My sweet calculator really gets me hot
If you don't like this then I care not
I touch the numbers
Imagine robot hummers
Because that's what gets me off.

There's lots of evidence for brain damage, or malformation. Look at that ted talk about what we learned from scanning 80 thousand brains. It also mentions a psychopathic kid, constantly drawing murder, and finally attacking a young girl. They found a cyst in his brain, and removing it cured him. There's that guy that took a steel rod through the head, and lost impulse control, and went from mild and considerate, to abusive and uninhibited. This is actually quite common with strokes, and damage to the pre-frontal cortex, which is responsible for impulse control and future planning. Which is also why psychos are said to be impulsive, presumably.

To believe that it comes down to a personal choice is to misunderstand everything.

Even given that though, I still don't think that it even matters, as I'm opposed to punishment, or retribution. What matters is prevention. People should be detained if they're a danger to society, regardless of why, or how much it's their fault, and they ought to be treated humanely regardless of how responsible one thinks they are.

Personally, I could totes be a world famous rock star on a life-long sex marathon, but I'm just above all that. I'd much rather just play video games than have sex with hot girls.

I'm definitely socially inept. Even going to places, like yoga that I frequently near daily whenever I lived close to a place I'd say nothing unnecessary, and eventually people begin to think you're stuck up, or something, because they start getting kind of nasty, and I didn't even do anything!

It's beyond miraculous that I managed to get laid... I really made her work for it too, and didn't really put anything on the line myself, and risked nothing. Even with that, my warped by fiction, ridiculously unrealistic ideas about romance, and love proved to be too insane, and I messed that up too. Like the stars aligned to fulfill that desire without compromise, but still wasn't good enough for this romantic idealist. That's what you get for spending years reading about romance rather than doing it.

A couple weeks ago I got messaged by a girl online too, she was attractive, and an artistic to boot, but I hadn't updated my profile info, and she lived in the town I was staying in, an hour and a half from here.

I mean, she contacted me, which pretty much guarantees success, as long as I showed up, and didn't say or do anything obnoxious, but I still didn't do it. Although I definitely like the idea of having all of the hot girls, in reality my social anxiety makes that impossible. I simply couldn't be intimate with a stranger, it would be too difficult and uncomfortable for me.

Maybe if they were unconscious... hmm.

I saw many likes on your post
A cultured and refined view you boast
I'll say with my thumb
That it's not that dumb
But I still deserved the most!

All ya'll yapping above
I got something I think you'll love
With ma hand naked
You know I don't fake it
Across your face with my glove.

Even though they're rare, you'd best prepare for the werebears there.

What about my God schedule that perfectly predicts the future?

I wasn't so much arguing against it, as pointing out that what is suggested is Platonism, an idealism, a rationalism that asserts an empirical account that doesn't imply it. Empirically the future doesn't appear to be contained in the past actually, empirically, besides in the sense of some regularities that rather than predicting a different thing in the future from the past, predicts that something will remain stable, or self-similar through time.

The sense in which different things that never occurred yet existing in the past must be an ideal one, and not an empirical one. Just think about what it would mean to be an empirical one for a second.

No, I attempted to illustrate that being deterministic and being predictable aren't related.

If it isn't about observation then what does it even mean to "predict the future", similarly if it has nothing to do with the past? What is this knowledge of objects and laws about? What does determinism mean if not the future arises from the past? How could the future possibly be predictable without knowing the past?

My core point to take away, is that novelty is a complete myth in such a universe, and the future has to be contained within the past in its entirety, or at least to the extent that it is predictable. It isn't actually new or different, as it was always perceivable, or discernible from any point in the past before its occurrence. Just saying "the laws predict it" or whatever doesn't quite explain how this could be so, or in what form this could take?

self-professed solipsist — Partinobodycular

What other type could there possibly be?

