baronaatista

Lol every attempt I make at distracting myself from waiting for SSE fails! Just went through the guide yet again and yeah ran into these two issues. CaliberX v5. is down and so is RWLE :( I shan't be playing without and I don't want to start a playthrough and then have to update CaliberX or install RWLE. I suppose I'm still playing around with whether I want to use FCO or NVR3, or attempt to patch them together so that can occupy me for a while. First world problems.

When talking about validity; A couple highly questionable carvings / paintings / statues that somewhat resemble dinosaurs is NOT equally valid evidence of mans co-existence with dinosaurs as the fossil record, and to suggest otherwise - I mean really, anyone here? Is foolish.

Its not about the wording, that's your assertion. I think I've made it pretty clear that I am indeed open to all sorts of possibilities. I honestly believe it's possible that at least significant parts of the writings in 'Law of One' are true. I doubt that they are, but I'm certainly open to the possibility. The problem, and agreed Mono is making this case better than I have - is that the level of openness required to believe what you have stated, the tactics of reasoning you have used could be used to 'prove' or give credence to almost anything, and as such how are you to distinguish these beliefs from any other? My guess is your answer here is your spirit, but of course that is recursive reasoning, as Mono has pointed out. 'Much of the science around this material is hypothesis and theory.' Yes, but those theories are supported by VAST amounts of evidence. There are real solid testable reasons scientists claim the things they claim. Just because you are not aware of the evidence or understand it properly does not mean it doesn't exist. I'm not going to spend the time finding the proper evidence to refute your claims, as that would take quite a while and yeah - probably purchasing access to a database. Plus, the 'reasoning' you've used so far to assert your claims suggests that no evidence will sway you. 'That's part of the problem because there aren't that many grounded "facts" around this material' Around the age of the Earth? The timeline of evolution? The number of stars in the universe? This is a preposterous statement for someone who suggests that they've reviewed the material.

'Their views are just as valid for them as mine are for me.' This is what I was trying to get at with my martial arts comparison earlier. The fact is, no they are not. You can believe whatever you like of course, but that doesn't mean your beliefs are as valid. Just like your opinion on the coding of Merge Plugins is not as valid as Mator's, your opinion (or those of 'parascientists') on scientific papers is not as valid - and if you had to sit down and talk to an actual scientist studying one of the areas that have been brought up so far you would find yourself out of your depth. Or worse, if you had to take whatever cursory knowledge you have and apply it to a practical test or implementation. There is a real world, with real laws that govern it, and a real history that preceded it, and real facts about it. You cant get around that with 'spirit-testing'. Again, in the real world only science has been able to provide us with any concrete answers to any of these questions, and we can see and feel the results of their progress everywhere.

*EDIT - was not trying to associate you - at least not directly - with a ****** tough guy. Again, that was genuinely only about the ease of believing you know a thing without having to actually test it's validity, and how when applied to the real world the truth shakes out. Perhaps I've misread you but it seems like I asked if you thought your assessment of scientific subjects was equally as valid as those of a scientist, and your reply was yes? This is the point you keep talking around. You say on one hand that you respect the knowledge of people in specific disciplines... and then in the next sentence say 'I've had over a year to research topics unfamiliar to me' .... I mean just a couple pages back you're debating Mono about astrophysics... Those numbers physicists arrive at are not in any way guesses, and to think that you are aware of variables that they're not taking into account... ? You might as well explain to Mator how he could optimize the coding of Merge Plugins! And I imagine he would admit he knows less about that than astrophysicists do about astrophysics. Or the age of the Earth? Dinosaurs co-existing with man? These are not subjects that science has little to say about. Anyway. I think I've really said everything I have to say and I'll butt out of this. Didn't mean to mess up the party, lol.

I'm not really sure how that was a personal jab... I was using a metaphorical situation to give a context for the general point I've been attempting to make. I apologize if the context of a violent confrontation came off as threatening or whatever, not at all my intention - it's just subject matter I'm familiar with, and I think an effective small-scale demonstration of a concept. I was only trying to say - it's easy to 'think' and 'believe' that you have certain abilities, characteristics, knowledge, etc. but when put to test in practical application the truth shines through. I just find it odd that you can really think you're as good a judge of scientific research as actual scientists... As far as I understand it you do some coding/scripting? I'd imagine you'd concede though you're not the best scripter (?terminology?) in the world? There are probably people you look up to or see as authorities in this discipline? If those people explained something you were unaware of or not knowledgeable about - you would place a degree of trust in them, yes? Because you recognize that they know more than you, perhaps have designed programs far more complex than you can understand... ?

