Ode to mathematics, seriously

I don't think you wrote anything new or revolutionary. There are some nice tips, but a lot of your personality is showing up in this writing.

"I don't think"

Why do you think this is a matter of an opinion?

I haven't faced any math that I could use to solve these kind of problems, which is really fun, have you?

No it's not science. It's schizophrenic rambling. Go show it to a psychiatrist if you don't believe me.

I think you're suffering from magical thinking.

You are seeing patterns where there are no patterns, and reading too much into coincidences. This is TEXTBOOK psychotic thinking. I should know, I went through the same thing. Please go see a doctor man! Psychosis doesn't have to be a life sentence, there is help!

If you can, print out your work, print out these comments, and go show them to your primary care doctor. Otherwise, maybe just speak with your doctor about these ideas, it's their job to listen to you.

This is all nonsense, listen to the other anons and go seek professional help.

magical thinking. Wonderful. Sadly on Veeky Forums there is no board explicitly used for wasting time for musical purposes.

I think OP should go outside into the forest lie down in a meadow and dream.

This is what happens when you traumatize an individual full of wonder and merit for your, strange, vast and deterministic deed thus turning and obscuring it into something that must seem more worthwhile than the poor subjects own stability of mind and pleasure in life.
He trapped himself not understanding that formalism only holds cultural value, and that the boundaries we can and can not cross within these cultures are founded on equal understanding and sharing of repertoires languages and rules.

Look at this tragic, beautiful soul, eternally destined to live a life too small to comprehend its own existence, too big to ever not be master at his discipline.

OP i understand you. I used to be like you in a sense. Pick up painting or some other realm where your "math" applies. Formalist structure is not anything and does not save you from feeling inferior. Neither it does make others superior.

Please just be nice to yourself. Theres neither shame nor defeat in that.
:^)

OP why are you insecure.`?
OP why do you think you can defeat both mathematical sciences and life by exposing yourself in stupid abstractions that you then offer to attack a shared interest in a social sphere where only the formalistic aspect of the trait is what makes the social sphere work, therefore automatically making you unwanted and actually hostile. why?

Also critique: Shitty writing style. But it wouldn't make better dada even if it wasn't badly written. Idk.

Also i didn't read more than like 2 paragraphs as it was mostly mumbo jumbo.

>Ode to (1)mathematics(1)
>(2)know how be(2) (2)happy(2)
>(1)regular math joes(1) aren't capable of solving it on your own
>(2)because that'd mean no one would be doing jobs they don't like. :D(2)

As contradictory as it gets.

OP Please try to be even more mathematical now.

Please give me a formula for me being here on 4 chan. Now.

>OP i understand you. I used to be like you in a sense.
You still are. You speak weird, like OP. I can understand almost everything you posted and your point overall, but mostly because I am similar to you and OP. I think most Veeky Forumsfags won't get it, though, maybe you should write it differently.

It's very important that you learn how to translate your language (it seems like you created a language of your own) to the language of regular people or, better yet, teach them your jargon first. Since, as you probably have already noticed, people are not just "absorbing" your concepts as you wanted, they can't understand.

I know it will be difficult, it will take time, but behave like others. You can keep your originality to yourself, but behave like others.

I have a huge philosophy of mind of my own that I call Sensorialogism, I have to borrow common usage words and use them with a different (but closely related) meaning that is useful for my theory, otherwise I'd have to invent a whole new language since it's such a completely different view on reality. So I think I can strongly relate to you. I have been very capable of explaining my theory to others and they find it pretty cool the way I see things, but if I don't explain it cautiously, they just get really creeped out.

>Sensorialogism

This sounds legit interesting. Can you please share?

For someone claiming to have such profound insight and superior reasoning ability, you sure are transparent OP - and also very self-assured (unjustifiably so). You need to really work on being less obstinate.

