# The Brain.



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 27, 2009)

Well, it is 1:30am, and I am sitting here thinking about my brain (not that I have much upstairs anyway) and some of the strange things mine does, or at least they seem strange to me. The main one that springs to mind is, that I always have music playing in my head, 24/7 it does not stop! it changes to different songs now and then but as soon as I wake up, I have a song in my head, till the moment I go to bed at night. I was wondering if anyone else gets this?

Also, I seem to be a lucid dreamer, recently, I was having....not a bad dream, but it was crappy, can't remember why, but for some reason I distinctly remember saying to myself in the dream "Fuck this I'm waking up" moments later I was laying in bed trying to work out how the fuck I just managed to do that.

Another thing about the brain that puzzles me, is the ability to hear yourself.....well....think, or stupid sound effects (or at least in mine), just like when you sit quietly using your imagination, except I don't need to actively sit there and use my imagination, I can sit here looking normal, having a normal discussing when perhaps I have the sound of a car in my head, for example.

Or do I just have a fucked up head? Please tell me I ain't the only one out there.

If dreams are not real, how do we feel emotions, hear sounds, and in some cases with me, had other sense like smell and touch come into it? 

I had a nice furry dream last night, I remember it from the part where me and the family (possibly an adoptive family) where outside a big store of some sort, snow was thick on the ground, snow was falling heavily too, it was close to christmas, I think they were wolves, but the dream had a very happy, content feeling to it, I was also much, much younger than my actual age (which is almost 26) I must of been 9.....10 maybe, I was in furry form, but I don't think I was the same species as my "family" for one i did not have a long muzzle like a canids muzzle, atleast I did not see one sticking from my face. The next part I remember was in our "uncles" arcade. this is what makes me think I was adopted in the dream because I called this middle-aged wolf guy "uncle", I was with another lad, adopted brother possibly as he also called him uncle, anyway, they were nice, the atmosphere in the arcade was pleasant, I remember just wondering around and helping out in the arcade.......then I woke up


----------



## Jelly (Oct 27, 2009)

I took drugs once.
The inside of my head
is kind of loopy.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Oct 27, 2009)

thats not to bad, ive gone through the sound thing, though this never made sense to me, i have insomnia, and im a narcoleptic. what the hell?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 27, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> thats not to bad, ive gone through the sound thing, though this never made sense to me, i have insomnia, and im a narcoleptic. what the hell?



So you can't sleep.....but you can fall asleep at random? 

I have a track playing in my head now....same track for the past.......few hours at a guess. The worst one was a few weeks ago when I had caramell dansen in my head, not just for a few hours but a few DAYS! Non fecking stop! well, stopping when I slept.

another thing, how the hell are we able to feel emotions in a dream, if the dream is not real?


----------



## blackfuredfox (Oct 27, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> So you can't sleep.....but you can fall asleep at random?
> 
> I have a track playing in my head now....same track for the past.......few hours at a guess. The worst one was a few weeks ago when I had caramell dansen in my head, not just for a few hours but a few DAYS! Non fecking stop! well, stopping when I slept.
> 
> another thing, how the hell are we able to feel emotions in a dream, if the dream is not real?



i also know about the music, im trying to think of a story, and i have Dolly Parton playing during an Artillery strike against other Artillery.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 27, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I took drugs once.
> The inside of my head
> is kind of loopy.



You fail at haiku.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 27, 2009)

Lol, I don't understand what's wrong with what you're describing.

Also, I used to practice meditation a lot more often than I do now, but because of it I've gotten pretty good at being able to do things like shut the music off in my head and think of just complete silence. Therefore it's easier to do things like have lucid dreams. In my opinion, meditation is like cleaning the canvas, so that you may paint a more quality picture.



Tycho said:


> You fail at haiku.





jellyhurwit said:


> Uhm, I took drugs once.
> Umm.. The inside of my head
> is kind of loopy.



