Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Playmate Seeking – Next Generation
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Playmate Seeking – Next Generation
Posted: 8/12/2017 10:15:11 PM
Yah, I figured that was all you had.


But you are going to have to explain by what you mean by the SJW Left, are you saying there is also a SJW right?


As opposed to anybody else who identifies as a leftist but wouldn't touch the social justice/identitarian politics with a ten foot pole.


There reply videos where right up there with tRump propaganda...


Yah, that's why thunderf00t got ***** slapped in the likes/dislike by his own community, the "skeptic comunity"? lol. And hemorrhaged subscribers over the matter.

Real time footage of Thunderf00t hemorrhaging subscribers after his spat with sargon >>> https://youtu.be/Jnh5j1JVMhE


...you should be embarrassed to think these people have valid opinions on anything.


I should be embarrassed! LOL! The only person you are fooling here is yourself pal. I wish I could laugh in you face right now.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Playmate Seeking – Next Generation
Posted: 8/12/2017 12:19:58 AM
Really? Thunderf00t (That dishonest ****tard) that's all you got? Well lets start with the thunderf00t thing then:

Thunderf00t is a dishonest ****tard (Sargon of Akkad Vs. Thunderf00t - watch the Sargon vid for thunderf00t dishonesty):

Thunderf00t: https://youtu.be/2tqXNHTxyIg >>> Likes: 16,261 Dislikes: 19,860

Sargond of Akkad: https://youtu.be/ztNYc2SE9Ts >>> Likes: 21,066 Dislikes: 1,872

Thunderf00t is a dishonest ****tard (Sargon of Akkad Vs. Thunderf00t - Round 2):

Sargon of Akkad: https://youtu.be/2z8Uw7PzTbQ >>> Likes: 30,133 Dislikes: 6,086

(I don't feel the need to post the thunderf00t vid because Sargon dismantles the entire thing is his vid, so that the entire Thunderf00t vid is contained within the Sargon vid)

Now lets move on to his dishonesty about Lauren Southern

Thunderf00t is a dishonest ****tard (Lauren Souther Vs. Thunderf00t)

This is the vid you posted:

Thunderf00t: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkA876B6TFY >>> Likes: 16,504 Dislikes: 16,346

And here is Lauren Southern completely dismantling his bull****:

https://youtu.be/Dh8H6tOQh10 Likes: 19,365 Dislikes: 5,852

You beginning to notice a pattern yet with the likes/dislikes?

Moving on to Milo

Just more dishonesty from the ****tard:

So to begin with, one of the central points in Thunderf00t's vid is the podcast with Joe Rogan where Milo is not giving up the names of those perpetrating acts of pedophilia that he claims to have close/personal knowledge of. The reason why he does not out these people is because he does not have any substantive evidence to back up his claims, only his personal subjective evidence, and if he where to name names he would immediately be sued for defamation of character.

Second. Do you even know the circumstances surrounding the Milo/pedophilia media controversy? Because if I go on the assumption that all you know about the subject is what thunderf00t has told you (and seeing as how thunderf00t seems to be your only source, I see no reason to suspect otherwise) then there is some pretty important stuff that your missing. luckily I can fill you in.

This is a much better analysis of the controversy than the one you gave from the dishonest ****tard.

TheOneTrueLib: https://youtu.be/Ag5gHZt4a0Q

Just so we understand the situation here MILO WAS A VICTIM OF PEDOPHILIA AND IS NOT A PEDOPHILE.

Further, I actually agree with Milo's stance on the issue that SOME "teenagers"/"children that have gone through the brunt of puberty" are capable of giving informed sexual consent. For instance, If I would have been proposition for sex in my early teens, by say one of my good looking female teachers, I would have been ****ing ecstatic, and in no way would consider myself to have been a victim of abuse. However such things happen to be illegal and I support the idea that they are. Now this does not mean that I want to have sex with young teen girls, in fact I find the idea repulsive. My interests lay with fully developed women if you'll forgive the pun. The thing here is that there are certain nuances with this subject that are more complex than they appear to be at first glance.

I guess Paul Joseph Watson is the final stop on this ridiculous crazy train, and I'll make it short.


He has made his name by going on conspiracy theory tirades about things like how Jay-Z is a major player in the Illuminati.


How in the crap does this have anything at all to do with enjoying watching the "SJW left" go down in a ball of flames? Ok, so you don't agree with some of the guy's conspiracy theories, and that is relevant how? Really how are any of the things you've posted on relevant to watching the SJW left go down in a ball of flames?

Dude stop getting your opinions from that dishonest ****tard, and in the future try digging into these matters a little further before posting such inane nonsense.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Playmate Seeking – Next Generation
Posted: 8/11/2017 7:05:54 PM
^^^ LOL

Watching the SJW left fall apart over the last few years has been quite entertaining. The resent thing with google was Orwellian. Support these YouTubers online and watch it burn.

Sargon of Akkad
Black Pigeon Speaks
Styxhexenhammer666
Stefan Molyneux
Tara McCarthy
Joe Rogan
Bill Burr
Milo
Christina Hoff Summers
Paul Joseph Watson
Lauren Southern
Ben Shapiro
Computing Forever
Gavin Mcinnes
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Possibilities of evolution
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:07:58 AM

Exclude if you must as crazy, so therefor have nothing valuable to contribute. Yet opinions belong to a me not an us!!!


