The problem I have with it is that it isn't much fun.
True.
It could probably use some punching up (OMGWTFBBQPUN!).
I also think Enricos Sacred Bull could go in.
What about it? who's got some Lail to contribute?
I also think Enricos Sacred Bull could go in.
What about it? who's got some Lail to contribute?
True.
It could probably use some punching up (OMGWTFBBQPUN!).
I also think Enricos Sacred Bull could go in.
What about it? who's got some Lail to contribute?
Quote from: LMNOTrue.
It could probably use some punching up (OMGWTFBBQPUN!).
I also think Enricos Sacred Bull could go in.
What about it? who's got some Lail to contribute?
Gimmie a bit to warm up...
Seriously though, that'd be fucking awesome.
I really think this should be pinned.
Or possibly be the catalyst behind Discordia Revisited Advanced Course.
Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
Revision: Comments welcome.
Once upon a time, two Serious Minded people were in their local pub, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
Bill pointed out that most of what we consider “matter” is made up of empty space. “The distance between a nucleus, its electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!”
Joe responded, “but wait… As far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nerves. And all they are doing is claiming certain wavelengths of light have bounced off an object. But what if the nerves are misfiring, which we all know happen quite often? So, we can’t really say whether or not the barstool even exists!”
Just then, a man approached them and said, “I couldn’t help but overhear you two talking. If I may, I have an experiment for you. Purely in the interest of a Deeper Understanding of the Universe.”
He then proceeded to pick up the barstool and pummel both Bill and Joe squarely about the head and torso, because they were so obviouly pretentious assholes who deserved a beatdown.
Thus, they were enlightened.
Everything is better Gonzo-ized.
Revision: Comments welcome.
Once upon a time, two Serious Minded people were in their local pub, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
Bill pointed out that most of what we consider “matter” is made up of empty space. “The distance between a nucleus, its electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!”
Joe responded, “but wait… As far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nerves. And all they are doing is claiming certain wavelengths of light have bounced off an object. But what if the nerves are misfiring, which we all know happen quite often? So, we can’t really say whether or not the barstool even exists!”
Just then, a man approached them and said, “I couldn’t help but overhear you two talking. If I may, I have an experiment for you. Purely in the interest of a Deeper Understanding of the Universe.”
He then proceeded to pick up the barstool and pummel both Bill and Joe squarely about the head and torso, because they were so obviouly pretentious assholes who deserved a beatdown.
Thus, they were enlightened.
But then people might think we are violent!
Quote from: Machine Grind DreamEverything is better Gonzo-ized.
Tomorrow, I will do horrible things to the memory of HST via this story.
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: Machine Grind DreamEverything is better Gonzo-ized.
Tomorrow, I will do horrible things to the memory of HST via this story.
This is one of the best Ideas I've heard all week.
Quote from: Fizzwitz Glorypoop
But then people might think we are violent!
We aren't?
Quote from: LMNOQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: Machine Grind DreamEverything is better Gonzo-ized.
Tomorrow, I will do horrible things to the memory of HST via this story.
This is one of the best Ideas I've heard all week.
Efrim and I were in the airport bar, discussing the future of American football, when two men wearing clerical collars walked in.
They sat down, and pretty soon they were discussing the nature of reality, and of heaven and hell, and which swine would go where. The first mentioned that the barstool next to the one he was sitting on was made of "matter", which is mostly empty space. The second replied that there was no real proof that the stool even existed, since the senses are simply recording data that may or may not be correct.
Now, while we were paying attention to this, we missed the Raiders throwing yet another interception. Efrim decided he had had enough, and walked over to the barstool in question. He picked it up, and said, "I refute it THUS", and began to thrash the two clergymen. One was knocked into me, and I spilled my drink...so, as he started to get up, I put my cigarette out on his neck.
"That will teach you to mess with serious people", I snarled, and kicked him back onto the floor. Three TSA goons ran in, and dragged the two screaming ministers away, to some small filthy room where they would be made to explain themselves to all the wrong people.
Efrim sat down, and picked up his drink. "I hate guys like that", he said, "Reality is anything that can raise a lump on your skull."
"That's because you have no faith in the words of St Augustine", I replied, "You young Turks are all the same".
Wow, Roger managed to completely remove any and all humor from this experiment.
Only to people that are too stupid to understand my 2 previous posts.
Um, that would be YOU. :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerOnly to people that are too stupid to understand my 2 previous posts.
Um, that would be YOU. :lol:
Meh, I just thought the other version was a lot better. :P
it was friday night , raining outside, a bunch of soaking wet people some standing, some sitting, all trying to dry out by the fire. I was talking to one of the random people who had managed to find this small corner of the city we all call home. we were discussing the nature of ultimate reality in relation to quantum physics.
"it came down to wave particle duality" i told him."nothing exists until you percive it, which means you create your reality"
he replied with a grin on his face, "so you honestly belive that you created that stool over there?"
"yeah" i said "everything, its a figment of my creative imagination"
he then stood up walked ever so slowly to where the stool was sitting, picked it up and returned.
before i could ask what was his point he screamed "then stop hitting yourself" and proceeded to knock the shit out of me.
before i could think about where i was i awoke to the bustling of a group of people in a small room trying to dry themselves by a fire talking about quantum physics.
the person i was talking to said "so you honestly belive that you created that stool over there?"
i told him i didnt know anything about quantum physics and that i would prefer to walk in the rain than finish this conversation. he was baffled and  annoyed that id avoided the topic, he assumed that it was because i didnt have a seat and i was tired from walking, so he got me a stool to sit on. when i tried to sit down i got a flash of the previous time i had been in this room, the stool dissappeared and i hit the floor, he laughed and said" you gotta make sure you remember it exists, BEFORE you sit down. dont you know anything.
®™©LMNO, 11/28/06
I had to teach 8 year olds about matter today.
They wanted to know if god made matter, and if god was matter.
I asked them if god took up space and had mass.
They were not satisified.
So I said..the word god is matter.
Still, no digs.
When you were eight,what would satifisfy you?
i just always thought that matter was everything and it didn't matter if god made it or if he was made from it
I had to teach 8 year olds about matter today.You're a teacher? Wait 'till the press gets a load of you posting here.
They wanted to know if god made matter, and if god was matter.
I asked them if god took up space and had mass.
They were not satisified.
So I said..the word god is matter.
Still, no digs.
When you were eight,what would satifisfy you?
Revision:  Comments welcome.
Once upon a time, two Serious Minded people were in their local pub, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
Bill pointed out that most of what we consider “matter” is made up of empty space.  “The distance between a nucleus, its electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!”
Joe responded, “but wait… As far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nerves.  And all they are doing is claiming certain wavelengths of light have bounced off an object.  But what if the nerves are misfiring, which we all know happen quite often?  So, we can’t really say whether or not the barstool even exists!”
Just then, a man approached them and said, “I couldn’t help but overhear you two talking.  If I may, I have an experiment for you.  Purely in the interest of a Deeper Understanding of the Universe.”
