SRPP: Free Will Debunk

So let's say I'm having a conversation with my friend.
I offer him two choices.
The first choice:
100$
The second choice:
1000$
Now, I clearly know he's gonna pick the 1000$.
Am I violating his free will to chose even though I know which one he'll choose?
Let's discuss. Thank you.

To which, I reply:

I don't consider his choice to have been free will. Nor do I consider any choice to be as such.

"The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." 

I consider all choices to be 'at one's own discretion', but I consider acting without constraint of fate is physically impossible? 

How is it physically impossible to have free will? 

It's physically impossible for you to bend your elbow backwards without experiencing pain, assuming your nervous system is functioning normally, and your musculatory system is functioning normally. You can't bend it backwards in the first place because your joints are not connected in a way that allows that. Or if you break the joint, you will experience pain. 

This is a choice that is impossible for you to make. 

You can't choose to grow wings. 

This is a choice that is impossible for you to make. 

Why? Our conscious brain does not control the allocation of proteins in our body. We do not control our heartbeats. 

If you look at your brain as 'the entity that controls you', rather than 'something you control', then free will is impossible. 

It is impossible to say that your brain is something you control, because your thoughts are processed in your brain before you are made conscious of them... by your brain. Google for 'neuroscience fate determinism' and you might come up with articles explaining that. Predicting people's choices 5 seconds before they make them. 

How do I explain myself typing words, as a scenario where my brain is controlling me and not a scenario where I am controlling my brain? Well clearly I am coming up with words to type, right? And to type them, I'm telling my brain to move my fingers, right? 

Think about it sequentially, what happens in order for me to type? Well first, I have to have a desire to type. Where does the desire come from? Before that, I have to observe something that makes me want to reply with a message. What makes me observe things? My eyes, wherever they happen to be looking. Erm... I could keep doing that for a while. Let's look at it this way. Starting with the observation of a message I want to reply to. The observation is an input. It inputs sentences into my brain that I/it can understand. My brain then processes an action it wants to take. That is what my brain does before it makes me perceive the conscious thought of "I want to type a reply". This conscious thought is also something my brain observes in return. It observes its own output. Output becomes input. "I want to type a reply" is now sent to my brain. My brain interprets this and comes up with a reply to make. Every word I am typing now was pieced together by my brain, before I even typed it. The way I am explaining the lack of my own free will is based off of memory that already existed in my brain, about knowledge that exists in my brain, and how my brain sorts that data. I type with fairly good grammar, because that is what is ingrained in my brain. Not because I am choosing to. I explain this scenario with the words and sentence structure I do because that is what is ingrained in my brain. Not because I am choosing to. 

I did not choose to make this reply. The act of making a reply is what is ingrained in my brain as response to the specific stimuli. My brain nearly forwarded this action as a conscious thought to myself that says, "I want to type a reply". The act of a brain making itself conscious of its own thoughts is one that can very easily fool those whose brains do not have deep critical thinking ingrained in themselves. This is why it's regarded as an illusion. 

It is impossible to think before your brain processes the thought. 

So when I say my brain controls me, what is defined as "me" given this context? "I" am simply a descriptive word that my brain associates with the personality, idiosyncracies, disposition, tendencies, memory, knowledge, and habits that are ingrained into the very same brain. 

"I" am simply a collection of data. 

I would always pick $1000, assuming there are no adverse consequences, because that my brain is ingrained with ideals of being efficient, opportunistic, bettering itself, etc. There's no way I would just choose a smaller amount unless you add extra stipulations, like "Either you or your brother gets one amount or the other amount of money". And in that scenario, there is no way I could end up choosing one scenario over the other. 

