Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/14/14 02:13 PM, Piggler wrote: It's not that I'm taking solitude for granted.

Then why not post a thread about how solitude brings us wisdom and definition? Instead of the whole, "A day of love; a day of void."? I'm just curious about why you haven't done this. You're one of the finest posters on these boards right now, so don't take this the wrong way.

At 2/14/14 03:32 PM, ReiSaus wrote: Alright, now its just conspiracy bull here :P

Then explain to me why dogs still circle their bed before they go to sleep as they did in the wilderness when they patted down the tall grass to hide from prey, or why cats scratch furniture as they do to trees? They are programmed like machines, and they are trapped in a world that was blindly inherited by self-proclaimed entities called human beings. Then I want you to think about this one deeply. If we weren't part of the machine, as you say, then explain why the human being can see themselves through all the world, as if we were a part of this totality that which is the universe? Explain why everything we do can be located in other animals -- even flies, hence they wash their hands like we do.

At 2/14/14 03:19 PM, Lagerkapo wrote: Death is a transition. Death is a reset button.

If it was a transition, that would only assume its counterpart was life. Life is not the counterpart of death -- death is not darkness, but life is light. When light is neglected, it becomes darkness. When life is absent, it becomes death. Think of a computer. When it goes to sleep, the screen turns black. When it breaks down, or is deconstructed (lol, LoL), that's the metaphor for death.

And I don't mean eternal as infinitely long or everlasting, I mean eternal as in all at once in line with everything, all mechanisms, the irreconcilable reconciled.

You forgot that if there is a beginning (life), then there is an end (death). What perpetuates exists in the middle, but you seem to think the ends also perpetuate, when they do not. When a star is born it does not become unborn; when a star dies, it implodes and creates new life, whereas its own existence is but a memory.

Then... You seem more than fully to have confirmed what I thought.

If this is so, then why disagree?

Oh, you just don't want to go through the effort of transforming your reality, or of sacrificing one of your millions of little lifetimes to make a change that benefits all because you do not see the scope of things.

Transforming my reality? Are you mentally incompetent? What way does anyone have to transform the very thing we have only questions for? Oh, yes. I don't understand my bitch, but I'll sure as fuck dress her up the way I want to.

An axiom is ASSUMED, and I hope you not only KNOW, but REALIZE and UNDERSTAND that.

An axiom is something generally accepted. That is not as much of an assumption, as it is an acceptance.

At 2/14/14 03:22 PM, Whoshotdabear wrote: It's not. It's all a sham!

Are you sure that you're not the sham in the can?

At 2/14/14 03:16 PM, ReiSaus wrote: That sounds empty. Man made machines, without humans machines wouldn't exist.

Those are called robots. The world has always been a machine; a computational artifact of non-being, reactive conglomerations, wherein life is subdued by its own phantom-like premise. We're ghosts in a machine, my friend. The matrix? No, no no. We are the machine role-playing itself.

At 2/13/14 10:15 PM, PotHeadParadise wrote: what are we bro? are we even real?

Look up panpsychism. Thank me later.

An obese sopapilla?

At 2/14/14 03:07 PM, SuperElroy wrote: Makes me ponder the true meaning to life.

Machine came before Emotion, therefore life has no meaning -- it could not have, for meaning is an emotion; a distinction we've created out of emotion. Thereof is an altercation of the evolutionary world, and thus why Man is the only species on this planet that has the love and intelligence to do something more, but ends up fucking everything up, while the machines of our world do what they are supposed to do.

This thread is now about Sociopathy, Science And Spider-Man.

Chemical fissures.

I believe science's rather dull and unemotional environment could be stagnating our human qualities tremendously, and it would explain why the only time you see religious activity in a sociopath is when they are manipulating its practitioners, while they are genuinely drawn towards science and its cold system that can, if you hang onto yourself, bring more closure and understanding towards everything that had been questioned.

At 2/14/14 02:47 PM, Whoshotdabear wrote: I did eventually. Until she came to my apartment raising all kind of hell.

And this is why you should be more intellectually disposed. You'd have a greater sum of decisions to make to make a better outcome out of this ordeal, or any other that surfaces subsequently.

