At 4/2/06 09:08 PM, attemptedperfection wrote: So, if I somehow found a way to skip backwards down the ladder, would I have to simply re-live what had already happened, or would my over-riding conciousness have a say over how I may change my own previous thoughts and actions?

You can never override it, it's a locked system. By doing something different you cannot change the future because there is no future, everything's already happened, you would be just choosing a different parallel dimension to pop into instead of the one you originally went to. Like, there are several parallel dimensions on one level supposedly?

Let's say you wake up one morning, you go to your kitchen and prepare a hotdog, in this certain parallel dimension you put ketchup on your hot dog and eat it. You decide you didn't like it. You got back several parallel dimensions to when you wake up. You relive the day and now you put mustard on your hotdog. Yay! You are satisfied! So what? You just choose a different route to take in the tree diagram of realities and dimensions, but you didn't change anything, in a co-existing dimension you still ate the hot dog with ketchup, and hell, in another one you might have even thrown it out your window in the neighbor's yard. These events all have already happened, you can just choose which one you want to experience.

Another question that may come to you is, "Can I go foward in time past my death and experience something there?" I'm not sure, perhaps in spirit or something? You try it and tell me sometime =)

infinitely small steps on a ladder and infinite parallel dimentions sounds like a rather short leap from linear time and free will... how are you so certain that this is the truth? and does it really even matter which way we perceive to be reality?

you guys are crazy. but i can definitly say by reading all these posts i'm out of my funk.

now as for the vertical/linear time thing: (man are you guys in for it)

time exists on it own and can never be altered 'cause it always moves and reacts exactly the same way for eternity. a clock or a sundial or a watch are only devices that try to meter time so people can have a common grounds on it. i didn't read the whole post of it 'cause i was to ancy but some body typed somethin' about approaching the speed of light. the speed of light is variable 'cause since science has proven that light is positive ions and that ions move out of agitation than it can also be said that the speed of light is variable. when positive ions leave the sun they are moving faster than 186,000 miles per second. 186,000 miles per second is the speed of some light that was measured as it was reflected off the moon. people should know this. as the positive ions get farther away from it's source, in this case the sun, they move slower because of less agitation from other positive ions. by the time it hits the surface of the earth, sunlight is moving so slow that humans are able to bear it as well as everything else on earth. if light stayed at a constant speed then it would be like everything is in the center of the sun all the time. that much radiation and nothing would exist except for that light. since time is measured in so many different ways you cannot say that time actually moves at this certain speed or that certain speed. and time is really only the amount of speed that light has.

now to answer any questions that you may have to ask me i'll sum it up like this. i dropped out of high school 'cause it's a waste of time. life is more important than a piece of paper that you can wipe your ass on. but if anybody thinks that my "theories" (not theroies. proven scientific fact) are flawed, let me just say this. most kids don't take meta-physics in 9th grade. most of the human race's top scientists have never even taken meta-physics. i have. i've graduated the course. ask all the questions you want of me based on scientific shit. you won't find a better answer from anybody else in existence other than God Himself.

Mmmmm - Pseudo-Quackdom-Metaphysics.... Delicious!

The hotdog thing is flawed in that it's an nth complexity contradiction matrix.

The ladder thing is flawed as it seems to be using unrelated quantifying measurements to relate a theory.

Then we have the suicidal psychosomatic cells - heh... I'll cover those in a moment

But I understand the point of illustration. Obviously, you have to use the language and it's limitations to try to create an effective analogy for mass consumption so I empathize with your philisophical uphill battle.

1. Hotdogs, choices and filling the void:

In this system, we have no free will - If by making a "mustard" choice you simply phase-shift into the corresponding state of existence i.e. plane or dimension to experience the results of your "choice" then that means that to maintain a continuum for the rest of us, your place needs to be filled by another "you" who ostensibly made a "ketchup" choice that would lead allow him to fill that gap. Which one of you exercised free will and which was forced into an open slot? That system is a cosmic game of musical chairs where someone's going to get the proverbial shitty end of the stick... See what I mean? But don't fret! just think, in an alternate state, one of you is insanely famous and pretty much owns the world right now... and simultaneously, a thousand years ago as well - which brings us to -

2. Mathematically getting nowhere - fast ... and slow:

The rungs on a ladder though, is really like saying that I'm 6 meters and 2 ounces happy today. Yesterday I was 13 stones worried but this morning I woke up* and found that I was less so...

