The true theory of reality by Rotting Penis (aka AP)

What you think of as "reality" is 100% determined by your neurotransmitters

end of theory

thank you

Reality is how others perceive you.
Once you have taken the red pill there is no way back.

legit
the reality depends of the person and the more stupid low IQ the person is = the more retarded +distorted is the reality

Ah shut up about your NT coping fuckboy. Man the fuck up and admit it, you're ugly, and a queer.
Image

Image

Rotting Penis wrote:What you think of as "reality" is 100% determined by your neurotransmitters

end of theory

thank you


Legit
NT > FACE > HEIGHT > BODY

Cersei Lannister wrote:Ah shut up about your NT coping fuckboy. Man the fuck up and admit it, you're ugly, and a queer.

STFU or I will spank your cunt

To continue my thoughts..
You are what other people think you are. What you think about yourself is irrelevant unless others see you the same way. Confidence comes from the outside, not from the inside. You cannot create your own reality, your reality is created by others.

ihateallwomen wrote:To continue my thoughts..
You are what other people think you are. What you think about yourself is irrelevant unless others see you the same way. Confidence comes from the outside, not from the inside. You cannot create your own reality, your reality is created by others.

STFU it's the other way round

There is no reality

You don't know what they think of you, your brains guesses what others think based on how your neurotransmitters which determine what your brain thinks other people think of you

I don't know what they think but you can see it based on their behavior and words. When an incel tries to act confident people will push him back into his subhuman reality (which they created for him.)

ihateallwomen wrote:I don't know what they think but you can see it based on their behavior and words. When an incel tries to act confident people will push him back into his subhuman reality (which they created for him.)

That's not the point of this thread at all

But there is certain flexibility with neurotransmitters, no?

They alter to external stimuli.

Whilst there is a period of greater flexibility (childhood), and much less flexibility in adulthood, there is still a continuing cycle of upregulation, downregulation, and differing amounts of potentiation.

If there is even 1% flexibility in NTs, implying 99% of your contextual encoding was permanently fixed, then wouldn't your theory be wrong, AP?
Tell me with whom you associate and I will tell you who you are. If I know with what you busy yourself, I know what you amount to

Oh wait, are you saying regardless of alterations TO the NTs, the NTs still make up 100% of your contextual encoding?

Because that's a very odd theory to posit, as your hippocampus (and the rest of the limbic system) are all involved in this process, and their structure/development, also plays a role, does it not?

I suppose you could argue that the structure is 100% dependent on NT alteration, but I don't think that's the case IIRC.

Phooooock, what was that?

OK, let me explain in simple terms:

Objective reality:
Person A talks to person B, gets laughed at

Reality in person A's mind:
holy phucking phuck, i feel so bad, they all be laughing at me, i'm ugly, they hate me...

Reality in person A's mind after manipulation of neurotransmitters:
she's laughing with me, LOL, that was funny as phuck, hahaha


Objective reality:
You go out without an umbrella and it started to rain

Reality in your mind:
Phucking rain, whaaaat? Noooow? :pistodouble: I'm in a fucking hurry, aaaaah, God hates me, why me, aaaaaah :uzi: :rambo: :walk:

Reality in your mind after neurotransmitter alteration:
Whoooa, that was unexpected, lets hide somewhere, look, a sloot is standing there hiding from the rain too, "Waddup sloot, LOL, that's some weather, huh?"

Etc...

Although I'm sure your postulation is a gross oversimplification of reality, I'm not well versed enough in neuroscience to actually give a much more accurate explanation. However, I would point out that your neurology and receptors play a role as well, neurotransmitters are only one piece of the puzzle.

In any case, and be this as it may, there are multiple levels at which we can observe human cognition, there is what I would analogize to the hardware level, which is concerned with neurons, neurotransmitters, receptors, and neurological wiring in general, and then there is also what I would analogize to the software level, which manifests as abstract cognitive tools, such as phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, executive function, and various functions. Although these tools and functions rely on the hardware, they are also separate from it in the abstract sense.

I'm not certain, but I suspect that psychologists are typically more concerned with the abstractions, whereas neuropsychiatrists are more concerned with the gestalt, or in other words the abstractions and their relation to the hardware on which they rely.

As far as theory of reality goes, I primarily look at this in the abstraction sense, I'm not really sure the neurological correlates (the term for the mapping between the abstract tool/function and the neurological network it relies upon) of the ability to accurately perceive objective reality. I started to read a paper on the neurological correlates of schizophrenia symptoms, which have been postulated as existing in a lesser form in neurotypicals, but I've not finished it yet only making it to page four before deciding to instead shit post on sluthate, though I still have it up and should finish reading it.

