Posts by lonegardener

David Sanchez8 said:Agreed. But sometimes they play the part so well it's nearly impossible to see through the mask. You don't realize who they are until they twist the knife when your back is turned.

So, how do you deal with them?

Well, you can't really prepare for it beforehand, but you can certainly control how you react afterward. 😍

For instance, try to realize that their "blade" isn't actually made of steel—it's purely psychological. You can essentially "dull" the edge just by changing your attitude toward it. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure which specific situation you're referring to, so I won't speculate too much. Personally, I find it hard to let a two-faced person truly get under my skin. Are you thinking about someone exploiting your trust? Or maybe someone spreading rumors about you behind your back? 🤔

David Sanchez8 said:Think about it like this: someone acts like your best friend, won't say a single harsh word to your face, but then turns around and stabs you in the back.

It sounds like you might have a different definition of what a "friend" actually is.

That guy isn't a friend of yours at all. Honestly, I’d much rather deal with an outright enemy than someone playing that kind of game.🤷

Edit: That said, before jumping to conclusions, it might be worth checking if this was just a massive misunderstanding. Are you absolutely certain they stabbed you in the back? If you're talking about a lack of courage for a face-to-face talk, then why don't you take the lead? Confront them with the fact that they betrayed you and give them a chance to explain themselves—if they even can or want to.

If they won't or can't, then screw it. They aren't your friend. Just click delete and move on.

David Sanchez8 said:How do we set boundaries and stop their hypocrisy from cutting us deep?

Could you elaborate? In what way can someone's duplicity actually cause us harm? 😕 🤷

Once you spot someone's "other face," you realize everything before that was just a lie. That’s when you need a strategy: highlight the whole mess, right-click, and hit "move to trash." 😈

You could even take a more methodical approach. Go through things one by one, view them in this new light, and click delete. Just keep going until everything is cleared out.

Morgan Martin5 said:It’s what happens when people view everything through this tiny, narrow lens of their own. They won't even bother trying to see things from someone else's perspective, yet they still think they have the right to pass judgment.

Just try walking in their shoes. 😍 Maybe some people simply aren't capable of doing that. Try to imagine being in their skin—and realizing you can't just "step out" of it. If you can actually manage that, it should be relatively easy to understand how they operate. 🙂

- excessive tolerance
- calling people out for hypocrisy
- acting progressive when you clearly lack basic literacy

😬

Benjamin Murphy34 said:Well, I'm not exactly a local here, so I wouldn't know if the joke is from California or not...🙂😉
What does it mean? Like, when someone takes half an hour just to say five words, or when it takes them forty-five minutes to cross a street, or when you ask them to do something and it takes them two hours... yeah, something like that...😉😉

I haven't met anyone quite like that. 🤷

That’s why I’m asking—since a few people keep bringing it up... where are you all finding these people? 🤣

I’m honestly not following what everyone means by this "slowness" thing. 😕

Is this some kind of inside joke from California? 🤣

Amanda Myers3 said:I have little patience for people who are perpetually enraged and constantly complaining; they lack the ability to actually enjoy anything in life...

I also can't stand loud, messy eaters. It's just impossible to be around them.

And then there are those who make nothing but politics their entire personality. 🤣

What a wild cocktail of undesirable traits... 🤣

For some reason, this thread immediately brought a certain quote to mind:

Mr and Mrs Smith, of number four, Maple Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.

😬

redtinker36 said:.. I think I follow.. and I'm inclined to agree quite a bit..

.. For me, the body is far more vital.. the brain is secondary, really..
(.. the brain just processes sensations and maps out responses.. and it seems to establish these definitive patterns pretty early on—just so it doesn't have to overthink everything constantly..)

.. Well.. I suspect older generations didn't use the word "mind" the way you do.. it was used more in this sense: thought, mind, consciousness.. (.. somewhat akin to how people in the East use "Om"..)
.. And even regarding the body, it feels a bit more complex.. if we want to prioritize it, we need to imbue it with a bit more life..

.. But.. honestly.. I'm not against the spiritual component either—not if it’s proven to be such a clear part of the human experience.. I wonder, though.. could it become even clearer? But.. that's a different conversation entirely..