He then proceeded to pick up the barstool and pummel both Bill and Joe squarely about the head and torso, because they were so obviouly pretentious assholes who deserved a beatdown.
Thus, they were enlightened.
Is that Ann Coulter?
That is fucking SWOTE2 Where did you get it? Why isn't it an emoticon already?
Is that Ann Coulter?
No, its "Dr" Gillian McKeith, poop expert.
You know she's not a real doctor, right? She's just some bint who gets off on examining poop and vegetables.that sounds like a fun job
I had to teach 8 year olds about matter today.
They wanted to know if god made matter, and if god was matter.
I asked them if god took up space and had mass.
They were not satisified.
So I said..the word god is matter.
Still, no digs.
When you were eight,what would satifisfy you?
I had to teach 8 year olds about matter today.
They wanted to know if god made matter, and if god was matter.
I asked them if god took up space and had mass.
They were not satisified.
So I said..the word god is matter.
Still, no digs.
When you were eight,what would satifisfy you?
Heh, personally, if I were dealing with 8 year olds, if they asked me if god made matter, I'd tell them the goddess made UP matter, and to answer is Goddess was matter, I'd reply with "Mu". Upon which I don't think they'd be very enlightened at all, unless you taught them chinese. But hey, Kids dig Moo'ing and maybe they'll all start to say moo enough themselves they wouldn't care what gods got to do with anything.
Also, I know it's not good for job prospects, but I'd like to let the kids know everything their parents/clergyman/government told them about god is a lie, and they shouldn't worry about trying to worry about what the world *is* and just go outside and play. We don't need no education, life should be about perpetual play. Intelligence builds Atom bombs. Wisdom lets us realise theres no need to use them, and its much better to just play in the sunshine instead.
An eight year old girl walks into a dirty bar. It's mid afternoon and there are only a few drunks and dealers hanging around. The barman is in the corner molesting a fruit machine for all his money's worth; he didn't see the little girl come in. She approaches the bar slowly and climbs up onto a barstool. One of the older farts glares at her, his eyes damp and bloodshot, heavy in the smokey sunlight. She looks back at him, brow furrowed, a serious look on her face. Her dark brown eyes are unblinking in the tobacco smoke.
The barman suddenly shouts "Fucking useless!", and slaps the glowing bandit with a sweaty palm. He turns back to the bar, stops in his tracks as he sees the little girl, then strides towards her, voice raised.
"You're not supposed to be in here . . ."
"But it's the afternoon," she replies - "Kids are allowed in in the afternoon."
Taken aback, the barman nervously takes a cloth from his pocket and points it at her, "You . . . out . . . now."
"But I'm allowed . . ." she says, "I'm allowed to be here."
Feeling threatened, the barman starts to sweat. He's never got on with children, and this one's rebelious. Deep down, he knows he's out of his depth, and that scares him. "Now . . . who told you that? . . . You're going to have to leave."
Her unexpected presence in his everyday world wasn't right. She wasn't supposed to be here. This was wrong. He was going to have to throw her out, but he was afraid of touching her. He half steps towards her, arms reaching forward, but he's uncertain and hesitates. She pulls away from him, gripping the barstool tight with both hands.
"Fuck sakes, lad!" says the old scowler from the corner, "Leave her be." The barman and the little girl both look at the old boy hunched behind his table. Slowly, he stands, wobbles, and then calmly shuffles over to stand beside the little girl.
"Here . . . ", he puts a coin on the bar, "Get her a lemonade or something will you." The barman, relieved someone else has taken charge, scuttles off behind the bar to pour the drink. The little girl looks at the old man. She's close enough to smell the stale beer on his breath and see the stains on his fingers. "Thanks" she says. "Your welcome" he says, half coughing. He strokes her cheek kindly and she smiles. Slowly, the old man staggers back to his seat, and the barman serves the lemonade in a tall glass with a straw. The little girl spends the rest of the afternoon sitting happily on the barstool, sipping her pop.
2) The kid in a bar isn't pragmatic at all, I was playing around with what had been said previously in the thread.
3) By more personal, I mean I was trying to focus more on human relationships in stead of "intellectual" content (metaphysics etc). I'm more interested in that side of things, personally.
You guys don't love me do you?
Betrayed again.
:oops:
:cry:
2) The kid in a bar isn't pragmatic at all, I was playing around with what had been said previously in the thread.
3) By more personal, I mean I was trying to focus more on human relationships in stead of "intellectual" content (metaphysics etc). I'm more interested in that side of things, personally.
that's why it's a parable. parables do that stuff.
(or maybe an allegory? i'm not really too precise on these literary terms)
in regular words, it's a story that tries to speak about a metaphysical concept (in this case a specific type of pragmatism) and does this with a sort of metaphorical story.
also: this is the wrong forum to come looking for love, so stop asking.
in regular words, it's a story that tries to speak about a metaphysical concept (in this case a specific type of pragmatism) and does this with a sort of metaphorical story.
I see your point about it being a parable. My version is far from being so obviously that. But isn't either version totally redundant as a psychological tool while posted on this forum and simply just a form of literature?
A punk and an emo were talking in a bar.
The punk says to the emo, "Everybody hates you. I ought to hit you over your head with this barstool."
The emo responds, "The barstool is only an imaginary thing made by your brain because you want it to be. It cannot hurt me. My heart would break the windows if it were let out. My pain is so real. Nothing is really real. Matter is all so empty because nothing matters any more."
The punk ponders this. "I will show you real pain."
The punk and the friends of the punk lift up the barstool and the emo and defenestrate both the emo and the barstool.
I see your point about it being a parable. My version is far from being so obviously that. But isn't either version totally redundant as a psychological tool while posted on this forum and simply just a form of literature?
No.
whatsrsly, what I was about to say
Ok, thanks for the explenation.Are you a Brit and/or a Vargyr?
What's a Vargyr?
I don't even know if I spelled the fuckin thing rightSee new thread in apple talk.
Ok, thanks for the explenation.Are you a Brit and/or a Vargyr?
The barstool experiment consists of five parts.
1. Some dope or dopes who pretend they know what matter is.
2. They postulate hypotheses about the nature of matter in a metaphysical manner.
3. Somehow a barstool works itself into the storyline (e.g. a character mentions it)
4. Someone else or by some method, the barstool is used to strike the dope or dopes from #1.
5. The story ends with the moral that one should not worry so much about the nature of matter, the world, social constructs, etc. so much as they are there and for one's use or harm.
Anything else involving barstools or experiments should be in Literate Chaotic or anywhere but this thread.
It's kind of like writing a sonnet or a haiku. You have a form to follow.
The barstool experiment consists of five parts.
1. Some dope or dopes who pretend they know what matter is.
2. They postulate hypotheses about the nature of matter in a metaphysical manner.
3. Somehow a barstool works itself into the storyline (e.g. a character mentions it)
4. Someone else or by some method, the barstool is used to strike the dope or dopes from #1.
5. The story ends with the moral that one should not worry so much about the nature of matter, the world, social constructs, etc. so much as they are there and for one's use or harm.