Regardless, I've some theory on the characterization of the abstract theory of reality. For one, I will give an example that shows intact theory of reality as compared to impaired theory of reality;

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs ... eir-lives/

As compared with 34 neurotypical people, those with Asperger’s syndrome were significantly less likely to invoke a teleological response—for example, saying the event was meant to unfold in a particular way or explaining that God had a hand in it. They were more likely to invoke a natural cause (such as blaming an illness on a virus they thought they were exposed to) or to give a descriptive response, explaining the event again in a different way.


The autistic subjects demonstrate intact theory of reality here, in that we know that sickness can arise from viral exposure, however we equally know with certainty that approaches 100% anyway that God is never the cause of illness. In other words, the autistic subjects gave an answer that is more closely mapped to reality than the neurotypical subjects their answer, thereby demonstrating superior theory of reality.

Intact Theory Of Reality

Image

Image

Deficient Theory Of Reality

Image


There is speculation that deficient theory of reality may be linked to social reasoning.

Some experts theorize that certain schizophrenia symptoms (for instance, paranoia) arise in part from a hyperactive sense of social reasoning. “I’d guess that they’d give lots of teleological answers; more than neurotypical people, and certainly far more than people with Asperger’s,” Heywood says.



Certainly it seems as if intact theory of reality arises from the ability to accurate systemize, and indeed it may be largely indistinguishable from the ability to accurately systemize. After all, reality consists of nothing but systems, so the ability to properly systemize is essentially equivalent to the ability to understand reality. This is supported by the fact that high functioning autistic people have both superior theory of reality, and superior ability to systemize, thereby showing a correlation. Likewise, neurotypicals have typically deficient theory of reality, as well as deficient ability to systemize, further strengthening the correlation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693117/

Systemizing is the drive to analyse systems or construct systems. A recent model of psychological sex differences suggests that this is a major dimension in which the sexes differ, with males being more drawn to systemize than females. Currently, there are no self-report measures to assess this important dimension. A second major dimension of sex differences is empathizing (the drive to identify mental states and respond to these with an appropriate emotion). Previous studies find females score higher on empathy measures. We report a new self-report questionnaire, the Systemizing Quotient (SQ), for use with adults of normal intelligence. It contains 40 systemizing items and 20 control items. On each systemizing item, a person can score 2, 1 or 0, so the SQ has a maximum score of 80 and a minimum of zero. In Study 1, we measured the SQ of n = 278 adults (114 males, 164 females) from a general population, to test for predicted sex differences (male superiority) in systemizing. All subjects were also given the Empathy Quotient (EQ) to test if previous reports of female superiority would be replicated. In Study 2 we employed the SQ and the EQ with n = 47 adults (33 males, 14 females) with Asperger syndrome (AS) or high-functioning autism (HFA), who are predicted to be either normal or superior at systemizing, but impaired at empathizing. Their scores were compared with n = 47 matched adults from the general population in Study 1. In Study 1, as predicted, normal adult males scored significantly higher than females on the SQ and significantly lower on the EQ. In Study 2, again as predicted, adults with AS/HFA scored significantly higher on the SQ than matched controls, and significantly lower on the EQ than matched controls. The SQ reveals both a sex difference in systemizing in the general population and an unusually strong drive to systemize in AS/HFA. These results are discussed in relation to two linked theories: the 'empathizing-systemizing' (E-S) theory of sex differences and the extreme male brain (EMB) theory of autism.


Note however that the correlation also holds when looking at EQ separately from SQ, in other words as EQ increases theory of reality decreases.

I've previously described the characteristics of theory of reality, however a short recapitulation (as well as some modification);

Image

As illustrated, intact theory of reality allows people to update their beliefs when presented with new evidence. Note that this updating is done in a gestalt fashion, in other words, the original belief should be conceptualized at the instance level, I already made graphics explaining this in the case of the holocaust and the hypothermia data, I will reuse them here, though note that in that case it is more appropriate to look at the instance variable level;

Image

See, you have knowledge of a topic, this topic is an instance that has numerous instance variables of knowledge related to it. When we get contradictory evidence about a topic, it is essentially a new instance variable that is mutually exclusive with an instance variable we already had associated with our instance. Theory of reality allows us to bring our model instance closer to reality by removing bad instance variables and replacing them with new instance variables, however our general model is still intact usually, though it is true that in some cases an entire instance may be false, we can conceptualize this as adding the instance variable "false belief" to our object.

This is in contrast to a manifestation of deficient theory of reality, which I will term "extension".