Here's a puzzle for you, take any number - 23, 42, 5 - now suppose that represents the distance between you and the kitchen - specifically, to your hotdog - here we go...

In order to traverse the distance required, you must pass through every point in between - including the half-way point (those few enlightened souls now know where I'm headed with this) - your 42 meters away , half-way there you are 21 meters away (now you have to go from that point) half-way again and you're 10.5 meters - ad nauseum... But since you can continue to cut something in half - forever - then you can never actually reach your destination.

*important note - I never actually woke up because in order to do so I would have had to sleep half the night, then half of the half, then half of that half.......so we can see that mathematically, I'm full of shit. Well.. not full exactly - because to be full, I'd have to be half-way full and half of that, and half of that...

And finally - our self destruction through belief in age:

All cells age - plant cells age and they have yet to give any indication that they beleive that they will. Why do kids break their legs immediately after jumping off of rooftops to fly away like superman? Why has any experiment ever failed? Shouldn't our faith have produced the results that we were looking for?

Either way - it may seem like I'm ripping holes in everything that you've said but I'm not trying to be mean or to "pwn" you or anything - I just can't help it - it's part of my job - Hail Eris!

And always remember this:

In matters of the mind and matter of the heart
you may be a bean - but I'm a fart

:D

Even with the speed of light not being constant, my question was still valid, right?

At 4/3/06 11:31 AM, attemptedperfection wrote: Even with the speed of light not being constant, my question was still valid, right?

how are you so certain that this is the truth?
does it really even matter which way we perceive to be reality?

Yes, your questions are valid - at least, the ones that are quoted above are.

All questions are valid - there are no stupid questions, only stupid people who ask questions. (not aimed at you :D)

While entertaining, this topic seems to be only drivel. The one thing that I can tell you with any certainty is that you will definitely not find the meaning of life or the answer to our existence on newgrounds.

I highly doubt that relative speeds, of light photons or anything else for that matter, have much to do with the "why are we here" and "how does it work" questions that we all ask.

Personally, I think that today, I'm here to be a pain in the ass - maybe tomorrow I'll have a better answer.

At 4/3/06 11:10 AM, LJCoffee wrote: But I understand the point of illustration. Obviously, you have to use the language and it's limitations to try to create an effective analogy for mass consumption so I empathize with your philosophical uphill battle.

Thank you.

1. Hotdogs, choices and filling the void:

In this system, we have no free will - If by making a "mustard" choice you simply phase-shift into the corresponding state of existence i.e. plane or dimension to experience the results of your "choice" then that means that to maintain a continuum for the rest of us, your place needs to be filled by another "you" who ostensibly made a "ketchup" choice that would lead allow him to fill that gap. Which one of you exercised free will and which was forced into an open slot?

You are thinking yourself in terms of a body in the theory, but you are not. You are awareness, a consciousness. If you choose the mustard option then your awareness shifts into that parallel dimension, into the view point of your body. The body in the ketchup option remains active as well. You see, since all of your actions where already planed out, you honestly don’t have any free will, you can only choose which option you want to observe. No one has to observe an option for it to be there, the parallel dimension won’t disappear, no one gets pushed anywhere, and there are no two yous - in terms of consciousness and awareness of course, not illusionary bodies. A movie always runs whether there is someone there to watch it or not, shifting into different existences is like watching your own multiple-choice life movie.

2. Mathematically getting nowhere - fast ... and slow:

In order to traverse the distance required, you must pass through every point in between - including the half-way point (those few enlightened souls now know where I'm headed with this) - your 42 meters away , half-way there you are 21 meters away (now you have to go from that point) half-way again and you're 10.5 meters - ad nauseum... But since you can continue to cut something in half - forever - then you can never actually reach your destination.