Anything else involving barstools or experiments should be in Literate Chaotic or anywhere but this thread.
It's kind of like writing a sonnet or a haiku. You have a form to follow.
The trick is to make #2 be as convincing as possible, to lure the reader into the tricksy metaphysical land of hypothesis and metaphor. So when the barstool comes, it's as unexpected for the reader as it is for the poor sap getting clobbered.
What's a Vargyr?
What's a Vargyr?
Vargr, no fucking Y!
It's an old Norse word which has two meanings Wolf and Outlaw, it's a title used to refer to a Norse Pagan who follows Nordic practices but rejects conventional Nordic morality and ethics, every religion has a similar thing.
Also some RPG has arace called Vargr who are basicly werewolves and there is a nother RPG called Vampire: Dark Ages where they use the word to describe a viking vamp.
I follow (or at least try to) the 9 virtues and try to follow the examples set by the old myths and deity-stories.
I follow (or at least try to) the 9 virtues and try to follow the examples set by the old myths and deity-stories.
Sounds kinda bloody, if I remember my Norse mythology correctly.
standing up for yourself and accepting fate.
Goes against the whole compensation culture going on these days.
Sounds more like it goes against itself.
Sounds more like it goes against itself.
Fate can't be changed, your kinda fucked whatever you do. The point is to stand up, face fate witha smile and say "fuck you bitch, what's next?"
No point fighting the inevitable, but you can face it with a smile and stand up against it. You'll be fucked over every time, the point is to keep standing up.
:ninja: I smell a fkin pagan :hosrie:
:ninja: I smell a fkin pagan :hosrie:
Careful, you. He's got a wolf howling in his soul...he'll royally fucking your shit 6 ways from Sunday.
fate = how your life looks backwards
funny, 'enlightenment by self-sacrifice and accepting fate (for the masses)' is the title of the book Dick Cheney's going to release as soon as he leaves office.
This X-ray image shows the leg of a chair embedded into the eye socket of a Melbourne teenager who miraculously survived a random attack outside a city nightclub earlier this year.
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i234/St_JtB/350_skull.jpg)
Once upon a time, two Serious Minded people were in their local pub, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
Bill pointed out that most of what we consider “matter” is made up of empty space. “The distance between a nucleus, its electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!”
Joe responded, “but wait… As far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nerves. And all they are doing is claiming certain wavelengths of light have bounced off an object. But what if the nerves are misfiring, which we all know happen quite often? So, we can’t really say whether or not the barstool even exists!”
Just then, a man approached them and said, “I couldn’t help but overhear you two talking. If I may, I have an experiment for you. Purely in the interest of a Deeper Understanding of the Universe.”
He then proceeded to pick up the barstool and pummel both Bill and Joe squarely about the head and torso, because they were so obviously pretentious assholes who deserved a beatdown.
Thus, they were enlightened.
I would suggest another metaphor be created that represents the “whack to the head” of the willfully ignorant or stupid.
I suggest “clawhammer.”
Still the most Discordian book done by him so far.
I have to email him with thanks and my suggestion for an Errata based storyline (Errata being the Discworld's Eris).
QuoteOnce upon a time, two Serious Minded people were in their local pub, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
Bill pointed out that most of what we consider “matter” is made up of empty space. “The distance between a nucleus, its electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!”
Joe responded, “but wait… As far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nerves. And all they are doing is claiming certain wavelengths of light have bounced off an object. But what if the nerves are misfiring, which we all know happen quite often? So, we can’t really say whether or not the barstool even exists!”
Just then, a man approached them and said, “I couldn’t help but overhear you two talking. If I may, I have an experiment for you. Purely in the interest of a Deeper Understanding of the Universe.”
He then proceeded to pick up the barstool and pummel both Bill and Joe squarely about the head and torso, because they were so obviously pretentious assholes who deserved a beatdown.
Thus, they were enlightened.
So, what does this metaphor mean?
First off, it does not mean the use of violence against stupid, or willfully ignorant people.
What it does mean is not to forget the idea of pragmatism in any sort of philosophical discussion that deals with the way we interact with the universe.
Our imaginations can hold a lot of ideas, and we can build upon these ideas immensely. We can even do this if the initial ideas are complete bullshit.
The barstool is a metaphor for telling you that your grand castle in the sky that you build after sleepless nights and too much LSD is, in fact, completely worthless.
I would suggest another metaphor be created that represents the “whack to the head” of the willfully ignorant or stupid.
I suggest “clawhammer.”
These people, I feel, are extremely lazy, with limited reading comprehension.
The only thing discordians fear are sentient barstools attacking us tomorrow.
Thankfully the goddess protects us by making sure tomorrow never comes.
The only thing discordians fear are sentient barstools attacking us tomorrow.
Thankfully the goddess protects us by making sure tomorrow never comes.
You are just begging for a schism and Annie to be it's first martyr.
That made absolutely no sense, even for a discordian.
I don't know who failed in this case, as you might actually be saying complete tripe and in that case, you fail. But then I probably just missed the lulz, and in that case, I fail.
In anycase, I don't want to know the answer.
(http://www.vventertainment.nl/images/theater/annie.jpg)
Yeah, I figured it to be *that* Annie, but... whats she got to do with being a martyr and barstools?
Thankfully the goddess protects us by making sure tomorrow never comes
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
A way!
Ah, right, I see. I haven't actually *seen* annie, but I do know of it, and the song does seem familiar, I'm definitely sure I know the tune that accompanies it.
Ok, I'm back on the track now :D
The only thing discordians fear are sentient barstools attacking us tomorrow.
Thankfully the goddess protects us by making sure tomorrow never comes.
You are just begging for a schism and Annie to be it's first martyr.
A serious minded barstool was sitting in his pub, having a few pints, and
talking about the nature of Universe.
Suddently he started ranting that most of what we consider “matter” is made up
of empty space. "The distance between a nucleus, its electrons, and the
nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, I shouldn't even be
considered a solid!"
"But wait, As far as I can actually prove, I might simply be a
hallucination, for I am not actually seeing myself, I'm processing
electric signals in my head generated by my optic nerves. And all they are
doing is claiming certain wavelengths of light have bounced off an object. But
what if the nerves are misfiring, which we all know happen quite often? So, I
can't really say whether or not I even exist!" He continued.
Just then, a man approached him and said, HOLY SHIT!! A TALKING BARSTOOL!
lookey here mam... my points are that not only does things we look at sometimes seem unreal, but also our very own existence.
and if i can think like that, i can certantly not have bill and joe becomming pretentious assholes because i would be one myself...
i think that the suddenicity of them becomming pretentious assholes in each story are the same.
ive got a kinda "nothing can be proven do wtf ever" kinda thing going.
nonono, lucky me that i am not the only one with someting intestintegrating to say. now just let me be... the greatest way to kill me is to have me boycutted. the way your acting it could look like its some weird noob "come be one of us BUT FIRST HAHAHA" thing... just leave me be, if you dont like it.
like i did, ya? :)
Guys!
