free doesnt mean infinate

Science is used for discovery, when discovering more about something, we tend to become more wise. Wise, being, that quality which is benefient for themselves or can produce wise informaton, a print-out that's beneficent to others.

Handling life requires wisdom those wise of life handle it.

wisdom is like knowledge, but beneficent knowledge, things which improve experience, pe sey.

ways we can advance with knowledge, are ways envisioned by wise minds, because not only do they have this knowledge, but they are aware of it, the truth-value - this is wisdom, or good morality.

will is the aspect we use to act.

will is free in a way where we can perform any act but constrained by vessel where competition is conercerned. Sometimes freedom isn't good.

science generates wisdom.

wisdom does concern the extraterrestial but never has been God directly.

science is definitely not atheistic but can be stupidly if the God question is already taken seriously. They don't stand by "not God" at all.

I don't need to teach you good and evil and have done in a prior post.

What's your misunderstanding, you can't just throw general questions at me, make some conversation by questioning directly.

You seem out of place if you are evil, like your previous comment to a good eye.

Your momentum is more war like rather than life like, you're suggesting that things occur over some linear time when truthfully they're occuring moment by moment.

growth is a sign of good; it's one example, there are lots.

you're evil if you kill 1000 pigs for no reason because some of them may have been high quality pigs, or you're playing too much with the status quo; the reason it's evil is because it 'damages' the working system of life. Technically you are a child of the world, so in killing her you are rising against the parents, and that's evil nature, because this is your life.

Good is what's beneficent to life/experience; if you deem that to be pleasure you're wrong because some pain is involved. If your eyes deem it worthy to be lazy, that's up to them, but it's true that you're abusing the ground that made this life possible; so what i'm saying is there is evil when mind fully assesses the universe.

the good you know conditions your mind to make intellectual decisions, or to teach others to make intellectual decisions. Evil is technically minimalized. You are intelligent if you make more intelligent decisions than unintelligent decisions - if you get lucky you get lucky.

intelligence is partly genetics (supporting) and cognitively experience related.

it's your diffusion of good, not mine, I understand good.

Dreams are, as well as refreshing, a sign of an adaptable nature of the mind.

Perhaps you are doing something wrong if you don't interpret dreams correctly; doing so would be more intelligent.

Dreams mirror you, even if they're bad, it's to suggest you're doing something wrong; they are made of energy and matter, and the types of energy and matter are consciousness-like, on a plane that's higher than life, to us the mind, but also energy extracted at it's most pure level; it's universe-creation-ability.

I want to adapt my mind to see things that are pleasurable; that's one account where dreams are proficent.

Dreams mirror us, perhaps they're linked to an fatherly energy of a species that can communicate through that if they wanted; and getting bad dreams is a sign of unworthiness or evil egoism.

Taking note of the replies I would come to the conclusion that humanity is probably stupid based on guilt where environmental issues have been ignored.

I would say that even though there is harsh criticism for a more harmonious Earth it's a, possible, b, a pleasurable experience. All we do is what we would be doing where harmony was enforced, it's a different Government, more like a Holiday crossed with a Job, because of, obviously, the paradise of untouched environment.

And apparently I am the smartest human for saying this because of evidence in this thread.

I may have said that Empathy helps understanding, but I disagree, now.

empathy has nothing to do with understanding, but rather an abstraction of what's understood.

You can be beguiled by others actions, should you be empathetic is not always answered based on graphic, but is to be used tactically. Graphic definitely comes into consideration when the probability is that it's true graphic nature, but not empircally; graphic is second in the heirarchy - but first is ego or compulsion.

Am I emphathetic to you reader when considering your eyes? Yes, I am, but there is also a learning curve where I have performed a certain way; so empathy can also be a enhancing process.

Empathy could only lead to understanding if you were a spy, in that context. However, Empathy has a second process, that's enhancing. Therefore, Empathy is worthless for understanding others, but not for personal learning; it's good to be wisely empathetic.

what's greatly perverse about our ego is that we obsess around ourselves, our own ego of intelligence, rather than being true intellectuals. It's a foolish world.

No.

Dreams also re-callibrate and re-fresh your mind, as well as provide small or big natural entertainment; they're quite the opposite; not harmful but healing.

Confusion arises with such when we consider the eyes, and they have automatic processes that mirror our own input.

You'll look forward, and all the time you're looking forward your eyes are taking in what is in the foreground, automatically, and there is rapid eye movement, as what we experience is given to us rather than us taking it.

