kay9:
I'm a lil long in the tooth, but a little play never hurt nobody. Ok, I'm in.

TRUTH.

......Tell me about the last time you thoroughly embarrassed yourself. What went down?

T

uboma:




The point I want to pass across is that gay tendencies are not inherited. I am willing to have a rethink if you can prove that certain persons are born to be gay while the rest are born to be straight.

Okay. Let's go by what you say and assume gay people are gay through external influences. What influenced the very first gay person?

uboma:



No worries. I agree that you need to love yourself no matter what. I wish you best.

You were not born this way. No one was/is born with gay tendencies. You probably picked up the lifestyle from your peers while at school or someone older influenced you into it.

Are people born with "straight tendencies" though?

I guess my question to you is this: do you think sexuality is defined by nature or nurture?

There has to be some consistency to your thinking. If you think homosexuality can be "picked up" from peers, then we may also have picked up heterosexuality from our parents or other influencers.

Introversion alone doesn't make it hard for a person to hold a conversation with another. In fact, introverted people usually have a lot to say, and are able to empathize better than extroverted people. However, introverts are more prone to social anxiety, and that may be the problem you're dealing with.

I heard it put this way: introversion is your way. Social anxiety is in your way.

Understand what it means to be introverted and realize that it is not a deficiency. It just means that you are energised by spending time alone while being in the midst of many people may drain your energy. Extroverted people are the opposite. There's nothing wrong with either process.

Social anxiety, on the other hand, is a demon that you need to slay.

With your girl, I suggest you don't get hung up on the fact that you need to call her. There are many ways to communicate with a person, and you need to identify what your best way is. Most introverts like to text. Because you can control the conversation better. Reaction doesn't have to be immediate, so you don't feel put on the spot. Therefore, you feel less anxious. But your SO still gets a feel that you're not indifferent to them.

As you get comfortable sharing your thoughts through texting, then voice notes.......conversation becomes easier too.

If, however, you realize that you have nothing to communicate at all, introversion or even social anxiety may not be your problem. Maybe you're just schizoid. As per, socially indifferent. Whatever it is, get to the bottom of it.

All the best.

Logobenz:
Oh I'm so excited.
Will be eagerly waiting for that day.Don't take too long Ok?
Even though if I wait too long I'm sure sending a message.
In the mean time,let me ponder on the kind of gift that will make a woman like you stunned.
That should be a lot of work though,even though I know it's the little things that make women like you pleased.
I hope I get it right.
Thank you...

I'm easy to please. You already started very well with the initiative. I'm smiling right now, so thank you.

It's definitely the little things. Thoughtful gestures. There's so much class in simplicity.

Logobenz:
You too ma'am.
Will be looking forward to hearing from you again,can I?
Besides,it's the season of surprises,hope I wouldn't be going too far if I seek permission to send you a gift?
Say,a Christmas present?

Awwwwwwwn......I love gifts! How can I ever say no to that? You are too kind. Lol! You WILL hear from me again.

Logobenz:
Sorry i slept off while eagerly waiting for your reply.
Yes,you read it right.I did miss you.
No alt yet,miss.

That actually warms my heart... Thank you for saying that. Have a great week

Logobenz:
Yes i am.
Write with left,eat with it,kick with it and all...
Well,I missed you there.

Awww...nice. I like lefties.

Do I read this right: you missed me? Well, I'm sure I missed you too . Do you have an alt?

chukzyfcbb:

Two legs on an auto? Thats wierd
It seems you started driving with a manual, so the habit stuck with you

That's exactly what happened.

Logobenz:
Are you serious?wow!
Let me guess!
Don't tell me you are a leftie.Are you?

No, I'm not. Are you?

Logobenz:
I do the same too and I drive crazy fast.
Are you fast?

Lol. Very

Beeron:
please learn to drive with one foot if your car is automatic, Driving with both legs, you likely to damage your transmission due to mistakely pressing on both gas and break pedal simulteneously and your break pad will be quick to wear out as well.

I never do that though. And it's been a decade. But thank you.