.. Regardless, yes.. the body is the foundation we need to build upon..

Build what, exactly? 😬

goldenpuma84 said:Here’s my take. At the core of human nature—that one thing that separates us from animals we constantly feel the need to bond with or compare ourselves to (I haven't heard anyone in an American conversation comparing themselves to an oak tree lately)—is supposedly the mind. It's that capacity for rational perception of the world and oneself, acting as both a part of the world and something somehow detached from it through the act of perceiving. When I strip everything else away—my desires, my vices, my passions—and face my own limitations, nothing feels as certain as the possibility that it's all just an illusion. All this material gathered by the senses might just be a trick... but hey, I think, therefore I am. It's like the ability to think, even though it's biologically hardwired, isn't something you actually learn. You have to start with individual pieces (like Legos, or a pigeon, or even just myself as a thinking entity) before you can truly grasp the concept of thought itself.

But honestly, reading some modern thinkers—take Karl Loewith, for example, who deconstructs the history of Western thought—it doesn't feel like the mind is what provides the final answer to "Do I exist?" More than the mind, which usually gets caught up in the daily grind and sensory inputs that we know can lie to us, it's my own body that tells me I'm alive.

When I'm hating or kissing, when I'm starving, when I'm cheating, when I'm jealous, or when I have a toothache... that's when I know I'm real. Why do we even need a mind to tell us that, to rescue us from that terrifying void of ignorance and give us the ultimate answer: yes, I exist! You can go ahead and manufacture souls and minds, self-consciousness and collective consciousness, slice them into a hundred different pieces and assign them specific tasks—but meanwhile, our fundamental reality, this one crappy, mortal body, gets forgotten. And even when people do remember it, it's treated as secondary, something dirty that constantly needs to be corrected and steered toward God knows what "metaphysical" substances.

What you wrote above is actually a byproduct of that "something else," rather than a product of the physical body itself. To put it plainly, your realization isn't just a result of hating, loving, being hungry, or being jealous; it stems directly from that very essence you're asking about.

Or more simply: you're sawing off the branch you're sitting on. The best way to answer this would be to look at what triggered you to start overthinking this in the first place instead of just... living. Especially since, once you reach a certain point, you shouldn't even need an intellect to tell you that you're here.

Personally, though, the raw fact that I am alive feels pretty irrelevant to me. (Well, maybe not 100%, otherwise I wouldn't be here to type this). I don't really care about "life" in some grand, artistic sense. I'm alive today; I might not be tomorrow. So, why does the fact that I'm alive *today* matter so much? It seems to me the only reason is basic survival instinct. But I don't see any logical reason to put that survival instinct on a pedestal. 🤷

rustymaker5 said:But if other people are forcing me to do things, they’re acting on their own free will, right? So why wouldn't I have free will too? What makes them fundamentally different from me?...🤷

I don't see how that makes my understanding of freedom superficial. I'm not any less free than anyone else...🤷

What kind of internal compulsions are you even talking about?

And why on earth do you feel like you have to prove free will using the laws of physics?

I never actually said you were "less" free. My point is, if free will is just an illusion, then we are all equally (un)free.

rustymaker5 said:But if other people are forcing me to do things, they’re acting on their own free will, right? So why wouldn't I have free will too? What makes them fundamentally different from me?...🤷

I don't see how that makes my understanding of freedom superficial. I'm not any less free than anyone else...🤷

What kind of internal compulsions are you even talking about?

And why on earth do you feel like you have to prove free will using the laws of physics?

Do you have the freedom to stop breathing? Give it a shot—I guarantee you'll give up on that idea sooner rather than later. 😬 I haven't heard of anyone successfully taking their own life simply by choosing to stop breathing.

The same kind of "compulsion" applies to other basic needs. With secondary needs, the pressure isn't quite as obvious, but the logic holds up. For example, don't you feel an "internal push" to, say, keep a promise? Or do you "freely decide" to keep it every single time?

rustymaker5 said:But if other people are forcing me to do things, they’re acting on their own free will, right? So why wouldn't I have free will too? What makes them fundamentally different from me?...🤷

I don't see how that makes my understanding of freedom superficial. I'm not any less free than anyone else...🤷

What kind of internal compulsions are you even talking about?

