AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


love as a physical, psychic force that kils enemies by John Finkinridge - Wed, 03 Sep 2014 03:02:56 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195706 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409727776381.jpg -(117911 B, 460x1370) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 117911
love can be so concentrated and pure that it can blast forth from the heart of the channeling host and literally tear apart a grown man or woman who is attacking a christian baby?
>>
Beatrice Bibblemudge - Wed, 03 Sep 2014 07:38:52 EST ID:Im1aT5e5 No.195708 Ignore Report Quick Reply
/spooky/
>>
Nigel Buttinghall - Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:55:52 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.195709 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195708

/meds/
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:28:34 EST ID:BVMklPf1 No.195742 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Repost this thread in /spooky/ and I can give you an answer that /pss/ posters willnot understand.
>>
Faggy Worthingwater - Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:08:08 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195748 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195742
You can tell me here
it is safe to talk here
>>
Henry Figgleman - Sat, 06 Sep 2014 09:15:55 EST ID:Im1aT5e5 No.195756 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195748
No go away nobody wants this shit on this board


Philosophags & Stupid Sciences by Emma Greenham - Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:13:02 EST ID:qRHsQbQA No.195279 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406826782815.jpg -(152509 B, 780x369) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 152509
Does anyone else look at this board and think that all of it is pseudo-philosophical armchair bullshit? Why is all of the discussion about New Age "theories," ancient (read: outdated) religions, consciousness (read: New Age talk for the outdated concept of the soul), and leftist circlejerking/self-fellatio? Judging by this board I get the impression that all of the intelligent people really DON'T do drugs.
18 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Oliver Gellermitch - Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:32:48 EST ID:1tiw482i No.195643 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195642
Right, so it's the genetic fallacy duct taped to the appeal to nature
>>
Charles Pommersudge - Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:14:44 EST ID:uHerTrm2 No.195648 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195643
Yeah, I wish I could post something as straightforward like that but I engage in philosophical discussion simply because it's fun and mildly enthusing for me to do when the moment's right, not because I want to try to make a superficial conscious effort to look smart.

I mean, I'm not at all saying you're pretensing yourself to just look smart but I'm just describing why I don't express my thoughts as concisely as you do.
>>
Molly Firrytot - Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:15:31 EST ID:1tiw482i No.195649 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195648
sorry I don't even remember this conversation. I'm one of those inebriated faggots lol.

You know I was watching Ed, Edd, n Eddy the other day and I realized something. It's a Capitalist, a Socialist, and a Fool. One day they each eat three lard-burgers
The Fool (Ed) eats his contentedly. The Capitalist (Edd) vomits up a gear to symbolize wasted production to make extra room for the fatty burger. The Socialist (Eddy) nibbles daintily at his burger when he's disturbed by the fact that the three troll girls (feminists) want something in return for their burgers.

The entire show is a political cartoon. I just never knew it. Start with season 1. (only past season 2 is available on Netflix. Go figure government funded everything not wanting to accidentally publish propaganda decrying the state.)
>>
Shit Claywater - Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:17:07 EST ID:DwIX8PJp No.195653 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195649

When I was younger I always wanted the Kanker sisters to keep me as their sex slave.
>>
Lydia Guddletatch - Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:04:12 EST ID:1cAbu+OX No.195730 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195653
Well unless you're particularly sexy....


Consciousness by William Honderbidge - Sat, 24 May 2014 03:47:51 EST ID:iKiIyFsH No.193919 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400917671962.jpg -(444790 B, 1024x683) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 444790
Let's say that the universe is consciously creating itself.

The observer and thing being observed are essentially the same thing, or made from the same cloth; consciousness.
Separation is an illusion.

How was anything created before anything was around to observe it?
93 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Shitting Sucklenit - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:01:27 EST ID:jgUq9TXB No.195701 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195698
We're cycling towards becoming bona fide Gods. Creators of the next universe. We must advance ourselves to the point where we can harness all the power of the universe to create another big bang.
>>
John Finkinridge - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:36:03 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195701
and I am also cycling toward this, and I have some kind of soul/structure that can defy these realities and keep me on this psychedelic train of life? there's nothing to be afraid of?
>>
Shitting Sucklenit - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:20:40 EST ID:jgUq9TXB No.195704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195703
You have a finite amount of time to exist. Your soul is a floor joist in the timeless structure called human experience. Your floor joist isn't complete until you die. Whether you're a good floor joist or not, future structures will be built on top anyway, long after your last nail has been hammered. Whether you want to embrace that or be afraid of it is your choice.
>>
John Finkinridge - Wed, 03 Sep 2014 02:59:36 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195704
does it matter what I do in this life, except grow old and die and complete my cycle?
>>
Phineas Snodfoot - Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:15:01 EST ID:jgUq9TXB No.195720 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195705
What do you think? Does it matter what your parents did?