I don’t understand how that has anything to do with anything. You want a solution? Sure, I simply pick a target twice as far as my intended destination, while headed towards the target I reach where I really want to end up =)

And finally - our self destruction through belief in age:

All cells age - plant cells age and they have yet to give any indication that they believe that they will. Why do kids break their legs immediately after jumping off of rooftops to fly away like superman?

Again, you are not a body; he may have no doubt or limits in his consciousness yet, but others do, which affects him. It’s collective consciousness; all thoughts are shared at a subconscious level between consciousnesses. Before the kid jumps he already knows damn well in his subconscious he is going to fall and hurt himself and so he does.

Why has any experiment ever failed?

Experiments don’t fail, they only give undesired results. =P That and the people who conducted their experiment must have had more doubt than faith in it. The reason the light experiment worked so while was because for one, light is very sensitive to thought; it’s a bunch of electrons. Second, there were no ‘desired results’ for this experiment, meaning: no doubt. The scientists were simply observing the experiment unemotionally and without doubt which is why it worked out for all of them.

Shouldn't our faith have produced the results that we were looking for?

Only if you believe it enough, if not, then you are going to get the results the wannabe-superman-kid got. And yes, if you really really believe you can fly, then your mind will reject the thoughts about gravity and physics in your subconscious and you will fly.

Either way - it may seem like I'm ripping holes in everything that you've said but I'm not trying to be mean or to "pwn" you or anything - I just can't help it - it's part of my job - Hail Eris!

Actually, I didn’t see how anything you said ripped a hole in anything I said; probably we are looking at it differently. You see, you cannot argue an abstract theory with logic. You are trying to compromise the theory with your understanding of how measurements and time work making it unauthentic. Conforming a theory to make it “pwnable” is a rather dirty trick don’t you think? =P

It’s like trying to describe eternity or infinity with time and measurements. You can never do it since eternity and infinity are abstract ideas, both immeasurable by time and space, which time and space are both specific logical ideas.

And always remember this:

In matters of the mind and matter of the heart
you may be a bean - but I'm a fart

Aye, don’t worry about it, your post didn’t upset or make me flinch in anyway =)

At 4/3/06 11:02 AM, mhb wrote: most kids don't take meta-physics in 9th grade. most of the human race's top scientists have never even taken meta-physics.

Are ya kidding? The world’s top scientists are meta-physicians ;) (Actually, I have no idea if that’s true, but let’s just pretend we are in the specific parallel dimension where it is true, shall we? :D)

you won't find a better answer from anybody else in existence other than God Himself.

I can drink to that. =)

At 4/3/06 01:11 PM, Dj-Kirizzle wrote: You are thinking yourself in terms of a body in the theory, but you are not.

I am while I'm here, but I'll admit that since I've been aware of my existence, I've ever so gently been sliding into the realm of existentialism though.

you honestly don’t have any free will,

I choose not to accept that - and by doing so I have either exercised my free will or I've fulfilled my destiny to not accept that my will is my own - in which case I'm being cosmically screwed by having such a path drawn for me. I can't wait to see if the universe has been setting me up to yank my chair out from under me. After all, if that were the case, then I'm flattered that the universe cares enough about me to go through all the trouble.

A movie always runs whether there is someone there to watch it or not,
shifting into different existences is like watching your own
multiple-choice life movie.

Yes but since we are all interacting then that means that there are an infinite number of states of existence that are all quite possible but not probable. Suddenly, we're into infinite improbability and the only thing that I can think of that could effectively handle that would be the "heart of gold" ... (not quite so) Seriously though, if there are infinite possibilities then how could you say that it doesn't work that way? Given an infinite number of possibilities I'd say that there is a decent chance that I might have discovered inter-planar travel and cracked this code long ago - but not in our current shared state.

