Thoughts about psychology and philosophy

The following are step-by-step instructions for increasing the speed of your intelligence using an idea that shows up CBT. Specifically, the belief behind the instructions is that a person can increase their intelligence by challenge irrational should statements that normally function to limit a person’s intelligence level. Intelligence when used in the right way can help humans get what they want out of life, such as food, shelter, safety, the stuf of romance and relationships, children--if it’s a goal that’s important to you than intelligence can probably be of some use. Because of all these things it seems worthwhile to consider ways in which you can increase itm especially if you find yourself in a tight pinch in life. 1) Consider what type of intelligence you want to increase. You can increase particular types of intelligence like verbal intelligence, visual intelligence, or musical skill. 2) Tell your mind that you want it to improve in terms of that particular form of intelligen...

“Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.”   --Wittgenstien Basic argument: Just as the word “nothing” doesn’t refer to anything observable, the word “death” also does not refer to anything observable. Because of this, it seems an accurate statement to say that “death does not actually occur” or to say that “death does not exist”. This is the essence of my argument and for clarity’s sake I am stating it here in a simple and bare way.      The term “death” in the way it is commonly understood is defined as something like “the absence of consciousness” or “a state in which consciousness doesn’t exists any longer”. The term “death” as well as those definitions I wrote above do not correspond with anything that we encounte...

(this essay needs to go through some drafts for improvement)   Basic argument: Understanding is symbols or stuff that is part of the biological constitution of humans and nothing more. If something exists located somewhere in our experience then it seems unnecessary and perhaps odd that we would need to understand it even further. What more do you need to know about that thing obviously in front of you, irrespective of the other data associated with it or surrounding it? If you see the color green, is it possible to understand it any further? I am contending in this paper that this is not so. Trying to understand what we observe by looking at the thoughts and concepts is similar to trying to understand what an alligator is by analyzing the term “alligator”. It doesn’t seem like that activity would be really helpful, not counting situations involving elements like onomatopoeia. I want to take a look at some concepts discussed in philosophy and science in light of this point. It s...