There's another way free will is physically impossible. It's physically impossible because time travel, and theoretical merging/splicing of theoretical alternate timelines is impossible. Let's say I have to choose: Left or Right. Free will says I can choose either one. Determinism says I can only possibly choose one. Well. Think of time like matter. Matter cannot occupy the same area as other matter. Similarly, time cannot "occupy" other time. You cannot possibly choose both left and right at the same time. You can choose left at one point in time, and then choose right at another point in time. But it is impossible for you to choose left, travel back in time before you chose left, then choose right "instead of" left. Free will is a misnomer of itself. Free will is only possible with time travel. Determinism says you can choose left, then choose right. Determinism does not say you can be doing two different things at the same point in time. 

It is a hard concept to realize that for free will to be posssible, you'd have to be able to allocate yourself to doing two different things at the same time, or to time travel and undo a choice such as to do the other choice. 

It is not a hard concept to believe you are controlling your brain. This is why people easily believe in free will. But even then, your brain controls you. 

I can still agree with one part of the definition of free will - "the ability to act at one's own discretion". This is possible with determinism. As with my "Brain controls you" example, one's own discretion would be defined as the tendencies/habits/patterns already ingrained in one's brain.
 

SRPP: Agnostic

So I met a person who is an atheist, but not an agnostic, and very strongly against being titled as an agnostic. Basically he's a gnostic atheist, but it took me a while to clear up what both of us were saying.

In the end I came to an interesting conclusion.

User: To be honest I made a bad example. However simply because you can't disprove something isn't compelling evidence to believe it.

Me: But agnostics don't believe god exists.

User: Right but the don't not believe it either. Which in this case I don't believe any of it. I don't believe there is any god at all.

Me: It is possible for an agnostic to also believe that deities will never be proven to exist.

But then he's like, a gnostic agnostic atheist, because he's making the claim that he knows that god can never be proven or disproven to exist. Which, if god were to show itself, would disprove them.

So it seems my best bet is to be an agnostic agnostic atheist, who says existence of deities currently is not proven nor disproven, and we do not currently have a way to prove or disprove it, but I don't know if that could change in the future or not.

SRPP: [Religion] Do you value Premarital Sex?

 *This was written just today, as opposed to all of the SRPP posts which are actually from years ago.

nV Shoxie: I believe in sex after marriage, I've been raised in a christian environment with values.How about you?

I believe it's possible to have sex after marriage AND before marriage.

In-fact... I can only imagine someone not being able to have sex at any time if they lack the specific organs to do so.

 ... What's the point of you explaining that instead of whether or not you value it. And how does this thread even pertain to religion at all?

I believe in sex regardless of marriage. I've been raised in an environment with values. How about you?
________________________________________________________________

Anyway, I do not value marital status. Marital status to me is only a legal status you agree to enter with someone to obtain benefits. You only do this with someone you love enough to trust (or trust enough to love?). But in any case, marriage is only a concept that exists because of a made-up culture and it is meaningless symbolism.

The only things I value are love, sincerity, integrity, etc. These encompass emotions that exist in humans regardless of our routine or 'culture' in regards to how we organize reproduction of our species. They exist because that is how we are biologically. The reason I actually value these are because they are something you can actually feel, something a bit more than just a shared title you entered for benefits. Beyond that, I think it is asinine to say you have to be married to be committed to another. Even before you're married, you're already in love and committed (hopefully).

This is also why I think Valentines day on its surface is pointless. You shouldn't wait for only a single day out of the year to be really loving towards your significant other, or only wait for a single day to do something really special for your other. Nor is it even really strategic to always do something "special" on the same predictable day.

Of course, in the end, marriage and VDay are only good because of culture and spread beliefs that will cause any couple to experience emotional highs around those situations which will draw out those people who don't think about just being loving all the time / at random.

I actually don't like "Holiday entitlement imprinting" at all, including birthdays. During Christmas and near your birthday, most people become expectant that they will get something or deserve to be given gifts. A lot of people I know literally go around asking strangers for stuff. Holidays shouldn't be an excuse to become a beggar, especially considering those who don't live such privileged lives such that they can even become expectant of obtaining gifts. I don't like how some people only seem to show thanks and admiration of life near Thanksgiving. The Vday scenario is even worse when I hear about people who are like that.

