Posts by mistyfox812

Gaza said:Maybe it’d be a lot smarter if you spent your time moving on with your life instead of obsessing over my posts? Seriously, who gave you the right to go around twisting my words when I’m being perfectly civil? You aren't my tutor, you don't get to dictate my opinions, and you're definitely not some expert in philosophy. What are you even doing here? What’s your actual role? Are you just trying to brainwash people? Like, trying to force some obscure philosophical takes from the bottom of a history book down everyone's throats? And what is this "unique Gezin theory" nonsense? Gezin doesn't even have a theory! He just interprets that one incredible, magnificent system called the Philosophy of Origins—it's not about Socrates or Marx. What do you actually know about that philosophy? Why are you even doing this?

I moved some of the posts from the "Why do we exist? What's the point???" thread over to its own separate topic. Honestly, the reasons for doing that aren't even hard to figure out—it was pretty obvious just looking at the main post in that new thread. Like Gaza correctly pointed out, most people jumping into this discussion are coming at it from a place of pure existential curiosity about their own purpose. That kind of question—just like questioning who you actually are—is one of those fundamental triggers everyone hits eventually, and it’s usually what kicks off all the deep philosophizing. That whole existential spark only really works when you take the question personally. It's one of those things where the question itself matters way more than any actual answer. Because at the end of the day, if you're looking at it through that lens, you're the only one who can ever provide the answer for yourself.
That’s how he’s looking at it—an existential approach (and yeah, I’m totally stealing that term from Gaza). It’s fundamentally different from how Gezin sees things, which he actually made pretty clear himself. For Gezin, it's all about how one single person relates to the entire human race from an evolutionary standpoint. It's like comparing a single cell to a whole organism or something.
So, the Gezin approach is... well, it’s definitely a different vibe than what everyone else is doing on this thread. You can tell because there are like 68 people chiming in here who have only posted once or twice on this specific topic. It kind of implies that the main question is one of those super personal ones—you know? Like, almost everyone feels the need to weigh in with their own take, but hardly anyone feels the urge to go around trying to convince someone else that they're right. I guess it's just one of those things where you have to figure out the answer for yourself.
Look, Gezin’s approach is totally valid—it’s just... different. I actually thought about taking a bunch of his posts from this thread—maybe like half of them—specifically the ones where he lays out that unique way of thinking, and spinning them off into their own separate discussion. But since he’s totally against me doing that, I just scrapped the idea and went back to how things were.

Look, let me answer those questions real quick: what I consider "smart" is my call to make, Gezin—not yours. As a moderator, I have the right to move posts from one thread to another whenever necessary. And just to be clear, I don't belong to anyone. I’m the moderator for the Philosophy subforum, and my job is to manage discussions based on my own judgment, as long as I’m staying within the site rules. You can't force philosophical viewpoints on people; philosophy is meant to be shared and explored, not dictated.I'm just gonna say it—it’s time to expose everything. Honestly, I'm tired of keeping it all in. We need to lay it all out on the table, no filters, no holding back. It's about being real for once. Let's get into it.It’s just not gonna happen.imposingLook, whether something’s just mindless noise or actually worth your time? That’s totally up to you. Personally, I know way too much about this "Philosophy of Origins" stuff—honestly, more than I ever wanted to know. Not only is the Philosophy subforum absolutely drowning in all that Gezin nonsense, but they even opened a new "On the Edge" section just to try and shield the Science department from that notorious Geza guy. And guess what? He’s already flooded that one, too. To top it off, before I even ran into him here, I had the bad luck of checking out his book from the local library in San Diego. I mean, maybe the library was feeling extra generous and took two copies just so the citizens could be eternally grateful, but whatever. I barely even managed to get through a third of it. 🙂

So, Gaza dropped some questions on me. Usually, I’m the type who jumps at the chance to answer anyone asking me something directly, but this guy? He’s the exception. Honestly, he was actually on my ignore list before I stepped up as a moderator. I’ve tried talking to him enough times, and I’ve spent plenty of time reading his "discussions" with other users, just to realize that trying to have a real conversation with him is basically just a massive waste of my time and energy.

