical thinking" - those kind of things which we all get told every day that we should be concerned about: the privacy, the carbondioxide, the LGBTs, etc. - the Greta-stuff as it is told to the masses in school.

So much for that one. So, yes, we should always listen to the experts, and believe what they tell us. And for every field of knowledge, there will be an expert to tell us what we ought to believe. 
But then, what happens if there isn't?

Some more personal stories: I happened to travel exotic places. And when I ventured into Indonesia (*not* the tourist places), I met indigenious cultures which at that time had barely reached iron age (the legendary man-eaters, you know). And then there were no experts available, to tell me what I was supposed to see there. Because these cultures were not yet explored, their languages weren't even known! By mere accident, by just travelling around I had happened to come across the brink of our modern-world-knows-everything, and into cultural white-space on the map. So I had to see with my own eyes and make up my own mind - which, after all, is still possible.

Another example: in the late 90's I happened to aquire a regular job - which came as quite a surprize; actually I had been trying to live as a hippie. What I was supposed to do: help design new compute-centers. It was the time of the first dot-com bubble, and besides the we-sell-each-other-a-webpage-and-make-big-money-with-going-public scheme, there were also the big corps, the major banks, insurance and other companies which all suddenly wanted to get rid of their mainframe stuff and switch to client-server technology (which simply meant: unix and tcp/ip). So people were needed who would design and build such new infrastructure for them. And suddenly I was busy flying around in the world and showing all these big corps how to do it. Nobody had ever told me what actually to do - all I got told was "_here is your customer, here is your flight, now see to it_". So I had to do whatever was the demand - design a backup strategy, build a high-availability scheme - all kinds of systems management solutions. There were no experts I could have asked, nobody told me how to do it - but I had ten years of practice running unix machines for myself (to be able to access the internet) and I had the RFCs to read, so I just did what should be supposed best practices. And all the customers appeared to be happy to have somebody they could ask and who actually knew how all the stuff was supposed to work, and could fix it under any circumstances - they obviousely were used to less competent advisors. It really was a nice time.
Now, this is all different today: nowadays we have the experts in place, and all has to be asked from the experts, and nothing is allowed to be done unless the experts approve it. Consequentially, nobody needs me anymore, and so, since I'm now to old to be a hippie, I'm just the usual unemployed trailerpark trash.

So much for the experts. It seems to me, just like in religion: if you want to talk to God, you're not allowed to do so. Instead, you have to go to a priest, pay the priest, and the priest will handle the communication on your behalf, and tell you what God is saying. Same is now true for the experts: if you want to do something, or decide something, or experience something, you're not allowed to do so. Instead you have to go to the experts, pay the experts, and the experts will tell you what experience you are expected to have. And certainly, this is all for our protection.


----------



## free-and-bsd (Jun 2, 2020)

Right, today you have to be your own expert. It's your life, it's your body, it's your mind, your health -- and the decision over these vital matters is YOURS as well. So... you CONSULT them "experts", do your research, form your opinion and act upon it. But it wasn't much different 3000 years ago, I guess.


----------



## 20-100-2fe (Jun 2, 2020)

Of course, but only "experts" can grant you access to solutions to your problems, though they don't know more than you and they don't care about you.

This is particularly the case with medicine. Most health problems are nowadays either caused by stratospheric levels of stress, or by a number of toxics stuffing everything from baby bottles to tomato sauce. MD are clueless when you consult them, you have to make your own diagnostic and then try and find a way to have an MD prescribe the appropriate treatment.


----------



## a6h (Jun 2, 2020)

free-and-bsd said:


> But it wasn't much different 3000 years ago, I guess.


There is one difference between civilization, 3000 years ago, and civilization today.
The former destroyed by _Sea People_, the latter might destroy by _Scene People_.


----------



## jomonger (Jun 2, 2020)

PMc said:


> So much for that one. So, yes, we should always listen to the experts, and believe what they tell us. And for every field of knowledge, there will be an expert to tell us what we ought to believe.
> But then, what happens if there isn't?



Richard Feynman said that "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". We live in quite and advanced world while most of people doesn't know at all how technology works. It easy for them to believe in functionality that seems for them similiar to things they already saw (microwaver heats food, usb sticks can flash lights, so why usb stick couldn't block 5g huh?). Empiricism vs Rationalism.