I don’t understand how that has anything to do with anything.
(in response to 2. Mathematically getting nowhere - fast ... and slow:)

Under the infinite probability tree it can have anything to do with everything. But it was really just a silly point that I remembered while posting my last and so I just threw it in there to illustrate the concept of infinity - halving a number to the point of absurdity is similar to your most mundane daily "choices" and the resulting consequences for any action taken - there is no end in sight.

Again, you are not a body

There's a good chance that I might currently be. I'll consult the manual for more info.

the people who conducted their experiment must have had more doubt than faith
Only if you believe it enough,
And yes, if you really really believe ...then your mind will reject ... gravity and physics

This ties in with the below quotes -

probably we are looking at it differently.
You are trying to compromise the theory with your understanding of ...

We are - we have to - I have a good understanding of how reality is based on belief but at the same time, although we may in fact be spiritual entities and what we percieve as reality may not be much more than in illusion we must play by the scientific house rules that have been set forth for us.

Regardless of our true nature, while we are here we simply cannot break those rules. Those rules are the logic and the science that bind us for the time being - it is not possible to break certain rules and to do so would most likely end up with our removal from our current state.

What I'm saying is that while your mind may reject certain things, your brain cannot - and since our brain is the gate through which our minds act and since it is in fact restricted by all of those pesky rules then we have no choice but to accept those restrictions for the time being.

Aye, don’t worry about it, your post didn’t upset or make me flinch in anyway =)

That's cool - I just wanted to let you know that I'm not trying to be an asshole - I really do enjoy discussions like these and my experiences have taught me that text is one of the worst mediums for communication as it allows too much room for misinterpretation.

Not to mention that most NG dwellers (myself included) are a little quick on the draw when it comes to a percieved insult.

At 4/3/06 01:11 PM, Dj-Kirizzle wrote: You are thinking yourself in terms of a body in the theory, but you are not. You are awareness, a consciousness. If you choose the mustard option then your awareness shifts into that parallel dimension, into the view point of your body. The body in the ketchup option remains active as well. You see, since all of your actions where already planed out, you honestly don’t have any free will, you can only choose which option you want to observe. No one has to observe an option for it to be there, the parallel dimension won’t disappear, no one gets pushed anywhere, and there are no two yous - in terms of consciousness and awareness of course, not illusionary bodies. A movie always runs whether there is someone there to watch it or not, shifting into different existences is like watching your own multiple-choice life movie.

How then can I be sure that a person I'm interacting with is observing and concious of the interaction? because it looks like, by all reasonable probability, the person's conciousness would certainly be somewhere else. In this scenerio, you probably are observing some other reality in which you would never even come across this post I'm currently making. However, I'm fairly sure you can attest to the opposite, so does that mean that your body, in its infinite existances in infinite dimensions, also has infinite unique beings of conciousness/observation separate from "yours"? And what happens when and if these separate selves colide, as would seem to be inevitable at (infinitely) various points in "time"?

At 4/3/06 02:44 PM, attemptedperfection wrote: what happens when and if these separate selves colide, as would seem to be
inevitable at (infinitely) various points in "time"?

All hell breaks loose.
.
.
Nobody likes that man with the drill... I think he's trying to bore us all to death.
.
.
Fun fact #5:
Eels go great with buttered rice!
.
.
I suddenly realized that my penis foot no longer comfortable fit into my shoes vagina.
.
.
If space and time are infinite then how much relative mass do we really have?
.
.
This is all what happens I think.

You guys are being far too intellectual for musicians :P

At 4/3/06 03:18 PM, MrMaestro wrote: You guys are being far too intellectual for musicians :P

sorree I go bang on drum now - it make big boom ba boom noiz

Yeah - this topic just flew right off on a tangent didn't it...

Either way, the relentless discussion of which program is the best and the never ending redirection to the stickies is fine and all but I think that discussions like these are cool once in a while to let us get to know each other a little better - aside from what rig we have set up to what amp etc. etc.

And if noise is the brick in our little audio house then the occasional philosophical nonsense makes a fine mortar.