Nah, since they're actually announcing it:

Gaza said:You won't answer because you're just incapable, but man, are you an expert at being cynical and ignoring anyone who doesn't fit your narrow little worldview! From here on out, I’m gonna be commenting on every single one of your posts—not to talk to you, obviously, but to show everyone exactly how you try to hoodwink them with that whole mistyfox812 philosophy of yours.

I guess I’m kind of forced to say something here. Honestly, it’s not even because I give a damn about Gezin’s opinion of me—I don't value his take at all, and frankly, I doubt anyone who actually matters takes him seriously either. It's more that I can't stand his little announcement about "commenting on my every single post." That would totally kill the vibe for me. I love posting when things feel friendly and chill, but he's threatening to turn this place into that typical, narrow-minded, loud-mouthed shouting match. Look, you can't have a real philosophical debate when someone is forcing your hand like this, but hey, I didn't ask for this confrontation. I usually skip replying to his threads because, let's be real, everything he posts feels like pure spam cluttering up the boards. So, these replies? They're just a byproduct of his spamming. I'm using this specific thread since the title actually makes sense for once. I'm not really expecting to make Gezin see reason—I'm just hoping he'll finally back off with this creepy threat to stalk my every move on the forum.

So, let me jump in and actually respond to those two posts of his.

Gaza said:Look, you’re totally misinterpreting this and basically shooting yourself in the foot because you're completely ignoring virtual electrons. Like, seriously? What even is a "virtual electron" compared to the "real" ones actually zipping around your TV screen or whatever monitor you're staring at? Why aren't you bringing that up? Or better yet, why isn't anyone talking about it? So, I was just spiraling down this rabbit hole thinking about electron polar complementarity... like, seriously, how does that even work? It’s one of those things that sounds super intense when you first hear it, but once you start digging, it’s actually kind of wild. Just thinking about the way everything balances out on such a tiny, microscopic level. It's honestly mind-blowing. What actually led guys like Borove or Heisenberg to lean into those specific takes on physical uncertainty? And look, if you're gonna bring up Boma, why not just be straight about it? That guy is primarily focused on holographic phenomena, not stuff involving particles—you know, like electrons, or me, or you, or even a cow.
When is everyone finally gonna wake up and realize that modern physics—and honestly, everything else, even biology—is built on POLAR NON-LINEAR COMPLEMENTARITY? Like, seriously. We need to stop obsessing over these tiny little electron balls bouncing around the Moon or Earth and actually look at the big picture. It’s time to get it right.
So, like... is there actually any fresh news on virtual electums or even a "virtual human"? I mean, does that kind of thing even exist? Like, is it an object, a creation, or just some weird phenomenon? And seriously, could there even be a virtual America?

It’s honestly pretty stupid to claim any piece of writing—especially a random forum post—is "wrong" just because I left something out. Let's be real: every single text leaves stuff out by design. If that were actually a thing, then clearly Gaza still needs to spend hundreds of pages explaining himself in his famous book (self-published, obviously) just to make sure people get it. So, yeah, every statement is technically incomplete. Calling my post a "wrong interpretation" or "bad teaching" just because I skipped a detail is total nonsense. And honestly, using the word "teaching" is super uncalled for. I’m not out here trying to lecture anyone on this forum, and I definitely wasn't lecturing in the post they were reacting to; I was just answering a question someone asked me. I mean, why even ask me instead of going to Gaza? He'd probably give them the "correct" lesson anyway. Who knows what that guy is thinking.
You can find stuff about virtual electrons in pretty much any physics textbook, including Wikipedia. If someone who actually knows how to hold a conversation asked me, I might try to give an answer—but honestly, there’s zero reason to.

