quickquestion

I find myself grateful to simply have friends that respond to my texts half the time. If a friend text's me it is a real rarity and an anomaly. I doubt anyone other than my parents, one or two relatives, and a couple buddies on skype actually care about me. Also you live in a different part of the world than me, I live in America, so your view and experience of people will probably be different than mine. I suppose if I got rich I'd be able to buy myself some friends. My skype buddies are some of my only real friends, and they are depressed and lonely as me. But I try to help them out with favors and such so they have a chance to succeed in society. Anyway, it's hard to get rich and think big when you suck at being socially accepted. Especially when you have ads of Tai Lopez who says you can only get rich if you are good at making friends.

You win half the argument, I concede the point that it was invented, it was not invented in one single day or year, but was slowly grown and born. However, though it is "sort of" evolving, it is sheltered from natural selection process in a way...people and societies tend to stick with outdated and ineffectual words and it is difficult to remove them from society. Essentially, it rarely undergoes any kind of culling process of bad genes, cancers mostly just stick with the language more or less.

How is it a strawman? His question was "What is difference between killing animal for fun and food?" Killing for fun usually means hunting, and a quick death. Killing for food usually means locking them in a cage for years, and tormenting them with sensory deprivation.

If I call a fat person fat, you're telling me that's not insulting? Both definitions can be true...that's how multiple definitions work. Lead means a heavy metal...this is true. Lead means to lead people and such...both are true.

Last post I will make in this thread regarding this, but I've already given logical reasons as to why you cannot use "scientific method" to prove or disprove solipism, which was one of the cruxes of my argument. So it's ridiculous to say my "feelings are as useful as an ashtray" because I've already explain how feelings and logic (logical feelings) are the only way to infer any kind of ideas about pzombies or "objective collective exploration" related issues about pzombies in regards to reality.

You have to be more specific. I made several different points. To which do you disagree, and for what reason do you disagree with them?

Hate is a form of pain. It has not, nor will not, become obsolete, until the day where we are living in a utopia and there is no reason left to hate. When someone is denied justice, they hate. And this world is a giant injustice.

Please provide evidence and citations. Since you are implying that psychopaths are selfish, I must state the Train Thought Experiment that proved that psychopaths can be more noble and selfless than entities tainted and deluded by their emotions.

Calling someone's post gibberish is insulting. True, consciousness has multiple definitions.

I have no qualms or problems with killing. What I have a problem with is torturing animals by locking them in cages and tormenting them with sensory deprivation. Taboo on massage is in America, don't know if you are American or not. So when I say "the health care system is a joke" let it be known I don't speak for Germany, or foreign nations, I am basically saying that "America's health care is a joke." In America if you are in pain, and you ask someone for a massage, they will say "No that's awkard, etc." Even your own mother won't give you a massage. So you go to the doctors or hospital, and they refuse to appoint you a massage therapist. Instead of massage they give you pills or bogus physical therapy that doesn't do anything. I have talked with the elites of the elites and they told me what it is...if you have money you get the proper care. If you don't have the money, you might as well be treated like a homeless person, the medical industry will give you the lowest quality treatment possible.