However, the observer is always taking experience from the mind, it is not solipsism.

Empathy helps us to understand the character of others, and the mind of character, as oppose to the physical nature of character, and other things. What's wrong with exploration? I'd like to explore the characteristic side, emotional and sensual side as to benefit harmonization of people and other things.

Yes. Empathy is not worthless. As Bitter Crank put in the first reply, and how that is read shows that it's good for deep understanding of ethics.

You can become a wise judge of people, and empathy can bring joy and happiness to a human.

Why name it God is what I don't understand? Why is the big debate whether God exists as oppose to a nature we can know? Why not believe in mystical beings and debate whether the 'objectively unreal' does or does not exist? What if I am neither yes nor no to God, because I think the question is stupid - neither atheist or theist? I mean, I can believe in things which aren't experienced but these don't even round-about to God.

In any case, unless God is separated from the bible he remains a figure with little information known other than bible versus about God. When you redefine God, you're helping religion profit, why not help science progress instead? I said prior, higher forces, metaphorically 'angels' exist, because contrary to God they exist in numbers, and it take more than one force to truly take in the universe. What I'm trying to say is that God which you believe in, is like a species of many rather than one, and to us it would be considered forces that exist in a realm where creation is an element.

Who actually experiences God? (doesn't make sense).

Consciousness doesn't require such complex conditions as our universe to be possible, so based on this note, other universes probably exist.

We can measure that there are probably more than one universe based on the complexity of our universe, and all phenomenon in it.

Two examples:

One is where consciousness has arisen over billions of years in logical conditions. One is where consciousness is spawned into a simulate environment.

I think that simulations existed before and co-exist with our universe, so I believe in a 'multi-verse'.

However, people don't think using their sense and prefer the tongue now a days; there is nil wrong with what I said but it doens't translate well, capiche?

Simply, no.

Dreams are phenomenon occuring in sleep mode (you can also have hallucinations when you're awake). Dreams are the projection of recent memory of biological organisms operating at complete stillness at hyper-speed (or something along these lines; I study dreams and am an apt dreamer). Dreams are extracted, that is, whenever energy finds that it can withdraw a dream from your mind, there is enough interest to make it happen - a dream world is created.

On the other hand, our reality is part of the energy system in which energy of it can communicate with us directly. This is how we make the distinction but further, the Sun feeds the Earth, and Earth homes lots of life; this is a logical process - unlike a dream - you may sense the inner-working directly. Dreams are like conscious versus conscious versus logic, while reality is conscious versus logic versus conscious.

There is a middle-man in this reality, it differentiates reality from dream; if we cut out the middle-man, it is a dream. Who's to say if we cut the middle-man, a logical reality wouldn't manifest?

If you examine a dream closely it's like a blur or abstraction that easily fades. Like light dented space for a few seconds (that special effect you may know of). This is because the grounds for a dream are highly illogical, the reality is not there but it is perceived as if it were, that's a matter more of imagination.

I think adhering to the lesser set of words over the greater set of any drawing kind of alters what we are thought to think when reading the symbol of a hammer and wheel; yes, like Catchphraze, 'reinventing the wheel', but on a serious note, that is holding the conversation back from a more affluent signing. For example, adding another picture to the mix is boring, if we think it's 'reiventing the wheel', but if it was wordless, the sign capacity is funner, and more advanced; perhaps, adding in an image of a horse and 4 buildings to depict 400 horse power; 'reinventing the wheel' is treating the sign as a small time game, but interpreting sign for immediate sign value only, is more a serious life style; again held back by words.

I agree, but we're all sort of restricted to the word here; because it's not "reinventing the wheel", which we should think, but some abstraction of the symbol of hammer and wheel, better thought "..." or "silent", not with the word additive. It doesn't play like charades, but charades is a good example of sign potential.

No, because love is a word.

I could whistle with you in syncronization as minor-conversational-tension rises, and whistle louder at the tender points, such as, when it is deemed that I've been whistling too much - I whistle a little quieter - and in that moment I've 'talked' through whistle, I've rationalized with the conversation, converged, to the level of what whistling is agreeable.

I could then walk with you, whistling, and as we pass a bird I whistle a little louder; then you've taken it as a pointer (when I whistled loud, I was clearly on about the birds in close vicinity).

This spur of the moment sign has much potential, you and I are not automatically stupid. We can grasp what others mean through the simplest stimuli.

If we substitute whistling for every tone and sound we can make, or movement, or special effect; just this one example sheds light onto the greater picture where there is room for improvement.