50.
Posts.
fast speed may have been drunk when he posted, but that's his right.
I think he was close to something. Don't bash him.
Fast, I invite you to speak more on this.
I think almost everything boils down to "stupid humans".
But even if there were no humans, those little bits of stuff would still be whizzing around the universe.
Yup.
Those bits were whizzing around before we knew they were there. They didn't suddenly appear just because we invented a positron collider.
And, modern physicis has removed the observer from the equations (contrary to what the pseudo-physics nutjobs say).
So, if things are whizzing around, and we remove an incredibly small amount of that stuff (humans), the stuff would still whiz around.
No, our observations do not create the physical universe.
Think about it, when you are born do you have any preconceived notions about what reality is? I don't know. I don't personally remember being born, in fact my first memories are when I was about 2-3. Thats a long ass time for my parents and anyone else around me during that time to impose their will, their perceptions, their beliefs on mine. And at such a critical time when I have no defense, no way to cut out the bull shit and lies. And so it is with almost all children. I think the only "humans" capable of having a clear, unclouded view of reality would have to be an infant that was removed from the rest of the species at birth, and not introduced to the concept of "human" till they were about 5 yrs or so and had a good solid grasp on the concept of "me" first. Unfortunetley such a child would be nothing like a "civilized" child in the traditonal sence and would probably seem quite alien to those of us who were imprinted with the preconcieved notion of "human" from birth. But back to the original point, take such a child, or better yet put yourself in the mind of such a child, how would things seem to you. What would you make of these loud, poison spewing animals rolling along the paths with other animals inside them? what are these tall shiny rocks the other animals are moving in and out of constantly? And whats with these leaves with faces on them that the other animals keep throwing at each other. In conclusion reality as it is commonly percieved today is a thin veneer of civilization laid over the very real instincts and motivations of a monkey. How did that veneer get there its not there at birth, it must have been placed over us by our elders and perpetuated through the generations. Reality is a joke and "humans" are th punchline. Have a nice day. :fnord:
Of course, you're talking about the way we percieve and interpret the whizzing bits in the Universe, not about the bits themselves.
How about the ocean deeps? I think it's safe to say there is no humanity down there, cept for the occassional National Geographic submarine. There's a certain reality, or "bits of stuff" that have, I assume, been existing without our presence. Perhaps if we weren't around it would be different, in fact I'm sure it would be somehow. But it would still "be" in some fashion wouldn't it?
How about the ocean deeps? I think it's safe to say there is no humanity down there, cept for the occassional National Geographic submarine. There's a certain reality, or "bits of stuff" that have, I assume, been existing without our presence. Perhaps if we weren't around it would be different, in fact I'm sure it would be somehow. But it would still "be" in some fashion wouldn't it?
Logic and almost every other rule you could apply, dictates that it does but I'd bet even science would be reluctant to call this an irrefutable fact because the bottom line is - we can't prove it.
It's an extension of BIP the way I see it, that and a bit of matrix flung in, that reality is actually projected by us and only exists in a bubble, around the observer. Yes, I agree, this is a patently ridiculous hypothesis but it is one, nonetheless that we can't completely rule out.
If you want to fuck your head in with metaphysics then, take it from someone who has, this kind of paradigm is exactly the kind of thing that will do it for you.
So you're saying that it's possible the ocean floor may only exist when we are actually there?
So, by this logic, it's possible to jump from a mile high cliff and walk away without a scratch.
Clumsily put, what Einstein realized is that in newtonian physics, when you measure something, the perspective (i.e. location and velocity in space-time) of the person measuring will affect the measurement. The Theory of Special Relativity essentially gives a way you can accurately measure something regardless of your location or velocity.
That is, he was able to remove the observer.
This is only one example.
Thats a long ass time for my parents and anyone else around me during that time to impose their will, their perceptions, their beliefs on mine. And at such a critical time when I have no defense, no way to cut out the bull shit and lies.
Fuzzymike, From an earlier post of yours:QuoteThats a long ass time for my parents and anyone else around me during that time to impose their will, their perceptions, their beliefs on mine. And at such a critical time when I have no defense, no way to cut out the bull shit and lies.
In your latest post you are talking about whether or not the parents "are willing to pay attention and spend time" with the child.
I see these as two different ideas.
I agree with the second one, in that whether or not parents choose to spend meaningful attention and time with their child does have an impact. However, I still disagree with the premise of the first quoted statement. That statement seems to imply parents grafting certain values and perceptions on the infant, which as I stated before, I don't believe is possible with a child that young. An infant does not have the capacity to contemplate "bullshit and lies."
Fuzzymike, From an earlier post of yours:QuoteThats a long ass time for my parents and anyone else around me during that time to impose their will, their perceptions, their beliefs on mine. And at such a critical time when I have no defense, no way to cut out the bull shit and lies.
In your latest post you are talking about whether or not the parents "are willing to pay attention and spend time" with the child.
I see these as two different ideas.
I agree with the second one, in that whether or not parents choose to spend meaningful attention and time with their child does have an impact. However, I still disagree with the premise of the first quoted statement. That statement seems to imply parents grafting certain values and perceptions on the infant, which as I stated before, I don't believe is possible with a child that young. An infant does not have the capacity to contemplate "bullshit and lies."
No but it does provide the foundation for cause and effect - stimulus and response.
That's the really deep rooted, imprinting shit that's almost impossibe to change in later life
the diff between "when I cry mommy comes" and "when I cry I get beaten"
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
The shirt I'm wearing right now says that.
I want to be last so I can rest easy knowing we didn't fuck the universe up with some fangled invention that collapses dimensions.
And all I came for was a beer...I want to be last so I can rest easy knowing we didn't fuck the universe up with some fangled invention that collapses dimensions.
I want to collapse dimensions.
So the barstool exists independant of my belief in it, but can it affect me if I percieve that it cannot? I for one choose to belive that no it cannot. I have the option to, as triple zero says, duck or move out of the way or shoot the ass who picked it up in the first place. Just because something exists does not mean that we have to CHOOSE to let it effect us (consciously or un).
Fuzzymike, From an earlier post of yours:QuoteThats a long ass time for my parents and anyone else around me during that time to impose their will, their perceptions, their beliefs on mine. And at such a critical time when I have no defense, no way to cut out the bull shit and lies.
In your latest post you are talking about whether or not the parents "are willing to pay attention and spend time" with the child.
I see these as two different ideas.
I agree with the second one, in that whether or not parents choose to spend meaningful attention and time with their child does have an impact. However, I still disagree with the premise of the first quoted statement. That statement seems to imply parents grafting certain values and perceptions on the infant, which as I stated before, I don't believe is possible with a child that young. An infant does not have the capacity to contemplate "bullshit and lies."
No but it does provide the foundation for cause and effect - stimulus and response.
