3,729 Forum Posts by "capn-g"
At 1/30/07 02:01 AM, Earfetish wrote: Simply because it can be explained by closed synapses and dopamine and all that shit doesn't mean that you're not exploring your mind or putting your mind to work in a different way, in fact it's evidence that you're exploring your mind.
If you consider delusion exploration, yes. Make no mistake though, it is delusion, albeit deliberate.
Not in the slightest. I could sit around all day trying to bring on mushroom-like introspections and revelations, but it'd never happen.
Try harder?
To restate, you obviously have never done drugs
I'd think that's a given at this point.
Also, you don't know how a drug is going to alter your perceptions or mindset
Which is where I came in (cautioning against the dangers of said unknown reactions)
I have explored concepts such as religon and evolution and the Universe to a far greater extent on drugs than when I'm sober. I have explored my opinions, my personality, memories, imagination, to an unholy extent on drugs, and when I'm sober, far less.
That's a shame. And odd. I cannot understand not being able to explore any of those things to the Nth degree without requiring additional stimulae.
It might be drug-induced, but it's still mind exploration.
Again, there's nothing to explore, it's all already there, you're just accessing it via the drugs.
- I thought it might be worth me pointing out that you probably do the exact same thing, just to a lesser extent, and you do it for the same reasons I do - because you like it.
You operate from the false assumption I drink regularily. I'll rectify that. I drink occaisionally. Like maybe twice a year with a meal. Even at that it's to enhace the flavour and cleanse the palette, not for intoxication.
Why, thanks for telling me that then, if you weren't chastising me. I'm glad to know you're concerned. But I already knew that.
(note I use the term "appreciate" in the cognitive sense and not as a seal of approval).Subtly stating your disapproval could also be interpreted as being somewhat chastising.
"Approval" was perhaps a poor choice of words. "Endorsement" maybe? I'm not really sure.
Dreams are also mind exploration; it's just a shame you're asleep for them.
Dreams are likewise made of things already in your head. Dreams do not have "meanings" and there is no point in trying to "interpret" them, they're random garbage generated by the brain as it "defrags" itself during the sleep cycle.
At 1/29/07 11:30 PM, Rabid-Echidna wrote: So despite that you said before that drugs imitate certain neurotransmitters and produce seemingly random and unfamiliar brain activity, you still feel confident that you know what it would be like to be under the influence of a certain substance.
I'm not saying I personally know it would be like, merely that I understand it's effects. I went to an art college, you see. I think I've been around enough people on drugs to get a fairly good grasp of the effects thereof.
People that do drugs, especially with the more powerful hallucinogens, tend to be unable to accurately put the experience into words and eventually arrive at the conclusion that it's impossible to explain, and that you have to experience it for yourself to get a good idea of what happens. You can have some idea of what being hit by a bus would be like by slamming your head into a wall and then taking that feeling and multiplying it, the same can't be said when you have no base experience of something, and considering the vast range of effects different drugs have on the brain, you can't truly "understand" the effects unless you experience them firsthand.
I have been in so-called altered states before, though not through drug use. I wasn't impressed. Admittedly though, if you did slam your head repeatedly up against the wall, I bet you'd experience some interesting neurological effects. Also blood loss...
Producing and altered state of mind isn't the same thing as taking your current state and making it worse. Certain changes in the way neurotransmitters are received can change the thought process entirely in ways never before experienced. It most certainly is an exploration of what your mind is physically capable of.
When did I say drugs would only have negative effects? I said they COULD and that I found it odd people would risk it. To me it's like playing russin roulette, except the gun's inside your head.
But more to the point, the mind exists in two states: concious and unconcious. Everything else is a bridge between the two. "Altered states" do not exist as such, they are merely delusions, dreams or hallucinations. They aren't real. The thought processes you experience under such conditions are therefore valueless in my line of thinking.
At 1/29/07 11:22 PM, Earfetish wrote: Shut up man, you're not my dad, you don't have any vested interest in me. I take drugs because I like them. I'm not 'making excuses' for it, and I don't have to 'make excuses' to you anyway. Because I like it seems like a fine reason. And it's nothing like cutting yourself because you're messing your mind up and damaging yourself at the same time, rather than just damaging yourself.
That's awesome, you made my day. :)
No it's not, it's like saying, "you don't know what a near death experience is like until you've had one."
You feel like your flying, experience a sense of euphoria and see a long tunnel with a bright light. You may or may not witness dead relatives. Did I miss anything? Back to my own example, being hit by a bus would hurt... alot. It's entirely possible to understand something clinically, it simply won't have the "flavour" of the real thing.
I am exploring my mind; I'm altering my mind and I'm living in that chemically altered mind. I'm exploring the different mindsets drugs bring. Most give you massive introspection which is also exploring your mind.