While I consider marriage completely non-sequitir in comparison to what point in a couple's life they have sex, here is a list of what I think are very very very important to consider before having sex.
1. Do you know each other's medical history.
2. Have you agreed on birth control or the responsibility of taking care of a child.
3. Have you assessed your financial ability to take care of a child if you chose that.
4. If you plan on having a child, are you really in love?
5. If you think you're in love, do you understand the expectancy for how long love lasts, and do you think it will last or that you can deal with divorcing at some point in a civil manner?
6. If you're planning on birth control, depending on your personalities, "true" love might not matter. But medical history still does.
7. (For me personally) I would only consider it with someone I plan to live with for the rest of my life [barring any unexpected divorcing].

SRPP: Inhuman concepts are impossible

A lot of people will look at something like the holocaust as inhuman. Against human nature, which some claim is for humans to be moral.

People will say that torture is inhuman, or slavery.

In stories, demons and monsters and mythical creatures are often called inhuman because they cause pain in various forms and lack remorse of any form.

The way I see it, being a dick is part of being human. You can't say something is inhuman when a human is fully capable of doing it. Humans are capable of causing pain and misery, that doesn't make them inhuman.

Demons and monsters only inhuman in that they are not physically human. It is impossible to say that something is mentally inhuman, that a concept is inhuman, because we are sentient, sapient, and self-aware. We define what human is, anything a human defines can only be human.

SRPP: My view on pro-choice

Sperm is nearly limitless as we constantly regenerate it.

But don't women have a limited amount of eggs? (Like a 100 lol, as if they're ever gonna run out).

Something that is not yet cognizant nor has not observed anything and has no memories, is insignificant. It does not matter to argue that you are depriving the future of said entity because you cannot assume whether or not that entity's life will have been happy or not in the future. I mean sure, you could look at genetics and the social environment it will be born into to gauge the psychological conditions the entity will be subject to, but there are too many unknown and difficult to track variables for one to truly know how it will turn out (even though given limitless resources, you could tell).

From the point of view that non-aware life is insignificant, it does not matter how many bugs, sperm, eggs, fetuses, etc you disrupt the life of and degenerate into simply a mass of carbon and other molecules. A mass of carbon is no better than a rock. And the only difference between a bug and a rock is that one is sentient. Otherwise, the bug is not cognizant. The rock is also not cognizant, nor a fetus, nor sperm, nor yellow slime molds. Sentience alone does not make for significant life forms. It is cognizance that defines humans. Some life forms don't even show signs of sentience.

Note: I am interpreting sentience as the ability to feel, taste, smell, see, hear. Not awareness, not the ability to make perceptions, only the ability to sense physical phenomena. Cognizance being the ability to gain knowledge; make subjective perceptions based on your senses; retain memory; act upon memory; etc.

The only thing logically in favor of being strictly anti-abortion for fetuses is if we happen to be suffering underpopulation and are nearing extinction. But that isn't really the case on Earth right now.

Note: It is only logically in favor of that scenario if the remaining human race agrees that it does not want to go extinct.

Anyway. Non-aware life is less significant than life that already is aware. A woman giving birth should be able to make the decision as to whether or not giving birth to a child will result in a better or worse life for herself and whether or not doing so is worthwhile for herself. Of course, the woman may decide that it is better for a new child to live even if she dies, which I accept as a decision even though she cannot really predict whether or not the child will live happily or poorly - it's her decision to gamble. If the woman decides that she would rather live at the cost of a child, it is at a cost of a life that never came into fruition anyway. If the woman simply believes her life would be worse by introducing a child, it is at a cost of a life that never came into fruition anyway.

Tech

So far I'd say google's doing p good with it's single click captchas and Google Glass.

So far I'd say adware really sucks with its instant mouse-over acts like clicking nonsense. It works past Adblock and Ghostery. Hidoi.

Rarara

SRPP: If emotions didn't exist

How would society differ? What different problems would there be? What problems wouldn't be?