At 2/14/14 02:39 PM, Entice wrote: The process by which they work is different as well. I'm arguing that the distinction is equally important.

Then we agree. It first appeared you were choosing distinctive values over intrinsic values.

Just because there's similarities between plant intelligence and animal intelligence, doesn't mean that they are the same thing. It's like saying that a brick wall is the same as a concrete wall. Just because the walls function in the same manner, doesn't mean that you can ignore the distinction. You have the consider the differences between the materials when building if you don't want your building to fall over.

Yes, I agree with this 100%. I just hate it when people choose "this" over "that", not because of their different ways in functioning, but because they never stopped to think that "this" and "that" are created by "that one system". So they never think to work with "that", because they are too one-sided in their decisions to see the similar potential in "this". Physicality and physiology always are to consider when understanding the importance of distinguishing life's constituents.

I just don't see how making that distinction detracts from comparing the similarities between the two.

You'd be amazed how many people don't know the sun is a star because we don't normally refer to it as a star, nor does it look anything like a star as we see them with an intellectually illiterate eye.

At 2/14/14 02:27 PM, Lagerkapo wrote: Oh wow, you fail to see the reason for reality, spirit, to pull together energy to congregate as form.

Do you really think that, in a world wherein death is utmost prevalent (death's features are surely nothing to love or scoff at either), that death has more in store? It's like when you watch a movie, and you see everything die around you, you know that this will be the end.

What are you hiding from?

There's no reason to hide, when I have always been hidden.

It seems to me you would only believe suchly if you were subjected to a reality you simply have not come to terms with.

I never wanted reality any other way than how it is axiomatically. I accept it for the rectal dysfunction that it is, which has life come through every now and then.

At 2/14/14 02:21 PM, Entice wrote: Did you not read what I said? Yes they can function in a similar manner, but they are physically different. That distinction may not be important to you but it still exists. Saying that a plant has a nervous system implies that neurons are present which is simply not true. Call it something else or say that it's like a nervous system if you must use the word at all.

What if you're wrong? If we keep creating separate distinctions, we're still being false about the knowledge we're sharing with our peers. Do you know how many people have made the astute observation that regards the nature of black holes, whirlpools and the spinning of a planet? I haven't met anyone that has made this observation I have, so practically speaking, just because we want to distinguish them based off of how they physically appear, doesn't mean it's more important than wanting to distinguish them based off of how they share the same mechanics. You already agreed with me. You solely argue that, because of the physical appearance being different, we should call them different names, but I profess that this is exactly why we're hung up on many things in this field of knowledge -- we keep assuming things are different because of the distinctions we've given them treat them as different, when they are in fact part of the same system of forces and computational metaphors.

Metaphors aren't a good thing when they could cause factual confusion. Like implying that plants have these things when they don't.

At 2/14/14 02:20 PM, ReiSaus wrote: There's gotta be something to explain it, wish proof was there.

Think of a planet that spins. As it spins, it pulls everything outside of it, and inside of it, inwards. If it were to stop spinning, all that which it pulls will cease -- all that which it consisted of will implode upon itself, causing everything to go awry and end with a whimper. It does not go out in a bang like stars do, for stars are gas, and so there's no "containment".

I sat down and ate a corn dog while reading what they were made out of. I was disgusted for 3 seconds, but then my mind kicked in.

At 2/14/14 02:15 PM, Doktar wrote: How does one feel nothing?

We always felt nothing, but we veil that with what we want to be something. Nihilism and sociopathy is something we start off with, hence the infant that threw their rattle at their parent.

At 2/14/14 02:00 PM, Entice wrote: Well here's an interesting lectureon that, with a bit of philosophy or something.

How is the lecture interesting, if the mystery behind this question is still a mystery? I personally want to cross-examine the nature of two negatives becoming a positive to that which is our mental state (since one should generally accept our emotions do follow Newton's Laws of physics, i.e positive, negative and equal reaction), and so when you see how happiness does not solve our conflicts (positive; generally, I know this can be also defined as positive + negative = positive, but that's not entirely true because of the happiness being a placeholder rather than a real potential), but facing our conflicts with by using the heart of our conflicts (negative + negative = positive), you get true happiness.

