marieltrokan

I suppose people would be able to allow history, but I don't think it would be right to forgo the progress of ending nations, capitalism, terms and the need for terms such as striker because of such a concern.

There is logic to your questions. By uniformity, an example would be a news network not asking what Cristina Kirchner's (the ex-President of Argentina) opinion is of Star Wars The Force Awakens - or, if not Kirchner, basically anyone's opinion without reason.

I'd say it's usually because of the knowledge of uniformity. If person X won't tell person Y that they deserve free housing, it'll usually be because of the knowledge that person Z, T and W can all be told the same thing as well. In general, this is perhaps why politics and government exist in the first place - as well as borders and nations.

I just mean person Y (the alien) telling person X (Earth) that whatever person Y is person X is: if I were the alien, knowing that reality on Earth is more than likely to be replicated many times throughout the Universe, I'd be prepared to tell the inhabitants of the planet I was visiting that they're as much why reality exists as any other life form in the Universe. Specifically, assuming the inhabitants were humanoids, I'd reflect things like movies and art, nations and news media, perceptions of nature, hobbies, the reality of migration, internet sites, simply anything I could think was the existence of Earth.

I think it's reasonable to expect that the aliens would reflect themselves onto the planet; this is to say that they'd be fully aware of the importance of reflection, and therefore would inform Earth that their identity was the identity of those visiting the planet. If I was a space traveller, visiting another planet, I know I'd certainly make sure to reflect myself onto it: the things I'd reflect would range from anything from newspapers, to wanting to remain at a forest, to enjoying one movie better than another of the same genre. What would you reflect?

I think it must be an absolute certainty that elsewhere in the Universe, news media and movie franchises exist; life forms on other planets will also have the internet, and will also look at trees and contemplate their meaning - on other planets, I think it has to be an absolute certainty that there are life forms asking questions such "Were members of the Viet Cong or are users of Facebook identical to a press conference?" or "Is the history of the planet Mars the same as a theatrical production of Hamlet?". Life must exist elsewhere, where there is another Neve Campbell, auditioning for the movie Scream.

Do you think that all nations should be ended because of Emma Stone's performance in Irrational Man?

My philosophy is to reflect absence - meaning that a forest in Russia needs to become the Democratic and Republican Party, the character of Shelly in The Crow needs to become the people of Dublin, and that Studio 54 needs to become the history of France.

If everything is matter, does that mean outer space is the same as the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I appreciate your reply. If anyone is this same truth (i.e. the cast and crew of The Conjuring 2), is life's meaning then to perhaps cancel this truth via mutual recognition?

Relative to why reality exists, I don't believe matter exists (it only exists prior to the reason reality exists).

Is it possible that learning is the dilemma of needing division, and imbalance? To continue to learn is to need inequality amidst the world? E.g. to learn is to need nations to exist.

What about wanting to be known as the Universe - would this thought pertain to the current contestants of Channel 5's Big Brother, or anyone who lived in Seattle in 1986?

I still don't know how to quote myself. Do you think that any thought is universal?

Which post of mine did you mean to quote?

But there is no evidence for the opposite either - perhaps God isn't a he, or even a separate something from the creation.

How can there be no reason for life? What evidence is there?

As an egalitarian, I believe that society is wrong to exist; I believe that all life forms on Earth should be publicly referred to as the Universe (by the UN), and that everyone who has ever existed should be known as the history of any site such as this one. Anyone who lived in the 1600's should be known as any argument on this site. Anyone who lived in the 1200's should be known as any comment section on YouTube.

If thoughts are universal (as in my thought about whether Dracula Untold should be part of the Universal Monsters Universe can be Cristina Kirchner's thought, and Cleopatra's and Bill Gates), but thoughts don't create reality, it stands to reason that thoughts aren't the reason of existence (making the thoughts of any life form equal). Thoughts inform the existence of violence and war, therefore thoughts providing a reason to exist doesn't seem to be a valid definition of thoughts (even if they also inform housing rights, and access to free healthcare and food and education).

Yes, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the logic of ability. I've spent the past six months researching how reality exists, and finally have a sequence: Duplication being reason is nothing. To make duplication being reason as present, the duplication of this state has to be no action, because duplication is reason being reflection. In other words, the true challenge of intelligence is to have a goal and intent but no duplication. My own perspective on reality is that the perfection means the whole history of the Universe needing to experience the reverse of itself (the making of Terminator 2, the history of China, the 1998 NBA Championship final, the premiership of Tony Blair, 12th June 1745 - each needs to happen in reverse).

But I'm referring to just the fact of thoughts, not what thoughts are comprised of. Were the thoughts of Lee Harvey Oswald, or Ava Gardner or a soldier in 17th century France the meaning of life, whatever they thought about throughout the whole course of their existence? Thoughts need external reality, and external reality isn't just one life form. So if reality isn't about protagonists, that has to then mean that any life form's thoughts are the reason of existence.

Thoughts don't have to be about changing something in order to have meaning; my point is that the thoughts of any life form are equal.

What's the difference?

I'm asking if any life form's thoughts are the meaning of life.

The real insanity is the need of whistleblowers in the first place.