Intorspection is possible instantaneously to anyone who bothers to stop for a moment and think, drugs are not required. Imagination can provide the rest. This is my point, the drugs aren't providing you with anything that doesn't already exist, they're simply firing off random impulses and activating different parts of brain out of sequence. It's delusional, a fake.
If you drink, then you delude yourself chemically too.
Yes.... and?
Or if you exercise, or eat chocolate, or fall in love,
No, yes, and no. Chocloate is artifical but the other two are self-generating and automatic. Let's try and stick to specifics here.
I'm just more willing to cut out all the shit and take a drug instead. Responsibly.
And you should continue to do so as long as you feel the need, I'm not here to chastise anyone. My point is simply that it's a waste of time. In the end it's just your brain talking gibberish to itself thanks to some random chemical input. All the so-called "exploration" is just your concious mind desperately attempting to make sense of that gibberish, like dreams.
At 1/29/07 10:32 PM, Fox wrote: I waited to post in this thread. I wanted to see where it was going first. I'd like to point out that, although many people don't like King of the Hill, It's one of the most underrated shows of all time.
I still like it.
Other people don't like it but you do, therefore it's underated? You understand that you're actually saying the same thing twice there, right?
At 1/29/07 10:35 PM, Earfetish wrote: Using drugs is not 'illogical', if I like tripping then a logical choice is to trip.
That's not logic, it's preference. Emo kids like to cut themselves but that doesn't make it logical to do so. You're making excuses and it's self-evident.
You don't understand the effects of drugs until you've done them.
That's like saying "You don't know what it's like to get run over until you've been hit by bus". I don't need to experience something to understand it. There's a distinct difference between appreciating something and comprehending it (note I use the term "appreciate" in the cognitive sense and not as a seal of approval).
You're not "exploring" your mind. There's nothing to explore, you're simply deluding yourself chemically.
The notion that the earth thousands of years old is a fallicy anyway. Evangelicals point to 2nd Peter where it says "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, " and then make all sorts of whacked out calculations based on that, completely ignoring the fact that the very same passage then goes on to say "and a thousand years as one day. ". It's supposed to demonstrate God is TIMELESS not act as a yardstick for calculating biblical ages.
At 1/29/07 08:00 PM, Earfetish wrote: because I like to know what they're like, because if they're good I'll want to do them often. Also I want to explore my mind in as many ways as possible and many hallucinogens work in different ways and have different active chemicals and therefore explore your mind in a new direction.
You do understand that you're not exploring jack, you're merely generating random activity through the use of chemicals that mimic neurotransmitters right? Also potentially damaging those chemical receptors through overstimulation? Not to mention risking addiction, illness possibly even death? I'm often amazed at how reasonably intelligent people continuously find excuses to rationalize illogical behaviour.
On the off chance you manage to fold space, bring me back something nice from Ix.
At 1/29/07 09:09 PM, KupaMan wrote: I think that's the big reason why people don't like it. You automatically assume that because it's animated, it will be zany and off-the-wall. A show like King of the Hill, an already slow-paced show, is only magnified in apparent slowness by the fact that it's vibrantly animated.
I would hesitate to use the term "vibrant", the colour pallette of the show is fairly muted. This kind of re-enforces my point though, the show would be less "immobile" were it live. A luagh track wouldn't hurt either.
. . . I wonder what Office Space would have been like had it been animated a la King of the Hill?
No doubt dull, tame and pointless, like the short lived Jay and Silent Bob.
At 1/29/07 09:53 PM, DonKnottsismetal wrote: what tude?
You called me a jackass for no reason. I said "those people" would be idiots not you personally.
At 1/29/07 06:29 PM, hijackreaper wrote: seconded.that is, until, the little peoples start a nuclear war...
"We will convert the unbelievers....into atomic VAPOR!!"
At 1/29/07 08:20 AM, Earfetish wrote: The humour is underlying and there aren't outright jokes, and you might only laugh once or twice in an episode, but the show isn't about making you piss yourself, it's just entertaining comedy with likeable characters.
That's strictly a matter of opinion
Very much like Trailerpark Boys.
Another show I can't stand.
At 1/29/07 03:29 PM, DonKnottsismetal wrote:
thats was my point jackass
Then you should have stated it more clearly. And what's with the 'tude?
At 1/29/07 01:34 PM, shohaib wrote: Matt Groening(creator of Futurama) puts way too much agnostic views in his show. It practicularly brainwashes kids.
I disagree but we should be so lucky. Agnosticism is a good starting point, nice and central.
the cartoon may be funny, but is not safe for kids under 18 to watch
"Safe" what the hell is that supposed to mean?
At 1/29/07 03:14 AM, MissingNYC wrote: i miss beavis & butthead...
Amen.
At 1/29/07 12:18 AM, DonKnottsismetal wrote: a lot of catholics and christians beleive that there is no such things as ghosts and that its some kind of evil beleif.