Fixed? C=


----------



## Origamigryphon (Oct 27, 2009)

I don't like it when you're half asleep, and you're dreaming of walking or going down stairs, and then your dream self stumbles, and you jolt awake. Hate hate.


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 27, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Well, it is 1:30am, and I am sitting here thinking about my brain (not that I have much upstairs anyway) and some of the strange things mine does, or at least they seem strange to me. The main one that springs to mind is, that I always have music playing in my head, 24/7 it does not stop! it changes to different songs now and then but as soon as I wake up, I have a song in my head, till the moment I go to bed at night. I was wondering if anyone else gets this?
> 
> Also, I seem to be a lucid dreamer, recently, I was having....not a bad dream, but it was crappy, can't remember why, but for some reason I distinctly remember saying to myself in the dream "Fuck this I'm waking up" moments later I was laying in bed trying to work out how the fuck I just managed to do that.
> 
> ...




I think in anime char voices.


----------



## Jelly (Oct 27, 2009)

Tycho said:


> You fail at haiku.



ITS FREE FORM MAN
GOD
SUCH A BUZZKILL

hello fluffybutts :3

å¤¢ãƒ˜ã‚¯ã‚¿ãƒ¼ãƒ«ã‚«ãƒ¼
ãƒãƒ«ãƒ¼ç¤¾ã‚½ãƒ©åŒºå¯ºå¸‚
ãªã„å½¼ã¯è¥¿éƒ·ã€‚


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 27, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Lol, I don't understand what's wrong with what you're describing.
> 
> Also, I used to practice meditation a lot more often than I do now, but because of it I've gotten pretty good at being able to do things like shut the music off in my head and think of just complete silence. Therefore it's easier to do things like have lucid dreams. In my opinion, meditation is like cleaning the canvas, so that you may paint a more quality picture.
> C=



Lol, it is not meant to be a problem, I was just wondering if anyone Else's mind does it, or if my mind has a few wires crossed somewhere. I can lucid dream, I had a nice dream last night actually, furry aswell.


----------



## Corto (Oct 27, 2009)

Sometimes I hear stuff that isn't there, not like creepy voices or anything retarded like that, but I actually hear gunshots or clapping or stuff like that when everything's real quiet and then spend the next five minutes debating whether I really heard it or if I just implanted some stupid memory in my own brain. I also normally smell things that are not there, just anything that makes no sense in context (flowers, perfume, crap, food, animals, whatever) and this has been going on for a couple of months now. I was actually worried about having some sort of brain tumor (since there's a tendency in my family of getting cancer and dying) but I... uh, kinda forgot about that theory and started to ignore the problem. Now that I thought about it again, I'm once again worried. 

Fuck this, I'll go see a doctor. Haven't been to one in years, who knows what's going on.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Oct 27, 2009)

Corto said:


> Sometimes I hear stuff that isn't there, not like creepy voices or anything retarded like that, but I actually hear gunshots or clapping or stuff like that when everything's real quiet and then spend the next five minutes debating whether I really heard it or if I just implanted some stupid memory in my own brain. I also normally smell things that are not there, just anything that makes no sense in context (flowers, perfume, crap, food, animals, whatever) and this has been going on for a couple of months now. I was actually worried about having some sort of brain tumor (since there's a tendency in my family of getting cancer and dying) but I... uh, kinda forgot about that theory and started to ignore the problem. Now that I thought about it again, I'm once again worried.
> 
> Fuck this, I'll go see a doctor. Haven't been to one in years, who knows what's going on.



actually, now that i think, do you live in an old home/apartment?


----------



## Jelly (Oct 27, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Lol, it is not meant to be a problem, I was just wondering if anyone Else's mind does it, or if my mind has a few wires crossed somewhere. I can lucid dream, I had a nice dream last night actually, furry aswell.