I have no clue why people don't talk about this or that. It's not my job to decide what gets discussed or how. Why don't I bring up "electron polar complementarity"? Because I literally have nothing to say about it. As far as I know, neither Bohr nor Heisenberg had anything to say about it either. They did have plenty to say about complementarity, though—which I've actually posted about on the forum before when the timing felt right. As for the late Boma, he also looked into using holograms as a sort of metaphor for a whole new way of seeing reality. I've written about that too, whenever I felt it was necessary. Calling him someone who primarily dealt with "holographic phenomena" is just nonsense. First off, using the word "phenomena" there is totally out of place, and second, Gaza isn't in any position to judge which part of Boma's work is "primary" and which is secondary. Plus, it's just plain stupid to try and tell anyone what someone else's main focus was every single time you mention their name.

It's a side note, but kind of interesting to me—Gaza constantly misspells Boma's name, and not just his. Anyone unlucky enough to read more of Gaza's work probably noticed this total lack of care for the text. Maybe you could write it off as him being focused on "bigger things" and being dismissive of trivial details. But honestly? I think it just shows Gaza doesn't really care about his readers. Most people on here read over their posts after they hit send and fix typos—that's called showing respect to the people reading. Gaza obviously doesn't read his posts once they're live—not that anyone can blame him, since reading those things is a struggle in itself. But here's the weird part: several times now, other users have pointed out when he's misspelled a name or a word. And yet, he just keeps doing it, stubbornly. To me, that kind of stubbornness points to one specific trait: an inability to admit to any mistake, even when it's tiny and super obvious. But look, if Gaza actually started seriously considering what other users were telling him, his entire long-standing intellectual structure might just collapse into a pile of nonsense built from half-understood or out-of-context fragments. It feels like Gaza has gone too far into building his own little fantasy castle—somewhere caught between heaven and earth—to ever allow himself to face that possibility. You kind of have to understand him, though.

As for the question of "when will we finally get it," I can't answer that. I don't have a crystal ball or a window into the future. Unlike Gaza, who seems to have the future laid out before him, so it feels pretty silly for him to ask me "when will we finally get it."

The "virtual electron" and the "virtual man" are totally related, but only within Gaza's imagination. Outside of that, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Elizabeth Ruiz65 said:Isn't this just a purely ethnocentric perspective? That's how this part of the world generally
perceives red, for instance—as a symbol of aggression or hostility. That doesn't
mean red actually possesses any inherent qualities of that sort,
assuming it even has intrinsic properties to begin with.

Man, that is such a fascinating question.

So, there's this thing called synesthesia, where people actually experience a literal blending of senses. Like, some folks don't just think a sound "feels" rough or white—they literally perceive it that way. And get this: it’s not totally random. Usually, one synesthete describes their experience almost exactly like another one does. Like, two different people might hear the same sound and both see red or blue. It's wild. This whole area of study is relatively new*, so I'm not sure if there are differences in how various ethnic groups describe these things.

Here's what Wikipedia says:

It was once assumed that synaesthetic experiences were entirely different from synaesthete to synaesthete, but recent research has shown that there are underlying similarities that can be observed when large numbers of synaesthetes are examined together. For example, sound-colour synaesthetes, as a group, tend to see lighter colours for higher sounds (Ward et al, 2006) and grapheme-colour synaesthetes, as a group, share significant preferences for the colour of each letter (e.g., A tends to be red; O tends to be white or black; S tends to be yellow etc., Simner et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2005; Day, 2005).

* obviously, it's been known for ages, but for traditional Western science, the whole concept probably sounded way too metaphysical, so they didn't really dive into researching it until recently.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:This leads us straight into a paradox; if "Truth is the whole," then by definition, any individual segment is not the whole, which means that segment cannot be the Truth... and consequently, the clarity we find in a single part doesn't equate to the clarity of the entire system. It follows, then, that Truth (viewed as the totality) is essentially just a collection of non-truths (the segments).
One has to admit: we look at the whole and perceive only a fragment—in fact, it's impossible to even perceive a fragment without the context of the whole being present. That fragment is simply our way of witnessing how incomplete the whole appears to be.