Yes, I can. I can in any kind of footwear. But then, I drive weird - auto with two legs. My left foot is always hovering over the brakes, which betters my reaction time. So I don't necessarily crave maximum comfort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trpElE-GOzE

Guest007:
Miss.Write

Aww....you're so sweet, dimps..

bigfrancis21:






I've been following this thread and I share in your sentiments. It is true that as the world becomes better and stronger economically, women don't need men for financial support as they can decide to live independently on their own. Also an individual has a right to choose if they want to get married or not or have kids or not. I live in America and feminism has revolutionized the institution of marriage and American women are very successful and independent nowadays. More women than men graduate from American colleges and university.

But here's the caveat: American women are still the ones craving for men and marriage than men despite their levels of success. They are the ones writing articles, making videos etc about the dearth of men and why they can't seem to find a man. There are way more articles and videos by women complaining about not finding a man vs men doing the same about women. It seems as though that when women are in their teens and 20s they do not care at all about marriage or children but only their career but when they hit their 30s their careers become less important to them and marriage and motherhood seem more important. I am speaking from experience living in a country that is a living proof of the ideal that you want Nigeria to aspire to. Interestingly, overall American women desire marriage more than men when there is no societal pressure for them to (compared to Nigeria) and American men, on the other hand, are avoiding marriage as there is no real benefit to it for them anyway (divorce laws favor women more than men). They are VERY OK with being baby daddies so as to freely have as many sexual partners as possible. Remember that men tend to be more sexually active and there is a saying, 'why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?' Apps like tinder etc have made sex such a cheap and easy commodity that men see no reason to get married anyway. Also combine this with the new movement, MGTOW (men going their own way), where a growing number of educated, responsible and successful men are choosing to forego marriage altogether. Someone made a comment about men doing anything to get a woman to open her legs, which is true but they do this mostly for the sexual benefit but not for long term purposes such as marriage. In other words, you might think that men are hurting by women being more financially independent but it ends up hurting women more than men.

Just a quick search on youtube on this topic turned up the following videos (a few out of thousands):

Why Ms. Independent Can't Find Mr. Right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adZaEaH7DTQ

3-6 million US black women can't find a husband or boyfriend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ymsPTuK_X4

HOW TO BE CONTENT IN YOUR SINGLENESS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tlOj6sBGpc

College Educated Women Can’t Find Love

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foCcrD5-V3k

Lives of Unmarried Women in their 30’s and 40’s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmwfNdUbd4c

Why Black Men ain't marrying ya ass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yydrXGhS85Q


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH8lq_sao9Y


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jEB3--K5OI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCfgq_Xgqvo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWmHmVAEahg

We are all in this ever-changing world heading for some unknown destination. We will all just ride along and see where it leads us to.

Big Francis, i think you've built yourself a strawman here. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that women, in general, aren't aspiring to be married anymore. I am saying that some people want to be married and some people do not. It's not just women, for that matter, but people in general. And people would be happiest when they do what they want to do. The thing which is in their specific nature to do.

If you are a person who wants to be married, it would make sense that nothing you do (career or other) would fulfill your craving for starting a family. There can be no substitute.These are the people in the videos you've uploaded - people looking for spouses and kids. You know what you won't be able to show though? All the videos that were NOT made. A person who doesn't want to be married will not be looking for a potential wife/husband. And therefore, there won't be a video of "how not to achieve what you don't want to achieve."

The people you refer to are people who want career and family, have prioritized them as they saw fit, and are navigating through the consequences of their decisions. You cite feminism as a factor in landing a woman in this position, where she finds it more difficult to find a mate. That's certainly a discussion worth having. But it's a different discussion, not this one.

Feminism is much less (if at all) a factor in deciding whether a woman (person) wants to be married or not. I believe that's more a question of a person's nature or psychological constitution. For instance, my decision stems from the fact that i thrive in solitude. I am reclusive, introverted, and I abhor commitment. And I am not narcissistic enough to replicate myself in the form of a child. I can't instill self-esteem in a child. This is my unique perspective on this thing. A family would cause me so much stress that I might be tempted to kill myself. In order to preserve my life, I do not engage in these kinds of relationships. Now, I consider myself to be a very extreme case, but there are people who also do not find as much value in marriage and kids as others do for a variety of reasons. And each of them is as valid as the next.