After all, what is music without the raw emotion, the thoughts, the soul and the psychology - oh yeah now I remember - it's Nirvana...

At 4/3/06 01:53 PM, LJCoffee wrote: I choose not to accept that - and by doing so I have either exercised my free will or I've fulfilled my destiny to not accept that my will is my own - in which case I'm being cosmically screwed by having such a path drawn for me. I can't wait to see if the universe has been setting me up to yank my chair out from under me. After all, if that were the case, then I'm flattered that the universe cares enough about me to go through all the trouble.

You are very lucky along with the rest of us that the universe cares then =) and you only have two possible choices, to believe that you have no free will or not. Those are the only two parallel dimensions you can zap to. It’s a closed system, those are your only options and you have already accepted both of them.

bunches of stuff.

Okay. I wouldn’t say I agree, but I don’t know what else to say other than, “You are entitled to your beliefs.”

We are - we have to - I have a good understanding of how reality is based on belief but at the same time, although we may in fact be spiritual entities and what we perceive as reality may not be much more than in illusion we must play by the scientific house rules that have been set forth for us.

Those scientific house rules are rules we made for ourselves when we created the universe, we as in ‘one’ though, one big mind, and all the different bodies would just be different points of awareness would just be observing our own self-made dream.

Regardless of our true nature, while we are here we simply cannot break those rules. Those rules are the logic and the science that bind us for the time being - it is not possible to break certain rules and to do so would most likely end up with our removal from our current state.

Spiritual entities are abstract beings that cannot be held by logical laws. If you can agree that we are somehow spiritual entities then our “rules” are easily breakable. We made them anyway, we can destroy them.

What I'm saying is that while your mind may reject certain things, your brain cannot - and since our brain is the gate through which our minds act and since it is in fact restricted by all of those pesky rules then we have no choice but to accept those restrictions for the time being.

Your brain does not have a mind of its own, it’s simple a tool, like the body. The brain is the middle man between the body and the mind. They mind thinks thoughts which the brain captures and translates into commands for the body to do. People with brain damage think perfectly, it’s just that the mind’s message gets “lost in translation” when it goes to the body and that’s why they act all... funny. If the mind can think it then its do-able, the brain is not a restriction of any sort, but a translator... your only blocks are doubt and fear.

That's cool - I just wanted to let you know that I'm not trying to be an asshole - I really do enjoy discussions like these and my experiences have taught me that text is one of the worst mediums for communication as it allows too much room for misinterpretation.

Agreed.

Not to mention that most NG dwellers (myself included) are a little quick on the draw when it comes to a perceived insult.

Yea, but I’m more stable when it comes to that kind of stuff so I’d say I’d be the safest person to talk about controversial/debatable topics without a fight breaking out.

At 4/3/06 02:44 PM, attemptedperfection wrote: How then can I be sure that a person I'm interacting with is observing and conscious of the interaction?

Does it really matter? Free will doesn’t exist, you’d both do the exact same things whether someone was present in the other body to experience it or not. That and we are one big mind that imagined the universe into existence, and our consciousnesses are simply different point of views to observe our own self-made dream. A good metaphor would be, we are all fingers on a hand (consciousness) connected to the palm (our one mind). We appear separate but we are one, consciousnesses would simply be extensions of the one mind we all originated from, but we are still one.

In this scenario, you probably are observing some other reality in which you would never even come across this post I'm currently making.

Possibly, but whether I was really here or not, that would not change the content of my reply.

However, I'm fairly sure you can attest to the opposite, so does that mean that your body, in its infinite existences in infinite dimensions, also has infinite unique beings of consciousness/observation separate from "yours"?

Naw, you’d do whatever you’d normally do anyway. You say that because you think your consciousness actually has free will and commands the body to do crap, but supposedly it doesn’t, the body acts on its own and since you choose different parallel dimensions to go to you actually think you are controlling it, but you aren’t... in theory =)

And what happens when and if these separate selves collide, as would seem to be inevitable at (infinitely) various points in "time"?