Yeah. Exactly. That’s why the final theory is basically impossible. All we're left with is this endless cycle of trying to explain the tiny fragments of an implicit whole.

Dare to know!

Jonathan Brooks8 said:It could certainly be perceived as something singular, yet simultaneously remain entirely ambiguous. As an external attribute—rather than an inherent internal quality—perception can oscillate between clarity and obscurity, but only for the duration of the observation itself. Therefore, the Truth is that what is observed is both clear and unclear, provided the premise remains that it is being observed.

One cannot establish a thesis suggesting that increased clarity leads to decreased truthfulness; such a proposition, by virtue of its own strictly linear and reciprocal logic, effectively negates itself.

The Truth is this: the more clearly something is observed, the more it is subject to observation—and just as much as something is obscured, it remains under observation. In other words, the act of observation itself dictates the degree of clarity or lack thereof...😁

If the observer were a "closed system," one might argue that the object of observation is also a "closed system"—meaning higher clarity would necessitate lower ambiguity, and vice versa. But that isn't how it works; since the observer is an "open system" and the subject is an "open system" as well, any increase in clarity has the potential to simultaneously open up even greater layers of ambiguity.

I honestly think Bohr isn't talking about whether a statement is factually true here. He's going full Hegel on us: ''Truth is the whole.''

In that sense, it’s pretty easy to wrap your head around: the more you sharpen your lens, the clearer the view gets, but you end up seeing a much smaller slice of the big picture.

So, "complementarity" basically means this—by sharpening your focus, you're actually losing something else. You can't just glue a bunch of clear little pieces together and expect to suddenly have a perfectly clear whole.

Honestly, I’m totally with you—there’s just no way to grade an essay objectively. I mean, as objective as you can get in logic or physics, anyway. We should probably just stop trying. It doesn't mean we can't have a competition, though; it just means we need to accept that the committee acts more like a panel of judges. Like when people enter art contests—the jury picks what they pick, and that's that. No whining allowed. Maybe a different jury would've chosen a different piece, but hey, that's the risk you take when you sign up. We just gotta embrace that (and honestly, inevitable) subjective vibe. This would also mean we don't publish rankings or specific scores, just the winners.

Also, since I'm a huge fan of philosophical dialogue, I really love your idea about having a discussion. I truly think most participants would end up digging way deeper into the topic that way. And honestly, an online forum is such a perfect setup for this kind of thing.
So, maybe the competition could work like this: everyone writes their essay for a set amount of time. Then, at the exact same time, everyone posts their essay on the forum. After everyone has had some time to actually read what others wrote, everybody jumps in to comment on the arguments—basically a massive forum debate with its own timeframe. Finally, the jury decides, announces the winners, and the discussion can just keep going for anyone who still has stuff to say, regardless of the prizes.

Gregory Lewis37 said:The title itself is this grand, sweeping concept—truly majestic, really. But everything else? It’s just a mess of contradictions. Honestly, were you perhaps a bit tipsy when you decided to pluck a few verses from the Bible and toss them into a blender with some articles from Cosmopolitan, only to hurriedly stir it all together?

Yeah, drunk—honestly, dead. 😬
Google says these are actually quotes by the poet T.S. Eliot. 🙂

mistybison said:Camus says, ''There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest follows.''

Humans possess an inherent instinct for self-preservation. While this drive might be less pronounced in certain individuals, most people have a highly developed internal system that protects them from making such a decision. Becoming a parent introduces a different weight; you never truly know what kind of child you will have or what kind of life they will face. A parent carries the ultimate responsibility for bringing a new life into the world. It would be wrong for nefer to tell them, "If you aren't happy with the life I gave you, then take matters into your own hands."😛 😉
I don't know, I just don't see how it's anything but fair to admit we'd much rather be alive than dead—especially since, luckily, we haven't taken advantage of the option to not exist yet. 🙂

mistybison said:

I don't feel any sense of gratitude toward my parents for being here. In fact, I believe their decision to have me was quite foolish and immature, and I am the only one who has to deal with the consequences. 🙄 They really should have thought things through more before sentencing me to existence. 🙄 To anyone who believes that bringing a child into this world is some kind of precious gift, I truly hope you get a child just like me. 😍 😁 🤣
I don't feel any sense of gratitude toward my parents for being here. In fact, I believe their decision to have me was quite foolish and immature, and I am the only one who has to deal with the consequences. 🙄 They really should have thought things through more before sentencing me to existence. 🙄 To anyone who believes that bringing a child into this world is some kind of precious gift, I truly hope you get a child just like me. 😍 😁 🤣
I don't feel any sense of gratitude toward my parents for being here. In fact, I believe their decision to have me was quite foolish and immature, and I am the only one who has to deal with the consequences. 🙄 They really should have thought things through more before sentencing me to existence. 🙄 To anyone who believes that bringing a child into this world is some kind of precious gift, I truly hope you get a child just like me. 😍 😁 🤣
Camus says, ''There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest follows.''

swiftcobra15 said:Nah, I mean, what they feel is on them, right? Not my problem... But hey, can't I just enjoy the chance to give someone something without it being all about their reaction?

Nah, I mean, what they feel is on them, right? Not my problem... But hey, can't I just enjoy the chance to give someone something without it being all about their reaction?
I mean, I don't know, maybe they will. I never said I was expecting a thank you note or anything. 😕
I just give stuff because I truly believe it's worth it.

swiftcobra15 said:👍

Nah, I mean, what they feel is on them, right? Not my problem... But hey, can't I just enjoy the chance to give someone something without it being all about their reaction?

My life? It’s precious to me, man. Seriously.

I mean, sure, I can be proud of certain things about myself—maybe my strength, looks, brains, education, guts, experience, or just having a solid moral compass and some deep insight... But all that stuff only matters if I actually *exist*. If I'm alive. Life comes before all those qualities, period.

And it’s not just me feeling this way—it’s everyone who’s breathing. We all value our lives. We all try (even if it’s just a little bit, every once in a while) to hang on to this life. It’s precious to us all.

I got my life from my parents. Plain and simple. Without them, there is no me. Without their physical connection, I wouldn't be here. Without my mom carrying me for nine months, I wouldn't exist.

I owe my whole life to my parents.

Even if they hadn't given me anything else after that (and honestly, they gave me way more than enough), I’d still be incredibly grateful for the single most valuable thing they provided: my existence as a human being. Because without that, I wouldn't have had anything else at all. It's hands down the greatest gift I could ever receive.

When you face a gift like that, all you can really do is say thank you.

And they received that same gift from their parents. And their parents before them. They could have done whatever they wanted with it—found ways to have fun, avoided hard work, or even questioned it. They could have asked "why?" Why bother being a parent under the circumstances of the USA, Nazi Germany, the Kingdom of America, the Austro-Canadian Empire, or under the Venetians, Turks, Byzantines, Romans, Illyrians, beyond the Carpathians, or in Persia? No matter if they were under rich rulers or poor ones, powerful or oppressed, sick or healthy, everyone had their own questionable perspectives (just like human perspectives always have been). Yet, they all passed that gift along—the gift they got from their own parents—passing it down, and down, and down, until it finally reached me.

If they hadn't passed it on, I wouldn't be here.

And honestly, I'm just glad to be here. 🙂 I hope you guys feel the same way. 😁

If the day ever comes where I get to give someone else a gift this precious... well, I know I'll be just as grateful for that gift too. 🙂

swiftcobra15 said:Biologically speaking, men have hands. Even though science proves you can live without one hand—or even get by using just one—most people find they need both. It's like having wings just so we can fly. Then there are our hormones and sex drives that make most guys want to stick their junk in a woman... and sometimes children happen. Why God made us this way, who knows. Biologically, kids are often just a byproduct of an intense drive for sex. That doesn't mean the kid was actually wanted, or that the guy actually wants to "be a father."