Lucid dreams are normal.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 27, 2009)

Corto said:


> Sometimes I hear stuff that isn't there, not like creepy voices or anything retarded like that, but I actually hear gunshots or clapping or stuff like that when everything's real quiet and then spend the next five minutes debating whether I really heard it or if I just implanted some stupid memory in my own brain. I also normally smell things that are not there, just anything that makes no sense in context (flowers, perfume, crap, food, animals, whatever) and this has been going on for a couple of months now. I was actually worried about having some sort of brain tumor (since there's a tendency in my family of getting cancer and dying) but I... uh, kinda forgot about that theory and started to ignore the problem. Now that I thought about it again, I'm once again worried.
> 
> Fuck this, I'll go see a doctor. Haven't been to one in years, who knows what's going on.



Actually, I get the same thing happen to me, particularly in a quiet atmosphere. And I too spend ages trying to figure out whether or not I actually heard it, or was my mind just playing tricks. I often come to the conclusion it was an illusion from my mind.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 27, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Lucid dreams are normal.



Is being able to wake yourself up from WITHIN the dream part of lucid dreaming? Because I still can not figure out how the feck I did that.


----------



## Jelly (Oct 27, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Is being able to wake yourself up from WITHIN the dream part of lucid dreaming? Because I still can not figure out how the feck I did that.



Yes.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Oct 27, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Actually, I get the same thing happen to me, particularly in a quiet atmosphere. And I too spend ages trying to figure out whether or not I actually heard it, or was my mind just playing tricks. I often come to the conclusion it was an illusion from my mind.



same question, the building where you live, is it old?


----------



## Corto (Oct 27, 2009)

@ Randy: 
Yeah, well, I also think it's normal when I'm high or drunk out of my mind but when I'm lucid and this shit keeps happening almost 24/7 (to the point I no longer trust smell as one of my active sense, which is a fucking shame considering my near-sightedness has worsened through the last year to the point where I'm borderline blind) I call bullshit on my own brain and get real scared I might have something serious. 


blackfuredfox said:


> actually, now that i think, do you live in an old home/apartment?


Yeah, moved from an old house into an older and dirtier house this year.

If you're gonna suggest the place is haunted I'll find out where you live and hang you by the balls, though.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 27, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> same question, the building where you live, is it old?



I believe this block was built in the late 60's/early 70's.

EDIT: But I get it in many different buildings, but then this town is a very, very old town. So many of the buildings are old.....Come to think of it, apart from one place, all buildings I have lived in have been about the same age as this building.


----------



## Jelly (Oct 27, 2009)

Man, but you know what always freaks me out?
Those people that get brain parasites and don't know it until there are some serious complications like regular strokes and what not.

That's fucking scary.
Everytime I think about it, I'm completely wracked with paranoia that I have parasitic cysts in my head :c


----------



## blackfuredfox (Oct 27, 2009)

Corto said:


> Yeah, moved from an old house into an older and dirtier house this year.
> 
> If you're gonna suggest the place is haunted I'll find out where you live and hang you by the balls, though.



no, actually i recall on a tour, in Waverly Hills ironicly enough, buildings that are older will absorb sounds like a tape recorder, same with smells. then they are randomly released, thats all i really remember from it.


----------



## Corto (Oct 27, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Man, but you know what always freaks me out?
> Those people that get brain parasites and don't know it until there are some serious complications like regular strokes and what not.
> 
> That's fucking scary.
> Everytime I think about it, I'm completely wracked with paranoia that I have parasitic cysts in my head :c


Well thank you asshole, guess who's not sleeping tonight : (

EDIT: Fox, that's beautiful but it makes no damned sense. Smells I can understand but sounds? Really?
Anyway I also assumed that it was something in my home until I noticed that the smell problem happens pretty much anywhere, at seemingly random times.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 27, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Is being able to wake yourself up from WITHIN the dream part of lucid dreaming? Because I still can not figure out how the feck I did that.