SRS PSS by Cedric Nammleforth - Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:09:46 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195685 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409620186126.png -(278 B, 31x30) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 278
Name of the game is serious piss, or rather, a thread for more serious discussions.

A more rational forum, that indulges in rational and useful thought. Opposite to /jenkem/ and all of the like threads on this board, this single thread will be the shining light, like a nugget of gold that has been discovered within a newly birthed shit.

This will be a formal thread, degenerate language like the above is frowned upon; It can be used, but to a limit.

Rational as in unemotional thought, only made impure, or rather enriched, by ones experiences.

Useful as in something that can be practiced is gained. Something that can be used to augment or change our lives for the better.

Philosophy & Social sciences isn't a fitting title, analysis and discussion of the human mind is more fitting.

Does anyone have a topic they would like to begin with? Maybe questions?
>>
Cedric Nammleforth - Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:11:44 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195686 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>human mind
Human State
Human Culture
Human

All good titles, I can't chose one.
>>
Hannah Lighthall - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:55:31 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195697 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195686
I like Human State, the state of humanity and all it entails
>>
Walter Honeyfield - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:12:10 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195699 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195697
Then that's what it will be called.
>>
Nell Fegglefoot - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:57:04 EST ID:MMz3wHbG No.195700 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The speculative realists might object to that naming.
>>
Walter Honeyfield - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:17:55 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195700
Useful is part of the game.

They will be gladly accepted if they and their thoughts are rational, and of physical use.


Social economics by Caroline Wumblestone - Fri, 15 Aug 2014 11:50:54 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.195559 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1408117854507.jpg -(52202 B, 320x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 52202
I consider social interaction as completely economic in nature. I think the way the economy functions and the way people function with each other, socially, are absolutely the same in process, only what's put in and what's taken out are different. We invest in others the same way we invest our money; in a way that's easiest for us and that generates the most personal gain. The gain isn't in dollars, though. The gain could be happiness, comfort, safety; essentially any good feeling/state. I cannot think of a single social interaction that does not parallel economics or trading, as it seems everyone interacts only with the hope of gaining the most/losing the least.
>>
Hannah Socklefudge - Fri, 15 Aug 2014 12:33:58 EST ID:2S3ZnYuQ No.195561 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I mostly agree, though I rarely share this view, as it's often seen as "cynical" or "calculating" or "cold".
I don't know what's cynical in engineering your own happiness and fulfillment though, or what's cold about this vision. I find that considering "the good life" something mystical that can only be achieved by not thinking about it too much a much more despairing view, that leaves you completely stranded and vulnerable to others, when you're lost.

I'd also add that something else you gain from others is learning a new and useful skill, which is incredibly valuable and often gets unrecognized as such.
>>
John Dollerstone - Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:05:41 EST ID:pLTeIYuw No.195562 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not all trades between people are the same...each has a certain level or selfishness/selflessness attached. Can either extreme actually exist? Who knows?
>>
Archie Punninghall - Sat, 16 Aug 2014 07:38:39 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195572 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195562
The thing is, depending on a person and the situation, altruism or egoism can be the preferrable attitude.
It depends on whether in a given situation one feels that the effort, expenditures, and possibly sacrifices one needs to commit are outweighted by the projection of the benefits of other people on oneself or not. If they are, then one chooses the option that is self-centered, if they are not, then one choses to focus on others.

Reciprocity and reputation also factor in. One finds it easier to focus on others if those other people's view of them is going to become more favorable thanks to that (with all the benefits that brings), and if the people who are treated well are expected to return the favor in one way or another.

Of course, we're not factoring in the dimension of deceit here (it'd crash the party, because the whole world runs on bullshit).

I wanted to rebuke OP's post by mentioning that in social interactions, people very often base their decisions and actions on sentiments with little consideration of gains and losses, but then I thought: Don't they do that the same on the market?
>>
John Murdworth - Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:51:03 EST ID:miGT5B+J No.195619 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women, others with none. It’s what’s known as ” the law of the market”. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude…………

Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag."