This is different from my utopia thread in that people wouldn't really be happy either. They would be indifferent. Not necessarily apathetic. Decisions would never have some sort of emotional influence. Or would they? Could such a race still have opinions? Can an emotionless person say "I like this color better" when presented a choice between red and blue? Nah, they would say it doesn't matter. Or perhaps they would say blue is a cooler color and more tolerant to the eyes.

What if mental emotions didn't exist and only physical emotions did?

When you feel an emotion, there is a physical and mental aspect to it. When you are happy, you will both experience happy thoughts and a very physical rush. When you are sad, you will experience depressing thoughts and very physical symptoms such as shortness of breath and a heavy chest.

So let's eliminate the thoughts, and say people only still react to them. They are otherwise indifferent in their mental processes related to emotions. Being sad doesn't cause them to give up on something, only the rationalization of whether or not they can or cannot physically do something will cause them to give up on something.

Do you think humans today can do such a thing?

A small quote from Kyubey, "In our culture, the phenomenon called emotion is only a mental disorder."

yay basing philosophies on supah kuwaii animu XD =^__^=

SRPP: What is the purpose of life?

Over on SRPP, I made a thread that started out with only this paragraph:

There's probably threads like this already, but I'm hoping something interesting will come of it.

I'd like you to support your view, if possible. The reasoning/etc.

After a few days and some responses, I edited the post with my answer:
_______________________________________________________________________

Edit: Here is mine:

A lot of people took the psychological bait of the question "What is..."

The simple wording "What is" implies to the person answering, that there "is" one in the first place.

From this point of view, "meaning" implies a reason, need, or ulterior motive.

But whose motive would this be? Human motive? Some sort of unknown deity? Many of you have come up with your own interpretation such as "humans" or "biology" or "philosophy".

But from an objective point of view, it doesn't matter whose interpretation or view point you are trying to find meaning from. Whether the view is from a human, a deity, the topic of biology, or philosophy, that is a subjective view you made up based on your own or other's interpretations of "meaning" and "life".

Basically, asking the meaning of life is like asking, "What is the meaning of this rock?" It's easy to see that there is no meaning. It just is or it just exists. Someone already mentioned, to the universe, it doesn't matter. The fact that we exist and are alive is completely circumstantial. There's no objective evidence that some sort of entity willed it.

This is why I'm nihilistic. Humans make up a negligible portion of the universe as a whole. There could be a whole nother planet elsewhere with people like us who have their own history with their planet thinking the same type of philosophical stuff we do.

From this point, because there is no purpose or meaning of life, not an objective one, I do agree that there are subjective ones.

Considering the astronomical chances of us even being alive here, we really are lucky that we are, so we should enjoy it, and work to keep it going as long as we can. This is my own personal 'what I make of life' view. To go further, if you consider it logical to say you prefer feeling good things over bad things, then the purpose of life is just to be happy. And what's the happiest feeling? Love. So the purpose of my life is to be in love.

From a survival viewpoint, the purpose is our species' longevity.

From some society's viewpoints, the purpose is to advance and learn and grow.

If theoretically a deity existed, there are multiple possible purposes for our existence. Let's say solipsism is true, and that we are actually only a computer program created by almost omnipotent but not omniscient scientists. Our existence is only a test that was made by greater beings. The purpose of our existence was the expansion of their knowledge. Perhaps it wasn't even planned at all that we came into existence, and that is was pure chance. Perhaps it was expected and has happened in many tests and we really are just completely unimportant to them.

See: Universal Simulator

Another deistic theory would say that we were created by the deity for whatever reason just to live and glorify his ego and be punished for things he gave us the capability to do so in the first place. Some would say we were made to be tested by the same deity that made us.

Perhaps some deity was bored, and made us just for entertainment.

_________________________________________

2018 addendum: (Written 2/18/2018)

The terminology for what I am has been coined and promoted into popular use now: I'm an optimistic nihilist.