I've done it a few times =3


----------



## Jelly (Oct 27, 2009)

Corto said:


> Well thank you asshole, guess who's not sleeping tonight : (
> 
> EDIT: Fox, that's beautiful but it makes no damned sense. Smells I can understand but sounds? Really?
> Anyway I also assumed that it was something in my home until I noticed that the smell problem happens pretty much anywhere, at seemingly random times.



It sounds to me like he's referring to the low frequency sounds that are regularly farting around old buildings. And yes, the optical nerves can be totally fucked up by very low sound frequencies. They typically find the correlation between those low frequency sounds and people seeing thin-G-G-GHOSTSSSSS


----------



## blackfuredfox (Oct 27, 2009)

Corto said:


> Well thank you asshole, guess who's not sleeping tonight : (
> 
> EDIT: Fox, that's beautiful but it makes no damned sense. Smells I can understand but sounds? Really?
> Anyway I also assumed that it was something in my home until I noticed that the smell problem happens pretty much anywhere, at seemingly random times.



youll have to look it up, they would talk during the tour that people would hear sounds like lumber being stacked and other people, they could smell fresh bread. i found it quite informative, ill try to find a link.


----------



## Corto (Oct 27, 2009)

Well if I just happen to live in a fake haunted house that would be dandy, it's much better than the "brain cancer" theory.


jellyhurwit said:


> It sounds to me like he's referring to the low frequency sounds that are regularly farting around old buildings. And yes, the optical nerves can be totally fucked up by very low sound frequencies. They typically find the correlation between those low frequency sounds and people seeing thin-G-G-GHOSTSSSSS


But I don't see things God dammit. If anything I'm seeing fewer things that I should!


----------



## Jelly (Oct 27, 2009)

Corto said:


> But I don't see things God dammit. If anything I'm seeing fewer things that I should!



Well then I'm highly skeptical of anything else he's referring to.
And you're fine, stop being a pussyface.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Oct 27, 2009)

Corto said:


> Well if I just happen to live in a fake haunted house that would be dandy, it's much better than the "brain cancer" theory.
> 
> But I don't see things God dammit. If anything I'm seeing fewer things that I should!


here, the low frequency thing jelly said helped.
http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/acoustic_IOI/101_7.htm


----------



## Corto (Oct 27, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> And you're fine, stop being a pussyface.


You cant look at me but I'm making faces at my screen and farting in your general direction.


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 27, 2009)

This thread is too damn funny. XD

Never smell'd imaginary stuff before. ever say something in your head and then a few moments later go "Did I say that out loud?"


----------



## Furlone (Oct 27, 2009)

Right now I have the song "Why can't we be friends" In my head. Haah! I can't stop it! IT's like a broken record that you can't break again.   Lucid dreams are easy to do also, but you may have to find your own way.  If I think about 1 item before going to sleep and imagine it, I will be in the dream and will be able to do anything I want. It's weird  But I just love it.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 28, 2009)

Just to let you know, this thread has become pretty interesting XD


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 28, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Just to let you know, this thread has become pretty interesting XD





The thread said the same thing about you. :B


----------



## Nargle (Oct 28, 2009)

8-bit said:


> The thread said the same thing about you. :B



I wasn't always interesting? D=


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 28, 2009)

Corto said:


> You cant look at me but I'm making faces at my screen and farting in your general direction.


 Yeah... that's sigged.


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 28, 2009)

Nargle said:


> I wasn't always interesting? D=



Of course you were. I'm super serial.


----------



## Conker (Oct 28, 2009)

I have songs in my head quite a bit, but not constantly. Songs easily get stuck in my head and songs I like I listen to over and over and memorize most of em.

So I'll usually be playing a tune for myself, usually sloppily, to pass the time during boring periods.

Right now I have Welcome Home by Coheed and Cambria going. God I love the intro to that song.

Lucid Dreaming seems to be fairly common, I think everyone's done it at least once. I've had the whole "this dream sucks I'm waking up now" thing happen. 