Anyway I am big fan of this USB stick. Properetary holographic nano-layer catalyst technology is the thing I need.


----------



## 20-100-2fe (Jun 2, 2020)

vigole said:


> The former destroyed by _Sea People_, the latter might destroy by _Scene People_.



What's ever increasing over time is our arrogance. Along evolution, the most arrogant homo.* has always superseded the least arrogant. I could trace it back to 500,000 years ago, but it began most probably even earlier. Our arrogance grows ever stronger, ever faster over time, exactly like toxics concentrate along the food chain. But Nature isn't a creature, you can't intimidate it, nor negotiate with it, its laws apply universally, full stop. Disregarding this, blinded by arrogance, is simply suicidal. However, aware of this or not, none of us can escape, for we are social animals and we can't live alone... Hence the suffering and all those little tactics we use to try and deal with it - the best we can do.


----------



## k3y5 (Jun 3, 2020)

A fool and his/her money are soon parted. Incredible.


----------



## k3y5 (Jun 3, 2020)

SirDice said:


> Yes, Daniela, that was your sanity disappearing.
> 
> I'm not too familiar with UK law, but aren't there consumer protection laws for this? It's clearly snake oil,



You'd think so. I fondly remember the "pet rock," mania that hit for couple of months. How else would it be possible for someone like bunker b*tch to get elected.


----------



## SirDice (Jun 3, 2020)

k3y5 said:


> I fondly remember the "pet rock,"


They never claimed those rocks were anything special or have any medical benefits. It was a weird fad, yes, but nothing more than that.


----------



## getopt (Jun 3, 2020)

SirDice said:


> I'm not too familiar with UK law, but aren't there consumer protection laws for this? It's clearly snake oil,


I just wonder that the US have this:



> I. The Empirical Evidence
> We could spend hours discussing the extensive, decades-long scientific
> examination of homeopathy, but suffice to say the empirical evidence
> against homeopathy is overwhelming: aside from a placebo effect,
> homeopathic products have no effect in treating illnesses.





			https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM443495.pdf
		




PMc said:


> And these mountains of evidence contain what? As just explained, they contain nothing.


As a profound evidence denier could you please offer your understanding of nothing as there is too much room for interpretation.

PMc, for what homeopathic dilution would you use the term 'nothing'?


----------



## jardows (Jun 3, 2020)

PMc said:


> So much for the experts. It seems to me, just like in religion: if you want to talk to God, you're not allowed to do so. Instead, you have to go to a priest, pay the priest, and the priest will handle the communication on your behalf, and tell you what God is saying. Same is now true for the experts: if you want to do something, or decide something, or experience something, you're not allowed to do so. Instead you have to go to the experts, pay the experts, and the experts will tell you what experience you are expected to have. And certainly, this is all for our protection.



You say "expert" in this conversation, and the way you use it, I hear "Consultant."


----------



## SirDice (Jun 3, 2020)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.


----------



## Jose (Jun 3, 2020)

devRant - Once upon a time there was a shepherd looking after his sheep on the side of a deserted road. Suddenly a brand new Porsche screeches to a halt. The driver, a man dressed in an Armani suit, Cerutti shoes, Ray-Ban sunglasses, TAG-Heuer wrist-
					

Connect with fellow developers over fun rants about tech




					devrant.com


----------



## PMc (Jun 10, 2020)

getopt said:


> As a profound evidence denier could you please offer your understanding of nothing as there is too much room for interpretation.



That's the point in it. Have fun interpreting. (The outcome will reflect Your personal mind-state, and that is nothing I am concerned to influence.)



> PMc, for what homeopathic dilution would you use the term 'nothing'?



Good point. As somebody who does prefer solid personal experience, I can say that homeopathy did never work for me, but then, faith healing does. And it does work to such an extent, that one could start drawing a map for, which kind of _suppressed emotional thinking_ would spark which kind of _spontaneous healing_, i.e. the body-mind relation.
Now this map is individual for each human, consequentially most of the esoteric market offerings of "healing" are quite pointless.

From here on, You maybe can see that the _materialistic_ approach in trying to tackle the physical substance in homeopathy (which might induce healing) leads into the void, because what induces healing is not a substance, it is basically an idea.