If one looks at a field of flowers, sure, it's a pretty scene.

But if one looks at a single flower, managing to defy all odds to survive living in a harsh desert environment, would you agree that it makes the existence of that flower feel a lot more special to you?

If you agree that it does, then you understand why I appreciate life so much. There's no reason for life to exist. The odds of life existing are astronomically small, compared to the universe, compared to 13 trillion years of existence, compared to eternity

It's honestly astonishing that life is able to exist at all and for me to be here right now typing about it, because the chance that we are here right now is less than a 0.00000000...1% chance.

Life has no meaning, and that's what makes it all the more amazing that it's here at all.

SRPP: The Nature of Dreams

Do you ever think much about the nature of dreams?

My idea is that dreams you experience are just the product of parts of your brain activating that allow conscious perception, while your brain is sorting through memories like it normally would while asleep. Although you are not really sensing sight, you are still interpretting what you think is sight, based off of memories. I notice I often dream about things I am currently thinking a lot about. I often have dreams about video games. Specifically TF2, Runescape, and Portal. I have dreams about Harry Potter, and it was a huge series which I have read all the books of. I also have many dreams about cuddling. I also dream about the cornfields and neighborhoods around my area. Probably cause every bus ride I see cornfields. I also have a specific recurring dream/nightmare about one of my fears of a habit I want to to change.

Dreams are not mystical
Dreams are not "random"
Dreams do not have "special meaning"

A person may only perceive that it has special meaning if they bend their thinking to believe that Dreams are only manifestations of things people have already experienced. Blind people have been found to dream about sounds, and not sights. Even people who become blind later.

To copy paste from another thread of mines: I do not agree with the way the 'subconscious' is defined and explained to people. I do not believe it as some sort of inner level of consciousness that works without us realizing it. What I do believe in is that we have physical memory, much like a computer does, which explains why we can have memories by not be able to access them. I do believe that our neurons work together to retrieve and sort such information to form for us our consciousness and thought processes. It is not some form of inner-thinking, but is all just our neurons working in our head the same way a processor works in a computer. It doesn't 'have thoughts', it just transfers them around to where they can be outputted or in a human's case, consciously recognized. These assumptions purely only came from the knowledge that our mind is affected by electrical impulses between neurons and chemicals and comparison with how computers work. I have no other or deeper knowledge of actual neuroscience.

I claim that our brain just processes information in some parts of the brain while other parts are controlling perception and consciousness, and that hallucinations may be the result of conscious perception being mixed with what you call "subconscious" processing. It is possible for people to still experience pain while "put under" for anesthetic operations. This is because parts of their brain that allow conscious perception of pain were not "put under" while everything else was.

Lucid dreams perhaps follow the same principle. Increased "control" during them in people who play video games may because people have more "memory" or situations in which they control another "avatar".

Dreams are only messages if you try to take a message out of them.

SRPP: Misandrists vs Misogynists

Misandrists: People who hate all men, all men are the same.

Misogynists: People who hate all women, all women are the same.

I consider both of these views equally as stupid and often wonder what it'd be like if a group of each got into an argument against each other.

Both of them are just the results of a person making stupid assumptions about the other gender and making that their life because they don't have the mental capacity to think logically or objectively at all and act all hypersensitive about mundane shit.

What do you guys think about these kinds of people?

dog

The household I reside in now has a dog residing within it as well.

His name is Neko.

SRPP - Are humans naturally self destructive, indifferent, or helpful?

Considering war, murder, and crime, would you say humans are naturally self-destructive of each other?

Considering charity, hospitals, and law, would you say humans are naturally helpful to each other?

Considering the bystander effect, apathy, and neutrality, would you say humans are naturally indifferent to each other?