Being a father presumably means wanting to raise a child and teaching them how to survive. Most guys don't feel that urge at the start; they just stumble into it through sex and then realize it's actually kind of fun. Or maybe they see a helpless puppy and suddenly feel the urge, let alone a tiny human they're responsible for. Not everyone feels this way, though. Plenty of guys just walk away and dodge child support entirely. Some want to be fathers and some don't—some bail because they can't handle the chaos of a woman's pregnancy. Some end up being fathers to 2% of their kids, others to 35%, or more. What it actually means to be a father depends on how each man perceives life and human needs. Could you expand on this and explain what being a father meant for you?

Biologically speaking, men have hands. Even though science proves you can live without one hand—or even get by using just one—most people find they need both. It's like having wings just so we can fly. Then there are our hormones and sex drives that make most guys want to stick their junk in a woman... and sometimes children happen. Why God made us this way, who knows. Biologically, kids are often just a byproduct of an intense drive for sex. That doesn't mean the kid was actually wanted, or that the guy actually wants to "be a father."

Being a father presumably means wanting to raise a child and teaching them how to survive. Most guys don't feel that urge at the start; they just stumble into it through sex and then realize it's actually kind of fun. Or maybe they see a helpless puppy and suddenly feel the urge, let alone a tiny human they're responsible for. Not everyone feels this way, though. Plenty of guys just walk away and dodge child support entirely. Some want to be fathers and some don't—some bail because they can't handle the chaos of a woman's pregnancy. Some end up being fathers to 2% of their kids, others to 35%, or more. What it actually means to be a father depends on how each man perceives life and human needs. Could you expand on this and explain what being a father meant for you?

Biologically speaking, men have hands. Even though science proves you can live without one hand—or even get by using just one—most people find they need both. It's like having wings just so we can fly. Then there are our hormones and sex drives that make most guys want to stick their junk in a woman... and sometimes children happen. Why God made us this way, who knows. Biologically, kids are often just a byproduct of an intense drive for sex. That doesn't mean the kid was actually wanted, or that the guy actually wants to "be a father."

Being a father presumably means wanting to raise a child and teaching them how to survive. Most guys don't feel that urge at the start; they just stumble into it through sex and then realize it's actually kind of fun. Or maybe they see a helpless puppy and suddenly feel the urge, let alone a tiny human they're responsible for. Not everyone feels this way, though. Plenty of guys just walk away and dodge child support entirely. Some want to be fathers and some don't—some bail because they can't handle the chaos of a woman's pregnancy. Some end up being fathers to 2% of their kids, others to 35%, or more. What it actually means to be a father depends on how each man perceives life and human needs. Could you expand on this and explain what being a father meant for you?
Biologically speaking, men have hands. Even though science proves you can live without one hand—or even get by using just one—most people find they need both. It's like having wings just so we can fly. Then there are our hormones and sex drives that make most guys want to stick their junk in a woman... and sometimes children happen. Why God made us this way, who knows. Biologically, kids are often just a byproduct of an intense drive for sex. That doesn't mean the kid was actually wanted, or that the guy actually wants to "be a father."

Being a father presumably means wanting to raise a child and teaching them how to survive. Most guys don't feel that urge at the start; they just stumble into it through sex and then realize it's actually kind of fun. Or maybe they see a helpless puppy and suddenly feel the urge, let alone a tiny human they're responsible for. Not everyone feels this way, though. Plenty of guys just walk away and dodge child support entirely. Some want to be fathers and some don't—some bail because they can't handle the chaos of a woman's pregnancy. Some end up being fathers to 2% of their kids, others to 35%, or more. What it actually means to be a father depends on how each man perceives life and human needs. Could you expand on this and explain what being a father meant for you?
😁

Biologically speaking, men have hands. Even though science proves you can live without one hand—or even get by using just one—most people find they need both. It's like having wings just so we can fly. Then there are our hormones and sex drives that make most guys want to stick their junk in a woman... and sometimes children happen. Why God made us this way, who knows. Biologically, kids are often just a byproduct of an intense drive for sex. That doesn't mean the kid was actually wanted, or that the guy actually wants to "be a father."