That's the really deep rooted, imprinting shit that's almost impossibe to change in later life
the diff between "when I cry mommy comes" and "when I cry I get beaten"
Well it depends on how ur definition for "brainwash" and "guiding" is.
Guiding = helping them to show the way?
In that case its not possible to guide a kid, since its knowledge is insufficient (also depending what age this kid is)
brainwashing = forcing ur own opinion on someone else without physical force.
In that case every child is brainwashed either you want it or not. Kids tend to imitate their parents, not only their actions but also their way of thinking.
Yes, "brainwashing" has a negative connotation, but when you break it down, isn't it simply using coercive techniques to get a person to think like you want them to?
And isn't that what a large part of child rearing is?
Discord--please to be employing Y and O key.
It doesnt matter what you call it, fact is, you ARE brainwashing / guiding ... ur children. as U pointed out, sometimes u do it on porpose, sometimes (prbly more often) u dont even notice it.
The 2 year old girl / boy does not hold the spoon like daddy because she THINKS it is right or because she likes daddy so much. she/he does it because its the only person she can imitate properly.
Is that brainwashing?
I say yes, but it has no negative aspects, actually it is necessary.
U might want to use the term "guidance" here because it is necessary.
Still, the point im trying to make is:
Ppl shouldnt bother about if they are brainwashing their children, since they will do it.
Its just important to keep in mind that U are doing it, and teaching the child to think for their own, even if it is a pain in the ass.
HOW to achieve that, i dont know.
Jenne--I salute you for actually parenting.
Discord--please to be employing Y and O key. I might be the only one here who finds it difficult to take someone seriously when they are being addressed as "U," in which case I'll shush up. But ow. I am fairly certain you made good points, but I will get back to you on that.
RWHN--You bring up "for the child's safety" and "brainwashing." I completely agree with what you've said, but I just want to bring this up purely for the sake of bringing it up. In the case of many religious parents (such as my aunt and uncle, for example) they think that what they are indoctrinating into their children IS for that child's mortal safety, just as much as teaching them not to jump off the roof is, perhaps even more so. I personally think that's dumb. But how do you determine where the line is drawn? How do you determine when something is actually for the child's safety or if it's simply your own biases coming into play? What's "good" for a kid is so damn subjective.
Of course, I am a prick and will gladly pass judgment on religious people raising their kids as drones, even though I have no children of my own. But we all need our own little foibles, I suppose.
You just wanted to insert fetish attire into it.
-snip-
1. i believe i answered that above.
2. pretty good. fuck pragmatism in a very secret place. but yeah i did that didnt i... sigh.
3. How would two assholes be enlightened after being hit by a non-sentient barstool?
3. How would two assholes be enlightened after being hit by a non-sentient barstool?
Hitting people is great.
Don't smile at me like that, it bothers me. :?
has any of you ever been hit with a barstool whilst having a solopsist conversation?
No.
My toe-caps are hidden in my trainers. Aluminium too, so they don't weigh as much and I can run away quickly afterwards.
Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
Heh. Would it surprise you to know that most people around here embrace both?
Revision: Comments welcome.
Once upon a time, two Serious Minded people were in their local pub, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
Bill pointed out that most of what we consider “matter” is made up of empty space. “The distance between a nucleus, its electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!”
Joe responded, “but wait… As far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nerves. And all they are doing is claiming certain wavelengths of light have bounced off an object. But what if the nerves are misfiring, which we all know happen quite often? So, we can’t really say whether or not the barstool even exists!”
Just then, a man approached them and said, “I couldn’t help but overhear you two talking. If I may, I have an experiment for you. Purely in the interest of a Deeper Understanding of the Universe.”
He then proceeded to pick up the barstool and pummel both Bill and Joe squarely about the head and torso, because they were so obviouly pretentious assholes who deserved a beatdown.
Thus, they were enlightened.
One fine Maine evening, rife with the buzzing of mosquitos and the nearby substation, Chuck and I decided to put in an appearance at Joe's Hole In The Wall to enjoy our favourite spirits.
It came to be that we once again were discussing the finer, and duller, points of the universe and existence. It was much more appealing than watching the Bruins, yet again, implode upon the TV hanging from the ceiling next to the moose carcass.
Meanwhile a couple of chaps down the bar are also embroiled in their own deep discussion.
"No man, I'm telling you there's a purple monkey right there on your shoulder" one shouted.
"Dude, there isn't any stinking monkey on my shoulder. That's just your 12th Rolling Rock talking." replied the other.
At which point Chuck and I had to interject.
"Excuse me my friend. But what has you so convinced that there is not a purple monkey on your shoulder?" Chuck asked.
"I ain't your friend freako! And besides I don't see any monkey here on my shoulder. You think I'd notice something like that."
"You assume it's your friend's drunken hallucination that is creating the purple monkey in his mind. Has it ever occurred to you that it may be your drunken hallucination that is cloaking this very real purple monkey that is now urinating on your red flannel shirt?" I asked of the man.
"I'm telling you man. He's right there and this dude's right. He's pissing all over your new shirt man."
"Here," I said. And I handed him a book and a knife. "Here's all that you need to see that which you cannot see."
And, as predicted, he proceeded to stab himself in the shoulder.
No one was particularily enlightened and Chuck and I were yet again banned from another bar.
The End.
Yeah!
\
(http://thelegendaryoxbaker.com/images/03.jpg)
srsly?
Ok, I'll break the Barstool Experiment down for you in the most basic possible terms.
The moral of the story is: Don't get caught up in your rhetoric and flights of intellectual fantasy so much that you forget about what's going on around you.
I don't see how smacking some self-important prick with a barstool is any different than a Zen Master whacking a n00b with his staff.
I don't see how smacking some self-important prick with a barstool is any different than a Zen Master whacking a n00b with his staff.
I think the motives might differ but i would have to ask the barstool guy, besides, what's wrong with being pretentious?
I don't see how smacking some self-important prick with a barstool is any different than a Zen Master whacking a n00b with his staff.
Ever hear of a "parable"?
You're dangerously close to eating the menu.
Maybe i am, i guess i wouldn't know myself if i did. pun intended.
Maybe i am, i guess i wouldn't know myself if i did. pun intended.
I don't get it.
So, who does this apply to? Almost everyone. Priests, witches, politicians, educators, philosophers, junkies, artists, drunks, republicans, dictators, junkies, democrats, "soft" scientists, libertarians, "hard" scientists, marxists... You get the picture.
It's not about how far outside the box you can think, it's about how your thinking actually affects the solid world in which you live.
*Rat: It's both.
What's the point of opening yourself up to flights of intellectual whimsey if it ends up with you drawing firm conclusions about a world that doesn't match the one you're actually living in?
HAHA, made you rant! :(What's the point of opening yourself up to flights of intellectual whimsey if it ends up with you drawing firm conclusions about a world that doesn't match the one you're actually living in?
There were no firm conclusions in the story as i understood it. besides, i believe that all firm conclusions about any world or about anything does not match reality at all, and if it does it is purely by accident. All the things we see, touch or sense in any way might just our body making a suggestion to our brains that reacts in the manner it has been conditioned to react.