And why on earth do you feel like you have to prove free will using the laws of physics?

Well... that depends on whether a person believes in something transcendental within a material universe, or not. If you follow atheistic materialism, everything follows the laws of physics.

Nancy Brown11 said:I’m totally on board with this, except for one thing: there really are people out there who say, "Look, I don't know if free will exists, but I've decided to believe it doesn't." And honestly, there are plenty of them. But I can't get behind the idea that we can't test it through an experiment... I mean, who knows? I'd rather just say "I don't know," because truth be told, I really don't. It would be wild to try and design an experiment like that, but man, imagine everything you'd need to pull that off.

You make a fair point. I shouldn't say it's "impossible"—rather, it just seems unfeasible to me. In fact, that's exactly what I meant when I said I don't see a way to prove or disprove it.

rustymaker5 said:Well, it really all depends on your definition of free will, doesn't it... personally, I feel like we prove our own agency through lived experience every single day. It starts with the freedom of thought, moves through the ability to make choices, and eventually lands on the freedom of action. No matter the circumstances or the messy situations we find ourselves stuck in, we always retain that capacity to choose how we react in the moment, and I truly believe people exercise that choice constantly... though, you know, when things go sideways, people tend to blame external pressures or claim they were forced into a corner, which makes it look like their will was stripped away, but that isn't actually the case...

True enough. It sounds like your definition of "freedom" relies on the absence of EXTERNAL COERCION. Essentially, if no outside force (like another person) is making you do something, you consider yourself "free."

But that feels like a pretty superficial way to look at liberty. Beyond external pressure, there is also internal compulsion. In fact, I'd argue that people experience this internal "drive" just as vividly every day.

When you dig into that internal drive, logic leads you to a different conclusion: every decision is essentially "compelled," because it is the inevitable result of internal processes that function exactly as they must. Decisions are the logical outcome of internal laws; therefore, they aren't "free," they are "necessary."

Of course, that conclusion clashes with our intuitive sense that we are in control. I can't deny that it *feels* like I have free will, too. But I don't see how we can logically derive that feeling from what we understand about physics.

Nancy Brown11 said:I'm not actually debating whether free will exists or not. I'm asking if we can empirically prove it, and if such a thing is even possible.

I don't see how. 🤷

The whole idea of "freedom" is an absolute mystery. It feels like a subjective impression that you just can't prove or disprove through an experiment (sure, there are studies that claim to debunk free will, but I find them unconvincing). At the end of the day, you either choose to believe in freedom or you don't.

If someone believes in free will, they’ll likely argue that they *chose* to believe in it (just as others chose the opposite).

On the flip side, someone who doesn't believe in free will will say they have no choice but to feel that way—because free will doesn't exist, so there's no "decision" to be made. They simply believe because they must, just as others must believe.

Personally, I'm undecided 😬—as usual. I honestly can't tell if I'm unsure because it's predetermined, or because I've freely decided to remain indecisive. 🤣

dustyskipper3 said:People possess reason, self-awareness, and autonomy. Since we are social creatures, we have the capacity to act morally—meaning we can choose to act against our own selfish interests for ethical reasons. This differs from animals because we have more complex cognitive functions; we can actually turn our thoughts into objects of contemplation. We can think about ourselves, which leads to self-awareness, and we can use logic and reason to grasp the laws governing the world around us. This gives us a certain level of autonomy, I suppose, since we can make decisions by aligning our actions with those rational principles.

At the same time, there is an animalistic side to us that we share with other creatures—our emotions and that primal "reptilian brain." Of course, that part often clashes with our reason and self-awareness; there is really no debate about that.

The real problem with defining "human nature" comes up in those edge cases. If the qualities mentioned above constitute human nature, then do infants and the elderly with advanced dementia also possess it? Or, if we assume infants have this nature as a potentiality, and the elderly once had it and are now losing it... what about those individuals carrying human DNA who are cognitively impaired to such an extent that they can never develop these capacities, even if they possess a tiny fraction of them? Would they then lack human nature? That logic would suggest we could treat them like animals, though most people seem to believe that even these extreme cases still possess human nature.