There are no separate selves? If I understood that correctly...

At 4/3/06 11:02 AM, mhb wrote: now to answer any questions that you may have to ask me i'll sum it up like this. i dropped out of high school 'cause it's a waste of time. life is more important than a piece of paper that you can wipe your ass on. but if anybody thinks that my "theories" (not theroies. proven scientific fact) are flawed, let me just say this. most kids don't take meta-physics in 9th grade. most of the human race's top scientists have never even taken meta-physics. i have. i've graduated the course. ask all the questions you want of me based on scientific shit. you won't find a better answer from anybody else in existence other than God Himself.

This is the smartest paragraph of this whole thread.

And not in irony, I'm serious. It gets worse after high school. In college, people teach you their own ideals and principles for learning, and at the rate they teach, they slow down for the dumbest person in that class.

Man, I scrolled through this entire thread just to find a point of interest...

...Make smaller posts, people!

Do it for the unintelligent. Like me.

“You are entitled to your beliefs.”

LJ has more then a belief, he has fact, and he is accepting, molding, and reasoning his debate to your responses, to backhand him saying this means you have no factual information or cannot accept opposing factors.

Those scientific house rules are rules we made for ourselves when we created the universe, we as in ‘one’ though, one big mind, and all the different bodies would just be different points of awareness would just be observing our own self-made dream.

Humans percieve reality, human consciousness is formed when humans make concepts of what they percieve, and the conscious accepts but one concept of their perceptions, the concept that is accepted becomes logic.

I see your post, it has black text. It has words, what do they mean? They mean this, this person believes in this. Is it true or false?

In order to deny your senses, your consciousness, or your flow of logic, you must first be aware of it, which takes senses, consciousness, and logic in the first place, so to deny you are a real, conscious being, you must deny what you already are. Then you wouldn't be a theorist anymore, you'd be a nihilist.

Spiritual entities are abstract beings that cannot be held by logical laws.

"Spiritual entities" are not a fact or concrete, they are an illusion created by stressed or derailed minds as an answer to mental stress or problems.

Does it really matter? Free will doesn’t exist, you’d both do the exact same things whether someone was present in the other body to experience it or not.

Before the mind makes a primary action, they focus on their consciousness to make secondary options, and since consciousness isn't an illusion, there would be no contradiction to WHY humans think up OTHER options if they were to pick ONE to carry out.

This entails that humans have independant control over their thought process, and that they are fully aware of phsyical reactions and negative effects, and can choose among their options which one appeals to their logic.

Now, if everyone had one logic, but people can carry out actions that contradict this single logic, then the only illusion is that are isn't a free will or there isn't independant logics, which constraints humans from considering principles while studying philosophies.

At 4/3/06 05:50 PM, Erkie wrote: to backhand him saying this ...
other deep stuff

Thanks for jumping in Erkie - I really didn't take anything as a slap though
- it's all cool & the gang

"Spiritual entities" are not a fact or concrete, they are an illusion created
by stressed or derailed minds as an answer to mental stress or problems.

That's along the same lines as my mind vs. brain thing - spiritual we may be but we have to act through a shell that follows the rules.

I'm not going to qoute Dj-Kirizzle in this particular post but I'll say this:

I really think that we're all on the same page - we're just viewing it from slightly different angles.

Take a hypothetical event that occurs in the center of a circle of 100 people - those who are standing close to one another may give a similar account of what happened and at the same time those who are on the opposite side may all say something very different - even though they all witnessed the same event

And regardless of truth, each persons perception is real to them - In that, reality is based on belief.

- That's close to how I see this topic -

We all have different points of view - but we're all here. Some are privy to information that is not available to others simply because of our vantage points.

If we were all in every spot to see everything that happened then and only then could we know the truth of it - but alas, we're stuck with only a limited point of view and so we do the best we can with what we've been dealt.

Personally, I'm working on an inside straight and I'm hoping the right cards turn up -

We'll see...