So I really like martial arts - huge fan of the UFC/MMA. There is a well known phenomenon in the world of MMA - 'tough guys'. For whatever reason there are some people that - maybe they're a little athletic, strong, maybe have a little training, and think they're tough. These guys will say things like 'I could beat those guys in the UFC, it's my mentality - I just can't lose'. They'll make all sorts of bold claims about their abilities to physically conquer opponents. You can go on like this for quite a while if you never meet the wrong person, and even have it confirmed back to you in smaller encounters where you clash with other un-trained people. Until the day they choose to mess with the wrong person, and they wander into a fight with an actual trained fighter. The difference between 'tough guy' and trained martial artist is vast, and in this encounter the 'tough guy' cannot help but understand the difference, as they are essentially helpless. This is what I think of when I hear you say things like 'I present information to my spirit and just know if it's good or bad' or that you're as qualified to judge the validity of astrophysics reports as an astrophysicist.

I really don't want to pile on here, and I'm certainly not attempting to cause you any harm/frustration; I'll probably leave this as my final comment. You continually seem to talk around my main point; perhaps you didn't bring up science directly, but these texts and the 'evidence' presented by supporters do directly reference things which science has much to say about, and happen to contradict it in some pretty major areas. In a world so dominated by the obvious evidence of the massive power of the scientific process - to not discuss this is asking for quite a lot in my opinion. Your statement here is literally what I was describing earlier - you don't want to have a conversation, you want to sit in an echo chamber. I find this statement interesting in regards to the discussion of 'openness' earlier. You would describe yourself as open-minded? Yet this statement is the exact opposite of that. You are suggesting that you have done the review, and accepted the truth of this document. Yet the material it touches is vast - there are people who spend their entire lives studying just one of the subjects that these texts just casually tosses out. You truly believe your assessment is equally as valid? You truly believe that you aren't just choosing to believe what you want to, and only reading or thinking about material in a way that supports that? Is there any new evidence or new view/explanation of the evidence that could change your mind? Is it not possible to take benefit from the spiritual/philosphical teachings without buying the stuff that contradicts modern science? Are you certain that you are even accurately and completely interpreting this work in the first place, and not just making your own version of it (ie. practicing exactly the same confirmation-bias that you are already doing with the 'facts' directly to the 'teachings' themselves)? As for the offence part... Honestly I do feel Mator has been perhaps unnecessarily condescending at times. However, I can't deny that I essentially feel the same way - it does seem ridiculous to me, and I'm not sure that pointing that out is truly a negative thing to do. I contend that if claiming your beliefs are ridiculous makes you feel uneasy - that is a sign that you aren't as sure as you claim to be, and that you would likely benefit from a little more of the 'inward searching' you claim to have already 'completed' - and probably some outward searching as well. If someone accuses me of something or claims something that I am truly sure of - their claims have essentially no impact. If someone says something that I know is true (or has truth to it) however but don't want to admit to myself, that is when I feel insecure. It will often take time and serious reflection to work past that 'hurt' to be able to see the truth in what was said - and it requires an openness to the possibility that I was wrong to even begin the process of reflection.