Taken from Whatever by Houellebecq, you should read his stuff.


Sociopaths by Sophie Finningson - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:19:51 EST ID:C6QsteKY No.195325 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407154791792.jpg -(139853 B, 500x558) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 139853
How do you identify a sociopath. I feel disconnected from the idea if I have to deal with an actual person. I don't feel like concepts of the mind work on actual people because they are always more complex and don't conform to the label. I'm convinced if i ever met a sociopath I would not even know it even though I know what he definition is. So If I want to deal with the psychology of people around me, how should I go about doing so in practice?
30 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Lillian Buzzfoot - Thu, 21 Aug 2014 03:40:28 EST ID:eB4+2hhb No.195596 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195595

i'm just saying the guy you are vehemently criticizing is not overstepping his bounds as far as you claim
>>
James Semblesurk - Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:07:19 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.195597 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195596
I am? how?
>>
Lillian Buzzfoot - Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:45:13 EST ID:eB4+2hhb No.195598 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195597

exactly in the way i described in my first reply to you
>>
Oliver Wummerwater - Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:17:12 EST ID:Y10U/maN No.195601 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There actually is an experimental way to determine if someone is a sociopath. I don't think it's been used as a diagnostic tool, but it looks like it could.

Basically, put someone in an FMRI and subject them to some stimulus (like a pin prick or rubbing on the arm). Record what the brain looks like when that's happening. THen show them a video of the same thing happening to another person.

In normal people, the same regions in the brain light up faintly. They're empathizing with the person in the video. In psychopaths, they don't.

It suggests there's a basic neurological function not present in sociopaths. THey can't put themselves in someone else's shoes.
>>
Wesley Dellerfuck - Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:09:32 EST ID:gFe9zdD6 No.195615 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195601
None of us is normal. A person having a bad day will also have less (or no) empathy for others. A person under acute or chronic stress will also be unable to empathize as well as someone who feels well about their life. Anxious and depressive disorders could also contribute, there are a million factors. Sociopathy is presented in black and white in this thread, and it is a billion shades of gray. "Normal people" have shades of sociopathy, and sociopaths have degrees of empathy, especially for family members and close friends.


Every living creature is a god by Whitey Blunnerwill - Wed, 06 Aug 2014 18:26:39 EST ID:9e/EoPTD No.195347 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407363999181.jpg -(222878 B, 1024x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 222878
DICKS EVERYWHERE
142 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Eliza Farryhurk - Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:48:27 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195604 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195602

your car example makes no sense

you don't have to drive a car but NOW YOU CAN, whereas before, you had one choice, not driving a car
>>
Oliver Darringsurk - Sun, 24 Aug 2014 06:56:01 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.195607 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195604
>you don't have to drive a car but NOW YOU CAN, whereas before, you had one choice, not driving a car
I don't really see how this post relates to my point. Can you explain?
>>
Priscilla Blenderpit - Sun, 24 Aug 2014 07:39:02 EST ID:2S3ZnYuQ No.195608 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195602
>I do personally do not find any validation in his idea that a mode of awareness can exhaust itself usefulness

I don't think he was talking about the modes of awareness per se, but how they interact with the world we live in, especially our emphasis on and at the same time ignorance about the limits of the mental mode.
I'll take your advice in mind anyway.
>>
Oliver Tootridge - Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:14:11 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195609 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195607

being able to drive a car, and live without a car, would be "more" than only being able to live without a car, i dont see how driving a car changes your "mode of perception" in a way that destroys other perspectives
>>
Fucking Blemmleson - Sun, 24 Aug 2014 23:43:09 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.195611 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195609
>being able to drive a car, and live without a car, would be "more" than only being able to live without a car, i dont see how driving a car changes your "mode of perception" in a way that destroys other perspectives
Well the phenomenon is much more complex than that. Driving a car, itself, does not quite create a new mode of perception. It rather creates the groundwork so that a new mode of awareness might proliferate. Like I said, it is the lack of awareness that is the real danger. Once the car became a common commodity, it created an entirely new way of life. Life moved away from the farms, from the towns, and into the cities. Not only could product be moved at rapid speed (we have the train to thank for that), but now people could be too. A man didn't have to work near to his home any longer. Cities expanded, and there was new room to grow. The roaring twenties would not have been possible without the demolishing of old sensibilites, established by the new mode of awareness. Now we have TV, radio, most recent of all the internet. We all move faster, disembodied, than ever and our behavior reflects that. Of course it couldn't have an effect on us any longer, but back then of course.