Seriously, you've put two threads up for this (at the same time); told the very few people that were actually giving you patience and understanding to BTFO; and made absolutely no effort to concisely and coherently explain what your intentions are with this project, and why you are posting on Veeky Forums - aside from your seemingly deranged ramblings.

I am one of the few people that showed an interest, and you talked straight past me - and yet here you are, hours (a day?) later, still throwing your language soup at people that are growing less and less interested in what you have to say, making no effort to effectively communicate your ideas and intentions. Maybe you are genuinely incapable of clear, reasoned thought (because none of your posts have been cogent in any way).

I don't want to speculate, I don't know what your life circumstances are - so I won't - but if you are literally incapable of cogency (as sincerely seems to be the case - I'm not shitposting here), I encourage you to try, really try, to ground yourself. If you feel detached from the world, something has come loose - you have come loose. If the world around you feels like little more than a complicated abstraction, try to dedicate just a few moments to finding something concrete there. Maybe everything around you has taken on a glazed appearance, and seems slightly uncanny? - You must try to see clearly. Remember, you don't have to compromise on all of the work you've done, it'll still be there. You will absolutely not lose any part of yourself, you will still be here. All you have to gain is clarity.

If any of what I've said resonates with you at all, and you're struggling to see the ground, I highly recommend you also follow the others' advice and seek out professional help.

I just have many and many notes, didn't even write a full text because it would take too much time. It's also everything written in portuguese, my native language. But ok, I am going to give you a taste, some main topics:

Mind monist perspective
Propositions and perceptions
Sensations and pseudosensations
Metapseudosensoriality
Perceptive immediatism
Pseudosensorial fading
Types and sub-types of sensations and pseusensations
Unconscious and conscious mind
Sensorial conversion
Logicism of pseudosensations
Perceptive sequentiality
Pseudosensorial charge and reaction
Focus operation
Self-biasing and sociological influences
Reduction of control to pseudosensations in primary language
Exercise of pseudosensorial modification
Intelligence and knowledge
Neurological equivalence
Memory and imagination
Imaginative mind vs concluding mind

I am not OP. I tried to reach OP. But replied to you instead.

What's a pseudosensation? That seems neat.

It's just a partial-feel. You don't get those?

w-what? Yeah of course I do! I just don't call them that. aheh. What do you think I am: gay!?!

a partial-feel?
what?!

Real sensorial stuff, user ;)

I didn't mean to derail other user's personal philosophy, it's pretty cool stuff man. I have my own bullshit too, only because I can't help thinking about it but cba to really mountains of philosophical drivel.

Well, I think it's hard to explain in few words, but I will try.

Pseudosensation is any single thought you have. Now, thought in this theory is not just internal monologue, it's not just imagination, it's not just memories that you become aware of, it's every experience in the mind. Now, the reason I call it "pseudosensation" is to bring to surface a very important aspect of our thoughts (in the very broad sense I mentioned): it always mimics our senses or another thoughts (pseudosensations). The theory calls for that aspect all the time in order to understand the mind and how we function, so it's better to call it like this.

I just can't into english as it empathizes single words and vocabularies as own standing entities much more than my native language. Also i think i had to adapt a tad bit to conjure better with OP.

For OP tho my bet would be epilepsy and not schizophrenia.

None the less before you really go loose see a psych. Everyone does. It does not hurt to. Sometimes things seem weird and go wrong and then its best to get therapy.

Bachelard. Read him.
Freud read him.
X)))) wheeeeoow wheeeeow wheeeeow

I find it funny how OP uses this to divide the parts of his "text":

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Here's an another example calculation, so simple, you don't even need calculations to solve it, but still the regular math joes aren't capable of solving it on your own, because that'd mean no one would be doing jobs they don't like. :D
> because that'd mean no one would be doing jobs they don't like. :D
>would be doing jobs they don't like. :D
>:D
Kek

wew lad. That's very similar to mine, although mine are much more literally called "conscious-units". I always intended to find a better name, but I never got round to it and like that it gives the obvious impression of quantity, as they are discrete units. However, they are not uniform. They represent the smallest explicable "experiences" possible. "experience" encapsulates all the possible influencing factors on a subject over a certain period - such as a conscious-unit of experience.