Or: fuckitidontknow :( <-- The only honest words i've ever spoke. beat me with a chair and i suppose it hurts...
If thats the case however, why does it matter? You cannot step outside your own senses in order to verify your own experiences, so endless navel-gazing speculation is a waste of time, because you will never come to a satisfactory conclusion, unless you accept that at some point along the line what you are sensing at least seems to have a basis in reality.
indeed
as a thought-experiment, let's assume the opposite: at no point along the line what you are sensing has any basis in reality.
lol
if that would be reality, it's fucking useless and i want nothing to do with it
if it doesnt even have the simple decency to form a basis for my senses, i'm gonna give that so-called reality all the consideration it's due
Ok, i'm really sorry.
What i'm trying to say is that reality might be way bigger than our means of percieving it.
Now i'll shut the fuck up for a while.
What i'm trying to say is that reality might be way bigger than our means of percieving it.
What i'm trying to say is that reality might be way bigger than our means of percieving it.
The discussion of the barstool seems to be based on only one sense, the sense of sight.the barstool smells of wee and tastes like poo but is neither ;)
Pol, the Barstool Experiment is (for me) meant to be a parable/metaphor, and not to be taken in an explicitly literal sense.
So, I take your point (with the exception that "sight" is the only sense being used. Clearly, the argument used by the scientist is that of mass and cohesion, while the philosopher is the one questioning the hallucination of the world), but I suggest you take the "punchline" [/RWHN] as the feeling one gets when castles in the sky tumble.
To quote some asshat, "keep your head in the clouds and your feet on the ground." Sometimes, it takes a barstool to help you find where your feet are.
What happens when one assumes and relies on "conventional wisdom".The metaphor relies on conventional wisdom ;) (I dont mean you are wrong What's-his-name, just that the message of the parable *is* conventional wisdom).
When you get too crazy and wacky and go in all sorts of different directions you'll never get the point across. Or at least, you won't get it across to anyone with a lack of patience.Hopefully the "enlightened" people in the parable will have patience and not need a barstool.
If you're looking for something that ties all the viewpoints together, it'd be our much-loved phrase "Think for yourself, schmuck".
I'm not sure "Think For Yourself, Schmuck" alone does it. Because as Rat points out, many would probably assume they are thinking for themselves. Indeed, I think one can think for themselves, but be severely limited in what they think about.
The way I approach the Barstool is it's about expanding your horizons and the borders of your thought process. But, at the same time, don't get lost in that thought process and get carried away.
It's not that we want their thoughts to have the same content.
It's not that we necessarily want their thought process to be identical.
It's that we want them to have access to the same thought toolbox.
I appreciate what all of you have been saying, and agree, and understand... And yet I somehow feel that I have to tie all the viewpoints together.. many posts seem to say the same thing in a different way.. Many miss the point of the writer because they pick one piece up and analyse it, missing the general point.
As far as I see it, the BE depicts the occasionally useful, and often overlooked, values of common sense and pragmatism.
Think about it: These two guys were arguing about the possibility of whether the physical world exists, while they were existing in that world.
Now, while it's often amusing, and perhaps even enlightening some of the time, you have to remember that if you actually start believing that the world you're creating in your head, it's gonna get awfully difficult when you try to interact with what's going on outside your head.
In a way, it's another version of eating the menu; just because you can argue (and even convince yourself) that the barstool doesn't exist, it's still coming straight at your head.
Duck!
dumb question perhaps - but you know the metaphor is not a suggestion to physically hit people with a barstool, right?
Rat, the violence is meant as slapstick.
If it would feel better, perhaps you would prefer the "stick experiment"?
Two men argue about the existence of a stick, and a third comes up and starts poking them with it?
One fine Maine evening, rife with the buzzing of mosquitos and the nearby substation, Chuck and I decided to put in an appearance at Joe's Hole In The Wall to enjoy our favourite spirits.
It came to be that we once again were discussing the finer, and duller, points of the universe and existence. It was much more appealing than watching the Red Sox, yet again, implode upon the TV hanging from the ceiling next to the moose carcass.
Meanwhile a couple of chaps down the bar are also embroiled in their own deep discussion.
"No man, I'm telling you there's a purple monkey right there on your shoulder" one shouted.
"Dude, there isn't any stinking monkey on my shoulder. That's just your 12th Rolling Rock talking." replied the other.
At which point Chuck and I had to interject.
"Excuse me my friend. But what has you so convinced that there is not a purple monkey on your shoulder?" Chuck asked.
"I ain't your friend freako! And besides I don't see any monkey here on my shoulder. You think I'd notice something like that."
"You assume it's your friend's drunken hallucination that is creating the purple monkey in his mind. Has it ever occurred to you that it may be your drunken hallucination that is cloaking this very real purple monkey that is now urinating on your red flannel shirt?" I asked of the man.
"I'm telling you man. He's right there and this dude's right. He's pissing all over your new shirt man."
"Here," I said. And I handed him a book and a knife. "Here's all that you need to see that which you cannot see."
And, as predicted, he proceeded to stab himself in the shoulder.
No one was particularily enlightened and Chuck and I were yet again banned from another bar.
The End.
One fine Maine evening, rife with the buzzing of mosquitos and the nearby substation, Chuck and I decided to put in an appearance at Joe's Hole In The Wall to enjoy our favourite spirits.
It came to be that we once again were discussing the finer, and duller, points of the universe and existence. It was much more appealing than watching the Red Sox, yet again, implode upon the TV hanging from the ceiling next to the moose carcass.
Meanwhile a couple of chaps down the bar are also embroiled in their own deep discussion.
"No man, I'm telling you there's a purple monkey right there on your shoulder" one shouted.
"Dude, there isn't any stinking monkey on my shoulder. That's just your 12th Rolling Rock talking." replied the other.
At which point Chuck and I had to interject.
"Excuse me my friend. But what has you so convinced that there is not a purple monkey on your shoulder?" Chuck asked.
"I ain't your friend freako! And besides I don't see any monkey here on my shoulder. You think I'd notice something like that."
"You assume it's your friend's drunken hallucination that is creating the purple monkey in his mind. Has it ever occurred to you that it may be your drunken hallucination that is cloaking this very real purple monkey that is now urinating on your red flannel shirt?" I asked of the man.
"I'm telling you man. He's right there and this dude's right. He's pissing all over your new shirt man."
"Here," I said. And I handed him a book and a knife. "Here's all that you need to see that which you cannot see."
And, as predicted, he proceeded to stab himself in the shoulder.
No one was particularily enlightened and Chuck and I were yet again banned from another bar.
The End.
Maybe you like this one?
There are a couple other examples earlier in the thread as well, Rog did one and some other dude named Reptyle who doesn't post here anymore.
Well Rat, I have to admit, I wrote this on the fly; it's a fairly condensed version. I intended to flesh it out, but eventually just said "fuck it".
However, it really seems you get the idea of the BE: Why don't you write your own version? Who know, it could become definitive...