Here is what I discussed with a friend:

Nue: Humans, by nature, are bad for humans. I don't trust people a lot until I can be proven wrong, some people just mind their own business, some are bad, and some are cooperative pieces of magnificence.
Chdata: I often question what the word 'natural' means anymore.
Nue: I find it as the 'most native sense of order of an entity'. Hence it's natural for animals to breed and migrate, natural for plants to grow, and it's natural for people to be jerkish arrogant fools. Ah, so it is.
Chdata: I don't think harm is a native sense of humans
Chdata: I think survivability is
Chdata: Survivability can be:
Chdata: Kill an enemy
Chdata: Ally myself with a friend
Chdata: Ignore something I don't need to waste energy on

SRPP - If god existed, what kind of emotions does 'it' feel?

Dear users,

This first paragraph is the only one you need to read. It poses a simple question: If a deity exists, what emotions does it experience, if any? And why do you think it feels these things... or not feel these things?



In my opinion, if god wanted us to believe in him, the all-powerful omnipotent god creator would have made us that way. This could be wrong, and he only wants us to 'in the future'.

In my opinion, it makes no sense for an omniscient creator to exist. If he already knows everything. Every possible scenario that can or ever will happen is something he already knows about, why would our universe exist - one scenario out of an ?infinite? amount of scenarios? Even if he has made all universes with all scenarios - Why would he do that as opposed to doing nothing? Of course, this assumes perhaps if a god existed - he had desires of some sort that are non-sequitir to his knowledge.

In my opinion, if god was capable of the psychological status of "wanting something", it is questionable as to what kind of emotions he feels. Wanting something is an emotional desire. Humans want love and act towards it. What would a god want from having created a universe? Some might question his true intentions, having full control over our world and what we feel, yet making it so dangerous for some of us.

In my opinion, there are two things that remind me the most of my hypothetical conception of 'what a deity would be like if it existed'. What do you call a being that is seemingly all-knowing about a world, all-powerful in terms of controlling a world, yet has a reason to have made this world and even legitimate interest in this world he already knows everything about? A game designer. Game designers make universes. Not all games are exactly made by a single developer, but let's say the whole team is "god". For a simple 3D FPS shooter, the developers have to program everything. Of course, 3D models are made by graphics designers, but they programmers make the animations work. They define physics. They literally define everything about how physics work in the game. Being the people that make these worlds, they are all knowing about the things that happen there. The game developers retain an interest in the world because it's something they made and have fun with. In games, their characters can be a hero, an enemy, die, live. While the game developers "are all knowing about their game", that's saying they are about their game world. But when a programmer programs something, sometimes there are scenarios where they aren't actually completely sure of what all of their variables are doing. You make a physics engine and throw in some test values, but aren't sure about how exactly things will animate together if you throw in some random values for things, because the calculations your PC makes are beyond what the creator is actually capable of. Lastly, imagine an NPC had a powerful enough AI to ask itself something like... Where am I from? Where am I going? It would never be able to grasp, see, understand, or even conceptualize what the real universe is like outside of the computer monitor. Because it has no way to observe this world. Similarly, the game developer cannot "physically" interfere with the game world from our universe. It has to internally do things to the game's code. It's indirect in a way. While the programmer is "all powerful" on this game world, he cannot jump into this game world himself and pick up a sword and slash things. He would have to create a character that can do these things.

What is the other similar thing I talked about? Just normal scientists. Scientists who run simulated worlds out of their own curiosity. They make a world with predefined physics and let a super computer do calculations they wouldn't be able to by just thinking. They observe this world without interfering to try and gain more knowledge about their own world.

Sincerely,

frog

frog

Here's some messages I got on Skype.


Lately, we have noticed you uttering the word "frog" in your articulated speech more and more, and we've become concerned about your mental well-being. We personally think that you've undergone a radical psychological transformation, wherein you've become uncontrollably obsessed with frogs, whether the organism, or anything designated a frog by agents in the schematic framework. As such, we recommend that you attend a treatment facility, where specialists trained in rehabilitation of frog-obsession syndrome - otherwise known as Ranidae preoccupation disorder - can and will assist you in gradually releasing any and all thoughts of frogs you might experience, and only for seventy four weekly payments of $79.99!