Being a father presumably means wanting to raise a child and teaching them how to survive. Most guys don't feel that urge at the start; they just stumble into it through sex and then realize it's actually kind of fun. Or maybe they see a helpless puppy and suddenly feel the urge, let alone a tiny human they're responsible for. Not everyone feels this way, though. Plenty of guys just walk away and dodge child support entirely. Some want to be fathers and some don't—some bail because they can't handle the chaos of a woman's pregnancy. Some end up being fathers to 2% of their kids, others to 35%, or more. What it actually means to be a father depends on how each man perceives life and human needs. Could you expand on this and explain what being a father meant for you?
😁
Wait, hold up, I didn't catch that... are we talking about sex or fatherhood here? 🤔

jadecyclist222 said:I honestly don't know. I have no real sense of what our purpose even is. Maybe it would matter to some people. Personally, I think I'd prefer to have been born as something else entirely. If there is a higher purpose, then maybe it’s useful. If there isn't, then it doesn't really matter either way.

Look, here's the thing—if there’s no purpose, then "usefulness" doesn't even exist. "Useful" basically means "aligned with the goal." It's like saying, "this machine is 73% efficient"—that just means 73% of its energy is actually doing what it was built to do. So, yeah, useful = purposeful.
If there's no point to anything, nothing can be useful.
And another thing: if you had been born as something else, you wouldn't be *you*. So it wouldn't be "better for you," it would just be better for some other entity that isn't you. And those other entities? They were already born as something else too.

jadecyclist222 said:Most people are just dead weight. If I had the power, I’d wipe out the entire human race. We're all just miserable, unpleasant creatures—myself included.

Would that actually be helpful though? 🙄

"The whole tech thing... it isn't even actually about technology."
Martin Heidegger

Technology basically makes everything available on demand. You know? Something that used to just *exist* on its own, totally independent of what we want from it, suddenly becomes this thing we can just grab whenever we feel like it. It’s all just... at our disposal now. Take a massive river—something that might have been flowing naturally for thousands of years. Now? We just slap a dam on it, trap it, and keep it there like a resource waiting to be tapped. Or look at animals. They spent millions of years evolving (and then thousands more being bred by humans) into what they are today, but now? With gene editing, they’re basically just biological spare parts kits for us to use for things like organ transplants. There are endless examples of this. It's wild.

So, here's the deal with technology: it starts doing its own thing. It develops this life of its own that totally ignores what we actually intended it for, yet somehow, it stays perfectly "handy" for us to use. We strip away all the actual meaning from things—like, a river isn't really a river anymore, it’s just some "potential water energy" sitting there waiting for us to tap into it. Even animals get stripped of their essence; they aren't living beings to us, just "collections of organs" we can exploit whenever we feel like it. It's kind of heavy when you think about it.

Everything just loses its spark. Everything starts feeling totally meaningless. It all turns into nothing more than raw material—just stuff sitting there, waiting to be used because it's available and meant to serve us. That’s the real core of technology right there. That's exactly where it's heading.

Technology can seriously turn into something straight-up diabolical if we aren't careful. It’s like... the whole essence of existence just gets sucked into this one single entity that decides it's the absolute boss of everything else. Total takeover vibes.

Nah, I think technology just makes us way too available. Like, look at smartphones—they basically mean you're on call 24/7. Then there's the internet, which means any random piece of info is right there for anyone to grab whenever they feel like it. Even TV does this; it just keeps every single "event" constantly shoved in everyone's faces. It’s like we're never truly off the grid anymore.

Look, whatever you've got sitting around... that’s just raw material for someone else to build something with. Honestly? The stuff itself doesn't even matter. It doesn't have its own "thing," you know? Its whole purpose is just being there, ready to be used for the build.

Technology, people, knowledge... it all just becomes raw material. It strips everything down, makes us totally irrelevant. It takes our whole essence and just reduces us to building blocks. But who’s actually doing the building? Is it just more people using us as fuel?