'Feeling the need to question someone's beliefs is probably one of the worse things to do it a person, in my book.' I think this really gets to why I was arguing as I was earlier. I'm really not sure how any of that came off as an 'attack'... Why is it harmful to question someone's beliefs? The questioning of beliefs is more or less what the entire process of science is about; and it is the very thing that produced the modern world. If we hold our beliefs precious to us, then how are we to grow, change, or learn? The process of growth and learning is synonymous with questioning ones beliefs - it is only through being open to being wrong that you can learn what actual truth is. 'But to have that sort of discussion you have to work on the basis that it is true.' You are literally saying the only discussion you want to have on this topic is one that begins with it being true. Don't you think that sounds like you may have a little confirmation bias? Which is why it becomes frustrating to hear you then bring up 'science' in order to 'confirm' your beliefs. Which is the opposite of science. You want to believe this stuff. It couldn't be clearer. Denying legitimate science, mis-understanding the process by which it happens, then using pseudo-science to 'confirm' your beliefs; all on a computer on the internet on a messageboard... about a video game... where we've created a simulated world inside a box... none of which would exist if 'mainstream' scientists didn't understand the laws of physics and molecular structures to such a fine degree as to make all of that possible... It just speaks to what I believe is an issue right now with society(ies)... What we really need right now is to come together, to work to make a better world for absolutely everyone. Yet we remain divided, because we can't agree on the most basic things, because there is so much mis-information, and it is ever-easier to only listen to what we want to hear, and because no one ever wants to admit they were wrong - thus, actual conversation is impossible.

Re-installed NV and going through the guide again... this has probably been asked before but are you certain we need the update for WFO Dead Version? the main Dead Version file is newer than the update and says 'fully updated' in the description.

I've been watching from a distance for quite some time, more specifically creating my build recently... At least as far as I've seen, there really aren't a ton of really developed mods, in comparison to Skyrim, FNV or F03. Workshop Rearranged is my personal favorite settlement mod, Though Sim Settlements looks really interesting. WR has been (and is) developed extensively and Sim Settlements looks to be continually supported as well. Horizon is a regularly maintained survival overhaul, but definitely a subjective experience type thing, and something that needs to be built around. Moddable Robot Settlers is a nice little sensible addition. Start Me Up is the definitive alternate start for F04 NPCs Travel is basically Immersive Patrols for F04 Survival Unlocker is best of it's kind IMHO Lots More Male / Female Hairstyles and Beards or Settlers and Enemies are the best hair mods ever as far as I'm concerned - just expands the vanilla selection in a sensible way, using the vanilla meshes (or whatever). Settlers and Enemies is really cool too... It annoys me that all the women are 'pretty' otherwise great mod that expands faces to basically all factions, as well as putting new hairstyles on them. I'd imagine you know about most if not all of these, but they're a couple mods I use that I feel work well in just about any list (other than Horizon of course).

@ Barachiel - The most recent update to Homemaker has gone the way of script-injection, so the menu works like OCDecorator or Northland Diggers. SKE is no longer needed at all. I believe however that Gernash was/is incorporating these mods into the framework set up by Workshop Rearranged, so for the guide SKE is not needed anyway. Can't say for sure as I don't use.

I'm not trying to argue that Backsters report is wrong. I'm not anywhere near familiar enough with the material to make a definitive statement on it. My point is that if it were properly scientific there would be multiple experiments with corroborating results. There are not. You have one guy with one paper, published a long time ago, in a questionable journal. This is not a solid basis for anything other than further research, if even that. *EDIT* and it certainly doesn't constitute proof of anything at all.

Agreed, growing tired of this... Perhaps one last try. So your guy, Backster, who was never published in a proper peer-reviewed, credible science journal says that the experiment that was published in a credible science journal got his procedure wrong. This report your one dude is claiming to be false was accepted by the broader scientific community - people whose entire lives are wrapped up in this pursuit - which is inherently based on attempting to disprove this very paper. Shall we go down the list of tangible contributions to the real-world that have come out of journals such as Science or Nature? And then compare with what's come from the Journal of Parapsychology. I'm sorry but it's silly. Yes scientists get things wrong, and the process goes awry sometimes. Which is why the process of intensive peer-review and precision of the standards by which something can be claimed to be 'true' is so important - the self-correcting mechanism. Which is also why its disturbing to hear you claim 'these particular papers are not all that complicated' and you see yourself apparently as a better judge of the scientific veracity of a report than... the academic peer review at its highest level? Have you read the paper from Science? I mean jesus man. You can't possibly believe that.