Those people would be idiots. Biblical teaching REQUIRES you believe in the existance of ghostly apparitions, not the least of which would be the holy GHOST (and don't gimmie that "Well that's just one aspect of God, not dead people" crap, ghosts is ghosts!).
At 1/28/07 11:36 PM, Guitardude wrote: It's because it uses slightly more subtle jokes, rather than just that random annoying stuff you guys are probably use to.
Weak humour isn't subtle humour. That said, it's only my opinion the humour is weak because that's all humour really is, a matter of opinion. My previous comment had nothing to do with the quality of the jokes however, merely the means of production.
At 1/28/07 11:34 PM, LitFirecracker wrote: So if what your saying is true; there were many different strands of humanity; only the most superior making it through natural selection; eventually evolving into what we are today?
That's basic evolution.
If so; the biggests questions of the matter is: How did the different strands start? Which one started first to create and diverse?
Migration most likely. Different climates producing different effects over vast periods of time. Also certain groups of humans could have met up with other groups and cross-bred, further diversifying the gene pool.
As to the point of origin, it's something modern science continues to struggle with. I very much doubt the answer will appear on the NG BBS...
I've never understood why it was animated, the show could easily be a live action sitcom.
At 1/28/07 11:15 PM, LadyGrace wrote:At 1/28/07 11:11 PM, Reaperyami wrote: Everyone is black?It's pre-racial. As for the color? I doubt it would be black, seeing as how the human race developed at a time when the world was frozen over.
That's temporaly innacurate Grace. Ice ages are a recurring phenomenon but they only happen once every 30,000 years or so and last a few decades at most, not enough to interefere/affect human evolution.
But no, not black. Probably closer to Middle Eastern in skin tone, Egyptians for example. It's also possible that earlier proto-humans left africa long before current fossil records suggest, meaning there wouldn't be a single "eden" but several.
At 1/28/07 06:06 PM, UltimateCyprien wrote:At 1/28/07 06:01 PM, fukmehardNpullmyhair wrote: soo what if you like have bad grammar on the internet, and stuff geez wizz you guys sooo take typing like seriously n stuffIs that... English?
No, that's what passes for english on the internet. Your grammar is fine, there are a few minor errors but nothing substantial. Your vocabulary could use some tweaking however, certain word choices are a bit akward. Luckily, english is a horrible, frankensteinian, mutant language and is rife with redundancy, so you should have no trouble making yourself understood. I wouldn't concern myself with having 100% error free grammar though, nobody else does.
Somebody ressurect Robert Stack, only he can help you now...
At 1/28/07 03:58 AM, Dr34m3r wrote: The way I see it, if your under 17, there is no point, considering it is illegal to have sex before that anyway, (or 16, if you wanna get technical, even though that won't stop any of you...)
News flash: Not all countries have the same age limits on sex.
Also, sex is jst stupid unless your married. It's completely irresponsible. What, are you going to enjoy a one night stand, and leave the girl to care after YOUR child by herself?
Um... contraception. Welcome to the 21st century.
If your over 17, then if you want to get married, then having a girlfriend is like seeing who suits you, who doesnt, and eventually, who you want to be your spouse.
Not everyone wants to get married. Pull your head out of your ass.
At 1/28/07 04:57 PM, Simon wrote: I'm fine and dandy, does this make me uncool?
At the same time? Lucky! I'm often fine but only rarely am I dandy. Never have I been both :(
Forget it folks, this kid's so deep in the closet he's tripping over christmas presents.
At 1/27/07 07:08 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote: The thing is I think people take that quote to literally. I think it's about interpretation.
Well then it's bullshit. Interpretation is what leads to cults and extremism. There's no room for interpretation here, you either accept it as valid or dismiss it as outdated, there's no middle ground.
At 1/27/07 06:40 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote: Your post doesn't help solve anything at all, and you're on a whole different page.
On the contrary, I'm front and center at the heart of the matter. Leviticus' proclomation is the single most quoted source for this line of thinking, it is offered up as THE proof that "God Hates Fags".
So, if you claim to be a christian and you use this as a basis for justification of intolerance, then you are obligated to obey each and every edict written in the book of Leviticus or face the reality of your own hypocrisy. To that I wish you good luck.
But to be fair to the christians, everyone else needs remember something about intolerance: tolerance doesn't mean "approval", it means "to put up with". Not liking homosexuals or homosexuality in general doesn't make you intolerant and it's inaccurate to label people as such.
You're a little late...
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/user_images/pic s/1/291000/ngbbs3c9a37039df5d.jpg
According to Leviticus, just about every thing you can think of doing besides eating, sleeping and praying is a sin and should be punishable by stoning.
You junior league "christians" should actually read this stuff instead of merely parroting it. No, wait, that would require you to think objectively. Nevermind.