So, our buddy Geza's over here claiming there's this massive, almost superhuman force at work, slowly folding us individuals into some giant machine or organism—basically saying it's the next big step in evolution. He thinks this emerging thing is basically divine. Me? If I can even wrap my head around his logic... I see it as something straight out of a horror movie. It’s like we're building a modern Tower of Babel, trying to turn humans—if you can even call us that anymore—into God at the expense of everything else in existence.

So, remember that whole Tower of Babel story? People trying to build this massive tower just to reach up and become gods... only to have their languages get all scrambled. It’s wild. Makes you wonder if we're heading toward our own version of that mess right now. I mean, what's the actual link between the tech we're building and the way we actually talk to each other? Is all this new gear going to leave us unable to understand one another?

Words basically strip everything down to a single label. You take all these unique, living things and just... bam, they're all "cat." It totally kills what makes them special, you know? Takes away that one-of-a-kind vibe and turns them into a repetitive concept. Just "cat." Once you’ve got that symbol, though, you can play with it however you want. You can link it to whatever or nothing at all—it's all up to you. That little idea of a "cat" is way easier to mess around with than an actual, breathing cat sitting on your lap.

Words basically lock in the flow of real life. They let you piece things together—or tear them apart—pretty much whenever you feel like it.

Technology does the exact same thing—it takes something living and turns it into just another set of fixed parts you can snap together or pull apart. It basically treats living beings like raw material that’s just sitting there waiting to be used.

At the end of the day, being human really just comes down to one thing: we’re creatures built to speak. That's it. That's the core. We're also these beings that nurture other living things, you know? And honestly, we're the ones constantly reshaping the entire landscape around us. It's just what we do.

So, isn't that whole thing—where we just strip the world down until it's nothing more than raw material for us to mess with—basically just the next logical step in those same old trends? Seriously.

Is it actually possible to overdo it when you're talking? Like, seriously. Some people just hit the mark, but others go way overboard and totally lose touch with reality. It’s the same deal with training or raising something—you can push it too far. I was thinking about this old story where a guy tried to train his horse by starving it, and the poor thing just ended up dying. You gotta find that balance, you know?

It’s totally possible that we lose our grip on things. You know, like when we get too caught up in our own little bubbles—our ways of talking, how we were raised, even all this crazy tech stuff. We lose the balance. Suddenly, those tools aren't serving us anymore; we’re basically just slaves to them. It gets messy. People start speaking completely different languages, everyone’s just stuck in their own head, shouting about their own thing. We lose that one big thing that actually connects us all: the truth.

So where's the actual gold standard then? Honestly, that's a tough one to wrap my head around. 🙂

Rebecca Cox2 said:That’s all well and good, but I don't see why anyone needs to chant specific mantras. Honestly, isn't it enough to just "veg out" for an hour or two a day with almost zero mental stimulation?

Once someone conducts a study comparing people like me—who are (dare I say?) smart enough to find ways to unwind daily—against those who rely solely on TM, then we can have a real conversation...

Then go ahead and run the study! Get a group from Brighton together (you know, the geniuses like yourself) and prove that, by any measurable standard, you guys have stats just as good as the T-Mobile people. That would actually be a massive argument against T-Mobile and a huge win for Brighton.
Right now, it just looks like you're digging your heels into your beliefs despite what all those peer-reviewed scientific journals are saying.

The poet Paul Celan once said, "Poetry doesn't impose itself; it exposes itself."
Sloterdijk takes this whole idea of "impose vs. expose"—which sounds pretty killer in both French and English, by the way—and applies it to more than just verse. He drags that entire concept straight into philosophy. It’s the same deal there: philosophy shouldn't be about forcing itself on you; it should be about laying things bare.

Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, society can only really change things through a referendum. But what if a referendum actually passed to fire everyone with an IQ under 100?

And what if people used a referendum to vote that all atheists should just be kicked to the curb?