But if even they have human nature, why don't we grant some primates or other "lower" animals human nature, even just to a small degree?

In essence, I guess we should just say that anyone with human DNA has human nature, but that doesn't really serve as a meaningful definition of what human nature actually is.

But what exactly constitutes a "rational" action once you've identified those "laws" of nature?

I mean, what is the point of aligning our behavior with these laws? Personally, I find breaking them much more interesting. Take flight, for example—we don't have wings, so instead, we build airplanes and take to the sky. 😬

Why should a human—a free being—subjugate their reason and will to certain "laws"? That is, assuming they even have the ability to deny them in the first place. But if they can't, can we truly call them "autonomous"?

dustyskipper3 said:People possess reason, self-awareness, and autonomy. Since we are social creatures, we have the capacity to act morally—meaning we can choose to act against our own selfish interests for ethical reasons. This differs from animals because we have more complex cognitive functions; we can actually turn our thoughts into objects of contemplation. We can think about ourselves, which leads to self-awareness, and we can use logic and reason to grasp the laws governing the world around us. This gives us a certain level of autonomy, I suppose, since we can make decisions by aligning our actions with those rational principles.

At the same time, there is an animalistic side to us that we share with other creatures—our emotions and that primal "reptilian brain." Of course, that part often clashes with our reason and self-awareness; there is really no debate about that.

The real problem with defining "human nature" comes up in those edge cases. If the qualities mentioned above constitute human nature, then do infants and the elderly with advanced dementia also possess it? Or, if we assume infants have this nature as a potentiality, and the elderly once had it and are now losing it... what about those individuals carrying human DNA who are cognitively impaired to such an extent that they can never develop these capacities, even if they possess a tiny fraction of them? Would they then lack human nature? That logic would suggest we could treat them like animals, though most people seem to believe that even these extreme cases still possess human nature.

But if even they have human nature, why don't we grant some primates or other "lower" animals human nature, even just to a small degree?

In essence, I guess we should just say that anyone with human DNA has human nature, but that doesn't really serve as a meaningful definition of what human nature actually is.

🤷 Well, yes, those are all very good questions.

What exactly constitutes our *human* "true" nature? 😕

I mean, people talk about being "in tune with their nature" all the time. But what actually makes up the specific blueprint of being human? The real dilemma is that we possess both reason and self-awareness. Are those two things part of our "nature," or is "nature" just a shorthand for our primal, animalistic side? If you believe that logic and consciousness are core to human nature, then what kind of reasoning or awareness is considered "natural"—and which versions are "distorted" or "unnatural"? On the flip side, if by "human nature" we only mean the traits we share with primates, how do reason and self-awareness relate to that animalistic foundation? Is it even possible to find harmony between our intellect and our instincts, or are they fundamentally destined to clash?

Edward Flores4 said:Of course they're right.

The media circus might be "planted," sure, but I wouldn't say it's being "forced" on people. Aside from little kids—who, let's face it, don't really grasp the subtext of what they're watching—most "media victims" are actually just victims of their own egos and ambitions. It's less about being brainwashed and more about chasing the spotlight.

Hey, no harm done. If that's what someone wants, more power to them!

Not necessarily. Don't you think people sometimes get blindsided by the results of their own ambitions? A bit like Dr. Frankenstein.

I believe it’s entirely possible for some of them to wake up one day and realize this isn't what they actually wanted, even if it seemed like the dream at the time.

For instance, it feels pretty clear to me today that I have zero desire to be 'famous.' LOL—honestly, why would I want a bunch of random nobodies knowing who I am and what I do? 😕 🤷 It's hard to find a single good reason for it.
Looking back to when I was 18... hmm... I wasn't really thinking about it then, but if the opportunity had actually popped up, I wonder what might have looked tempting to me back then.