If we're going to talk about theories that can't be disproven, I might as well bring up one that conflicts with this whole parallel universe thing:
Determinism says that, given all events leading up to a given moment, leading back to the beginning of time, and including internal brain-activity events, there is only one way things could possibly be at any given moment, ruling out both free will and any parallel universes.

I can agree that this subject of Free WIll is much larger then what humanity can figure out in this point in time, this is also a debate, and it wouldn't be a debate without certain resolution.

It wouldn't be effective if nobody walked out of here without something.

Here I go:

I agree with everything LJ just said.

Erkie, you are entitled to your beliefs and I found it interesting how you preceived LJ and I as attacking each other.

It's hard to explain new ideas to close-minded people. (not saying any of you are close minded, this run down of random sayings will not necessarily have anything to do with this thread.)

I'm drinking peach juice. (See, I told you.)

Meta-physics cannot be explained by physics.

In quantum physics, two plus two can equal fish... or cat, or lobster... or five and a half.

Why does everyone misspell “precieve?” It’s perceive.

I have some homework I should be doing.

I'm probably not going to do it anyway.

Peace and penguins everyone.

At 4/3/06 06:39 PM, Dj-Kirizzle wrote: Erkie, you are entitled to your beliefs and I found it interesting how you preceived LJ and I as attacking each other.

There you go, saying it again. "Debates", or "Discussions", or "Fact Exchange", are completely useless when someone defends themselves or ends one by not accepting the factual information of the opposite side. It's a completey an unnecessary stall, and the definition of what close minded actually is.

That's why I take it so aggressively.

It's hard to explain new ideas to close-minded people. (not saying any of you are close minded, this run down of random sayings will not necessarily have anything to do with this thread.)

This isn't a new idea to me, in fact, it was the first thing I was ever consulted with by my brother when I was 14. Your approach is of a nihilist.

Why be a nihilist when you can be a player?
:P

Nihilism...

Actually, I got something completely different from all of the above -

Granted, I'm only throwing a card at a hat here but if I had to fathom a guess, I would say that Kirizzle was more of a Calvinist than a Nihilist... But then, Kirizzle is really the only one who can say for (almost) certain.

Any attempt to quantify or classify the thoughts of another has always ended in failure - anyone whose ever had a boy/girlfriend probably learned that the hard way.

Honestly, my personal views change from day to day and hour to hour.

I might be a hopeful Agnostic, and I may be somewhere in between a Cynic and a Stoic - but not as a way of life or anything - in life I'm exactly what a good American should be - I'm a consumer.

Besides - none of this matters anyway - there is nothing here - no meaning - no answers - no pain - no pleasure - just a void.... and it'll probably rain soon too... Not that it could - because rain doesn't exist any more than I do...
And now I'm a nihilist

:)

Brothers we,
I look to thee
For an answer see?
gotta go, gotta pee.

I'm muchly a consumer as well...
I just bought one of those new ds lites off of eBay...
for $200...
only afterwards did I think about all the better things that money could've gone towards...
ah well.
It's not my fault; I was hypnotized by... um... the internet... yeah... that's it...
...it just looks so friggin' cool...

...and so as not to steer the thread from the deep thoughts of philosophy to the dim thoughts of video games:
All reality is a social construct!
woot, now I'm a stylish post-modernist :P

...I'm really not : (

Well it is in my "belief" that anyone who thinks "Well, nothing exists, we're all tools, everything is made for us".

If you look through it with the process I pointed out, you're lead into nihilism, whether or not you deny it.

At 4/3/06 06:51 PM, Erkie wrote:

At 4/3/06 06:39 PM, Dj-Kirizzle wrote: Erkie, you are entitled to your beliefs and I found it interesting how you preceived LJ and I as attacking each other.

There you go, saying it again.

Along with...

That's why I take it so aggressively.