Rationally speaking (according to the set of empirical rules that rationality functions by that is) the natural and the supernatural are mutually exclusive [for all of] us.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 162 (view)
 
Dark Matter and Mathematics ..
Posted: 6/14/2017 8:19:12 PM

It means the world is doomed unless a short person throws a gold ring into a volcano to save us. It was invented by the Nazis towards the end of WW2 for use by the panzerwraiths but it never made it into production before the war ended. It is derived from powdered goth.


I support the consumption of these alternative facts. I heard it was liquid goth however.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 78 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/22/2017 9:30:07 PM
I have a 10 post a day limit, left over from being banned for being an a$$hole to someone one time. They just never lifted the sanction on me. Whatever? I wrote this without realizing I had reached my limit. It's a little late but here it is anyway:



No that is not so.


Considering knowledge related to the ultimate nature of the universe, such is the case: nothing has been proven, and the only ideas related to it are various philosophies.

The nature of most of the information is that at some point someone can scientifically prove it.


Who is saying that "at some point" any of this stuff wont be proven? Just because we are not currently capable does not mean that at some point in the future we will not be able to prove or rule out these concepts. Are you at all familiar with the steps involved in the scientific method? Particularly the hypothesis step? Do you know that philosophy plays an integral roll in the scientific method? Take my earlier example of the atom for instance and the 2500 years that the concept spent as a philosophy before being proven.


These people are literally talking about things that can not be proven and as such it is pure speculation and an exercise in fantasy.


These people are supported and funded by the scientific community to perform the research you are referring to as pure fantasy.


Which is what these debates are, as they are basically charity events where people get together and have an interesting conversation about stuff and nothing more.


So what you are saying is that, this memorial debate, lovingly dedicated to the memory of one of our times great scientists and philosophers is nothing but one big joke? Interesting point of view; I do not share it however.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 77 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/22/2017 9:25:40 PM
I see that people just can't get past the nature of my first example - instead of arguing against my points/positions everybody just seems to be interested in focusing on my example - I wonder why... hummm...

I did mention that this example was low hanging fruit did I not. Since you guys seem insistent upon ignoring my arguments, lets see you digest this example then:

https://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM?list=FLOiyzn0Yi1UuMsXELa7tDSg
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 54 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/22/2017 4:03:21 AM

Seems by what you have offered.... you just want to argue about "what if".


It has nothing to do with "want[ing] to argue about 'what if'" (If you weren't so blinded by your desire to have an answer/be correct, you would be able to see that by what I have already written - hence my earlier remark about the futility of a conversation with a believer). The fact is that no answer is "currently known". But that is how science and philosophy work. Did you know that the first proposal for the concept of the atom was put forth more than two thousand five hundred years ago? So, according to your reasoning, the concept of the atom spent two and a half thousand years being nothing but a sci-fi fantasy. The truth of the matter is that knowledge is a progression forward until it is proven irrefutably.


Ok... you mentioned it credible that we "live" in a virtual world.


I said that it was a credible hypothesis, yes. One of many concerning the ultimate nature of the universe. In what way this is a point of contention is beyond me.


But rather than explain... you say go watch this 2 hour debate that is hypothetical and inconclusive...


And you, in your infinite wisdom, possess the answer I suppose?

Honestly, I couldn't care less whether you watch it or not. Your inability to avail yourself of the available information does not make me responsible for your continued ignorance, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. As far as I am concerned you need far more work with the things that we are currently discussing before that video would in any way benefit you at all.


Well, if frogs had pockets they would carry pistols and wouldn't be scared of snakes!
See?


Interesting, but totally irreverent.


How many top notch physicists do not entertain the simulation theory, off hand?


What relevance does this statement contain? How many scientist possess these scientist's specific skill sets, containing their specific knowledge, and are working in their particular subset of their field? How is this question at all relevant?


Go right ahead and think about backing up your claim.


The only claim that I have made is that these scientist are credible and by extension so is the hypothesis. The people funding their research speaks to their credibility. The fact that they are appearing on this prestigious panel speaks to their credibility. Their degrees speak to their credibility - quite literally actually, they are most definitely accredited. How is this a point of contention?


I say the moon is made of cheese, but rather than give data and facts to back that bs up...
you must go to the moon and find out yourself. Humph!


Once again, it is not my responsibility to waste my time in an attempt to alleviate your ignorance.

I'm getting quite board of the repetitive nature of this conversation now. You'd better step it up a notch, or you're going to loose me all together.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 52 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/22/2017 1:36:08 AM

Sci-fi memorial debate?


Asimov was a scientist, and a prolific writer about science fact, in addition to being a science fiction writer, hence the panel of heavy hitters like Max Tegmark - Much like Arthur C. Clark, who envisioned the global communications satellite/network. Asimov's ideas about robotics were revolutionary, despite them being fiction, and indeed greatly influenced the whole of society's perception about the subject. Not only this but he also coined the idea/concept of psycohistory, an idea that google is currently trying to prove to be true, or such is their stated goal. The memorial is to celibate bleeding edge science and philosophy that could one day be proven to be true. You seem to think that you can disprove something here? There is nothing to be disproved, because there are no claims being made to certainty, only philosophical conjecture about potential ideological roads to travel, which are backed by rigorous science, that could one day produce some kind of valuable/usable knowledge. In fact, the only claims of certainty seem to be coming from you, as, despite not even knowing what information the video contains, you will, regardless, "strike it down." *facepalm* Why would I care to deal with such idiocy?


Now you don't want to discuss it?
Weird.