So now it is up to You to show a way how to physically measure an idea. 
And, to answer Your question: it is this mentioned void for which I use the term 'nothing'.


----------



## PMc (Jun 10, 2020)

jardows said:


> You say "expert" in this conversation, and the way you use it, I hear "Consultant."



Actually, no. I rather mean "priest" - in the sense of somebody _monopolizing opinion_ in their field of knowledge. And you may get that opinion seemingly for free, in TV shows for instance, because the public hand (that is: you as a taxpayer) pays for the service, which is considered to be for the greater good of all.

With _consultants_ the matter is a bit different - there you usually have an individual contract (or your employing corp. has one). So -in principal- you can tackle them and force them to explain what they are doing - and since they are individually hired, they will have to respond to that.

The consultant gets at you only where you are weak (that is true for the esoteric healers just the same as for the McKinsey etc. flock), while the modern "expert" gets at you by shaping public opinion.


----------



## PMc (Jun 11, 2020)

This one gave me a really hard time of thinking during the recent days... Something in Your perception appears strange to me, but it also appears extremly difficult to pinpoint it.



20-100-2fe said:


> Because you understand this, I think you know what I mean when I talk about suffering.



So, what You meain is not a physical injury (that could be treated appropriately). And neither is it a mental disorder (that could probably also be improved by the proper means). It rather seems to be something similar to the notion in the buddhist philosophy, that "we all experience suffering". I never understood that one, either.

I think the buddhist philosophy is a very important and necessary approach to try and understand the phenomenon of the mind, and of existence, NOT based on the telltale of some divine being, but on something near to clear reasoning. But then, it positions suffering at the entry-point to the whole philosophy, and it does not even bother to explain how to achieve suffering, but simply declares it as conditio-sine-qua-non.
At that point I did almost despair - not because I would have been in the mood to despair, but because there was a philosophy that hat an methodology I could well agree with, and that tried to understand the very things I did also try to understand, but that did exclude me from their wisdom, because I could not achieve the prerequisite, i.e. suffering.



> We are the only species whose arrogance goes well beyond insanity, up to the point we're destroying the ecosystem that allows us to live at an incredible speed and with an unwavering determination.



Slowly... we are the only species that tends to reflect on matters. This is an advantage, but it comes at a price.
Our ability to survive, our "evolutionary niche", is based on this: we are not stronger/faster/... than another animal, but we can reflect on experiences and change our methodology.
But it is the very same thing that separates us from nature - because you cannot reflect without distance.

Then, about arrogance - when do we behave arrogant? Often that is an act of defiance. We are, as you said, social animals. So we have a natural instinct to join and integrate. If that, for some reason, is not possible, the reaction may well be arrogance.
An animal is never asked: they behave according to their instincts because they have no other option.

Finally, the "ecosystem" cannot be destroyed, first of all, because it is just a mental concept. It's a product of human thinking. Just like the GDP is also a concept, a creation of thinking. You can use these as arguments, you can say, this or that behaviour is important for the whatever-concept - but then you make that concept a fetish, a semi-god. We have seen this; practically all demagogues work with such fetishes to stir public emotions. Currently the eco-system is made such a fetish, and it works, in favour of lots of things of which most are not really thought thru, and do not really make much sense.

The major bug here, as I see it, is the concept of guilt. The current telltale is based on _guilt_: you should feel guilt, because things you do may be harmful to that eco-system, or because we have so much a bigger "ecological footprint" than e.g. the people in indonesia. But at the same time you cannot change that, because you are supposed to consume, and the economy (again: a concept) depends on that. So you are stuck in what in psychology is called a double-bind.

This whole scheme cannot work in any satisfactory way. Instead of giving people guilt, one should take care that people feel good, that they love themselves, that they love their life - and then they would automatically take care for that life.
So, suffering is pointless and counter-effective.



> However, we ARE part of nature, how could we not suffer while helplessly witnessing our self-destruction?



We ARE nature. For some reason nature has decided to create a reflective animal, with all the consequences.
Why should we suffer from that?




Then, there is an old hindu teaching of the Yugas, and it describes precisely what is happening. Civilisations are not meant to exist forever, they do rise and fall. Everything in nature happens in cycles; this is no different for civilisations. We ARE nature.

All this is known already for thousands of years. It has happened before and it will happen again in the future.