There are a couple other examples earlier in the thread as well, Rog did one and some other dude named Reptyle who doesn't post here anymore.
In which thread? This one? (wonders if he missed something)
There are a couple other examples earlier in the thread as well, Rog did one and some other dude named Reptyle who doesn't post here anymore.
In which thread? This one? (wonders if he missed something)
Yeah, Rog's is on page 2 or 3 and the one from Reptyle was a page or two after. There may be more than that but I forget and was too lazy to go through all of them.
The Barstool says "snap out of it for a second - look at what you can REALLY expect to accomplish. Then talk about that."
It came to pass one day that two students of Zaurn the Grey were sitting in the school garden, marveling at all their newfound knowledge. Nearby, the Heirophant was quietly reading a comic book.
Pokaroo turned to ZauZajer and said: 'Zaurn the Wise taught me today about the true nature of solidity. He taught that seemingly solid objects are, in fact, made from tiny particles. They appear to our eyes and fingers as solid, but in reality much space is between these particle, in a relative sense.'
ZauZajer stroked his goatee, which meant he was pondering. 'Interesting,' said he. 'for Zaurn the Erudite taught me today that vision and touch are the results of signals being passed to our minds from the outside world. We see, yet we are verily as blind as a Srizzlefish. For all we know our signals may be crossed and our vision and touch may be all lies.'
Pokaroo stared for a moment at the flagstones under his feet. 'Do you realize what this means?' he asked.
'I think I do.' ZauZajer answered, with a tremble of fear in his eyes.
'With so much uncertainty, how can we know anything?' Pokaroo squeaked.
'Yes!' cried ZauZajer. 'With so much uncertainty we ourselves may not even exist.'
The Heirophant, overhearing the discussion of the two students, strolled over. 'I overheard your discussion, because I was eavesdropping.' said he, then went on in this manner: 'If I may, I think I may be able to help you both with your problem. That is, if you would like the help?'
'Yes!' cried Pokaroo. 'We are lost!'
'Please!' wailed ZauZajer. 'Enlighten us!'
The Heirophant smiled, rubbed his hands together briskly, then put a hand on each of the student's shoulders. He leaned toward them, conspiratorially. Pokaroo and ZauZajer leaned in, waiting for the answer.
The Heirophant swiftly knocked both of the two skulls together, letting out a ringing GONG sound.
Thus, were both enlightened.
Well, I'll babble anyway. Consider that in my version of the parable, the two people arguing about the barstool, went totally anti- E.Prime, and were insisting that the barstool isn't really there. In that case, the BE really becomes an experiment, as in, "if you really think it isn't there, then let's try something."
Adding to Cram's point, perhaps we can ask: Would you prefer two people arguing about whether Mr. Momomoto can swallow his brother's nose, or the way one's reality grid can be altered?
See, that's my point: Listening to two guys try to prove to each other that the barstool doesn't exist is like listening to them argue about Mr. Momomoto.
No, i can see what you're trying to say.
You seem to be saying that you don't mind if the third person says, "well, if the barstool doesn't exist, then why don't you see if you can run through it," but you don't really dig the active aspect of proving the case.
I hate to say it, but I really thing we're parsing it kind of fine.
In it's most base sense, we agree that the parable ends with a measure of physical proof, and someone encounters the physicality of the barstool.
So, it comes down to the manner in which the barstool is applied: passively, coercively, or actively.
"Why don't you..."
"I will give you the solution if you ask nicely."
"Take that, motherfuckers!"
If that's all you're objecting to, then all you need to do is change the story. The priciple allagory still holds up.
Well Rat, I have to admit, I wrote this on the fly; it's a fairly condensed version. I intended to flesh it out, but eventually just said "fuck it".
oh which reminds me, there also was a version that featured LMNO and LHX talking about the nature of the universe, and then ECH coming along to bash their heads in.
dunno if that one was earlier, though.
I think LMNO was accusing me of sophistry.
So Hoops, are you saying that the entire Barstool Experiment can be summed up as Sophistry?
Wow! You fags are still here? Maybe you should get off your ass and put some thought into something meaningful instead of a stupid kiddie message board. You're all pawns in the game of life, no matter how much you think about it. You're still retarded no matter how big your words are. You're still missing the point.
There is still time to accept Jesus Christ, he is the only one that can fill the enormous void in your life. He is the definite answer you've been wasting your life looking for. He will save your soul and ease your mind. I too am a mere, flawed mortal. I can only hope others would try to reach me in times of need. This might be your last chance to save your eternity.
Don't bother, someone seems to have a blind agenda, reasoning with this person will be like carrying on a conversation with a turnip.
Don't bother, someone seems to have a blind agenda, reasoning with this person will be like carrying on a conversation with a turnip.
who's to say there's not some turnips with really good ideas?
were you trying to be funny? this is not allowed.
Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
I like this.
& there was I wondering why Dr. Payne slapped me about with a barstool . . . :lol:
Maybe if we put the barstool in a faulty incinerator and tried to determine if it got burned up or not?
NA zen story
Nothing Exists
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"
NA zen story
Nothing Exists
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"
a priest walked into a bar... and split his head open... on it.
:kingmeh:
Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
::hits the "restart" button::Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
::hits the "restart" button::Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
Then, of course, ECH goes to jail for putting LMNO in the hospital and you in a coma for the rest of your life....
::hits the "restart" button::Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
Then, of course, ECH goes to jail for putting LMNO in the hospital and you in a coma for the rest of your life....
LMNO and Ratatosk get into a heated argument over whether it is possible to escape from said jail, or if one will always (in some sense) remain in jail.
Let me know if this is old sauce:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=7323
all monikers aside, who has time to digest all?
1) Non-Linear thought -response -
please evaluate relevance so i can tune w/ friggin friction capish ?
think of me as a pig, cured and weaponized and tired of flies in the market...
:fnord:+1
"Of the question of Reality [faggots, listen], the one which comes first in order
is the ontological question of what "Reality" signifies in general [you fucking trog-
lodytes]"
The problem is that you ask these questions in the first place...
tell me when your ready, and be good or cross me
(this hurts me more than it does you)
all monikers aside, who has time to digest all?
1) Non-Linear thought -response -
please evaluate relevance so i can tune w/ friggin friction capish ?
think of me as a pig, cured and weaponized and tired of flies in the market...
:fnord:+1
"Of the question of Reality [faggots, listen], the one which comes first in order
is the ontological question of what "Reality" signifies in general [you fucking trog-
lodytes]"
The problem is that you ask these questions in the first place...
tell me when your ready, and be good or cross me
(this hurts me more than it does you)
... Why is it that pinealists can't type using standard formatting? Are they just too outlandish for legible, ordinary internet speak?