I don't want to discuss it with you, because it is quite obvious to me that you have nothing of value to contribute to the conversation. The big one here being lack of knowledge and willful ignorance, and insisting that I must inform you. Your attitude and choice of words also make this quite clear to me. It is an obvious waste of time. Why don't you attempt to contribute something of value to the conversation first. Maybe then I'll think about it.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 50 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/21/2017 11:33:23 PM

I'm not watching 2 hours of science fiction, just to strike it down with logic in a few...


Interesting that you would equate a panel of physicists, mathematicians, and a philosopher, all with Phds, to a group of fiction writers.

The answer is no. Not interested in a conversation with someone who mistakenly BELIEVES that they have the answer. I try to steer clear of obvious dead end conversations with believers.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 47 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/21/2017 9:39:42 PM
^^^ such is the nature of most any of the the information we have now, which is precisely why there is currently no definitive answer.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 45 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/21/2017 9:02:46 PM
^^^ watch the video. Gates explains it better than I can.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 43 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/21/2017 8:54:55 PM

Those are people just guessing the color of the cat in the box.

There is no proof of anything here.


Well that is not true at all. Gates has found evidence to support the idea. Give it a watch instead of just prejudging it.


Though there is something other than delusional at play here, as most religious people are that way from a very young age, and at those times strong foundations can be built that are very hard to break for some.

So while their ideas and thoughts may be delusional, they themselves are just victims of brainwashing.

Which then you make great argument against religion, as clearly they are creating a group of people who think "factually incorrect" and as such religion like alcohol and tobacco and other dangerous things needs to be regulated, because it is clear and confirmed by you, they cause damage to people.


Agreed. Religion is a blight upon mankind.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Spinning light ?
Posted: 5/21/2017 8:47:59 PM
What it the number of lums you are attempting to output? What are you currently outputting?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 41 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/21/2017 8:35:26 PM

merely likely factually incorrect


MANY would qualify as delusional.

de·lu·sion·al
d?'lo?oZH(?)n?l/Submit
adjective
characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

I think that if we weren't so politically correct, or out numbered, we would have classified it as a mental disorder quite some time ago now. I'd look for it in the future. Probably not any time at all soon though. maybe a couple of hundred years or so - maybe less depending on the future progression of technology.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/21/2017 8:12:10 PM

No worries people will just take your word for it, as posting stuff to back up your claims is just silly.


Prof. James Gates

https://youtu.be/wgSZA3NPpBs

I like to think that I am pretty well known for my integrity around here, and I couldn't think of the name off the top of my head.

The watchmaker analogy refers to the agglomeration of complex natural systems, not to a program, which by the very nature of the word, requires a programer.


So it confirms your bias is what you are trying to say.


Wrong. It confirms that I am open-minded and do not pretend to have answers that do not currently exist.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/21/2017 8:00:00 PM

where you are despicable is calling all religious people as mentally ill...even though there is no adequate explanation for consciousness


This is conflation. It does not follow that, there being "no adequate explanation for consciousness," somehow validates any form of religion. Indeed, with all that we know, given the abundances of scientific and historical facts related to the subject of "religion", I would say that it is a fair bet to say that anyone who claims that they have "divine knowledge" of god is most probably delusional. If you disagree I would suggest that you either do some serious research into the science and history available, or do a serious check of your personal biases.

That is not to say that there is no god however. :)

There are several things that I can think of, off the top of my head, that could qualify as "god" if the philosophy behind them proved to be true.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 36 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/21/2017 7:34:14 PM

Most rational, logical people don't get so angry and obsessed with what a stranger, in another country has said, that they change their name.

The only reasons people believe in "gods" is because they've been told to believe, based on the perpetuation of earlier superstitions.
Just about everything in the "Old Testament", which had been attributed directly to the actions of this "god" have been discredited, or explained by science.

They believed that when the "earth shook" it was "god" being angry, whereas now, we know about earthquakes, and what causes them.
"Fire and brimstone" could be someone who saw a volcanic eruption.
"Plagues of locusts" still happen, and we now know why.
"The flood"?? Well about 11,000 years ago, the ice melted, and there were lots of floods.

These are just the folk-myths which emanated from actual events, exaggerated, (or not) during the "oral traditions" of storytelling, which preceded the written word. (About 8,000 years ago)

If you don't believe that random events are ever possible, then "god" must also be responsible for all the bad things that happen to "good people" too.
All the things attributed to "god", we now know we're just "naturally occurring events".
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a "creator".

We know how the earth, and all the other planets were formed, and when.
We know how life got started, and when.
We know about evolution, and when various stages of it happened. (Our ancestors shared a common ancestor with chimps, about 6million years ago. That explains a lot. )
Now confirmed by DNA analysis. Vindicating 'hypothetical predictions' made by Darwin, just 150 years ago.
(Now that man was a fvcking "god"!!)
Darwin "sat-on" his "theory" for almost 20 years, because he was afraid of the religious implications and their reactions.

But hey, because I've written this, and you disagree, that makes me a "liar", right??
It's obvious you've never had to debate or convince anyone of anything, in real life.

Your debating style is woefully inadequate.
You should spend the time you're wasting learning about the "Talmud", on learning something factual, instead of filling it with bronze-age superstitions.


All of that is very nice, except... it has nothing to do with what he actually said. Let me give you a for instance:

There are some credible contemporary scientists with some fairly credible hypotheses concerning the idea that the universe may be a simulation (I can cite one very good example if you like). Postulate: If the universe is a simulation then it must have a programmer. In such a scenario, a programmer would functionally be equivalent to "god."