Yes, belt and pulley is a better analogy for my purposes (large scale). Gearcog is what I meant on a microscopic level. Anyway, I would like to explain what exactly the problem is, more clearly. The slip charts are fine for large velocities, where the car is sliding at 200 mph. At these times you can just apply the maximum amount of lateral force for each tire. But my problem comes in when figuring out what amount of lateral force to apply at low levels. For instance, say a car is going at 3 or so units per hour, and the car is sliding a bit and Each tire is at a random angle (This is a hypothetical test car for simulation accuracy, that has tires that can point every which way.) What amount of force do I apply to each tire, such that the car's grip behaves realistically? To make it easier on ourselves, let's just simplify things and say these are very sticky tires that should totally grip completely at low speeds. The problem with these charts is that most likely these are done with Single Tires on a belt in a lab... It does not tell you how each tire behaves once it is connected with 3 other tires on a chassis. I would pay actual money to find a chart or diagram that shows me 4 tires with different rotations, and how much lateral force is exerted by the tires to keep the car gripping. Because with 1 tire it is much more easy, I simply put the lateral force to tiremass*tirelateralvelocity and apply that as a 1 frame impulse, to cancel the velocity of the tire. But with four tires all with different rotations, I can't simply use the carmass (because each tire is not part of the total car body itself, it is only part of a fraction of the carbody, and the fraction of the carbody is also dependent on the other tires - for instance, if only the front tires were going against the grain (because they had a steering angle of 90 degrees), but the backwheels were totally rolling with the car, then the fronttires would use the total carmass to stop the car. Or, if it was a tricycle, and only the front wheel was 90, then the whole frontwheel would have a carmass*tirelateralvelocity applied to it to stop the car.)

Couldn't agree more. In fact the very fact we have to defend and point out that such a barbaric practice, is, barbaric...enrages me. We are sages of our time And yet we get Downvoted by anonymous supporters of a backwards barbaric stone-age Corrupt and Cruel society. It is so backwards it is enraging. And what's enraging is that these anonymous backwards stone-age barbarians act like they get to define what civilization is and the rules of society. Then they violate our human rights and pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how rational they are. Are you kidding me? A clitoris is almost the exact same thing as a penis. Butchering a clitoral hood is almost exactly the same as circumcision. I cannot believe that you think circumcision is acceptable, but say female genital mutilation, which is almost the exact same thing, is barbaric. Are you kidding me right now? I hope that you were making a joke and using sarcasm and not being serious. The fact that society not only continues to do this barbaric violation of human rights, but Defends it and has the gall to not even say sorry, to not even apologize to the Victims But Instead Defend their atrocities they did on their victims, deeply enrages me to my core.

The fact is, a baby's consent should not be violated in such a way. Especially not because of some ancient-backwoods barbaric religious doctrine. Let's ask ourselves, if religion didn't exist....would Scientists go around butchering baby genitals against their consent, because of some (very minimal) theoretical minor health benefits? Let's also ask ourselves something else...Do we forbid kids playing outside, in order to improve their theoretical hygiene. Do we ban sex, in order to reduce the risk of STDs. Why not just make everyone slaves, and butcher their penises while they are still alive, because some religious book said so and it happens to have minuscule health benefits. There is a significant correlation between going to jail, and having balls and testosterone. Why not forcibly remove and butcher everyone's balls, for the very significant health benefits of not going to jail.

Yeah but the point was, I read the article before more than once.

What Relative said I understood very little, at most I was just guessing at what he was trying to say, but mostly just stating my views about darkness, and saying that perhaps maybe he was trying to say something similar, but I am not sure. Ok, fine by me.

Based on deductive reasoning. A dog percieves other dogs and humans as entities. Some dogs, when they see a mirror, bark and yell at the "dog in the mirror" because they percieve it as another entity. But if a dog just silently stares, that means it sees a "dog entity" in the mirror, but does not percieve it as "just another dog". Because it's default response is to yell and bark at foreign dogs and entities. Therefore it does not percieve it's image as foreign. Also, the cat perceives the equation on the board as "some kind" of non-living entity.

Light is colourless in the sense of the definition I was using for it. If I turn on a TV, and I say "This has no real color if consciousness isn't there" then someone says "No, you see each white pixel is an RGB packet which is a mix of red, blue and green, therefore it has color" I'd say that they missed the point of what I was trying to say. Saying "just nerve impulses" is unsatisfying. In order for the explanation to be satisfying it would have to explain why nerve impulses are converted to feel in the manner they do when they are presented to consciousness. And replace and insert <mahogany> with whatever flavor you choose. And I put this in the Physics section because it was meant as a response to Relative who made a topic about Darkness in the Physics Section. But if a mod moved this thread to Philosophy I'd be cool with that.