... I really wasn't trying to talk about Crash Fixes and STEP, I was attempting to show how that situation is similar to the situation that occurs in research, for similar reasons. If it's possible to reproduce his results, why haven't they been reproduced? I'm sure this is an area that would interest many scientists, as well as the general public. Why was his initial paper published in the journal of parapsychology and not in a reputable journal? Why has there been no follow-up from him or anyone else? Why do you feel so comfortable de-bunking the one actually recognized scientific report on the issue? Do you really think you're capable of discerning the difference between methods? Why are you more trusting of a less credible source? The answer; because it's not science. It's pure confirmation bias and nothing more.

It really is important to understand the difference here. I must admit I find it somewhat odd in that STEP actually embraces some of these exact principles, for these exact reasons; As an example, the mod Crash Fixes. To my knowledge, this has not yet been accepted into STEP. From when I was last reading the thread, the reasoning was essentially "while there have been numerous reports in the community about the effectiveness and safety of the mod, we have been fooled in the past and we'll wait for further corroboration before incorporating it". Now I'm not suggesting this is a proper scientific experiment or any individuals testimony could even be used properly as scientific evidence. However it does embrace the same principles for the same reasons; It is recognized our understanding of the subject matter has limits, and as such the cause and effect mapping is not perfectly clear, so we want to be cautious about simply adopting this new thing until we have better information. This is the exact reason that it can be so difficult to get science accepted by the scientific community. We want to be sure of this new information before we go building our lives around it, or structures / theories on top of it. *EDIT* You clearly recognize the value in this thinking when it comes to STEP. The scientific method is a precise tool for doing this exact work in the real world, where the consequences of being wrong on these subjects can be much greater, and the amount of unkowns and complicating factors is much greater - thus, the work is more difficult, and the burden of proof much greater.

The point is, if any of this were properly scientific, that would mean proper experiments have been done that would properly show the results. And those experiments would and could be conducted by other groups who would find the same or at least highly similar results. And then you publish a paper, allow the peer-review system to work, and if it all checks out then you can begin to build theories and do further experimentation to bore them out.

I went to college too dude, and I'm well aware of Wikipedia's issues as a source. However. 13 cites Kenneth Horowitz, Donald Lewis and Edgar Gasteiger. (1975). Plant Primary Perception: Electrophysiological Unresponsiveness to Brine Shrimp Killing. Science, 189. pp. 478-480. This report was published in the journal Science, one of the worlds top science journals... it was published in 1975, no it's not likely to have a direct link. But if I was in college I would have access to a database, and I guarantee you I could pull up this article. ...It was 'addressed by David', was it? I'm betting not in Science magazine, or any other properly academic peer-reviewed journal, because it would take specific experiments with specific circumstances, and reproducible results in order to actually 'be addressed'.

'Grover Cleveland "Cleve" Backster, Jr. (February 27, 1924 – June 24, 2013) was an interrogation specialist for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), best known for his experiments with plants using a polygraph instrument in the 1960s which led to his theory of "primary perception" where he claimed that plants "feel pain" and have extrasensory perception (ESP), which was widely reported in the media but was rejected by the scientific community.' - the quickest internet search ever, Wikipedia. .... he 'proved' that plants can be self aware? Science - actual science has very stringent requirements for what is considered proof, or even evidence. These people take extremely questionable studies, call them science and then draw conclusions about the nature of reality from them. Again, nothing wrong with appreciating the material. It's just not science, not in any way, not even close.

Just saw that this is in the MO2 support thread... *facepalm*

We are talking about classic Mod Organizer? It does not support SE. I believe I've heard of a workaround, but I'm unsure of the specifics and skeptical of the practicality. You're looking for Mod Organizer 2. However it has it's own issues, and can be tricky to get working on some systems. I'm unsure of whether NMM was ever updated for SE, I don't believe it was. This Wrye Bash should work flawlessly, but WB is a somewhat more complicated mod manager and requires pretty detailed information about its functioning as well as general mod-installation knowledge to use effectively, at least in any shade of 'complex' set up.