Why not to stop economic crises before they start? by Betsy Trotshit - Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:59:52 EST ID:eB1toxKQ No.195261 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406595592828.jpg -(45029 B, 960x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 45029
Why not to stop economic crises before they start? Like this:
>detect if the economic output falls significantly enough and act as soon as it does
>then, stimulate the sectors which have endured the highest output losses
>stimulate the sectors which are connected to the most losing (in terms of output) sectors to prevent the crisis from spreading
15 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hamilton Dartville - Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:45:30 EST ID:m6XZ0r81 No.195424 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195420
Then we should look for better solutions for everyone.
>>
Fucking Pickdale - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:49:03 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195537 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195422
>In other words crises' are inherent to the capitalist mode of production? Can't say I disagree.
Well, yeah. I dare say it's *still* better than the shortage-plagued command economy of the days of yore. I happen to live in a country that was subject to that one for 50 years. Capitalism is shit, but centrally planned economy was way more shit than that. It was quantum shit.
>And full employment to Keynesians is usually about 5% unemployment.
FULL EMPLOYMENT, AT ALL TIMES FOR ALL ABLE-BODIED PEOPLE, ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES.
And it's post-keynesianism. There's a difference.
>PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE point out where in my posts I was defending those policies, because I shure as fuck can't find it.
I, uh, I just said that you yourself noted how they were NOT benefactory, and then... You know what, nevermind, let's call it a misunderstanding.
>>
Faggy Nablingwork - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:21:57 EST ID:ANaFMr0N No.195538 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195537
>FULL EMPLOYMENT, AT ALL TIMES FOR ALL ABLE-BODIED PEOPLE, ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES.
What? Eliza is right, full employment is still a nonzero number. When people switch jobs, they're going to be unemployed for a time. When a business goes under, there's gonna be some unemployment. You need at least some unemployment for flexibility within the economy. Unemployment insurance lessens the human cost.

Long term unemplyment should be practically 0. Also, the 5% is for older methods of measuring unemplyment, which includes discouraged workers, and part time workers looking for full time work. The US BLS U-6 numbers are closest to that.
>>
Fucking Pickdale - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:00:25 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195539 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195538
Well, I did mean zero structural and cyclical unemployment, but not frictional unemployment. I didn't look at the figure, which does seem right now taht you mention it.
>>
Wesley Pimbledut - Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:41:29 EST ID:mS99whpg No.195544 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The market already takes into account future actions. The reason they wait before implementing measures sometimes, is that surprise can often be the only way to actually jolt the market in one direction or another. Alan Greenspan was famous for this tactic.


Agape by Sophie Fommersad - Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:38:07 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.195289 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406867887002.jpg -(15980 B, 400x242) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15980
Other than Works of Love the only other thing I've read on it has been the New Testament

Any work anyone can recommend on it?
11 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Molly Bricklekig - Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:33:04 EST ID:2S3ZnYuQ No.195513 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195510

Dude I understood very little from when you started talking about mimesis of acquisition..

I (well, the author) simply meant that you're already in communion with God, you just have to remember it.
>>
Nell Grandwater - Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:57:23 EST ID:x6vWzPXr No.195514 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Agape

;)
>>
Charles Tootworth - Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:10:54 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.195519 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195513
The part of the person not in communion with God unless that person wills it is the will. God may be transcendent and immanent with all being, including immanence with your being, but the person behind the eyeballs making the decisions is the self, and not God. This is why love is possible at all. Love is chosen by the subject which loves, not puppeted by God. If love were coerced by a puppetmaster, it wouldn't be love. Forgiveness wouldn't be forgiveness, mercy not mercy, justice not justice etc. Which is why being in communion with God requires acting according the will of God, ie loving others. The person who doesn't love their neighbor isn't in communion with God, even if they believe themselves to be.

>http://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/
>internet encyclopedia of philosophy - rene girard

Sorry about that. The link above is if you're interested
>>
Edward Pubblewater - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 06:02:41 EST ID:2S3ZnYuQ No.195530 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195519

Yeah I get what you mean. The problem is that the person being awful to their neighbors leads a life that might even make him forget that he has the chance to be with God.
The delusion this book wants to dispel, imho, is that God is never unreachable, no matter what you do.
It also outlines why not acting in accordance to God will lead you to misery, but instead of being a threat like in the Bible, it explains thoroughly and with a simple language why, it shows both paths and where they'd lead, if followed to the end.