It might seem, it is our own free decision, if we prefer to suffer, or to just watch nature.



> And those who understand what's happening suffer twice: once like all others, and once more because they feel so lonely, lost in an ocean of self-blinding peers.



I might understand that the unconscious people are suffering - in an unconscious way. Because, they do not really know why they are here, or what actually they belong to. Then they fill this with supplement ideas of where they would belong to, like, the family, the sports club, the job, whatever. Then, when that thing suddenly breaks away, a divorce happens or the job is cancelled, then the suffering becomes very imminent.

But if you know that, then you're not subdued, and you're actually free to do what you want. But yes, as a knowledgeable one you are lonely, and the search for peers is difficult.


----------



## 20-100-2fe (Jun 11, 2020)

By "ecosystem", I refer to the processes and interactions that make OUR life possible. We are destroying the balance of this system by our actions. This illustrates with some humor an aspect of our insanity, but many others receive much less media coverage.

By "arrogance", I refer to the fact that we deem we deserve better that what nature offers us. It began very,very long ago, when we invented arts, religions and concepts such as private property. There's also a lot to say about this.

And by "suffering", you know what double-bind is, and it's close to what we're all living these days: we all know our collective behavior is incompatible with the survival of our species, but we just can't change anything and risk ending up alone. Whatever we do, we're doing wrong. And everyday, we helplessly notice more and more nasty consequences of our collective behavior, increasing the pressure on us to levels so high most people try and find relief in illusions or drugs.


----------



## suntzu00 (Jun 12, 2020)

> But then, it positions suffering at the entry-point to the whole philosophy, and it does not even bother to explain how to achieve suffering, but simply declares it as conditio-sine-qua-non


Schopenhauer would like to have a word.


> So, suffering is pointless and counter-effective.


That's like saying that good algorithms are worth using.


> It might seem, it is our own free decision, if we prefer to suffer, or to just watch nature


I've never realised that we had that option.


> I might understand that the unconscious people are suffering - in an unconscious way. Because, they do not really know why they are here, or what actually they belong to. Then they fill this with supplement ideas of where they would belong to, like, the family, the sports club, the job, whatever. Then, when that thing suddenly breaks away, a divorce happens or the job is cancelled, then the suffering becomes very imminent.


Either you've discovered the meaning of life or this doesn't make any sense and it's contradicted by the next sentence.


> But if you know that, then you're not subdued, and you're actually free to do what you want. But yes, as a knowledgeable one you are lonely, and the search for peers is difficult.


Still not sure if you're "free" or not at this point.

I'm not saying that you're completely wrong but the whole thought process relies on "meaning" which is an actual minefield. As soon as we start operating outside the limits(see limits.h  ) of the metaphysical knowledge(see Immanuel Kant) we're pretty much lost.


----------



## 20-100-2fe (Jun 12, 2020)

Suffering is certainly not counter-effective, it's the way evolution has found to best notify living creatures that something is wrong in their current situation and they should try and change something (when feasible) to restore sustainable life conditions.


----------



## PMc (Jun 12, 2020)

20-100-2fe said:


> By "ecosystem", I refer to the processes and interactions that make OUR life possible. We are destroying the balance of this system by our actions. This illustrates with some humor an aspect of our insanity, but many others receive much less media coverage.



If our life is no longer possible, then we die. Which we all do, anyway.
Being worried about something one cannot change, is irrational. Expecting others to also be worried, is insane.

If a system is brought out of its balance, then it enters a chaotic state, and searches for a new balance. If the system is complex enough, then it is not possible to prospect that new state.

Tramping Indonesia (with an "ecological footprint" way below average) I have not noticed a lack of anything. (The only long-term issue would have been that it is difficult enough to get my teeth fixed here, and it is impossible there. An ordinary doctor would be reachable by ship, that goes once a week. That wasn't a worry to me, as I have my opinion about doctors, anyway...)

I find it interesting that the most part of that climate hystery is propagated by people who at the same time could not imagine to live without a car, or a tv set, or a laundry machine (I have neither). Their business equates their business. 
Yes, to some extent one has to follow in (I recently replaced my 20-year-old computer with a 7-year old, as it became increasingly difficult to live without 64bit), but one can limit that by quite a lot.