I said it on purpose since I knew you would be bothered... but let me ask you this, whose problem is it that you are bother by what I say? Mine problem or yours? No one else here seems to be upset over what I say, can't be my problem and you are the one that is bothered... get my gist? You can either take what I say to offense or laugh at it, it's all how you preceive it. I am nothing by myself except a blank blackboard, you are the one with the chalk who labels me whatever you want, something bothersome in this case, and then you get all huffy and puffy about it... haha, how silly is that? Very, so loosen up.

"Debates", or "Discussions", or "Fact Exchange", are completely useless when someone defends themselves or ends one by not accepting the factual information of the opposite side. It's a completey an unnecessary stall, and the definition of what close minded actually is.

Naw, not nessarily, most people say that debating with others about certain beliefs helps them learn more about their own beliefs, so it wouldn't be completely useless. Furthermore, two plus two can equal fish, and that's a fact, whether you are going to accept it or not, which you probably won't, but I wouldn't care and neither should you if I don't accept something... but you seem to care more about me than I do, I feel so loved.

Your approach is of a nihilist.

I almost read that as, "your approach is bullshit" and then laughed, but whatever you say Erkie, I'm just the blank blackboard... la la la =)

No greater truth has ever been spoken!

Oh and for the record, I have not a fucking clue what I am, am I nihilist? I honestly don't know... oh well.

At 4/3/06 11:39 AM, LJCoffee wrote: While entertaining, this topic seems to be only drivel. The one thing that I can tell you with any certainty is that you will definitely not find the meaning of life or the answer to our existence on newgrounds.

well i beg to differ. the meaning of life and why we are here is for one purpose, God. and only for the fact that if we didn't exist then no conscious mind in the universe would be able to recognize the fact that God exists and therefore there would be no point for Him to. just like there's no point in making a song if nobody is ever gonna hear it but you. argue that one.

At 4/3/06 08:29 PM, mhb wrote: there's no point in making a song if nobody is ever gonna hear it but you.
argue that one.

I have many songs that I've never submitted anywhere - I usually make music only for myself - nobody else has ever heard alot of it.

If it's pointless to you or anyone else or if you really think that I've wasted my time putting something together for my own enjoyment then I don't mind - it doesn't diminish my own satisfaction at all.

AS far as God goes... well, I simply cannot say - I'm not in any way qualified - but then, neither are you - or any of us for that matter. I'm about to contradict myself though.

The best way for all of us to quickly become bitter would be to discuss or debate the existence of God - but I'm willing to take that chance.

Assuming that God exists - then none of us could ever possibly presume to have any understanding about such an entity - it's motives or it's desires. To say that we exist only for God who, by your own reasoning, needs our belief in order to justify his own existence is a very arrogant view.

According to your average plain vanilla Judeo-Christian belief systems, God exists, created us and bestowed upon us free will. Given that, why would God care if we had faith or not? If it were that important to God then we would have all been born with an instinctual faith.

The fact that I'm even typing this does at least two things:

1. In some eyes it brands me as a heretic - which is not a bad thing at all - it simply means that I've made a choice, nothing more.

2. It proves that either God doesn't need my faith as fuel for God's existence. OR that I'm playing my part in God's plan to test other peoples faith.

If my existence depended solely of another person believing in me, you can bet your ass I'd do whatever was necessary to get and keep thier belief!

Now, assume for one moment that God does not exist (even though you cannot - just play along for a second).

None of the above matters at all and since we're only accountable to each other and ourselves then we may as well live it up a little.

At 4/3/06 09:11 PM, LJCoffee wrote: AS far as God goes... well, I simply cannot say - I'm not in any way qualified - but then, neither are you - or any of us for that matter. I'm about to contradict myself though.

False. I am an angel disguised as a human to spread the good news of Jesus' imminent return.

... Oh crap. I'm not supposed to say that.

At 4/3/06 09:18 PM, MrMaestro wrote: I am an angel ... Oh crap.

SEE! - my secret evil purpose has been served!! I KNEW that if I kept up the nonsense long enough that one of you foul winged things would reveal itself!

<spooky reverb>
HahHAHA! Let the APOCALYPSE BEGIN!!
</spooky reverb>