The thing is, it is quite possible to convey messages and be somewhat unconventional in formatting and approach. See LHX.
tell me when your ready, and be good or cross me
(this hurts me more than it does you)
http://www.futurerelease.com/BL_reChen.jpg
here
How about the ocean deeps? I think it's safe to say there is no humanity down there, cept for the occassional National Geographic submarine. There's a certain reality, or "bits of stuff" that have, I assume, been existing without our presence. Perhaps if we weren't around it would be different, in fact I'm sure it would be somehow. But it would still "be" in some fashion wouldn't it?
Logic and almost every other rule you could apply, dictates that it does but I'd bet even science would be reluctant to call this an irrefutable fact because the bottom line is - we can't prove it.
It's an extension of BIP the way I see it, that and a bit of matrix flung in, that reality is actually projected by us and only exists in a bubble, around the observer. Yes, I agree, this is a patently ridiculous hypothesis but it is one, nonetheless that we can't completely rule out.
If you want to fuck your head in with metaphysics then, take it from someone who has, this kind of paradigm is exactly the kind of thing that will do it for you.
So you're saying that it's possible the ocean floor may only exist when we are actually there?
So, by this logic, it's possible to jump from a mile high cliff and walk away without a scratch.
How about the ocean deeps? I think it's safe to say there is no humanity down there, cept for the occassional National Geographic submarine. There's a certain reality, or "bits of stuff" that have, I assume, been existing without our presence. Perhaps if we weren't around it would be different, in fact I'm sure it would be somehow. But it would still "be" in some fashion wouldn't it?
Logic and almost every other rule you could apply, dictates that it does but I'd bet even science would be reluctant to call this an irrefutable fact because the bottom line is - we can't prove it.
It's an extension of BIP the way I see it, that and a bit of matrix flung in, that reality is actually projected by us and only exists in a bubble, around the observer. Yes, I agree, this is a patently ridiculous hypothesis but it is one, nonetheless that we can't completely rule out.
If you want to fuck your head in with metaphysics then, take it from someone who has, this kind of paradigm is exactly the kind of thing that will do it for you.
So you're saying that it's possible the ocean floor may only exist when we are actually there?
So, by this logic, it's possible to jump from a mile high cliff and walk away without a scratch.
I used to date a girl who claims to have done this. Well, actually she got a scratch, but she didn't go splat.
Until they start going through your mail, throw hot food at you, and try to strangle you.
Well, unless your David Carradine of course.
Until they start going through your mail, throw hot food at you, and try to strangle you.
Well, unless your David Carradine of course.
You kids, these days...you don't know how to rock and roll.
A slightly different take on the Barstool Experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLYfH9obFNQ
A slightly different take on the Barstool Experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLYfH9obFNQ
If people's thoughts are trustworthy why do we have creationists?
Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
Fuck those guys, really, there used to be this really nice place I'd go and have a drink, but one evening the barman thought it was nice to have a band play a live performance. But a HUGE fight broke out, some argument about the nature of reality or something. It was horrible, and the place hasn't ever been the same after the bar's Tool experiment.
Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
Wow! I feel like SUCH a neophyte newbie! I don't even know who [what] ECH is!!!!
Also note it's that whiney pussy from Korn.I couldn't have described him better myself LMNO. I'll eventually come up with something else....but for now, heh, why not? :fap:
I'm rapidly digesting [BUUURP!....'scuse me] as I make my first skim through "the book"....I'm sure there's relevance, I'm just too much of a n00b to know it....I obviously posted prematurely - however, since y'all seem at least mildly amused - I'll save the apology for. . . Aw srcrew it! no apology....no,,,NO! :wink:Fuck those guys, really, there used to be this really nice place I'd go and have a drink, but one evening the barman thought it was nice to have a band play a live performance. But a HUGE fight broke out, some argument about the nature of reality or something. It was horrible, and the place hasn't ever been the same after the bar's Tool experiment.(quoted for relevance)
Also note it's that whiney pussy from Korn.
Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.Cool to use this?
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
Clumsily put, Let's say we were in a bar, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.Cool to use this?
You point out that most of what we consider "matter" is made up of empty space; the distance between a nucleus, it's electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!
I respond by saying that as far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nevrves that claim certain wavelengths of ligh have bounced off an object, but none of that says anything about whether or not the barstool actually exists.
Then ECH comes along, picks up the barstool, and proceeds to beat the shit out of us with it for being such pretentious assholes.
Im reminded of something from a modern philosophy course...Can't remember if it was a response to Berkeley or what but there is this famous response to an argument regarding sense-skepticism and the critic of the argument goes "I refute him thusly" and kicks a nearby stone. I like the forum version much better.
Anyone who denies the Law of Non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as to not be burned.
I'll get through all the pages eventually, but isn't really about the bond between molecules?I think I'm beginning to fucking hate you.
No surprise that covalent bonds are the strongest bonds, formed by not so strong ions... paradox alert!
Sharing > BogartingPlease don't hit me with a barstool.
I'll get through all the pages eventually, but isn't really about the bond between molecules?I think I'm beginning to fucking hate you.
No surprise that covalent bonds are the strongest bonds, formed by not so strong ions... paradox alert!
Sharing > BogartingPlease don't hit me with a barstool.
I'll get through all the pages eventually, but isn't really about the bond between molecules?I think I'm beginning to fucking hate you.
No surprise that covalent bonds are the strongest bonds, formed by not so strong ions... paradox alert!
Sharing > BogartingPlease don't hit me with a barstool.
we could just love each other instead.
No. No, we couldn't. I have this monster ego thing, you see, based on capitalized I's.
I'll get through all the pages eventually, but isn't really about the bond between molecules?I think I'm beginning to fucking hate you.
No surprise that covalent bonds are the strongest bonds, formed by not so strong ions... paradox alert!
Sharing > BogartingPlease don't hit me with a barstool.
we could just love each other instead.
No. No, we couldn't. I have this monster ego thing, you see, based on capitalized I's.
I'll get through all the pages eventually, but isn't really about the bond between molecules?I think I'm beginning to fucking hate you.
No surprise that covalent bonds are the strongest bonds, formed by not so strong ions... paradox alert!
Sharing > BogartingPlease don't hit me with a barstool.
we could just love each other instead.
No. No, we couldn't. I have this monster ego thing, you see, based on capitalized I's.
i love your small penis though. it makes mine feel like wilt chamberlain. :lulz:
(http://www.maids4hirenj.com/img/upload/3477/pledge.jpg)
You break it down to rules of which we have none
(But should seriously think about employing)
DOLEMITE '16
I, from the great state of vagina, elect with 3.1 billion votes that can of pledge to take us to a new yet glorious future
I, from the great state of vagina, elect with 3.1 billion votes that can of pledge to take us to a new yet glorious future
Are you back on your meds?
I, from the great state of vagina, elect with 3.1 billion votes that can of pledge to take us to a new yet glorious future
Are you back on your meds?
:lulz:
I, from the great state of vagina, elect with 3.1 billion votes that can of pledge to take us to a new yet glorious future
Are you back on your meds?
:lulz:
I was being serious, actually. He's a nutter of the same league as Pope Ludicrous.
I find myself sucked in
again by prototypical elitism.
why do American girls have to be so rough?