Image

This can mimic intact theory of reality, in that a new more correct belief is integrated into the mind, but it has a striking difference from the previously explained model, in that rather than adding the new belief to our instance as an instance variable, and discarding the mutually exclusive instance variables after recognizing them as such, the old beliefs stay intact but rather are merely extended by the new belief. An example of this is as follows;

Original Belief: "The Earth was created by God 10,000 years ago"

Contradictory Evidence: "Radiological dating of the Earth shows it is many millions of years old"

Extended Belief: "God created the Earth 10,000 years ago, to have radiological dating that indicated the Earth was millions of years old 10,000 years ago"

Another example:

Original Belief: "There is a multi billion dollar CP industry"

Contradictory Evidence: "Nobody has proof of a CP industry larger than a few million dollars"

Extended Belief: "There was a multi billion dollar CP industry, but now there is not"

Clearly the failure demonstrated here is the inability to discard original beliefs when evidence shows that they are not feasible, rather the original belief is extended by the contradictory evidence. This does superficially bring people closer to reality, but it is a disintegrated reality, rather than a single abstract instance without contradictory instance variables, we have more of a procedural perception;

Image

The original belief is not being modified by the new evidence to update the instance to bring it closer to an accurate model of reality, rather a new belief is forming whilst the original belief remains fully intact. This can also be conceptualized as an array that holds various beliefs. With intact theory of reality, items on the array can be overwritten as new information is obtained, without intact theory of reality an element written to the array cannot be overwritten, every insertion merely ++ the pointer without old beliefs having any potential to be overwritten

Image

This brings me to my second point, rebranding.

Image

Rebranding is essentially the constant modification of the original belief, mutating it, such that in essence it is the same, but it varies only on details. We can see an example of this here;

Image

Image

Image

Rebranding is essentially an arms race, in that the previously mentioned array is constantly being ++ed, so to keep the target constantly believing in the essence of the propaganda (ie: "Vaccines are bad"), the attacker merely needs to spam ++ writes such that their logic is always the most recent element on the array (ie: "Vaccines are bad because of Mercury" ++ science paper showing this isn't the case ++ "Vaccines are bad because too many too soon" ++ science paper showing this isn't the case ++ "Vaccines are bad because Aluminum"). The essence that vaccines are bad is always maintained, only the details of why need to be modified with each subsequent ++, and the target will be kept in the belief that vaccines are bad.

This is also a popular methodology of the prison industrial complex propagandists.

"CP must be illegal because it will increase child sex abuse rates otherwise" ++ science shows legal to view CP decreases child sex abuse rates ++ "CP must be illegal to combat the billion dollar child abuse industry!" ++ research shows that there is not a billion dollar child abuse industry ++ "CP must be illegal because blah blah"

Another manifestation of this is as follows;

"Marijuana is horrible for you!" ++ Personal experience in youth shows this is not the case ++ "Today marijuana is bad for you, even though it wasn't in your youth!"

This is what I would term an extension attack, and it has a high degree of success in the first example because the essence of the targets belief never has to change (CP must be illegal!), only the reasons in support of this belief must rapidly mutate in order to bypass contradictory evidence. In the second case the essence of the belief does change, but it changes in such a fashion that the target is never told that their original belief was incorrect.

Anyway this is kind of just my rough notes on the subject off the top of my head, I should really spend more time on them and make it more formal and make a more rigorous model, I could really spend probably many hours on it but yeah for now this will do.

WTF was that?

Can you stop with those aspergers outbursts and talk like a human?

Well, that was a stupid question, scratch that.

Although I'm sure your postulation is a gross oversimplification of reality

No shit sherlock

However, I would point out that your neurology and receptors play a role as well, neurotransmitters are only one piece of the puzzle.

Duh, obviously

Did you understand what I was saying? or is it a stupid question too?

There is no "superior" or "inferior" theory of reality, because it's all processed through your brain chemicals.

Your brain might be in a fucking glass jar with wires attached to it and you would have no idea.

You don't know what's real, you only know the intepretation of your brain of external stimuli.

But that wasn't my point, my point was that the same objective event you will interpret and feel about completely differently based on different composition of chemicals in your brain.

Rotting Penis wrote:WTF was that?

Can you stop with those aspergers outbursts and talk like a human?

Well, that was a stupid question, scratch that.

Although I'm sure your postulation is a gross oversimplification of reality

No shit sherlock

However, I would point out that your neurology and receptors play a role as well, neurotransmitters are only one piece of the puzzle.

Duh, obviously

Did you understand what I was saying? or is it a stupid question too?

There is no "superior" or "inferior" theory of reality, because it's all processed through your brain chemicals.

Your brain might be in a fucking glass jar with wires attached to it and you would have no idea.