This is just one of the most simplest of scenarios, from the several that I can easily conceive of, where something more than simply "nothing" must proceed the universe. Such that would qualify as "a mysterious force behind all this."
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/17/2017 7:33:17 PM

While everybody is pontificating on the issue of Evolution, I would like anybody here to explain how Life developed ex nihilo


Sure, right after you demonstrate that you know enough about the chemistry and physics involved to be able to understand the answer (demonstrating that you would even be open to an answer to your question would go a long way also). Otherwise, why on earth would I waste the time. What benefit do I gain from giving over the hours of my time that it would require, to write something to teach you, especially when I have major doubts that you would even be open to or capable of understanding the knowledge? And it is not ex nihilo; matter exists, and the physical behaviors of matter are demonstrable facts.


and when you can do that, explain why the creation of man was an evolutionary necessity.


Man is not an evolutionary necessity. But if we modify your statement to be reasonable, I've already explained a good chunk of the facts behind "how/why man DID evolve" - you know in that big long thing toward the beginning of this thread, that nobody read - All that work and nobody's interested; you see what I mean?


"Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists,"


Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. This is not something that is contested by the scientific community. We do not need to be able to synthesize life. This is in no way a prerequisite to evolution's status as being factual. Enough evidence in support of evolution already exists - an overwhelming amount in fact. The chemistry is simply an intellectual puzzle that has not been solved yet. The chemistry involved is mind bogglingly complex. But we are very close however. This sh!t isn't a Sunday stroll in the park man.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/17/2017 5:46:31 AM
I didn't say that you were asking for just my view? Only that what I posted is my view (I am included in "everyone" am I not?). Also I am aware that this thread is not about reincarnation.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Why is there human life on earth?
Posted: 5/16/2017 9:43:47 PM
I do not like to do the same work twice. Perhaps we could use this as a jumping off point, for any discussion involving me. Concerning the philosophical meat of your question, I would call your attention to paragraph "11". I would also recommend that you review the other comments I made in the thread that the following posts were taken from, for further perspective on my views on the nature of mankind (there are only a few other posts, and they are relatively small compared to this one. They are also all contained on the first page of the following thread):

https://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts16273486.aspx


basilisk123 wrote:

Cress, aren't you assuming that other sentient life would think like us?


The following post has been edited for clerical and conceptual errors (all the ones that I could easily spot anyway).


CressB wrote:

1. Yes and no. What I assume is that, as I have said before, the universe is really quite simple/functions according to a set of rather simple rules/laws, like: mathematics, gravity, entropy, electro/electro-weak, strong, conservation of energy, conservation of information, speed of light as a constant, cosmological constant (maybe), etc. Let's take this from a perspective of a material based universe - well, because at this stage in the evolution of our understanding of the universe we really have no choice - the antithesis of which may be to introduce the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, but I'll get to that shortly. For the moment lets say that life is limited to the material and that the perception or influence of any as of yet imperceivable elements of the universe are irrelevant or have no real or relevant consequential affect/baring on the development/outcome of life. Well, there are certain things that we know that intelligent/complex life must do: it must develop around a source of gravity because it is highly unlikely that complex life can form in the vacuum of space, hence a planet or planetoid is most likely required. It must perceive some fraction of the EM spectrum, in one way or another, in order to navigate, necessarily to perform work and at least understand its immediate place in the universe (ah, but you might say, snakes and bats are blind; well snakes are not actually blind; they perceive the infrared spectrum through their tongues, and while bats are truly blind they do have a medium of perception - sound - though I do not think that this method of perception would be inclusive of forming sentient life capable of understanding its place in the universe). Complex life would most likely have to consist of autonomous but highly similar individual, as opposed to an amorphous blob, in order to minimize risk; evolution is a long road. These individuals would necessarily need a way to communicate with one another. These individuals would necessarily need to be cooperative in order to maximize ultimate survival potential for a progression forward in knowledge.

2. Lets discuss the value of strong gravity in the evolution of complex sentient life first (this is actually my favorite evolutionary topics). The evolution of life, as we know it, is essentially a very slow chemical rebellion against gravity and an eventual mastery and or (ultimately) a conquering of it. So lets start off slow and with land/atmospheric based life, as in the entire evolution of life on this planet no known complex/sentient life capable of high productivity has ever been know to be marine based. Quadrupedal locomotion is a highly efficient/successful mode of transport. But what happens to a species that becomes overly successful through this means of transport? Lets take the rodent for example. Rats are highly successful quadrupeds, but in the rat we see some very interesting things happening. The rat has become so successful as a quadruped, that it has begun to experience down time - time while awake but inactive. And how does a species deal with such inactivity? They sit still alert and on guard but ready for action. Though locomotion is highly efficient through quadrupedal means, siting is very inefficient because of the angle it puts the spine at. With the rat we can see evolution beginning to address this inefficiency, as rats have begun to develop an up right or bipedal sitting posture. In the rat, and many other rodents - perhaps most prevalently among small rodents like the squirrel - we can also see another evolutionary side-effect of being highly successful. The beginning development of the opposable able thumb.

3. As has already been said, a highly successful species is one that has "down time". And what does one do with down time? Do they just sit? No. They begin to inspect their environment. They investigate/inspect intriguing/unknown elements of their environment that do not necessarily fall inside of their particular necessity for survival - like potential alternate food sources and shelter - this is one of the natural elements of the rat that makes it so successful. They paw things. They attempt to grasp things for closer visual inspection and better tactile inspection. While one is inactive (siting) if one can grasp an object one can then achieve two goals: rest and inspection, including not having to be on all fours for it to smell something (you see this a lot with rats: they will approach an object, grasp the object then fall back to their sitting position to inspect it, check their surroundings, then either eat or move on). This is the beginning of the development of a new tool with which to accomplish high manipulation of the environment. It begins with articulated wrists and grasping with both hands, and moves on from there to better digital manipulation.