Where feminism may have a whisper of a say here, is in the fact that my financial freedom allows me do what I want to do without compromise. But it definitely did not make me this way.

Breaststroke:


You're the best

Your comment is the gbamest one on this thread.

I like how you articulated your thoughts/points too.

Do you write in real life?

Aww, shucks.....Thank you!

Guest007:

Someone had their weetabix this morning... Sense will not kill you

....hey, lovely!

Values are and should always be personal for a person to reap any kind of benefit. Society cannot value something for an individual, it can only value something for itself. A society might value marriage because it helps increase its population while providing structure for its growing members. But it doesn't mean every individual would find satisfaction in being drafted to this cause. Some will, others won't.

People who want to be married, but aren't, would be less happy than they could be after their goals are met. People who don't want to be married, but somehow found themselves hitched, would be less happy than they would have been without the commitment. None of these people would necessarily be miserable, depending on how big of a deal marriage is to the individual. A person's happiness depends on so many factors.

Therefore, a comparison of the happiness of married and unmarried people across the board cannot be used to judge which marital status is more beneficial to people in general. In the end, it comes down to the individual. What would make YOU happy or happIER? We are not in a race, competing for who is happiest. We are just trying to serve ourselves the best way we can. And the fact that single people might occasionally admire a cute family; or that married people occasionally envy the freedom of single people doesn't necessarily mean they chose wrongly. Because afterwards, they realise that they wouldn't have had the lasting desire to make the scenario work for themselves.

Let's just be who we are, and do our heart's conviction. It's the only way to be happy.

shadeyinka:


The law of entropy actually proves otherwise. Let me prove it by projecting to the future rather than the past.
According to the law of entropy, there comes a time in the future when every atom, molecule, energy is completely dispersed throughout the universe. At that point, no further change in state of the universe is possible. The second law of thermodynamics is violated with an infinite regression.

The second law of thermodynamics – increase or constancy in entropy – doesn’t negate the possibility of infinite regression at all, actually.

You referred to the Heat Death of the universe or Big Freeze – the point at which all usable energy has been turned into unusable energy. When entropy is maximum, and there is no heat gradient anymore to achieve work. The universe would become an eternally expanding, cooling entity of ‘nothingness’. This may sound paradoxical, but in physics ‘nothing’ refers to the absence of everything but quantum fluctuations. The conjecture on the universe’s fate does not end with heat death; there is also the prediction that heat death would be followed by either The Big Rip or Vacuum Decay, eventually kick-starting a new universe from the quantum fluctuations left behind, which possess a non-zero probability of becoming ‘something’ (the exact occurrence which is now assumed to have preceded the Big Bang). The occurrence of The Big Rip would depend on the behaviour of dark energy – an entity that has been discovered to be the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe, usurping the influence of the amount of matter+energy (normal stuff) in deciding how quickly we approach heat death, and thereby preventing the likelihood of contraction and implosion (the Big crunch) where the quantity of ‘normal stuff’ might have exceeded the critical threshold in order to stop expansion. The occurrence of vacuum decay would depend on whether we currently find ourselves in a false or true stable state, that is, if the possibility of quantum tunnelling would arise.

All this means is that, in spite of that attainment of thermal equilibrium, things still happen. Our kind of life and civilization would be over long before the death of the last star when the universe is plunged into darkness, but there still is the possibility that other life forms would be supported throughout the years leading up to heat death. After that the universe would be cold and lifeless until it repeats itself. This conjecture is supported by Poincare’s Recurrence Theorem and the presence of quantum fluctuations in the absence of ‘something’.

Therefore, the fact that things can never stop existing supports the possibility of infinite regression.

I think you should rephrase by saying

All Physical things have an origin i.e. After the Big Bang (when the expansion started cooling down) .
Unfortunately, your reference point is too late in history to conclude the Absolute impossibility of such occuring; for, before the BB, there was absolutely NOTHING. The "gravitational singularity" is not a thing but an abstract concept. Secondly, every physical law and Scientific constants we use now came into effect well aftwr the BB. Hence, you not "witnessing" things created from nothing doesnt hold water.

Well yes, before the Big Bang there was nothing. Nothing means quantum fluctuations with a non-zero probability of becoming something. That, in essence, isn’t ‘nothing’. Because there was never ‘nothing’.

There is an infinite number of ways stuff can be arranged. This arrangement is called a ‘microstate.’ The human being is a microstate of ‘stuff.’ And that specific arrangement has a non-zero probability of occurring, therefore, it has occurred. But relatively, some microstates are way more likely to exist than others. The possible microstates of ‘Something’ are infinite, but there is only one way for ‘nothing’ to exist. It is therefore more probable to have something rather than nothing, and thus, the state of ‘nothingness’ is highly unstable. It will eventually produce something. Please note that we are talking about quantum fluctuations and not literally nothing, which is an ‘impossibility’. Just by trying to define nothing, you would be acknowledging that there was, in fact, something to define.

We don’t have to ‘witness’ things to make conjecture. What we base our conclusions upon is the evidence of things, just like the afterglow (still visible today) hints at the occurrence of the Big Bang. The rest is inductive reasoning: we have more reason to believe that things that happen have happened before and will happen again, than believing in things which have never been evidenced. The task here is not to prove things conclusively (which is logically impossible), it is simply to show that infinite regression is logically possible. And that is done by showing that it is not logically impossible. We have, after all, witnessed the emergence of one universe already. Infinite regress might be frustrating because it appears to ‘beg the question’ (for every effect I would raise you a cause) but then, the occurrence is, in fact, likely.

First, I have proved that an infinite regression is impossible. The theory of "Multiverse" must terminate at a point.

At least we know that the present universe has an origin. A question to be answered really is how long did the gravitational singularity exist before the BB took place AND what caused its change of state??
The present law: First law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and Second law of thermodynamics (entropy) show that in the eternal past, there was a singular SOURCE with the ability to "Self Initiate" a change: Everything we see and every energy come from this SOURCE.

You can call the SOURCE any name you like: He isnt a THING else, He'll be just a CONSTANT that cannot produce a change.

There is no saying how many universes may exist in the multiverse, but the key is that the universes are only casually linked in the multiverse, and the fate of one universe seems to have no bearing on the other universes of the multiverse. Universes are clusters – the closed system.

The ‘thing’ that preceded the big bang that created our universe was the ‘nothingness’ left behind by the destruction of its predecessor – quantum fluctuations. As earlier said, given long enough, these quantum fluctuations will explore all possible microstates simply because there is a propensity to do so. The probability to become matter is not zero. All this stuff about attaching probability as a quality to existence, making a dent on the validity of deterministic causation (especially at the subatomic level), was started by Bohr and Heisenberg. It might feel like science is shifting the goal post in claiming the entity of ‘nothingness’. But there it is. That is the recent argument.

I think if you define CONSCIOUSNESS as SELF AWARENESS or SELF IDENTITY would simplify the issue considerably.

Yes, a plant will respond to sunlight: but is this a prove of Consciousness?
Consciousness cannot exist without the ability to experience both Pain and Comfort AND a Will/Volition to choose.
Emotions and Logic are motivations to exercising the Will/Volition.

With this in mind, one must necessarily differentiate between CONSCIOUSNESS and IRRITABILITY. That is the fact that a plant reacts to the presence of sunlight doesn't prove that it is Conscious: for we must have to establish that the plant can experience Pain/Comfort and a Volition to choose.

It is extremely easy to demostrate forms of Irritability in the Laboratory (eg. Photochromic Lenses) but Consciousness takes a lot more. It is indeed the SOFTWARE that runs the Hardware of a Being: It is called the SOUL of a being. Is the plant aware of the sunlight?
Is the ball aware of the wall? No!

If you define consciousness as self-awareness or self-identity, then we can conclude that anything which acts in its own interest is self-aware. This means that a plant which acts in a way to maximize its food supply is self-aware. You call it irritability – response to stimuli, but every action is a response to a stimulus. The point is: what is the purpose of that action? If the action is in interest of ‘self’ then there must be awareness of ‘self.’

Even though I disagree with your definition of consciousness in general, I strongly disagree that sentience is a deciding factor of consciousness. I believe you are now using the word interchangeably with the term ‘awake’, which is a popular usage but it doesn’t make consciousness nearly as interesting as it actually is, because it does not account for the ego-component. In your case, consciousness is easily reduced to the interaction between sensory neurons and the brain, which is all a manifestation of the interactions between physical matter. Response to stimuli. Irritability. And you said yourself – the distinction between consciousness and irritability must be made. And that’s why, in my previous post, I set aside the uninteresting component of consciousness – the thinking and feeling ‘self’, which are simply interactions between neurons, corresponding to response to stimuli at the cellular level – and extricated the part that I called the ‘being.’ Which still is a component of all matter, but it also is a unique perspective from which the universe observes itself.

The concept of free-will is a fallacy. You do things for two reasons, one – because you want to; two – because you are compelled to. And because you cannot will yourself to want anything, you have no control over your wants. If you have no control over your wants, then you do not have free-will.

When I referred to ‘awareness’ of a wall by the wall, I am not referring to ‘knowledge.’ I am simply referring to the interaction between different configurations of matter, and their respect for density. The fact that a ball does not pass through a wall shows that matter has ‘acknowledged’ or registered a barrier. Awareness is necessary for the interaction of things. Or we can say, the interaction of things demonstrates awareness. There is only an unawareness of things that don’t exist.

Artificial Intelligence is First a Code and Sets of Data trained within some constraints to make human like choices. The fact that "artificial intelligence" look intelligent is simply because intelligent people coded it to act in manners similar to how intelligent humans would jave acted. This very well support my case.

If Consciousness is like artificial intelligence, can one really prove that its about chemical reactions or about an Intelligent Programmer?

Artificial Intelligence demonstrates how thought and emotions are a macro aggregation of binary questions. It is basically all a response to stimuli. “If this happens, then react this way.” It’s interaction between physical things. All things react in specific ways in the presence of another thing, down to one molecule of oxygen combining with two molecules of hydrogen to form water. Not everything is aggregated to mimic thought and emotion as perceived in humans. Human beings have observed and understood the universe (or the Earth) enough to replicate and insert deterministic causation into an AI. Deterministic causation is not a wonder; it is simply the fundament of existence. But because two events cannot be isolated, in nature, to conclusively determine that one caused the other, we must accept that causation is practically probabilistic. With an AI, working inside out, determinism becomes more apparent as the way things really are.

My frame of reference to chaos is the Big Bang. Some scientists have tried to evade the problem of the big bang being an "explosion" for it breaks the law of entropy. Order cannot come out of disorder. The new theory (modifying the BBT) has to do with a controlled expansion (rather than a bang). Unfortunately, this also produces the big flaw that every planet, star and galaxy were fully wholly subset of the gravitational singularity: this is impossible.

Starting from the BB, how did Entropy suddenly began to reduce before the beginning to increase again?

How did electrons suddenly begin to move round nucleus of atoms? How did protons and neutrons suddenly realize that they should congregate in fairly equal numbers? Did every element start off from one giant atom and then progressively reduced to Hydrogen or did lighter atoms progressively coalesce to form larger and larger atoms?

Things I tell you are highly ordered when you compare it to the big bang period.

I put it to you that natural selection can only take place when the underlying AI codes that run living things are already in place.

In the interest of keeping it short: The Earth is not a closed system, therefore, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. The universe, however, is.

Artificial intelligence is First a Code/Algorithm and Training Data. These are products of intelligent minds and not random movements of electrons.

Iterations.

Of course, man can create his own gods BUT this is not synonymous with man creating God as a response to his fears.

The fact that you believe an Ultimate Being probably exist is a good step in the right direction BUT do you think you created Him out of your fears or out of logical necessity? At the end, it is either God exists or He doesn't.

If an Ultimate Being exist, the question is: Why this Universe?
Why this commotion of statistical odds called Earth?

The ultimate ‘being’ I believe in is not necessarily a ‘creator.’ It is simply the summation of all things, with an ego (analogous with the ego of a tree, a chair, a rat, a person) and the tendency to self-preserve. It won’t be a God, because a god is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and all the other choice qualities. This being would just be ‘the objective truth.’ The objective morality that permits all things that can ever exist in order to sustain its own nature. As long as you can identify evil in the world, your morality is not supreme. And you are not the ultimate being.

The ultimate being is not localized to any universe. It must comprise everything that exists through infinity. Why this commotion of statistical odds called earth? Because that is the nature of this ultimate being that encompasses all existence, and it is selfish. It serves only its own morality. And from that perspective, nothing is evil or random.

Larryfest:
You see the way the girl went ahead and reported him straight with all the evidence still intact and didn't wait till after 20/25 years before crying on social media like some useless girls over here do after the guy might have probably turned senator/ president or a rich fake pastor

Business sense . If you wait for the investment to mature over a longer tenure, you might reap bigger returns (just saying ) - say the guy has transformed himself from pauper to senator. Don't knock it. The bottom line is: the crime was committed, and the man is beholden. He has only got himself to blame. He can hope for swift retribution, but it will only come when it will. You do bad, best believe you're owed one.

I couldn't resist.

Disclaimer: I don't support rape. Obviously. I don't think rape is funny. I don't think rape should be trivialized and compared to banking. I also don't think that the experiences of victims should be undermined simply because they did not respond to the rape as generally expected. That's what you seem to be doing.

Clowning aside, here's what I really think. Women (and men) are well aware that the evidence diminishes the longer they wait to report an incident. However, in spite of all the advice you can give, the response to trauma differs from person to person. And then there is the fact that, because of our culture, many women (and men) internalize the situation. They feel shame or guilt (thinking that they are somehow to blame for what's happened to them). It takes a bit to get to that point where they can accept that they weren't a culprit in their own rape; it gets especially confusing when the rapist wasn't some random stranger, and there was some element of grooming involved. If it takes twenty years to get to that point where a report is made (and statutes of limitation allow), just know that those twenty years weren't easy years for this person. They are years during which this person has dealt with internal conflict resulting from the incident.

Also, don't forget that the concept of reporting rape in Nigeria is only just gaining traction. Twenty years ago, the stigma around being raped was so crippling that people would rather not report it. Victim blaming and shaming was rife. And the culprits weren't held to account. Today, it's different. There's been a power shift. Today, victims are put on a pedestal. And while this too may be an imperfect system which can be abused, it serves to keep people on their toes.

shadeyinka:

Your claim of disbelief in the SOURCE of everything is a silly Joke.

Until you can proof that an infinite regression is logically possible with creation.

But infinite regression is logically possible. In fact, it seems a more likely conclusion to come to by inductive reasoning, considering the law of conservation. We have never witnessed anything resulting from nothing, therefore, we have no reason to believe that something can result from nothing, when it could be concluded that something has changed from one thing into another. The argument against infinite regression is that the universe can be dated, therefore, we have arrived at the beginning, and must insert the "uncaused cause" at this point. I'm arguing that the origin of the universe does not necessarily lead to the origin of existence and an uncaused cause. It, rather, could be a point of change; and it could be opening us up to an even larger cosmos than we realized. And I come to this conclusion based on the fact that, by everything we know, change is more likely than creation/destruction. The fact that a person can be dated, for example, doesn't negate the fact that there was an interaction between sperm and ovum prior to his "existence".

Who's to say how large the cosmos really is. The Earth orbits the sun. Our solar system orbits the centre of the Milky Way. And We have no reason to believe that the Milky Way does not orbit the centre of something bigger. And on it goes. The path doesn't necessarily lead to an uncaused cause because the idea of infinity could be explained by imagining a non-liner entity, solely in terms of cause and effect. This idea would be supported by hard determinism, or at least a compatibilist notion, where every event (perceived as past and future) has been predetermined to exist; and that events may have plural determinants across the space-time fabric. The unpredictability observed at the subatomic level does not rule out that every event has a cause. It only shows that no cause could be identified. Not at the time; not with the available instruments.

Until you can proof that Consciousness can be achieved by chemical reactions alone.

What is consciousness? When non-materialists contemplated that the "Human soft-ware" must be proof of the existence of God, they implied thinking and feeling were both a part of this non-material substance. But thinking and feeling aren't so much a substance as they are a series of cause-effect reactions. As we have learned, prior to the creation of artificial intelligence, every event can ultimately be isolated and simplified into a response to a yes/no question. Binary. One stimulus triggers a specific response. On a macro-level, this would manifest as thought, feeling, free-will and action.

Eckhart Tolle - the hippie new-age religionist - made me rethink the idea of consciousness. Or rather, presence (according to him). And maybe, awareness (according to me). He suggested that the unchangeable element about a person was his being - the fact that a person would always feel like himself, regardless of time. The notion of "I" or ego. I think that this might be an identical concept, irrespective of person, animal, or plant (maybe even inanimate objects). I feel every bit as me as you would feel as you. And the awareness of the self manifests itself in our tendency to self-preserve. Consider phototropism in plants, for instance; a plant in a dark room curves towards the light to enable itself make food through photosynthesis. This behaviour demonstrates that the plant is 'aware' of the sun. And in order for anything to be aware of a next thing, it must first be aware of itself. If a ball is thrown against a wall, the wall interrupts its projection. That's a reaction between two things 'aware' of each other, even if it is simply a reaction to mass and density. The point here is to separate the 'thinking-self' and 'feeling-self' (which are series of cause-effect reactions, and a quality, in varied proportions, of living things) from the being. The "I" or ego is an attribute of everything that exists. And it simply means that everything is its own centre - a unique point of view - its own source of morality. It is a quality that is inseparable from a thing. The formation of anything naturally results in the formation of its being.

In the Freudian model of the human psyche/Soul, this entity would correspond to the Ego; where the id is biological component, and the Superego is the sociological component. Freud defined the Ego as the psychological component, of course, and claimed that the Ego was the decision-maker. He also claimed the Id was incapable of learning and holding memories, but we know that children can burn their fingers and become smarter through that experience which is remembered, therefore, Freud is not irrefutable. And I argue that the Ego is not a decision-maker but simply a witness to itself - the experiencer - the presence - the being.

All this to say that consciousness, as popularly defined, isn't a monolith of non-matter. The part that requires 'creation' (being) is an inseparable quality of matter. Thinking and feeling are merely results of interaction between matter. Therefore, consciousness does not necessarily require a God to exist.

Until you can show how chaos can result into order.

Is this a push for intelligent design and fine-tuning? Chaos is only chaos because it appears random. But I made a case earlier for hard determinism - every event has a cause. If every event has a cause, then nothing is random. And if nothing is random, then there is never objective chaos, is there? Human beings may perceive an environment which isn't fine-tuned to our existence as chaotic, but this just may prove that we aren't supposed to be the most vital beings of the cosmos. At least not across the space-time fabric. This may be the "Age of Man" but who's to say that the future won't be "The Age of Ants." And then the ants would assume that the universe was fine-tuned to their existence, and decide to call everything preceding that time, chaos. Fine-tuning is an illusion. What is really going on is natural selection. As the environment changes, the fittest thrive.

Until you can show that a computer code can self generate itself from alpha-numeric characters.

The technology is, apparently, still in its infancy, but artificial intelligence can be used to write code. You can do further research on that, I just checked it out for the purpose of this reply, so I really don't know much about it. To be honest, it won't be all that surprising since AI possess the laws of logic.

When you have a physical evidence for these, stop saying "bla black black God of gaps..."

In answer to the thread, "Who created God?" I'd say Man. Man created this God in response to his fears of the finality of death, the apparent meaninglessness of life, the need for protection from conflicting moralities, and the ignorance of the workings of his environment. This isn't to say that an ultimate being does not exist. In fact, I strongly believe in an ultimate being. But such a being would constitute everything that exists. It would be amoral from our own perspective, simply because (like everything else that exists) it serves its own ego to preserve itself in its unique nature.

Guest007:


I miss you so much baby girl! I’ll be back online real soon

Hey, sweetie.... ......I miss you too. You okay?

Cute dp, btw.

ibkayee:

Jam

I rinsed this song out when his album first dropped lol

Lol.......I know!!! It's so good though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4l9bFqgMaQ