Odds are you aren't anymore fucked up than the rest of us


----------



## CynicalCirno (Oct 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Well, it is 1:30am, and I am sitting here thinking about my brain (not that I have much upstairs anyway) and some of the strange things mine does, or at least they seem strange to me. The main one that springs to mind is, that I always have music playing in my head, 24/7 it does not stop! it changes to different songs now and then but as soon as I wake up, I have a song in my head, till the moment I go to bed at night. I was wondering if anyone else gets this?
> 
> Also, I seem to be a lucid dreamer, recently, I was having....not a bad dream, but it was crappy, can't remember why, but for some reason I distinctly remember saying to myself in the dream "Fuck this I'm waking up" moments later I was laying in bed trying to work out how the fuck I just managed to do that.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, _i don't think_, that the whole stroy is like your brain is fucked up.
The only people with fucked up braines are sent to special places for them to live.You are having things that i may call "mermory fragments".
Those "mermory fragments" are inside each and everybody's brain.
They consist everything you think of, you see, you hear, you smell and you taste.They appear in black-outs, dreams, thoughts and unconsciousness.This is my theory, now you can argue if i was right or not.


Edit:When it comes to furrise, yes it's a fucked up brain, just a little.


----------



## Zombie_Genocide (Oct 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Well, it is 1:30am, and I am sitting here thinking about my brain (not that I have much upstairs anyway) and some of the strange things mine does, or at least they seem strange to me. The main one that springs to mind is, that I always have music playing in my head, 24/7 it does not stop! it changes to different songs now and then but as soon as I wake up, I have a song in my head, till the moment I go to bed at night. I was wondering if anyone else gets this?
> 
> Another thing about the brain that puzzles me, is the ability to hear yourself.....well....think, or stupid sound effects (or at least in mine), just like when you sit quietly using your imagination, except I don't need to actively sit there and use my imagination, I can sit here looking normal, having a normal discussing when perhaps I have the sound of a car in my head, for example.


 
Funny thing, I have the same first thing, music all the time, its annoying.

I was ALSO thinking about the second just awhile ago.

Wavelennnnnnnnnngth~



blackfuredfox said:


> i have insomnia, and im a narcoleptic.


 
I laughed *so* hard at this.

How, In god's name, do you manage to logically pull that off? XD


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If dreams are not real, how do we feel emotions, hear sounds, and in some cases with me, had other sense like smell and touch come into it?


Well, isn't that how the world exists? All in our respective heads? That doesn't explain how we can get sense data without external stimuli, though. So uh, hmm.

Anyway, I can never seem to shut my brain off. Except during meditation. Except even then I usually fail and think things like, "I'm not thinking right now. I'm following my breaths and not thinking right now. In ten minutes I will be thinking again, but right now I am not thinking. I need to stop thinking about thinking. I'm not thinking about not thinking."


----------



## Hir (Oct 28, 2009)

The brain in awesome.
It can help you make haikus.
Refridgerator.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 28, 2009)

Lots of people, though it is the minority of people, that dream have full control over their dreams. These people (actually I'm one of them myself) know they're dreaming while dreaming and can wake themselves up if they want too. They have full control over their thoughts and actions in any dream (you want to fly, go for it. Walk down that road or this hall, etc). A few of these people can manipulate the dream itself as well, going from a haunted house to a beautiful sunset on a beach at will.

I love flying in dreams, and falling too. Tingly.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 28, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Lots of people, though it is the minority of people, that dream have full control over their dreams. These people (actually I'm one of them myself) know they're dreaming while dreaming and can wake themselves up if they want too. They have full control over their thoughts and actions in any dream (you want to fly, go for it. Walk down that road or this hall, etc). A few of these people can manipulate the dream itself as well, going from a haunted house to a beautiful sunset on a beach at will.
> 
> I love flying in dreams, and falling too. Tingly.