4. From here we move up a notch in the evolution of species to the marsupials. Here we find a highly developed highly articulated set of clamping tools, highly developed for extreme manipulation of the environment (some scientists say the greatest tool ever conceived). Also we see a further development of the hind extremities better suited for movement in a vertical spine position, or resting position. And as we know by study, the vast majority of these animals have A LOT of down time.

5. From here we can continue to move up the line of this evolutionary trend, primates, sapiens, where the rest position and the ability to manipulate the environment is continued to be further maximized.

6. Along with the maximization of these two traits also comes curiosity and a further development of the pattern recognition faculties of the brain (e.g. Rats use about 5% of their brain function to focus on higher thought, such as problem solving, and about 95% to focus on motor skills; with humans it is about the opposite). And further maximization of these traits also allows for further maximization of said traits (if success is proportionally linked to these two traits then further maximization of said traits will lead to further/greater ability to maximize said traits which leads to exponential growth of maximization.

7. So here is my question to you. Given that gravity is a universal, inescapable, fundamental element of the universe, can complex sentient life evolve any other way? Well let's look at some potentials:

8. Let's go back to marine life for a moment. The smartest thing that we know of to ever be produced in the oceans is the octopus. The octopus has a very high functioning set of problem solving faculties. They exhibit very decent social skills. And they have good vision. The problem though Is that they were never able to develop the ability to manipulate their environment to a high degree. The gravity is to low, in their environment, to ever have developed such a thing, thus the system that could have produced exponential growth has broken down. Curiosity has become stunted because extreme manipulation is not possible to develop in that environment.

9. What about molecules based on an element other than carbon? Well the the other element that we know of that we think would be suitable for life (silicon) has a few engineering problems: such as: silicon bonds are quite a bit more strong than carbon bonds, which means that you have less decomposition over time of compounds. Now initially this may sound like a good thing but it is actually a bad thing. Less decomposition means less mutation. Less ability to mutate to the natural processes that occur in a given environment (which only occur at one speed: the speed set by natural law) is very bad thing. So we don't think that abiogenesis is possible with silicon. However synthetic life is a great possibility.

10. What about a right handed form of the DNA molecule, or a molecule with four base pairs rather than two, or 256 base pairs? well, a molecule being left or right handed does not exempt it from the law of gravity. So mint tastes like caraway, I don't see how this could be game changing enough to produce anything different than we have already observed with life. As far as more base pairs goes, as far as we know, the universe trends toward simplicity, and while more base pairs are a possibility it is far more unlikely to occur in nature. However, there is an element of the scientific community called synthetic biology to which the scientists involved are attempting to create synthetic life with more base pairs.

11. Perhaps the only real purpose of naturally evolving life is to create an immortal form (or at least far more durable than we are) of synthetic life that is vastly more capable of conceptualizing the nature of the universe. Perhaps we are not as natural as we suppose we are and the universe is just an incubator designed to create intelligence, first in a rudimentary or natural form, then in a more complex form through synthesis via the initial rudimentary form (for what ultimate purpose however I cannot say).

12. Lets take a look at Titan. Many scientists are interested in Titan because of the dense cloud, largely composed of tholin (a fundamental chemical component thought, by current scientific consensus, to be necessary in the natural formation of DNA/carbon based life). But there is a problem here; titan is to cold. It is important to have the right amount of energy in the system: to little energy and things can't get started or if they do get started they proceed to slowly to really achieve anything; to much energy and things become two unstable. Which is why earth is often referred to as being in the Goldilocks zone: just right!

13. So, once again I ask you: given all of the above, is it possible for complex sentient life to have evolved any other way?

14. Let's move on to dark energy and dark matter.

15. We are going to skip over dark energy because very little is known about it and it is the current scientific consensus that dark energy is more than Likely Einstein's cosmological constant,

16. Dark matter on the other hand is very interesting. Is there a spectrum of matter, each one in the spectrum imperceivable by the others in the spectrum? We know that the relationship of matter to dark matter in the universe is about 5 to 1. Could there be 5 other universes with different spins on matter stuffed into our same universe? Or is this just the final/most numerous form of material that populates the universe? In the former case it is conceivable that other life may exist according to an almost entirely different set of rules, except three: it must still exist in space, it most still exist in time and it will still be subject to gravity.

17. If this is the case, could this potential form of life really be that much of a departure from what we know?

18. If it is just another material particle, or series of particles, I think that it is unlikely to have anything to do with being able to support another form of life. But then I could be wrong.

19. So, the ball is back in your court. What is you perspective on what I have detailed here?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 93 (view)
 
Reincarnation - Have you ever felt like you've known/met someone before?
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:33:38 PM
^^^ If not sooner.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 92 (view)
 
Reincarnation - Have you ever felt like you've known/met someone before?
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:13:58 PM
Ah! So much enthusiastic activity! Fantastic! It'll take me some time to respond. I work a lot these days. Know that I do plan to respond though, perhaps over the weekend. :)
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 85 (view)
 
Reincarnation - Have you ever felt like you've known/met someone before?
Posted: 5/15/2017 5:49:08 PM

Lyin Mad Dog Jovan is an antitheist... he does not only reject God but he believes everybody else should reject God too.


antitheist is "against 'belief' in god," not "against god".