I don't see how it follows that if the future were determined, and necessary that it would therefore be predictable. If things happened in future tenses that never occurred in any sense in a past tense, then how could it be predictable from observation of past things? Like the occurrence of life before anything like that came about? Funnily enough, the inverse doesn't seem impossible either. That if the universe were not deterministic, that it wouldn't be predictable. Say for instance, that God did everything, but gifted to you a schedule for events, like a prophet or something, then it stands to reason that unless deception or incompetence is afoot, then the future would be predictable through the schedule.

See, what's actually necessary to predict the future to a high degree of accuracy is for the past to contain it in every sense. Everything that can possibly happen would have to be predictable from the initial conditions based on like, a platonic landscape of potential forms or some such.

Such a system would only be fair if mistakes were penalized, and authenticity, and justness rewarded... so, you know, if anyone besides me gets liked, then something is wrong with the world.

Mania is pretty great though, right?

I'm like bi-polar or something, probably. When I feel good, I feel like the greatest that's ever walked the earth, but most of the time I feel like a normal idiot. I think that mainly that nothing really interests me, or engages me most of the time, but when something does, I just devour it. I focus all of my attention on it, indivisibly until I bore of it too.

When I get up to date on a great manga I discovered I acquired the inspiration to move my own goals forward a little, and acquired new insights, or at least began to think of things differently, and that was pretty exciting for awhile.

After thanksgiving, I was really happy, and pleased with how things were going, and I told myself that I had everything, that I was satisfied, and that brought about a lot of energy, and enthusiasm. So much so, that I even confronted a couple of people that I'm acquainted with (three people actually, two of which I know personally in RL), because I thought that they had felt that way at one time as well. One of which had been in a car accident, and lost family, and responded emphatically about there being an afterlife. That kind of knocked me out of the stupor, and made me feel kind of shitty. Who could possibly feel that way all the time? Never love anyone? Not have it depend on social connections, love, and belonging? Those will always be shaky, impermanent and fragile.

I decided that I don't have everything. Not even close. Having more and more of my family out here with me has given me more strength, and happiness, but there are always lots of complications and hurdles. I new have my thirteen year old sister... and omg, instant parent is a difficult role. I have no fucking idea how I'm supposed to go about doing this, and I'm deeply worried that I'm going to influence her with my agoraphobic reclusive lifestyle.

I try to avoid giving advice, (as the song goes), everything I learned came second hand, and I dare not teach what I don't understand.

I doubt that you'll logic your way out though. Being engaged with the world with an undisturbed focus and enthusiasm is tops. When the brain goes into rest mode, as it were, and shifts to emotional and social reasoning has the highest ups and downs -- but just idlness. No enthralling projects, no peeps to figure out, be infatuated with, discern the intentions, needs, and desires of... that's probably the most drab. Not really as bad as the social, or physical pain you risk with the other two (same part of the brain lights up regardless of whether it's physical or social pain) -- but it's just a dull emptiness. Even when inspired, you feel like the energy goes to waste, or there is no where to direct it because of the lack of physical and social passion.

He died, presumably. lol

See, the first stage of nirvana is attained when you give up on your personal hopes and dreams, but this is incomplete, because even though your spirit is dead, the body still remains, so nirvana isn't completed until death.

No, none of those. Simply that you're a proponent of lying. Just as if you were all gung-ho about pricking people with needles all the time, the benefits of needles.

Analogies make terrible arguments. The problem with this one is that if historically people were emphatic about the evils of needling people, then one would think that there was a context within which this was a problem. Otherwise, it would be a senseless thing to say. Notice that something like lying is ever present, universally, in all the cultures. No context needs to be established, we immediately apprehend this one. Secondly, no one would suggest that needling people was itself good, but most importantly, it would still be wrong to force it if it wasn't consensual. It fails every relevant factor as an analogy.

Just got the ps4 pro. Playing far cry 4.

No, I said that I don't know about grand purposes. I just know that people are always about doing stuff for reasons. That's it.

I don't see a problem with it. If the universal abstract I'm opposed to lying, but in everyday life situations... not so much. This is certainly true, but that's just because living it is always a lot harder than saying it.

I'll answer both. Kant's claim was that morality wasn't about material consequences but was about perfecting our characters. Whether shit goes well or badly for you is in God's hands.