[2/12/2015 4:45:10 AM] Well: Alright now look here.
[2/12/2015 4:45:19 AM] Well: You listen up, buster.
[2/12/2015 4:45:25 AM] Well: You hearken.
[2/13/2015 11:26:53 AM] Well: You listen up here'n.
[2/13/2015 11:27:34 AM] Well: Look, I calculate you'll indubitably observe the textual material I transmit hereupon, so I shalt disseminate such spewage henceforth.
[2/13/2015 11:29:27 AM] Well: Within at least the next week, you can transmit me a fundamentally flabbergasting, nonsensical passage you composed, and you may find it widely disseminated in print form at a future date.
[2/13/2015 11:32:43 AM | Edited 9:16:36 PM] Well: Certain agencies, namely myself, will review the material prior to mass dissemination. We desire that if you wish to use the word 'frog' excessively, you at least add some other words - scratch that, don't use the fucking word frog. We have you covered. Well not really but you look here now. The point is, I'm looking for candidates for an utterly balderdashic excerpt that is not written by myself, but which will potentially receive widespread hearkening. Any balderdash I may attempt to compose may not suit my own interests, so if you send me an excerpt, namely one to three pages in Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 12 point font, single-spaced, that I find sufficiently preposterous, such shalt potentially spew into the cosmos therefore, affirmatively and without doubt.
[2/13/2015 11:35:14 AM | Edited 11:35:24 AM] Well: Any accepted candidate will receive credit for their submitted postulations as such.


i frog u ♥

Science, Religion, Philosophy, Politics

The main reason I decided to reuse this blog is to repost what I post in a certain Science / Religion / Philosophy / Politics forum I frequent.

H..here I go!

Thread topic: Is god real?

FirstDude Wrote: ►
There is no difference. They are the same process with different names at different scales. There is no difference in the functionality of a mile or a foot. We can use them interchangeably but they have their specific uses. We measure a boat in terms of feet but the voyage in terms of miles, but they are both distance. We measure short-term variation in terms of microevolution and long-term variation in terms of macroevolution, but they are both variation. They measure the same thing but one is at a larger scale.

And when did I say idiots reject microevolution? They just don't even understand what macroevolution is.

__________________________________________________________

OtherUser Wrote: ►
FirstDude, normally I like reading your arguments but I think you're wasting your time with this one.

__________________________________________________________

Chdata Wrote: ►

Dear FirstDude,

"There is no difference in the functionality of a mile or a foot."

yo bro get ur facts straight 2 distances --> not equal bro give me a mile a fruit by the foot... I mean by the mile. u b talkin about the concept of distance itself not the names we be givin to different measurements of distance yo. yo bro i know rite? but yu can stil use the names of difrent measurements howeva u want rite because it's just language - a sound indication - that's even interpretted subjectively! but u no bro there's a reason we don't say the numba 2 is actually pronounced four if it's wednesday and that da numba 5 is actually three during novembur. i mean u can represent 2 as frog and 4 as banana and say frog + frog = banana and i agree u can use language regardless of meaning but ppl don' be talkin that way u kno. bro, there's no difference in the measuring system miles and feet were made fo.

Sincerely,

Post Reply

] I'm not kidding about addressing myself as "Post Reply" here: https://imgur.com/iG95fBm

__________________________________________________________


OtherUser Wrote: ►
Please... Just stop... I can't even handle this...

__________________________________________________________

Chdata Wrote: ►

Dear OtherUser,

You're not obligated to read anything.

Best Regards,

Imouto~

__________________________________________________________

OtherUser Wrote: ►
However true it's nice and respectable if you would use easy to read standard grammar.

__________________________________________________________

Chdata Wrote: ►

Dear OtherUser,

Performing anything that can be classified as a verb, or acting in such a way that specific adjectives can be used to describe oneself - is not an obligation upon any person. I perceive no such important reason to do so, as not doing so does not pose any immediate threat to my health or well-being. Not that the status of being alive is necessarily necessary either.