At 2/14/14 01:57 PM, Entice wrote: No there's no neurons in plants, and therefore no nerves or nervous system.
There's evidence for plant intelligence, but using the word "nerve" anywhere is a misnomer.

Simply because we see two different physical structures, doesn't mean they are axiomatically different from each other. The plant may have a nervous system, but it's physical form does not appear the same as our nervous system. Life enjoys metaphors to distinguish itself, and so, plants could might as well have been metaphorically shaped under a different systematical guise than we have.

The same way these three are different: a whirlpool, a black hole and a spinning planet, they are all physically structured differently, but the forces that create them are the same -- they are just metaphorically shaped differently by the inclusion of other forces involved.

Life & Death happen like the chemical reactions, but in human years. Forces create a result called a being, the bring slowly deteriorates, the forces break away, the being no longer exists, for it never existed more than an experience that captured itself in self-proclaimed entitlement.

I was in my mother's womb for 7~8 months. You'd have to be the saddest man on this planet to take isolation for granted simply because you have a will to do so.

At 2/14/14 01:11 PM, Entice wrote: Plants don't have a nervous system or nerves.

They probably do, but not in the same metaphoric form as the human body's nervous system. Life tends to reveal itself under many guises -- many of which we're oblivious to.

You can cut down a tree, but you cannot crush a seed.

At 2/14/14 01:35 PM, kisame wrote: Your psuedophilosophy will certainly spice things up.

Since when was philosophy not pseudo, or personal? Think of philosophy like consciousness, or the math question, "Why does two negatives equal a positive?" Even though not everything we generally accept make sense to us, it works.

> Says she is perfect.

> Implies one confliction determines fate of relationship

> desperate OP is desperate

Yes, let's take down the animals by the animal within. Seems legit.

At 2/13/14 06:43 AM, Phobotech wrote: On one end, we have an oblivious OP who can't understand why his useless and abrasive reviews are getting deleted, and on the other end, we have Stereocrisis digging himself into a deeper hole.

Can I join?

At 2/8/14 07:34 PM, cheezz wrote: I want you to answer these simple questions. Feel free to give your reasons why.

Alright.

In recent years there has been a movement towards atheism. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. You can't have a movement about not agreeing with somebody else's claims.

A movement with books, blogs, youtube videos, etc. making the argument for atheism. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. This is not a movement, and it's people with reasons why they cannot believe in a god. There are plenty of people that do not agree with the claim, and they do not do any of the above, or below, and they are considered 'atheist' by your logic.

Usually accompanied with arguments for science advocacy and arguments against religious viewpoints. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. These are people that decided to do this, whether they are atheist, agnostic (yes, there are agnostics that argue against god), or a transvestite monkey boy that recently survived a car crash. It's not because they are atheists. It's because they are people that have reasons and want to voice that reason.

There are self-identified atheists who espouse what's found in these books and blogs, etc.. Agree or disagree?

Self-identified to an untrained eye. What makes them an atheist? It's not because they argue about god; it's because they disagree with the claim of god. Whatever these people are doing is an entirely irrelevant circumstance. If all 'atheists' did what you say they did, I wouldn't be arguing about the term.

And by espousing to such things could constitute as a system of belief that you could call atheism. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. Reading a science book doesn't make you an atheist. Taking science over religion doesn't make you an atheist. Reading books written by scientists does not make you an atheist. Hatred towards religion does not make you an atheist. What makes one an atheist is basically "you don't agree that god exists, therefore atheist". It's basically the product of segregation, like "Ooh, that's an atheist. You don't want to talk to that person, they haven't accepted god inside their heart." Very few really ask themselves what makes an atheist. So again, your idea of an atheist is brain-washed, black and white, biased; one big happy obfuscation.

At 2/8/14 03:32 PM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote: Pleases elaborate

Nightmares relate to us all. Every child is afraid of the dark at one point or another. Open your eyes and realize that the concept of god isn't even close to being the biggest ordeal. The human mind is certainly more mysterious.