I am an antitheist and an agnostic (agnostic: meaning that I reject the idea that belief is a valid form of rational thought). However, strictly philosophically speaking, the god concept is an acceptable philosophical position until it is ruled out, just like many other philosophical positions that are valid regardless of the status of any missing proofs. Take nearly any contemporary multiverse hypothesis for example: all still valid philosophies. This is also not to say that an entirely rational god hypothesis would resembles anything close to the abrahamic religions, however, "Philosophy" must contain abrahamic religions unless they can be ruled out as a possibility via reason and proof, which, given their subjective nature (the idea of divine knowledge) would be quite a feet. The recent experiments using brain scans to measure "the religious experiences" is a very hopeful step in the right direction I think though.

In other word: denying the validity of the nature of philosophy would entirely break the scientific method; specifically, we would have to get rid of the hypothesis step entirely.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Spinning light ?
Posted: 5/15/2017 4:33:06 PM
{edit>>> "luminosity should decrease proportionally as cycle time increases"

Should be: luminosity should decrease proportionally as cycle time "decreases"

In other words: as rps increase. Sorry my bad.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Spinning light ?
Posted: 5/14/2017 10:45:47 PM

much like a film projection at 24 fps


Film does not use a strobing light source. The source is a continual projection upon a single surface, the strobing effect from film is due to obstructions ("film") that are placed in front of the source's continuous/immobile beam. So, unless obstructed by film, the beam is always at 100%. With digital it is only very slightly different but basically the same.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Spinning light ?
Posted: 5/14/2017 9:59:33 PM
The loss of lumens you are experiencing is caused by the intermittency of your source upon your surface: less time spent focused on your surface means less photons transmitted by that surface. It shouldn't matter what your cycle time is as, with any cycle of significant speed, luminosity should decrease proportionally as cycle time increases, hence, the reason for your steady 60%. This is caused by the amount of time that your source spends being obscured. 40% of the light from your source, at any given time, is being obscured - relative to the light being continually pointed at one spot on your surface, which would give you 100% luminosity at distance x. At such low speeds, such as those used in your experiment, such are the results. At relativistic speeds, however, your experiment would have different results, seeing as how Newtonian physics does not hold at such speeds.

"In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's original pedagogical treatment, it is based on two postulates:
The laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference).
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
It was originally proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1] The inconsistency of Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism and the lack of experimental confirmation for a hypothesized luminiferous aether led to the development of special relativity, which corrects mechanics to handle situations involving motions at a significant fraction of the speed of light (known as relativistic velocities). As of today, special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed. Even so, the Newtonian mechanics model is still useful (due to its simplicity and high accuracy) as an approximation at small velocities relative to the speed of light."

You would need to run your experiment in accordance with the mathematics involved in Einsteins special relativity, to see what differences your experiment would spit out at relativistic speeds.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 25 (view)
 
yes man!!!
Posted: 4/16/2017 9:42:48 PM
^^^

Oops forgot the link:

https://youtu.be/wgSZA3NPpBs
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 24 (view)
 
yes man!!!
Posted: 4/16/2017 6:08:30 PM

Also...when I think about how some things work in this realm, I think that if everything indeed were an actively sustained simulation from another realm in the way that we conventionally think of something being a simulation, then what's going on at the quantum level is exactly what we'd find if this were true? No?


Here, one of the speaker talks about the possibility of something that looks a lot like computer code that has been found at the quantum level. If I remember correctly the particular speaker's name is Prof. James Gates.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 23 (view)
 
yes man!!!
Posted: 4/16/2017 5:45:12 PM
^^^ If there is a universal quantum consciousness, what if they are making a machine that is tapping into our base consciousness stream? That's kind'a scary. Are they collapsing universes in on one another as they use this thing. Could explain Mandela effect. Or could it be used to manipulate the collective perception of reality?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 21 (view)
 
yes man!!!
Posted: 4/13/2017 6:41:47 PM

...at the quantum level, time kinda sorta doesn't exist - I think that's the deal.


Have you ever heard of the idea of quantum immortality? There was a show on Netflix (Netflix original) recently that touches on the idea. The show was called "OA". I really enjoyed this series. The concept itself is very interesting as well, if we take our philosophical Qs from the many worlds interpretation and other multiverse philosophies that have cropped up in its wake.

Check out this twenty minute lecture on D-wave computers... WOW!

https://youtu.be/PqN_2jDVbOU
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 17 (view)
 
nihilism
Posted: 4/11/2017 10:44:05 PM

I am that wizard, and psychedelics are my magic wand, I could conjure up anything by mere thought.


*Somewhere a door has been opens* "welcome to the party pal."

!!!BREAKING NEWS!!!: https://youtu.be/EBl8b3x-EJw


I don't know actually, specifically anyway, besides an accumulation of knowledge, perhaps I could use it later, perhaps just in conversation or maybe for nothing.