I'll start by saying I haven't read the material. I opened the link and read the first couple pages... I'll also say that I pretty solidly line up with Mator here. The one thing that I feel hasn't been stated (and often goes unsaid in these type of debates) - the scientific basis of these books (or lack thereof) doesn't place a qualitative judgement on the value of the words in them. In my opinion. If you, Tech, or anyone else has found these books to be all the things you stated; inspiring, thought-provoking, spiritually powerful... That's great. I don't personally see anything wrong with religious or spiritual belief, inspiration, whatever... wherever it comes from. There really is a vast unknown, perhaps unknowable 'region' of the universe and just about any kind of weirdness would fit pretty comfortably in that space. Every person on earth is dealing with this mass existential crisis; what the **** is happening? why? And our absolute best modern science just cannot truly grapple with these concepts, at least not yet. So I say put whatever you want in there, whatever inspires you (so long as, ideally, it serves to make you a better person *ie. a better member of the global (or local) community). That's also not meant to be patronizing, like 'good for you buddy! glad you were inspired by this nonsense'. I have a very rationalistic, science-minded brain. Yet, I also absolutely love yoga and was completely obsessed with it (specifically Ashtanga yoga) for 5 years, until a bizarre injury turned me off the path. Yoga is a 'spiritual' discipline which has every bit the cuckoo, woo-woo nonsense behind it all that this 'Law of One' book does... supernatural origins, claims about the nature of the universe, of consciousness, of amazing powers one can gain from sufficient advancement in the practice, etc. Now I'm not saying I buy all that stuff *EDIT*(though I did learn a lot about it)* - I don't, essentially none of it. However. The practice of meditation (any type of yoga is a meditation practice) IS something that is being scientifically validated in the modern world, as well as some specifics about the nature of consciousness that have been taught by various groups for hundreds/thousands of years which line up quite closely with the science. *This talk of densities you just posted. I love it. What a beautiful, poetic view of the universe, and one that elegantly incorporates bits of modern science, all while illustrating worthwhile philosophical / spirtual concepts that one can apply to everyday life. However. Any claim about the scientific or evidentiary basis for all of this... is purely false. More, understanding the difference is really important. I believe this exact issue is a major issue that we are facing in the modern world, and one that is growing worse in the current climate, where the sheer amount of misinformation out there, combined with the ease of access to it and humans' natural confirmation-bias is creating this monster of ignorance and confusion that is...difficult to grapple with. Mator has already done a pretty good job of pushing that point so I won't go too deep here, but I'll give it a shot; 'One of the great puzzle pieces for us was the question of how UFOs could materialize and dematerialize. The phenomenon seemed to posit a physics which we had not yet grasped and a being capable of using this physics.' ...I mean I almost feel like the horrifying lack of scientific thought in this sentence is self-evident, and doesn't need to be pointed out - or how anyone who could write such a sentence must clearly not be an adept scientific practitioner. It demonstrates exactly the type of thinking that is the basis of many texts of a similar nature; A claim is made in the first part; (*EDIT - actually 2 claims - the first being that UFO's exist!) UFO's 'materialize' and 'dematerialize'. The next part, rather than addressing that claim, pushes on to create hypotheses based upon it; they must use a physics we are unaware of, AND there must be a being behind it capable of manipulating this physics. To sufficiently prove just this sentence correct would likely take studies and experiments, math... the corroborative evidence would outweigh the content of the five books of 'The Law of One' 1000x over. I'm certain that these books are littered with real scientific references, studies, etc. I would bet all my money however that the theories (or conclusions) the authors draw from the evidence they are using goes far beyond what is actually proven by said evidence, and then creates whole frameworks of 'information' on top of that - or is simply misinterpreted. Anyway. There's nothing wrong with seeing value in this stuff and I'm certain there are some really worthwhile ideas in these books; I'd even go so far as to say that it wouldn't surprise me if aspects of what its describing accurately line up with reality, whether we can prove it or not. But it's not science. (*EDIT - and it's irresponsible for the authors to claim otherwise)

Id be very interested in a Worldspace How-to, that's for sure. Though I still think I'll be using yours...

Scooped this one on the Nexus the other day, was just able to check it out in-game... looking good. HD DLC Creature Textures Rework ... doesn't require HD DLC.

Ive had similar issues with updating LOOT or using it to manage multiple games. As long as you don't mind losing any LOOT settings (load plugin x after plugin y, etc.) you can try deleting your: users/*your name*/appdata/local/LOOT folder. Then run LOOT again (launched as an executable from MO), I'd be willing to bet your plugins appear properly.