Chiquitita, tell me what's wrong
You're trapped in your own sadness
Looking at you, there’s just no hope left for tomorrow
It kills me to see you this way
There’s absolutely no denying it
I can tell you're so heartbroken, so silent

Chiquitita, just give it to me straight
I’m here whenever you need to lean on someone
As your best friend, I'm the one you can count on
You used to be so confident
But now, it looks like you've lost your spark
I really hope we can fix this together

Chiquitita, you and I know
i know How The heartaches Come and They go and The scars they're leaving You'll be dancing once again and The pain will end you will have no time for grieving Chiquitita , you and i cry but The Sun is still in The sky and shining above you let me hear you Sing once more like you did before Sing

Chiquitita, you and I cry
But the sun is still in the sky and shining above you
Let me hear you sing once more like you did before
Sing a new song, Chiquitita
Chiquitita Try once more like you did before Sing
Sing a new song, Chiquitita

Chiquitita http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVnMDYSaYA4&fmt=18

wearyowl29 said:There isn't any madness happening here, I promise!😁
I'm genuinely curious about the answer, though.

Look, you're asking if someone can charm their way into a depression diagnosis, or how much AD actually affects a healthy person. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to realize there's something fishy going on here.

Maybe it's not about your partner—are you perhaps starting to suspect someone else? 😍

Jerry Martinez5 said:The issue isn't you; it's Apemant. 🤣🤣🤣
He's a great typer, but he clearly gets a huge kick out of derailing the conversation. 👎
Apemant, just start your own thread about whatever you want. 🙂

Regarding Edith: I've heard that too. Who wouldn't want to avoid a diagnosis causing issues? But what does a diagnosis even mean? It's just a sentence, nothing more. If you're doing the work, things change.

Your honor, i plead not guilty. 😍

Troll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

So, the *primary motive* of a troll is to trigger an emotional reaction or intentionally steer the topic away... which is just a fancy way of saying they are being *malicious*. Do you honestly think I'm being malicious? Like, do you think my goal is to upset anyone for the sake of internet drama, or that I'm trying to hijack the conversation? To me, it seems obvious: I just have some wild associations 🤷 — certain topics remind me of things I've been thinking about lately, and I just can't help myself from rambling a bit about them. 🤣

For what it's worth, I don't actually enjoy starting new threads, for some reason. 😕

Hannah Davis18 said:I mean, it’s a lot. Some people just don't want to know what they're actually dealing with. I guess it's one way to protect the patient, maybe.

How can you not see the difference? I mean, seriously, I can't really help you if you can't tell organic stuff apart from basic mechanics.😳

😕 Wait, what?

A "robot" could be based entirely on something organic. Besides, you're losing sight of the context here: you brought up the idea of robots as a response to my point about happiness or emotion pills. What would be "mechanical" about that? That would be perfectly organic. You take a pill and feel butterflies in your stomach for six months. Then you take another one and feel deep love for the next six. And so on. Within a lifetime, you'd have the chance to experience everything you've ever been interested in, in a simple, fast, easy, and perhaps even cheap way. 😬

Jerry Martinez5
In that sense, AD is expensive: it makes you feel better than you actually deserve. It’s just that lonegardener took it a step further.

Exactly. Just look at that lovely little phrase: 'better than you deserve.' Hihihiihi. If only I knew what one truly had to 'deserve' something...

Though, you do clarify later:

Jerry Martinez5 said:It's about feeling better than you deserve in that specific moment. For instance, maybe you're 25 and desperate to be independent. You're struggling because you haven't graduated yet and your parents are breathing down your neck. AD gives you a boost more than you deserve, but what you actually need is help fixing your life: graduating, finding a job, moving out of your parents' house 👍

You can't change that internal sense of inadequacy without changing your actual circumstances. Unless you use drugs: which is just a temporary fix with a massive list of side effects 👎

However, you're making at least two mistakes there. First, you're suggesting 'how a person ought to live.' It doesn't matter if most people agree with you, or even if I do—it remains an unfounded prescription for someone else's life. Someone might choose to live with their parents, and there's certainly nothing written in stone saying that's wrong, or that they don't 'deserve' to feel good just because they haven't 'struck out on their own.' Second, I am talking specifically about a pill that would have a *long-term* effect, but *without* any negative side effects.

If we actually had a pill like that, you could feel great without wasting all your energy on graduating, job hunting, and those other mostly futile activities. 😬