I am not condemning the knowledge, on the contrary, I find the subject quite fascinating, but I am a bit confused as to why you have brought it up. As I have told you before "I am a simple man, who prefers simple conversation absent allusion."
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 15 (view)
 
nihilism
Posted: 4/11/2017 9:54:42 PM

"if then you do not make yourself equal to god, you cannot apprehend god, for like is known by like, leap clear from all that is corporeal, and make yourself to a like expanse with that greatness which is beyond all measure, rise above all time and become eternal, then you will apprehend god, think that for you too nothing is impossible, deem that you too are immortal, and that you are to grasp all things in your thought, to know every craft, and every science, find your home in the haunts of every living creature, make yourself higher than all heights and lower than all depths, bring together in yourself all opposites of quality, heat and cold, dryness and fluidity, think that you are everywhere at once, on land, at sea, in heaven, think that you are not yet begotten, that you are in the womb, that you are young, that you are old, that you have died, that you in the world beyond the grave, grasp in your thought all this at once all times and places, all substances, and qualities, and magnitudes together, then you can apprehend god, but if you shut up your soul in your body and abase yourself and say, I know nothing, I can do nothing, I am afraid of earth and sea, I cannot mount to heaven, I know not what I was, nor what I shall be, then what have you to do with god?


A fine sentiment. But what happens when we replace the ancient esoterism, and heavy handed poetics, with modern sensibilities and the attempt at rigorous knowledge. The eastern Tao makes many of the same observations across, what was at the time, a vast cultural divide. Currently such ideas are most fully embodied (in terms of "sensibility and rigor") by the a small but growing field of science surrounding the concept of "quantum consciousness". If you have not already looked into it, check out the works of Pinrose and Hameroff in regard to quantum consciousness -- also check into something called "the global consciousness project".

A good place to start with Hameroff: https://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM?list=FLOiyzn0Yi1UuMsXELa7tDSg

Start here for "the global consciousness project": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQXoMI130KY

If you already know of these works, I would ask "what is the point of sighting these ancient esoteric verses", but then I would ask this question regardless.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 14 (view)
 
nihilism
Posted: 4/11/2017 9:03:14 PM
LOL! wholly crap! Did the kid go to visit the wizard and return to us with a brain?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:24:39 PM
https://youtu.be/qkW2GmFOSOE?list=FLOiyzn0Yi1UuMsXELa7tDSg

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 140 (view)
 
With the insignificance of humans, does it make you happy or sad?
Posted: 2/23/2017 7:32:03 AM

Just saw Brand's opener (can't watch all right now). His POV is incorrect that "science" or evidence-driven people, needs Proof to believe in anything.


Watch the whole thing (because that is not exactly what Brand is saying). It gets supper deep towards the end.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/22/2017 3:33:22 PM
Yah, I got her august of 2014. She was about one and a half last time I had seen her. I love her more than anything in the world, but with all the things she's been through it is rough some times. We're working hard on it though. Thanks for the sympathetic ear, you must be a bartender hunh? ;)
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/22/2017 5:31:57 AM

You got custody though, so karma and justice won in the end.



...story about your ex, which is still tempting me to loose my dinner, what a terrible thing for her to do.


Oh, that's not the worst of it. Sh!t got so ridiculous that I had to cut ties with her and my daughter for four years, out of fear of potentially ending up in jail (that's the part that feels like somebody reaches into my chest and squeezes my heart until it is nothing but a bloodless prune every time I think about it - I lost four years of my daughter's life! - and that is not the worst part of that either). If I told you some of the stories about what my daughter went through during that time, that sh!t would curl your toes - stuff I didn't even know had the potential to be happening. When I finally found out I rescued my daughter and her mother went to jail. That four years for me was ruff, I have always been a person of meager financial means, and my life was basically completely destroyed by $300 a month child support payments. I lost two other separate relationships during that time largely due to financial problems, and basically was just left with nothing.

So yah, that right thar. *Shakes his head* I'm actually considering taking a nice relaxing vacation in hell coming up latter this year.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 31 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/21/2017 6:59:53 PM
^^^ but with the power through legal and social means that women have to just potentially completely and utterly destroy a man's life, its has become a risk that any sane man would be a fool not to be extremely concerned about/weary of and quite frankly afraid of. How can you start in love with the concern about whether or not this relationship will leave you financially destitute or potentially in jail, just on the wims of someone that it may take you years to learn the truth about. The risks are insane!
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/21/2017 6:20:12 PM

Samsonite luggage/baggage comment?


That did not insult me at all. The things that miffed me are the comments I quoted from her in messages 18 and 19. In msg 19 I thought that I broke it down pretty well why I was insulted. In msg 18 I did not brake it down, but it was an attitude that women are the only ones that go through such things and are just helpless victims without any part to play in how things ended up that way. THAT offends me.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Real or Fake ?
Posted: 2/21/2017 5:50:42 PM
^^^ Post links so people don't have to go digging for stuff... please/thankyou.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/21/2017 5:33:21 PM

But I won't insult you by suggesting that you don't understand confirmation bias, like you did with me concerning the MGTOW movement.


Yet still nobody's addressed the fact (honestly or sensitively) that I was insulted? This thread's got me in a snarky mood so perhaps you'll forgive me then.


a few bad people


That's the problem, it's not just "a few bad people". I myself was accused of rape and molestation of my daughter by my daughter's mother just for sheer revenge because our relationship didn't go the way she thought that it should (problems with monogamy on her end) and that was shortly after we broke up. She also accused me of punching her in the stomach while she was pregnant and threatening to kill her and myself to with my AK-47. She even got a restraining order under these false pretenses (without a shred of any kind of substantiation) and I actually ended up loosing my .45 smith & Wesson to a pawn shop because they wouldn't let me get it out of pawn because of the restraining order. Not to mention the numerous other problems I've had concerning dishonesty, insensitivity, double standards, and an attitude of entitlement with many other women.

So your idea that this it just a few bad people just falls flat on the floor for me in the face of what I've seen/been through so far.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/21/2017 4:37:33 PM

The MGTOW movement is a bit of a mystery to me, even here in the US, where I understand our culture.