Well, its not the anti-depressants that are fatal for me, I have minimal side-effects from those (other than the side-effect of building up a tolerance and it not helping my depression much.) My ideal world would be a mix of both science and the metaphorical "Miley-Cyrus", actually I view Philosophy as a kind of "casual-social discourse" along the lines of relaxation and pleasure. So my ideal world would have a mix of science and philosophy, but also beautiful people. The reason I hate the world is because none of the beautiful people have any interest in any interesting topics, they just go on about stuff that wouldn't even entertain a 3 year old (at least a 3 year old of my day), and I don't fit into it anywhere, they won't even answer or respond to my messages or calls, even when I put my messages on a basic level like "How was your concert/How are you?" etc. they are very selfish and rude. It feels like I am a demon, cast to hell to deal with a bunch of disrespectful imps.

Basically, the human being is a pent-up collection of pent-up continually repressed natures and instincts. It regulates itself due to social norms and fear of social exclusions. Give it any excuse to go wild, and it will. That's one of the reasons humans drink booze...booze gives it "permission" to act wild. If there's one thing I know about humans, it's that they love avoiding taking responsibility for their actions. So the "full-moon" legends allow people to see the full-moon, giving them a subliminal slip of restraint, letting themselves go wild. So then when they sober they can avoid responsibility, and say the full-moon did it...and not acknoledge the real reason, is that society restricts and regulates most of their animal desires and instincts, and they are so repressed and pent up that even the slightest thing could let them go wild.

I was the one who posted a quote from the MT Wiki in the first place. Basically, if a dog yells and barks at itself in the mirror, it fails the mirror test. If a dog silent stares and contemplates at it's mirror image, it most likely has self-awareness. Some dogs pass, and some dogs fail.

I am irritated with the world to the extreme, but villians learn to tone themselves down, to avoid punishment by society. It's like how comic villians, or james bond villians, appear calm and civilized most of the time, and not hulk raging 24/7. Yeah and the thing of it is, many the friends who I thought were my friends don't act very friendly to me and/or betray me eventually, so I have to reconcile that with myself and learn to trust noone, in this realm approaching grimpunk/cyberpunk dystopia we live in today.

Well, they say the majority of taste is smell. You can taste a flower, doesn't make it edible. Edibility has nothing to do with anything. And you could replace the word "mahogony" with some other word, like tacos. We do not fully understand why tacos taste like tacos. I specifically picked the word "mahogany" so people wouldn't just say "Oh it tastes salty, sweet, or this and that". I wanted to pick something weird so people couldn't just resort to the tastebud explanation. Also, I don't know what your point is about white light, it seems like a tangent. I was saying that the color red is different from purple because our brain or consciousness makes it such. Empirical data involving of color is just colorless waveforms. A total colorblind person cannot see color even if he understands the science of color. We know what the smell of mahogony is. But we do not why the smell of mahogony smells in such a way. We just know, that neurons activate and it smells like it due to consciousness. But we don't know any kind of deep explanation. Consciousness is apparently located in the brain. But it is not the brain, because when we look at the brain we don't see sense qualia. So something is converting brain data to sense qualia, since brain data is not the same as sense qualia. A serotonin molecule is not happiness, until it becomes connected to our consciousness and then it is converted (perhaps inherently, perhaps not inherently) into happiness.

Dogs seem to be able to correct interpret human emotional cues better than wolves, so perhaps your research should start from there. There is nothing insane in saying empaths exist, as dogs can easily experience the emotions of humans near them. The crazy begins when you say that they can get the emotions of the persona's downstairs, through walls and floors. Such a thing may be possible, but I'd say 90% of these claims are done by disregarding the scientific method. If it is possible, maybe it has to do with the magnetic fields emitted by the brain.

This topic has derailed from the OP, so I suppose that's a good idea.

I already mentioned water pools so you must be skipping around. In any case, tell me what to search for so I can see evidence of a dog touching the mirror location of a spot on it's head instead of it's own head.