However true (that it's... nice), I think it is important for one to be capable of flat-out ignoring and not being bothered by and even having the capacity to filter out unnecessary/negative information. Infact, it would be a concern to me if I was wasting time being stopped every time I see someone post something stupid for the sole purpose of having some emotional fluctuation regarding such a mundane matter.

Sincerely,

Data Integration Thought Entity

__________________________________________________________

OtherUser Wrote: ►
Well played sir, well played.

__________________________________________________________

> At this point, I've gotten the response and reaction I've been planning to get out of OtherUser from the moment he replied to me. This is generally how I argued years back when I had lots of free time to spend doing so, and when I was still "fresh". Nowadays, all of the logical realizations I made in these discussions come to me naturally and quickly without much thought, so I haven't had as much reason to engage in these conversations for any reason other than just indulging in the act of discussing these things.

__________________________________________________________

Chdata Wrote: ►

Dear OtherUser,

yo bro i'll take dat quote as an invitation to keep typin' like this when i pm (public msg) yu on HF ya. yo my mum says this language is like... called ebony language or something becuz it's like black ppl from the ghettos yo (no offense black people) (sorry i mean african american). dude is it true that nice person is racist but nigga isn't? is it racist if an african american says nice person?

I am looking forward to hearing your response, as I am very curious to learn more about my inquiry.

Best Regards,

The Boondocks

Rebirth

Hey guys. I recently had motivation to open a blog and post the random philosophy stuff I discuss with scientists and hackers and mathematicians and schoolchildren and whatnot.

Just so you know, this blog is one I made as part of a college course, so every post before this one isn't really typed in a way I normally would. Now that I'm recycling this blog for other stuff it doesn't matter as much so yeah.

I'll start with an update on the information in the previous posts.

In the last post, TF2Data was still in its "slow with low traffic" stages. Ever since around Christmas of 2014, just outta nowhere, we got a lot of players and since then have been seeing a consistent 15+ players everyday, which is amazing progress.

I had been keeping the servers alive for months until then by programming paid private Sourcemod plugin requests, as I did not have a job. I had also been programming a ton of stuff for the servers and now have three open at all times. Since my last posts, I now have an automatic donor system up and finally feel like I've made enough fun features to properly offer donor perks in the first place. Now that there are consistent player counts in my servers, I also have enough donations to keep the server running on its own.

On top of that, I have my first job now. It seems that TF2Data's future is set. (At least as long as TF2 lives). Currently I can only run 3 servers though. I associate each server with a 3 letter code.

(Clicking the link shows statistics / graphs on the daily player counts)
VSH - Versus Saxton Hale
SNP - A Sniper only server
TDM - Team Death Match Hightower

Which are all server setups I made because they are game modes that I can play for months without getting bored.

In particular, SNP seems to be one that does well on its own. I'm glad too, cause I like sniping in any game, especially fast paced sniper vs sniper only stuff.

I'm glad VSH is doing well now, as it had long been my goal to be able to play a good VSH server with lots of updates that doesn't leave half of every class's weapons useless and that can be updated as I wish. I grew very tired of the old community I played VSH on due to its ad-hoc management and large amount of drama, as well as the lack of updating.

Sadly it seems TDM is past its time. At first it was my only server and was doing well, with 15 players daily. But after going through my servers closed altogether twice for almost half a year each time, it's just dead. Nowadays if I'm lucky, it can piggy back off of the players SNP and VSH brings though. So it won't be going immediately. But it's also the first for me to trade out for another server if I decide to.

Overall though, TF2Data is doing well. So well infact, that I just repeated the fact. Anyway, I should also mention that I believe it's at a point where it will not be going down for multiple months again, any time soon. I wouldn't even be allowing people to donate if that were the case (and infact is what I did in the past).

Also yes, I do read everyone's posts in the TF2Data steam group's discussion boards. I consider every weapon suggestion and whatnot.

By the way, did you know you can post comments on this blog.