You don't know what's real, you only know the intepretation of your brain of external stimuli.

But that wasn't my point, my point was that the same objective event you will interpret and feel about completely differently based on different composition of chemicals in your brain.


Objective reality exists.

mrz wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:WTF was that?

Can you stop with those aspergers outbursts and talk like a human?

Well, that was a stupid question, scratch that.


No shit sherlock


Duh, obviously

Did you understand what I was saying? or is it a stupid question too?

There is no "superior" or "inferior" theory of reality, because it's all processed through your brain chemicals.

Your brain might be in a fucking glass jar with wires attached to it and you would have no idea.

You don't know what's real, you only know the intepretation of your brain of external stimuli.

But that wasn't my point, my point was that the same objective event you will interpret and feel about completely differently based on different composition of chemicals in your brain.


Objective reality exists.

It does but it's separated from your feelings about it.

For example:
the existence of men and women is objective reality, but whether JB's are hot or MILF's are hotter or even men are the hottest depends entirely on your brain chemicals, it is 100% subjective

If you don't believe me walk up to a faggot and convince him that JB's are objectively more sexually attractive than muscular hairy men

I'm not making claims to subjective reality though, that is individual, opinion, I'm discussing fact, objective reality.

mrz wrote:I'm not making claims to subjective reality though, that is individual, opinion, I'm discussing fact, objective reality.

it's largely irrelevant though, excluding some extreme unfortunate events, but day-to-day objective reality is irrelevant, it only matters how your brain feels about it

there are millionaires and movie stars jumping off fucking windows because they're depressed as fuck

and there are poor schmucks who are happy about every little shit

Neurotransmitters = everything

Rotting Penis wrote:
mrz wrote:I'm not making claims to subjective reality though, that is individual, opinion, I'm discussing fact, objective reality.

it's largely irrelevant though, excluding some extreme unfortunate events, but day-to-day objective reality is irrelevant, it only matters how your brain feels about it

there are millionaires and movie stars jumping off fucking windows because they're depressed as fuck

and there are poor schmucks who are happy about every little shit

Neurotransmitters = everything


The topic you are discussing is orthogonal to the one I am.

mrz wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:it's largely irrelevant though, excluding some extreme unfortunate events, but day-to-day objective reality is irrelevant, it only matters how your brain feels about it

there are millionaires and movie stars jumping off fucking windows because they're depressed as fuck

and there are poor schmucks who are happy about every little shit

Neurotransmitters = everything


The topic you are discussing is orthogonal to the one I am.

That's why you jumped in my thread with your aspergers bombing run

Legit neurotransmitters control your destiny.
Genetics.

Rotting Penis wrote:Phooooock, what was that?

OK, let me explain in simple terms:

Objective reality:
Person A talks to person B, gets laughed at

Reality in person A's mind:
holy phucking phuck, i feel so bad, they all be laughing at me, i'm ugly, they hate me...

Reality in person A's mind after manipulation of neurotransmitters:
she's laughing with me, LOL, that was funny as phuck, hahaha


Objective reality:
You go out without an umbrella and it started to rain

Reality in your mind:
Phucking rain, whaaaat? Noooow? :pistodouble: I'm in a fucking hurry, aaaaah, God hates me, why me, aaaaaah :uzi: :rambo: :walk:

Reality in your mind after neurotransmitter alteration:
Whoooa, that was unexpected, lets hide somewhere, look, a sloot is standing there hiding from the rain too, "Waddup sloot, LOL, that's some weather, huh?"

Etc...


Interesting.

I feel we could go round the houses with this discussion, as it touches on so many things, but ultimately buddy boyo, I do smell some cope here.

Out of curiosity, when a drug addict suddenly turns round and gets clean, when nothing in their life (externally) has changed, what exactly do you think has changed with their NTs, and how?

Are you able to describe it purely in terms of NT alteration?

MyBalls YourChin wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:Phooooock, what was that?

OK, let me explain in simple terms:

Objective reality:
Person A talks to person B, gets laughed at

Reality in person A's mind:
holy phucking phuck, i feel so bad, they all be laughing at me, i'm ugly, they hate me...

Reality in person A's mind after manipulation of neurotransmitters:
she's laughing with me, LOL, that was funny as phuck, hahaha


Objective reality:
You go out without an umbrella and it started to rain

Reality in your mind:
Phucking rain, whaaaat? Noooow? :pistodouble: I'm in a fucking hurry, aaaaah, God hates me, why me, aaaaaah :uzi: :rambo: :walk:

Reality in your mind after neurotransmitter alteration:
Whoooa, that was unexpected, lets hide somewhere, look, a sloot is standing there hiding from the rain too, "Waddup sloot, LOL, that's some weather, huh?"