I don't know about grand purposes, but everyone is off doing shit for reasons all the time, and that's what I encounter in my day to day life. There is no justification for good things, they are their own justifications. They are justified by virtue of being the things they are, and being good things themselves, are the fodder of justification of less quality things.

I don't see a flaw. One can in fact lie, they just should understand what doing so involves and implies. Mainly that you're a proponent of lying. You're showing us all how to do it, and if it works out for you, then it worked out for lying. Good job.

I don't see how "consequentialism" can lead to anything other than "if it helps me win, then it's good", and the only mitigating factor being deontological... the ends justify the means. The better the ends, the more justifiable any means becomes.

You know, the funny thing is that it never didn't? What is the nature of a thing? To the ancient Greek, the nature of a thing is what it is upon completion, or when it has fully matured. So, the idea that it is good to follow nature, which is to say, to attain the maximal potential of the thing it is. This ties into the notion of phenomena, and noumena. The ideal is the thing which things are approximating, their perfect form, their true natures.

So, you can see that the essence of a thing, or its nature is only realized at the end of a process of becoming. It was never otherwise.

Freedom isn't about choice... like picking between path one, and path two, but rather, picking up a sledgehammer and making a third path.

God can be omniscient, and us still be free. The only thing that is necessary for this to be so, is to understand that we behave because of reasons. Things we believe. Although not born blank slates, we still need to learn what things are, and how to react to them. Part of you must know exactly what you believe about things, in order to be able to autopilot, and behave so quickly to most of it. God, knowing everyone deeply, and personally, can predict everyone's behavior, because he knows their true characters, and beliefs. People can chose the ways they behave, and it be perfectly predictable as long as it isn't baseless or random.

Freedom is a funny thing. We're living in a mirror-reality. A reflection, which we can, and do distort, and through this ability to distort our mirror-reality, we can recursively alter the real one to match our distortion. It's how we bend the rules of causality.

Reminds me about Wahlberg claiming to have had like a hundred dreams about stopping 9/11, being on the plane and killing all the terrorists.

There are lots of people unafraid of confrontation, even thirsty for it. They're likely to be the types that look to be aggressively abusing others to the neighbors (they are of course doling out justice in their own minds).

Fewer confrontation hungry, or self-righteous people would probably lead to fewer heroes and villains in this scenario. More confrontation averse, gentle folk then fewer heroes, as well as villains.

I'm not going to suggest that not intervening is superior, but just that both have their draw backs and benefits.

The secret to sales is of course manipulation. You move products by selling feelings... thing is, that if you're good enough at selling feelings, then you don't even need a product!

I began by saying "a lot of people" are of those kinds. The dynamic doesn't apply to me. :D

One has to explain why people aren't appreciating, or reacting favorably or positively to our words gestures and actions. Or why there is tension between oneself and others. One way is to just accept the ques one is receiving, and live within them. The other is to explain them in a way that salvages, or leaves unscathed one's self-perception as great.

They're both ways of dealing with the same fundamental reality that the two kinds are similarly encountering.

So you're saying either that thinking oneself to be great is constitutive of greatness, or identical with it, or that one cannot be great without thinking that they're great.

Ironically, you spend a lot of the comment talking about what shit-ass idiots the average normal person must be, while sensually massaging the geniuses.

Working for the government notwithstanding.

A lot of people are of two kinds. Those that see themselves as just average normal people, and those that see themselves as great, and everyone else idiots for not realizing it. I think that virtue does require appreciation, or recognition, or a reception that justifies its belief in some sense. It may be cognitively healthy to think we're great, or whatever, but we often don't appreciate the relative significance or insignificance of our ideas until they're pointed out to us. I think that anything good just gets absorbed into the zeitgeist, and becomes second nature.

Van Gogh probably didn't cut his own ear off. Firstly it was just a piece, and secondly, a lot of historians think that it's more likely that his violent roommate cut the piece off of his ear during one of their fights.

To answer the question, yeah, I'm my bod, but I haven't quite attained physical mastery yet. Equal maturity, symmetry, and balance. Hopefully within a year.