> By "arrogance", I refer to the fact that we deem we deserve better that what nature offers us. It began very,very long ago, when we invented arts, religions and concepts such as private property.



Yes, or beauty.



> And by "suffering", you know what double-bind is, and it's close to what we're all living these days:



Then stop doing that.



> we all know our collective behavior is incompatible with the survival of our species, but we just can't change anything and risk ending up alone.



Yes You can. You can make a decision for Your self. You speak languages, You have computer skill, You can in principle make a living at almost any place in the world - and that includes all those places that have a significantly lower "ecological footprint". And You will not "end up alone", as there will be other people.



> Whatever we do, we're doing wrong.



Thats what I express as "guilt". It's a bad plan, because it leads straigt to disempowerment.



> And everyday, we helplessly notice more and more nasty consequences of our collective behavior, increasing the pressure on us to levels so high most people try and find relief in illusions or drugs.



No, I am noticing something that worries me a lot more: the disappearance of the "quality zones". 
During the past, one could always find certain hidden places where one could meet some sane people. Earlier the hippies where such a zone, later the hackers were such a zone. There would be people who are genuine friendly, have an open mind, an eye for beauty, would not worry about their "social reputation" or about the profit that would yield from their doings, and enjoy mutual inspiration. 
As I perceive it, these quality zones seem to disappear. And since I as a human being am also an ecosystem, and have a balance, I need some occasional amount of quality input in order to keep my balance. Because otherwise, rather bad things might happen.


----------



## PMc (Jun 12, 2020)

suntzu00 said:


> Schopenhauer would like to have a word.



Well then, You're free to hand him my e-mail. 



> That's like saying that good algorithms are worth using.


So then 1.Moses 3,16-17 suggests a bad algorithm? A lot of people seem to believe in that.



> I've never realised that we had that option.



Then try to look out for it.



> Still not sure if you're "free" or not at this point.



Does it matter?



> I'm not saying that you're completely wrong but the whole thought process relies on "meaning" which is an actual minefield. As soon as we start operating outside the limits(see limits.h  ) of the metaphysical knowledge(see Immanuel Kant) we're pretty much lost.



Ah.  Yes, correct. That is a technical limitation of the mind.

I don't know what "metaphysical knowledge" is supposed to be. I experienced philosophy as quite disappointing; it's like mathematics, a logical constuct, that is thought to be somehow consistent on it's own behalf. Now we know what we can do with mathematics - we can spend a lifetime playing inside the system for it's own purpose, but we can also utilize these tools to understand and manage things in the real world. In philosophy we can also play with the arguments inside the system, probably for a lifetime, but then what?

Now, try to describe what actually happens when going beyond the limits. You use pictures of danger - being "lost", a "minefield". What is this danger, how does it manifest?

There is something that made me wonder for quite a time: we have a science of the mind, called psychology. That exists for only about 100 years.
At the same time we have a tradition of science in general that scopes a good 2000 years - and that one is considered so profound, that the higher education in the western world was in my youth and maybe to some extent is still based on that, namely: the "classical era".
Now why does the science of the mind scope only 100 years? Wouldn't the people of 2000 years ago also have an interest into the nearest of all phenomena - their own mind?

Then yes, we have philosophy. But philosophy is mainly concerned with proper acting and proper character, that is, with _ethics_. NOT with the mind as a phenomenon, or only insofar as that is a prerequisite for the former.
The difference is similar to one in computing: you have the _software specification_, that describes how a program must _behave_ (the ethics), and you have the technology of constructing a computer, i.e. make the components interplay in a certain way so that a program can be run at all on it (the understanding of how it does _function_).
So yes, if you go beyond the limits of philosophy, then that is no longer useful to derive ethics from it (because then the values are no longer meaningful and you can proof or unproof anything) - but you may get a lot nearer to an understanding of how the mind works.

So here is a manyfold hint: Thunder perfect mind

This will point you to where you may find the ancient science of the mind (because it does exist), and it also shows how that used to work.
This text is protected: it cannot be understood by logical means, and it also very safe against the loss of meaning. It is like a cryptographic chiffre: it will look like gibberish to the eavesdroppers, but where it can be decoded on the inner core that is not deteriorated by intellectual viruses of "meaning", it will restore it's message (which, in this case, is the contact details of a goddess - use that at your own risk).


----------