Etc...


Interesting.

I feel we could go round the houses with this discussion, as it touches on so many things, but ultimately buddy boyo, I do smell some cope here.

Out of curiosity, when a drug addict suddenly turns round and gets clean, when nothing in their life (externally) has changed, what exactly do you think has changed with their NTs, and how?

Are you able to describe it purely in terms of NT alteration?

It is not cope.

It is in fact pure truth, but very few people are able to fully comprehend it, because you need to experience it to be able to imagine it.

Otherwise it's impossible how you could feel differently about something you already feel about in a certain way.

I ventured onto the other side and back. I've experienced states similar to heaven and hell, and they are all here, in the same objective reality.

I felt like the air was so real I could almost touch it and I felt like everything was behind a wall of mist. I was alive, I was dead, I've seen heaven and I've seen hell.

So it is very hard to understand for somebody who never experienced what I did.

As to your question about exact changes in NT, obviously I have no idea, it's also very hard to test even for neurologists, because you cannot test the neurotransmitter levels and it's also about receptors and their reactions, which are also largely untestable.

Generally speaking it's about serotonine, dopamine, norepinephrine, oxytocin and shit like that.
Last edited by Rotting Penis on Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

and GABA :). Also you meant oxytocin. I don't really know much about neuroscience though, I talk with someone who studies it though and I've read up on recreational drugs anyway.

It's even more complex than just neurotransmitters and receptors and neurology etc though, like I have very very superficial understanding of it, but there are other things too like allosteric modulators that affect the strength of agonism, and there are agonists (all of the neurotransmitters we've named are agonists for their respective receptors afaik) and antagonists too, and up regulating and down regulation, etc etc. Also opioid receptors and endorphines etc, I'm not sure if endorphines are considered neurotransmitters or not but I imagine they are considering they bind to opioid receptors afaik and seem to be analogous to serotonin and its agonization of 5ht receptors.

Rotting Penis wrote:
MyBalls YourChin wrote:
Interesting.

I feel we could go round the houses with this discussion, as it touches on so many things, but ultimately buddy boyo, I do smell some cope here.

Out of curiosity, when a drug addict suddenly turns round and gets clean, when nothing in their life (externally) has changed, what exactly do you think has changed with their NTs, and how?

Are you able to describe it purely in terms of NT alteration?

It is not cope.

It is in fact pure truth, but very few people are able to fully comprehend it, because you need to experience it to be able to imagine it.

Otherwise it's impossible how you could feel differently about something you already feel about in a certain way.

I ventured onto the other side and back. I've experienced states similar to heaven and hell, and they are all here, in the same objective reality.

I felt like the air was so real I could almost touch it and I felt like everything was behind a wall of mist. I was alive, I was dead, I've seen heaven and I've seen hell.


So it is very hard to understand for somebody who never experienced what I did.

As to your question about exact changes in NT, obviously I have no idea, it's also very hard to test even for neurologists, because you cannot test the neurotransmitter levels and it's also about receptors and their reactions, which are also largely untestable.

Generally speaking it's about serotonine, dopamine, norepinephrine, exytocin and shit like that.


No I get you now. I've been there.

The same situations, experienced by the same person, can be awful or amazing. I completely 100% agree. Also the argument about neurotransmitters affecting mental states. I'm all in.

Do you believe in free will? And if not, why not?

MyBalls YourChin wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:It is not cope.

It is in fact pure truth, but very few people are able to fully comprehend it, because you need to experience it to be able to imagine it.

Otherwise it's impossible how you could feel differently about something you already feel about in a certain way.

I ventured onto the other side and back. I've experienced states similar to heaven and hell, and they are all here, in the same objective reality.

I felt like the air was so real I could almost touch it and I felt like everything was behind a wall of mist. I was alive, I was dead, I've seen heaven and I've seen hell.


So it is very hard to understand for somebody who never experienced what I did.

As to your question about exact changes in NT, obviously I have no idea, it's also very hard to test even for neurologists, because you cannot test the neurotransmitter levels and it's also about receptors and their reactions, which are also largely untestable.

Generally speaking it's about serotonine, dopamine, norepinephrine, exytocin and shit like that.


No I get you now. I've been there.

The same situations, experienced by the same person, can be awful or amazing. I completely 100% agree. Also the argument about neurotransmitters affecting mental states. I'm all in.

Do you believe in free will? And if not, why not?

That's too big of a topic now, I have shitty internet connection, I will think about it tomorrow.

I like to fuzz my receptors :).
Next

Topic Tags

Return to Ramblings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests