pr0nmaster Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 I could kill someone I just wrote a 3 page reply to Zeusy....before Tf saw it fit to erase the whole damn thing when i posted it... i'm heartbroken to say the least ..... no way i'm writing it again ..so i'm gonna post some lecture links and make one little point ... regarding how unlikely life in the universe is... http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html regarding chaos.... http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html and here is my little point.... arent human beings the ultimate testimament to how flawed deterministic physics is ? isn;t the fact that carbon based structures constantly interact in their environments in chaotic not structured or predictable ways enough evidence that physics is terribly flawed ? either physics.chemistry must allow for some serious Chaos...or there must be some third force at play ... any ideas as to what that third force is ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 hmmm well first thing, we have to be clear we're talking about the same thing. modern physics isnt 'deterministic' except when you talk to the wrong graduate student. determinism is a vestigial concept from late 19th / early 20th century empiricism, or 'bollicism' as ling called it. i think karl popper's concept of falsifiability, while so much more epistemologically conservative as to be depressing on the grounds that there almost isnt any such thing as knowledge, and takes into account that scientists are human beings rather than objective, heroic truth-seekers, and that science involves discourse, academic careers, and proceeds through paradigm shifts, and as a process is generally messy. it's just, epistemologically, slightly tighter than any other (shared) way of acquiring knowlege. now i'll actually READ the link you posted. btw i asked a couple of mots to move our rantings out of that stinky, boring thread, into a much cooler pseudophilosophical rant thread of its own. however, THIS is our new home for all matters philosophy-of-science related. until we get bored and need to pop in a dvd of south park reruns or somethin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 cool link, but hawking talks about probability vs improbabilty. i think that in an essentially 'smooth and regular' universe (hawking's words, from 'a brief history of time') improbable still means very much possible. evolutionary biologist richard dawkins refers to the unlikely fact that we exist as having 'climbed mount improbable'. he also is so convinced that evolution will necesssarily result in SOME form of climbing mount improbable, although not necessarily ... us, that he even called one of his books climbing mount improbable also it's worth noting that the kind of disorder and chaos hawking is talking about is the kind that occurs in what he refers to as a 'smooth, regular' universe--in other words, waste heat and white noise. dawkins and pretty much every evolutionary biologist i've ever read, starting from darwin himself, contend that while things tend to run toward simple chaos, there is also a trend for things to become more complex through the process of evolution. chaos theory also describes a tendency toward complexity in physical phenmomena. short version: disorder is not the same as arbitrariness, hawking is the guy who beleives it's a smooth, regular universe, so i'm not sure we're disagreeing here? more likely we're talking about the same thing and have been dying for the chance to rant on the subject, and are afraid to do so in a context where people might actually know what we're talking about and thereby realize that we don't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Unless I am very much mistaken chaos theory still comes down to those 'butterflies wings and hurricanes' and 'infinite improbabilities'. That the universe might be ruled by universal laws but out of the millions of billions of planets there might be a few billion that support life but the chances are minutely slim that anything has evolved resembling anything like us humans. Still I cant decide what to do next weekend so wtf... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee_Moose Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Get a room. Preferrably a padded one. Pluto: Now who says that the eduaction system in South Africa is lacking. Certainly not me. ****, those drugs you smoke....arent they supposed to KILL brain cells? Or are you smoking something new that actually grows brain cells? Frankly, anyone who can completely understand Hawking is...well...a genious. The jacket cover of his books confuse me. hehe. Well, go for it boys, solve the problems of the universe. I will just sit here enjoying a few cold beers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Frankly, anyone who can completely understand Hawking is...well...a genious. The jacket cover of his books confuse me. hehe. Frankly, anyone who can completely understand Hawking is...well...Hawking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 I will just sit here enjoying a few cold beers. whattttttttttttt .... u mean there was something else actually posted in this forum !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 I will just sit here enjoying a few cold beers. whattttttttttttt .... u mean there was something else actually posted in this forum !!! I almost see the answers to all the questions of the Universe in the foam in the bottom of my Beer but I keep passing out. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Frankly, anyone who can completely understand Hawking is...well...a genious. The jacket cover of his books confuse me. hehe maybe...but in the case of these lectures...not at all.....they are pretty much jargon free .....nice and simply written and very interesting......give them a look... also it's worth noting that the kind of disorder and chaos hawking is talking about is the kind that occurs in what he refers to as a 'smooth, regular' universe--in other words, waste heat and white noise. As you know Zeusy...i'm lazy...to say the least..... when it comes to getting my facts straight....I'm not concerned with the little details.....more trying to catch a glimpse of the bigger picture..... what I was alluding to by calling physics(science in fact) deterministic is that...is essence..it's trying to be... its trying to be rigid and stringent in making predictions with no possible exceptions....when it does meet exceptions it looks for a third forces to explain them ...etc... now physics proposes that its laws are consitent with the physical world and all matter .......immedietly thins can be debunked through black holes as all the laws "break down" and matter , energy (or its "information") is lost in them .......... slipery slope anyone ? if one part ..even a tiny part...of such a rigid discouse is debunked...where do you stop ? well we can try and integrate black holes into the picture in a emaningful way and this is where all the "action" in cosmology seems to be going on right now.....but as it stands you should not be surprised to find tiny pink elephants dancing on your belly when you wake up....(even without the lcd) ....rosacrantz and guildenstine flipping coins.... but the question i'm really asking is how this relates to us ..humans.....physical objects...matter.....like anything else.... yet...our carbon acts in the most bizaar and chaotic ways...our movement is seemingly random ....our actions dont seem to be based in any formal preditable framework ...and yet are not all pasts of us physical ? how does our conscioisness ....the very phenomena which allows us to postulate such problems......fit into this discourse of science ? ...and especially physics.....? hard problem indeed...... the answer may be that very very small causes....can have large effects (butterflies and hurricanes)...you may propose that everything has quantity before it has quality ......but to what laws do these tiny "quantities" obey ....if they are physical ? wel...they would have to obey physics..... and which laws of physics...if it were rigid .....could result into the human conscience ..? something that acts extremely "chaotic" ...(chaotic i'm using to mean...not rigid/preditable ..by the KNOWN laws of the universe)... if this was mythbusters I would say MYTH BUSTED....but I just really can;t find the words to explain.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Pluto: Now who says that the eduaction system in South Africa is lacking. Certainly not me. sh*t, those drugs you smoke....arent they supposed to KILL brain cells? Or are you smoking something new that actually grows brain cells? thanks by the way.....but any compliment alluding to excess intelligence should be reserved for Zeusy ....I'm might be a member of the "intelligence" family..but i'm that annoying little brother that no one likes to talk about....they have to let me in ...but I don't bellong there...I slipped through some cracks...the trick being they can't prove I'm insane.... plus..I can't spell for ****..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 sigh one more attempt .... very simply put ....everything in the universe is supposed to be loyal to the rules of science .... which rules do human beings obey ? Cause surely if science (physics and chemistry )won't allow non rigid behaviour...then they can't account for human behaviour... if they can;t account for human behaviour ...what then can? we are left with a school of social sciences....which is how this argument started (I won't pretend I was tryign to draw the argument full circle) .....which frankly can't tell us anything about the "tiny" bits that make up our "conscience" (I'm using conscience to allude to whatever it is...presumably ..some form of energy ...that harbours that part of the human mind which allows us transcend physical determinism) .... the popular conclusion would be....well we have a soul .... lets play with that idea a soul....hmmm....what could that entail......if its not physical in nature.... well it could be some form of matter than is immune to physics...for example...that might explain how we can conceptualise space time ...looking "forward and back" whilst in the middle of it...some form of matter we don't know...can;t percieve....etc how about the idea of this part of us existing in anouther dimension ....heck..some SERIOUS scientists believe gravity flows through from a parallel dimension...as it also seems to not quite mathematically "fit in" the physical world.......then ...why not our minds? bizaar....crazy....whack....stupid....sounding.....right? well...that's the universe for you....welcome to the machine..... come on ...I know there's a simpler answer.....or i'm probably just asking the wrong damn question.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 more likely we're talking about the same thing and have been dying for the chance to rant on the subject, and are afraid to do so in a context where people might actually know what we're talking about and thereby realize that we don't... mwahahahahah so true....so true..... I'm feeling guilty that wer'e smothering and hogging the forums with stuff that really should be saved for the "hot box" ....cause it certainly won't make it into any scientifuc journals...that I can promise you... he he Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zleepy Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 :shock: And what a machine it is! Yes, the academic language of ..well, of academics is often hard to grasp. Now I'm rigidly trying to understand yet another language. Time to watch Big Brother I think.. Something a bit less chaotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 As you know Zeusy...i'm lazy...to say the least..... when it comes to getting my facts straight....I'm not concerned with the little details.....more trying to catch a glimpse of the bigger picture..... that's fine. what I was alluding to by calling physics(science in fact) deterministic is that...is essence..it's trying to be...its trying to be rigid and stringent in making predictions with no possible exceptions....when it does meet exceptions it looks for a third forces to explain them ...etc... now physics proposes that its laws are consitent with the physical world and all matter .......immedietly thins can be debunked through black holes as all the laws "break down" and matter , energy (or its "information") is lost in them .......... slipery slope anyone ? if one part ..even a tiny part...of such a rigid discouse is debunked...where do you stop ? well we can try and integrate black holes into the picture in a emaningful way and this is where all the "action" in cosmology seems to be going on right now.....but as it stands you should not be surprised to find tiny pink elephants dancing on your belly when you wake up....(even without the lcd) ....rosacrantz and guildenstine flipping coins.... but that's bollox. but the question i'm really asking is how this relates to us ..humans.....physical objects...matter.....like anything else....yet...our carbon acts in the most bizaar and chaotic ways...our movement is seemingly random ....our actions dont seem to be based in any formal preditable framework ...and yet are not all pasts of us physical ? ok, but you're back to using that narrow definition of 'predictable' again. how does our conscioisness ....the very phenomena which allows us to postulate such problems......fit into this discourse of science ? ...and especially physics.....?hard problem indeed...... yeah but looking at the mind through physics is like trying to find my cat's food dish by looking at a map of asia. as yet the sciences are NOT unified, they are small collections of descriptive stuff (usually mathematics) that work quite well under the conditions they're supposed to work under. consciousness may never fit into the discourse of science, to use your pomo jargon. consciousness may never fit into science at all. if something cannot be measured in some way, and falsifiable statments made, we cannot know anything about it through science (oversimplifcation, but) full stop. so far brain research into consciousness if finding it to be bizzarre, fragmentary and that the continuity is illusory--there's no 'there' there... which isnt to say that nothing is happening although some scientists are arrogant enough to say that is the case. i suspect that the vast majority of the universe is not knowable on any scale, and that large chunks of it we'll never be able to see from outside of how we're wired--from outside of linguistic construction--from outside of discourse, if you will. the fact that we cannot do anything without 'discourse' (on this much i still agree with the pomos) and that everything we do has an element of discourse to it doesnt necessarily mean that's all there is, just that we may never see past our limitations. the fact that we dont know a **** of a lot about the universe, and may never know, doesnt lead necessarily to the conclusion that it is completely arbitrary and disorderly, especially the stuff we *can* know through science is quite orderly. that conclusion is even more arrogant than the straw man of determinism you doggedly cling to, because one doesnt have to do the actual work to reach the conclusion and it cannot be tested. we've gotten a lot of mileage out of assuming the universe is orderly, including everything we understand (well, everything stephen hawking understands) about black holes... the answer may be that very very small causes....can have large effects (butterflies and hurricanes)...you may propose that everything has quantity before it has quality ......but to what laws do these tiny "quantities" obey ....if they are physical ? wel...they would have to obey physics.....and which laws of physics...if it were rigid .....could result into the human conscience ..? something that acts extremely "chaotic" ...(chaotic i'm using to mean...not rigid/preditable ..by the KNOWN laws of the universe)... i'd have to say that i'm not sure where you're getting this 'physics is rigid' mantra from, it sure isnt physicists. maybe you've been reading too many pomo types 'debunking' 'big science'. if this was mythbusters I would say MYTH BUSTED....but I just really can;t find the words to explain.... as far as i know, among real scientists the myth of determinism has been out the window for a while, and the randomness, chaos and improbability in the universe gets random in ways that fit in with what we think we know... whatever tv program we're on, i'd say "well, you've adequately rebutted a straw man version of the popular interpretation of the philosophical assumptions of newton and leibniz and that lot. and? who is next? are we gonna pick on lamarck next?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 very simply put ....everything in the universe is supposed to be loyal to the rules of science .... which rules do human beings obey ? Cause surely if science (physics and chemistry )won't allow non rigid behaviour...then they can't account for human behaviour... if they can;t account for human behaviour ...what then can? we are left with a school of social sciences....which is how this argument started (I won't pretend I was tryign to draw the argument full circle) .....which frankly can't tell us anything about the "tiny" bits that make up our "conscience" (I'm using conscience to allude to whatever it is...presumably ..some form of energy ...that harbours that part of the human mind which allows us transcend physical determinism) .... Pluto, I think you are looking in all the wrong places to find the answers to your questions. For human behaviour to in some way relate to the laws of physics we would have to be rational agents - analagous to beings running around with computers on our heads. We are not. We clearly have the ability to think rationally but we do not behave rationally. So to understand human behaviour one is better off studying biology or anthropology than cosmology or particle physics. I am sure you would learn more in a month with some chimpanzees than a decade with Hawking. As for consciousness - or self-consciousness - people find this problem so hard simply because they hold their own consciousness so dear (I suspect most people would choose their consciousness over their body given a choice). It also seems central to many religious beliefs. There has been plenty of stuff written by serious biologists about how our consciousness evolved and what it is. As you might expect it is one more nail in the coffin of how important we actually think we are. Simply put our brains ability to mimic other peoples thoughts gives it the ability to build up an ego based on the sum of other peoples perception of ourself. It is clearly a useful adaption although it has its drawbacks. ....of course I dont happen to believe that we can transcend physical determinism but, if you do, you must find it very comforting.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undercover Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Geez guys, is this some kind of splinter group? Or just a clever way to exclude women from the conversation? LOL Well, I'm not going anywhere near Hawking, but I am forever intrigued by the "problem of consciousness" from Plato and his "cave" onwards. Has anybody read Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained?" This seems to me the clearest articulation of some of these ideas (although I personally don't find them that compelling). I think we'll understand the deeper mysteries of physics before we understand the deeper mysteries of consciousness. And Pluto, I've spent a lot of time in the RSA (including being married to one of its citizens) and don't recall ever having any conversations like this... More along the lines of "It's ok to drink at 9:00 a.m, we're in the bush, man!" Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undercover Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 So to understand human behaviour one is better off studying biology or anthropology than cosmology or particle physics. I am sure you would learn more in a month with some chimpanzees than a decade with Hawking. Agreed. If you haven't read it, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence is a great book. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395877431/sr=1-1/qid=1144476800/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7118958-7580842?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 any compliment alluding to excess intelligence should be reserved for Zeusy .... only if intelligence is defined as the ability to convolute, in-define, and confound... plus..I can't spell for sh*t..... ah. now THERE i am on solid ground. for the most part, i can honestly claim a talent for spelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 I'm feeling guilty that wer'e smothering and hogging the forums with stuff that really should be saved for the "hot box" ....cause it certainly won't make it into any scientifuc journals...that I can promise you... he he most definitely it wont make any scientific journals.. . or even any po-mo 'journals'. but dont feel bad about hogging the forums, we can violate A4 as often as we wanna, there's only one slot on the 'community' page per thread. besides it's nice to have some entertainment for that small band of weirdos who'd rather watch discovery channel than answer the question "what makes thai girls so sexy" for the ten thousandth time. i'll catch up with the actual substance of this thread later, right now i've got to get some actual work done (i'm way behind schedule, not because of this nonsense, this noodling is like stretching before attempting to jog). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Geez guys, is this some kind of splinter group? ah... the whole 'evolution is a hoax' parade was before you joined the site.. we have enough tenure where we can legitimately be called a faction, rather than splinter cell.. I think we'll understand the deeper mysteries of physics before we understand the deeper mysteries of consciousness. i agree. we may never fully understand consciousness. how productive brain research, etc. will be, is yet to be seen, and the work is just starting, really. And Pluto, I've spent a lot of time in the RSA (including being married to one of its citizens) and don't recall ever having any conversations like this... More along the lines of "It's ok to drink at 9:00 a.m, we're in the bush, man!" maybe you weren't drinking enough, or forgot the 'shrooms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 gentlemen....lads I'm pretty sure you didn't follow my argument.....and I can't blame you .......... I was asking did our minds...and us as carbon based life forms....obey the laws of physics.....and if not...why ? is it because our minds aren't physical ? and if not...what form do they take ? popular science these days wets itself over neurotransmitters , the forntol lobe etc etc....but something is very amiss..... I don't think in this context the question is out of place. .....I'm pretty bored and comfortable in what I know about anthropology , sociology , , biology, psychology ...sociobiology etc......and I feel I can answer most questions regarding "the mind" through these means.......... vygotsky , piaget etc ...thye can help tell me HOW I think ....and Biologists can tell me what my mind is.....FREUD and his cronies can offer reasons WHY ..I think...etc etc... but I'm asking something that we take for granted everyday....but really....we can't ....... WHAT AM I ? (well apart from an a**hole) ....WHAT FORM DOES MY MIND TAKE ? Physical , metaphysical ....? And Pluto, I've spent a lot of time in the RSA (including being married to one of its citizens) and don't recall ever having any conversations like this... More along the lines of "It's ok to drink at 9:00 a.m, we're in the bush, man!" aaah...thats just an act for the tourists.....girls dig that "camel man" act ...."hi honey....shot a attacking lion this mornig....I'm off to skin it to use for a raft for the white water trip next week...or maybe i'll make it into better mountain climbing shoes...kilimanjaro next week you know ?" etc etc when you tourists turn your backs.....it's all philosophy and tea parties....perhaps even a poetry recital ... (he he...yeah man...we sure play hard down here.....but then you need a bit of beer to calm the nerves when you live in africa) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 I was asking did our minds...and us as carbon based life forms....obey the laws of physics.....and if not...why ? firstly, the jury's out on what a 'mind' IS. whether or not our minds obey the laws of phsyics--or whether or not 'mind' is any more than an occasionally-useful illusion--is not yet something for which there is anything like a scientific answer. i have seen zip zip zero that would convince me that minds are metaphysical. if they are, how do they interact with the physical world? through miracles? and if the mind does all this, do animals have minds? if not, how do they do things? are they robots, a la descartes? cartesian duality seems silly, vain, speciesist and arrogant to me, but that's as much an emotional reaction as most people's reaction to unflattering theories of what a mind is. is it because our minds aren't physical ? and if not...what form do they take ? dualism has a vast number of problems. you've shifted from pomo to descartes :shock: popular science these days wets itself over neurotransmitters , the forntol lobe etc etc....but something is very amiss..... well, there are a couple of problems. first, there is most definitely something amiss. however, since humans have incredible difficulty entertaining the notion that consciousness is an illusion (or a bunch of massively parallel illusions), the number of theories of consciousness that people are willing to hear is extremely limited. any theory, regardless of evidence, about what minds are and how they work that doesnt give us as a species an ego massage (complete with happy ending) is likely to be met with more resistance than darwin ever met. secondly, we are prisoners of our brains/minds. we are wired a certain way. we're stuck with it. we may not ever be able to know much of anything about anything beyond how things fit together from the point of view of how we're wired. humans trying to understand their own minds is like using language to try and understand language--except much, much worse. brains, on the other hand, offer the possiblity of a modicum of understanding, if we dont fall prey to the twentieth century's rabid reductivism (anyone remember behaviorism?) on the scylla side or grand narratives and the inabiillity to admit we don't have an explanation for some things on the charybdis side (or do i have scylla and charybdis backwards?). I don't think in this context the question is out of place. .....I'm pretty bored and comfortable in what I know about anthropology , sociology , , biology, psychology ...sociobiology etc......and I feel I can answer most questions regarding "the mind" through these means..........vygotsky , piaget etc ...thye can help tell me HOW I think ....and Biologists can tell me what my mind is.....FREUD and his cronies can offer reasons WHY ..I think...etc etc... but I'm asking something that we take for granted everyday....but really....we can't ....... WHAT AM I ? (well apart from an a**hole) ....WHAT FORM DOES MY MIND TAKE ? Physical , metaphysical ....? since science deals only in falsifiable statements (well that is what should be left after the stew of academic gamesmanship is cooked down) it cannot, by its nature EVER tell us what, only HOW. so the only KIND of answers science can ever produce about consciousness (or anything else) is "it works like this." well, i'm skeptical of some of the reasons freud offers for why, at least insofar as psychology can be applied to people who aren't viennese mama's boys, but there has been a lot of interesting work done, and it does seem to be acceleratng and becoming more scientific in some areas. as to the mind, one brain researcher (i forget who) said somethign to the effect of "there's no there there". that to me seems inconclusive--we don't have anything testable for what consciousness is, but we may be able to prove that we cannot find it. that pushes it squarely back onto the shoulders of coffee shop types like us. it's an awesome responsibility, i hope you're ready. i think i just wet myself in terror. my perception, i suppose as a result of having had the (mis)fortune of studying more philosophy than social sciences, is that we've been pretty far up our own asses for centuries about the wizbang of 'the mind.' there is a way in which an unflattering theory of what minds are is terrifying and repugnant to humans, especially since imind/consciousness is the last bastion of our specialness (well there are two more, the anthropic principle, a little bit, and our flat out improbability, a little bit). as for the a**hole thing, damn you for anticipating my answer, crippling my arsenal of stock responses, and forcing me into vague psuedophilosophical rambling. SHORT VERSION: it's an interesting question, but one that science, philosophy, introspection, religion, etc. are unlikely to ever answer convincingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 secondly, we are prisoners of our brains/minds. we are wired a certain way. we're stuck with it. we may not ever be able to know much of anything about anything beyond how things fit together from the point of view of how we're wired. humans trying to understand their own minds is like using language to try and understand language--except much, much worse thats a good point......I actually have an opinion......but everytime I try and explain it...... people laugh at me......(reminds me of the school locker room showering experience all over again....or that time .....with the acid ...and the whole public "speaking" "fisaco").... ...never mind...when i finish my bomb ...they won't laugh....then I'll make you all memorise it....and put it on your houses.....(in neon !)..and if you don't have a house...i'll urinate it on you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 and put it on your houses.....(in neon !)..and if you don't have a house...i'll urinate it on you! i dont have a house, i live in an apartment... if that's your plan then the one-eyed snake better live up to the hype, i'm over 20 floors from the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.