Yes, words are like a sign set as exampled in the first picture; the problem is it's not the best set. We live in a world where a set is already defined and we have branched from that set with words.

That set, the set of the human body and world, and all parts within it.

Confusion arises when we compare a word world with a sign world, when it should be the opposite!

As said, we already have the necessary tools to describe any concept (whether abstract or normal), to just one person or one group of people (words make conveying this information to billions efficent).

As well as spur of the moment signs (referring to sensed objects, feelings, experience, etc), there is also drawing (that's what a word is, a drawing), and anything can be explained this way.

it's called possibility; sometimes a set of random lines are drawn and certain lines can be added to the random mess to create a recognizable shape, illustrated through the second addition.

all chess piece locations and moves are what's possible in the concept of chess.

No. I assure you it's not; but you must first try this process I have enveloped.

there is that spur of the moment jolt of energy that comes with the sign ability of marking, that you can synchronize with.

i would go on to say, I do this process on R6 with that sign set in a multiplayer process, and I have to first build tension. I have had others join in I know it works, and gets hyper; where what you are visualizing is as deep as feelings or mind.

To make people as aware as possible, up to date wth present information; to create unity and harmony between people.

it can because you don't know if this universe isn't contained from other universes; when you say everything existent, how do you know this universe isn't a species of many?

Ok but on the question on whether there are previous existences to our universe, you think "No" or "I don't know"?

any religious claims is bigotry of a sort because some sentences are expressed in the bible hold weight, such as good and evil.

God is not some all powerful thing, it's unfair, that's someone in heaven; where's contradiction to God who gets to be God? Don't you see there are many higher forces, many things in heaven instead. God, if anything, is improperly named because it refers to one, and if you're intelligent on the matter leads to better framework for knowledge of such a type.

I like the joke that the foremost existence is God; that could be one man.

You don't say the "alpha male lion, or is it a male, the female gets on top the female and there is sex".

you really wanna flair up this category then fine but I see it's stupid.

gender simply refers to categories of genetalia and not form, but identity (females do, for the most part, look different to males); not 'gender identity'.

for ex. some gay people don't feel attraction to the female, because she looks like a female and males look preferable.

females are in different gender category to males, get with the picture and momentum.

Well, why not just create animals in simulate conditions?

If there is heaven, why aren't we all in it? What's the catch, desire for power/knowledge? I suppose, not everything can be simulated pre-knowledge of a certain concept.

Perhaps in heaven is the potential for evil, which leads to people going to hell in the first place; there is a continuum where people are being evil and good, living in heaven or hell. Life is a very complex thing in this universe, you can be a murderer, you can harm others and mass extinct the environment. This is the spiritual reason I have for other kinds of life, this universe clearly restricts the mind in physical principles; dreams are due to the wound of mind not being in it's suited space - where we would not be restricted.

We need to learn; creators need to learn, so some hell's are manifest of desire for knowledge

If this IS a learning curve, which it might be, then this universe's capacity is to present a certain angle that we can observe from to improve the greater mind, which would, if simpler lives exist/existed, help make better simulations.

A simulation happening before is an entirely beneficent prospect.

Using my senses; it seems big, vast, abundant with space phenomenon, creates animals, etc.

Hmm.

I suppose I'm saying "probably"... And you're saying "no", but we both have no/little evidence.

I don't see how something as complex as this universe comes prior to other, simpler universes/simulations.

e's no — Terrapin Station

Yeah, you said "No".

Yeah, but how do you come to the conclusion "No"?

If there is no/little evidence, you cannot provide a definite answer.

"No", is a definite answer.

I don't think that "No" is a sensible answer, "I don't know" is sensible.

You can no longer assume a male is a human with a penis?

- gender is a spectrum of male and female (combinations/neither).

Anyone else reject that gender identity even exists?

There is male, female, combinations of, or neither male or female, genders determined by genetic make-up; some have penises called boys and some have vagina's called girls.

As distinct from girls and boys, are transexuals (an abstract case - sugar coated), who identify as a boy when genetically a girl, or vice versa.

Needless to say there was hardly any gender identification before gay pride took over; seems like a con intended on improving the social security, of abstract sexualities. It's slandering family-oritentated men and women by educating stupidly to their children and social groups.

What I'd like to bring to topic is that I believe gender identity doesn't exist; and that gender is referring to something real, not based on a person's want to be noticed as a certain type of thousands, such as squirtle pokemon.