Your examples (or theories, or whatever you're trying to call them) don't actually go anywhere. They're meaningless ramblings. There is something wrong with your brain if you think the things you wrote are useful for something.

>I am human, like you
ayy lmao

It's about... NOTHING!

Funny how I had to reread "encapsulates", "factors" and "subject" to get the right meaning you are using.
Anyway, I would not use "conscious-unit", because I think the smallest possible experience (if I am getting what you mean) is not necessarily conscious.
For me, the difference between conscious and unconscious mind is that in the unconscious the person perceives a thought, but DOES NOT perceive that himself/herself perceives it, in the conscious, the person perceives the thought and DOES perceive that himself/herself perceives it. As a result, the unconscious, through thoughts that go unnoticed, influences the person's behavior, emotions and such. But nevertheless, the unconscious is EXPERIENCED in some way.
To clarify, if it's for any help, when I say "perceives" I am using the broadest sense possible of the word "perception", being synonymous of "being aware of", "knowing", "acknowledging".

...

lmao this reminds me of that actor who claimed to have studied chemical engineering and that maths was wrong because 1*1 = 2 , not 1

>'If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect,’ Howard told Rolling Stone magazine.

>'One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what’s the square root of two? Should be one, but we’re told it’s two, and that cannot be.'

Its the paranoid style of these ramblings that make me think Terry Howard and OP have anxiety problems or something.

There's a whole lot more that I'm missing out, but it's all a bit silly tbqh, and don't want to litter Veeky Forums with half-baked philosophy conjectures. Mostly, it was just really interesting coming across someone else who thought about those sorts of things, let alone having defined similar concepts.

Haha, great man :D Also enjoyed talking to you.

Too much stupidity around, the text specifically said no one cares what you think, and it applies, we don't, still you are wasting your time.

Let's move along then, does anyone understand at least when I say "Let's figure out how to get what we want?"

go to the doctor

Who's "we"?

I really hope nobody is actually encouraging your delusion. If so they're not really your friends.

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>all existences that don't exist
What?

>all the colours you can not imagine to exist in an universe that don't exist.
>all the colours you can not imagine to exist in A universe that DOESN'T exist.

>2E| is where you hair is red
>2E| is where YOUR hair is red

>things that have happened.. so no.
So no what?

>made out of fundamental particles.
Isn't necessarily wrong but it would read better as
>made UP of fundamental particles.

>and then D| it.
>it wants the D| ; p

>desibels
>decibels

>you don't move your fits to he's face?
>his
But I don't get what you're saying here? Maybe fists?

>here you feel satisfied with life all times
>here you feel satisfied with life AT all times

>this is just rough calculations of words you might become to understand
>this is just rough calculations of words you might come to understand

>An existence as our reality, except both of your right eyes have been replaced by a marble.
An existence of our reality...
Is this what you meant?
>except both of your right eyes have been replaced by a marble.
>both of your right eyes
Both of them? How many eyes do you have user?

>every possible and non possible for of R|' and S'| and beyond.
>every possibility and non possibility for R|' and S'| and beyond.
Or
>every possible and non possible outcome for R|' and S'| and beyond.

>R|' Is the the reality as we know it,
>R|' is the reality as we know it,

>or could had been,
>or could have been,

>using different type of a behaviour
>using different types of behaviour

That was only to 2.3 and I saw mistakes in that also but realised I'm not going to finish proof-reading in one post so I'm just giving up here.

As for your theory, I don't understand how you can implement it and get usable results?

Nor do I understand the premise of your theory.

As it is, you sound too excited about this theory without any substance.

sry user. Pic related beat you to it.