That's why I said it's what the bible wished it could be: a book about choice and freedom, instead of a book of forced laws to follow for fear of the whims of an omnipotent psychopath (yes yes I know there are several interpretations of the bible too, including lost texts etc, but this is how they teach it, mostly)
>>
Hamilton Bardfoot - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:36:01 EST ID:DdEvRr05 No.195531 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195530
Gotcha. Haven't gotten it yet but its on my wishlist. I'm gonna try to finish up I and Thou first


what are you to make of this? by Simon Sublingstock - Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:38:27 EST ID:zyqC+BJP No.195478 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407785907282.jpg -(57631 B, 403x290) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57631
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM7-cNHOtlE&list=PL_K0QZBsNZgwnxMdhxIqoFz9JgpweGXZW


doonnoow if im postin it in right board but it sounded right


No subject by Phineas Blathercocke - Tue, 03 Jun 2014 03:40:52 EST ID:d6jykZoS No.194076 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1401781252608.jpg -(50114 B, 600x583) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 50114
Why is the word "Freedom" thrown around so much, yet rejected by most people and undermined by the ones who claim to uphold it?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Reuben Boblingduck - Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:09:39 EST ID:IGKMm2X9 No.194083 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194078

America.
>>
John Cubblestidging - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 05:44:54 EST ID:KHq6GlIc No.194106 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194083

>People

everyone falls into the life of making money to survive. It doesn't have to be that way but it works fine so there is no change.
>>
Lydia Greenson - Sat, 09 Aug 2014 17:57:03 EST ID:4Fh3/4Ya No.195426 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194106
not everyone. persons do because they have been indoctrinated.
>>
Molly Himblewater - Sat, 09 Aug 2014 18:52:14 EST ID:VhAoVa0O No.195427 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I simply dont like how it seems often limited by thoughts of what it is we want.
Freedom, in my mind, means to be limitless in meaning. And we have that in that...it seems anything is possible.

Of course, sometimes it means, you know, freedom to not be treated cruely by other people. Whips and whatnot.
>>
Molly Himblewater - Sat, 09 Aug 2014 18:53:38 EST ID:VhAoVa0O No.195428 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195427
Means was supposed to be seems**


Consciousness by Edward Chullyfurk - Sun, 27 Jul 2014 23:24:25 EST ID:B+QtvK1+ No.195249 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406517865789.jpg -(62854 B, 781x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 62854
There are laws conserving matter and energy:
matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form
energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form.
It rather escapes me the notion that consciousness can be created or destroyed.
Maybe when we die, our consciousness exists in a different form.
then again, we may be wrong about these laws of conservation.
What do you think?
24 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Rebecca Drubblespear - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 16:38:24 EST ID:tNGsFJID No.195329 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195324
so, the vessel that contains it?
that would mean that no consciousness is equal to one another, and that would make sense

would this mean we can't quantify it though?
>>
Eugene Harrymadging - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 18:52:04 EST ID:x6vWzPXr No.195330 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195328

>Water Disney

haha, I get it. Cause it looks like mickey mouse
>>
David Hingerkick - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:00:05 EST ID:EEdFczYN No.195331 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195329

What would you want to quantify?
>>
Ebenezer Blerrydane - Wed, 06 Aug 2014 11:16:46 EST ID:fRaj+9qF No.195346 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195311
Don't worry it does, as I said in the above post, I make no claim for or against the 'reality' of those phenomena, I don't believe nor disbelieve them. To have an open minded discussion it doesn't hurt to consider multiple perspectives at once.

Also I do not think I am mistaken about consciousness and wave form collapse. True, it is the act of observing that causes the change, BUT does it not stand that the act of observation arises from a conscious entity? What can observe that is not conscious?
>>
Sidney Honeystock - Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:25:24 EST ID:eB4+2hhb No.195405 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195346

>Also I do not think I am mistaken about consciousness and wave form collapse. True, it is the act of observing that causes the change, BUT does it not stand that the act of observation arises from a conscious entity? What can observe that is not conscious?

again, no, you are mistaken. the act of "observation" is merely the interaction between quantum particles and the devices we use to measure them. these particles are made up of tiny, tiny amounts of energy/mass and to detect them involves a device that absorbs some of that energy and/or alters their motions

it is not the presence of a conscious observer that causes wave function collapse


<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.