Wiki is a magical thing:


MGTOW use the word "gynocentric" to describe conditions that favor women to the detriment of men, and are opposed to such circumstances. MGTOW believe there is a systemic gynocentric bias against men with some examples being double standards in gender roles, bias against men in family courts, the lack of concern for men falsely accused of rape and lack of consequences for their accusers.

Views on heterosexual relationships

According to columnist Martin Daubney, members of the MGTOW community believe that legal and romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis. Jeremy Nicholson writing for Psychology Today similarly described MGTOW as men frustrated with the lack of incentives to date who choose to opt out of dating and focus on taking care of themselves. Kay Hymowitz has stated that some self-identified MGTOW express discontent because they see women as hypergamous and manipulative. Business Insider reporter Dylan Love wrote a "fully-realized MGTOW (there are levels to it) is someone who shuns all relationships with women, short-term, long-term, romantic, and otherwise. He eventually shuns society as a whole." Some MGTOW have many short-term relationships or engage in sex with prostitutes. Celibacy, however, is also an option. A MGTOW that chooses celibacy over relationships is said to be "going monk" and some embrace maintaining their virginity.


It's about rampant double standards, dishonesty, prejudice. Like how Jewelsn can get away with making the bigoted remarks that she did and play it off as a joke, but if I had made similar remarks I would then be a chauvinist pig.

It's basically a backlash against rampant disrespect and insensitivity toward men among women who seem to feel that they are entitled to some kind of special treatment.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/21/2017 11:45:09 AM

NOW, BACK ON TOPIC.


Everything I have been saying has been exactly on topic with the subject of this thread. You just have either not been paying attention, have not properly understood the material I have been giving you, do not properly understand the subject, or a combination of the above. What is going on in this thread right now is exactly symptomatic of why men are deciding to GTOW.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 138 (view)
 
With the insignificance of humans, does it make you happy or sad?
Posted: 2/21/2017 10:52:57 AM
I'm banned from making threads, but I found this amazing conversation between Joe Rogan and Russell Brand on YouTube that ties in heavily with the spirit of this thread, a lot of things I discussed in msg 9 on the first page of this thread and the few shorter messages that proceeded it, and just a lot of things that are constantly brought up in general in this forum.

So, thought I'd post it here and see if anyone's got an interesting opinion about it/anything to add.

https://youtu.be/xh6V8xigZc4
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/21/2017 1:29:12 AM

Okay. You got offended by my Samsonite joke. I get it now.


Really? that is what you took away from our exchange? How sad.


And, no, I won't be dealing with that smarmy movie any longer. Just for the record.


Lady, you could go dance the hully gully for as much as it would bother me.


Someone seems upset that others didn't like the one movie, and that wasn't even what this thread was about!


[sarcasm]Yes I am offended because you don't like my special movie, and not because the things you said were actually offensive to me.[/sarcasm] you keep selling yourself that lie (just shift the blame on to me - for as thinly veiled as that attempt was, it's no skin off my back) rather than acknowledge the truth, and movie past it/grow as a human being.

I guess that's the end of this conversation. What a pity.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Has anyone else gotten fed up with the New Age twists and gurus?
Posted: 2/20/2017 4:51:16 PM
^^^ lol. Only if you rename to mesmerizethesunwithmyeyes. :)
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/19/2017 12:07:43 PM

Maybe that's what the movie was- a veiled reverie of how it 'used' to be, from a male perspective. Tear open the old wound, remind men of what they feel they've lost; make them hate women even more, now, that they've got to do some changing just to restore the balance THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN LOST between us.


This comment seems unbelievably arrogant, misdirected and bigotous to me, playing largely on long dead stereotypes. I was born after the women's lib movement had it's greatest successes. I've never known a world where (in my eyes) men and women have not been equals, and I have also never known of any bigotry toward women to be any kind of a serious thing among my male peers (not to say that I have not seen it in any older men - but MUCH older however).

So tell me, how is it that the things that Theodore Trumbly ("Her" Lead male character) goes through/experiences all of a sudden go from being about the human condition (male and female alike) to being a chauvinist ruse? Are you saying that the kind of attention that Samantha gives to Theodore is not something that would be desired by a women from a man? And if that is the case (which I am doubtful that it is) doesn't this then become about "men's needs" - by extension of that how does it then become chauvinistic in nature?

Are you sure that you don't have some deep emotional scars of your own?

That was the only other thing that I felt the need to respond to.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/19/2017 5:52:20 AM

we'd have precisely what many women in traditional relationships have repeatedly experienced. Emotionally while still in the actual marriage; then, physically once the divorce left them and the children almost destitute.


I am a single dad with full custody of my eight-year-old daughter by the way. Felt the need to respond to that one immediately.

And the reason that I didn't respond to your Matrix question is because the idea that there are people out there that would be in a position to be posting on this site but have not seen that movie seems absurd to me: of course I have seen the matrix, Yes I know of the part you are talking about, but what is your point about it, and how is that point relevant to the topic at hand.

Your assessment of what philosophical content the movie "her" contains seems WAY OFF to me. Maybe you should just break down and watch it instead of trying to garner impressions of it from other people's opinions of it.

Will probably respond to some of your other points later.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Herbivore Men...Japanese MGTOW?
Posted: 2/19/2017 4:47:50 AM
It seemed fitting given the subject currently under discussion, and the reference to Allen Watts in "Her".

https://youtu.be/yj4Yfdg4Nfw
 
Show ALL Forums