I always know when I am dreaming, however I don't always take controll, depending on what the dream is about, if it isalright or a good dream, I leave the dream to run it's course. 

I sorta do and don't like falling in dreams, it is one hell of an peculiar feeling. And that saying "You die if you hit the ground after falling in a dream" is bs for me, I have landed once before and looky, I am still alive.


----------



## Ridge (Oct 28, 2009)

I don't know much about the science behind dreams so I'm not going to ramble off on some tangent about them with no credibility to back up my claims. =P

However, I do have the same situation. If I realize I'm dreaming I typically wake up.  It doesn't happen always for whatever reason.  Mostly, when I feel like I'm dreaming and I want to take control it's a strain.  I guess an example is flexing a muscle, pushing open a heavy lid from the inside, etc.  It takes effort is what I'm saying.  

I've never had the music in my head.  Usually too focused on the task in front of me to let my mind be distracted by things like that. I do often have stories roaming about for whatever reason, typically always daydreaming or imagining if I'm not studying, in class, or work has my 100% attention.  

The brain is such a mysterious organ and we know so little about it.  =P


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I always know when I am dreaming, however I don't always take controll, depending on what the dream is about, if it isalright or a good dream, I leave the dream to run it's course.
> 
> I sorta do and don't like falling in dreams, it is one hell of an peculiar feeling. And that saying "You die if you hit the ground after falling in a dream" is bs for me, I have landed once before and looky, I am still alive.



Yeah I've slammed into the ground lots of times and I'm fine. But I love the feeling, it's the feeling of falling in real life. You get the real adrenalin rush, the real excitement. One of the reasons I want to skydive, I love this feeling. <3

But I always have control, I can't not have control and when I first learned not everybody was like this I was a little surprised. I can't actually fathom being unable to control myself in my dreams, however sometimes I'm unable to control the dream itself but I'm always able to walk/do/say anything I want at that point.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Oct 28, 2009)

Cool thread.

There are only a few songs I can "hear" in my head, others I can just sort of remember and have to sing out loud to make the tune work so I can enjoy them.
Uh... it's hard to explain, but I'm always singing (terribly!)

Anyway, I envy you for being able to hear music all the time, Randy.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 28, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah I've slammed into the ground lots of times and I'm fine. But I love the feeling, it's the feeling of falling in real life. You get the real adrenalin rush, the real excitement. One of the reasons I want to skydive, I love this feeling. <3
> 
> But I always have control, I can't not have control and when I first learned not everybody was like this I was a little surprised. I can't actually fathom being unable to control myself in my dreams, however sometimes I'm unable to control the dream itself but I'm always able to walk/do/say anything I want at that point.



I had a funky dream last night, All I can remember though, is being back in the town I was in before I moved back to my hometown, and I had a paintball gun, and this group of, people I think, heck if I can remember what they were, were creating havoc in town, so I loaded this paintball gun right up, it was modified and had a larger tank full of paintballs, and I remember loading it up, hiding behind.....something as I did, and eventually coming out and opening fire with it on them all, got every last one aswell, it fired like a slow machine gun, pretty nifty gadget.

I more often or not am able to walk around as I please, however I am normally with people, sometimes people I know irl are in my dreams like my friends and family, and I often follow what ever it is they want me to do or go. Sometimes people are random people in my dream, but apparently I know them, or atleast they way they and I behave in my dream is like I have known these random characters for years  Always nice folk though.

As for music I have had one in my head for several hours now, it is by a group called Jakarta and it is called One Desire.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2ohny1WY2s&feature=fvste1  I am going to link to the song because I think the video is just great!


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 29, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Well, it is 1:30am, and I am sitting here thinking about my brain (not that I have much upstairs anyway) and some of the strange things mine does, or at least they seem strange to me. The main one that springs to mind is, that I always have music playing in my head, 24/7 it does not stop! it changes to different songs now and then but as soon as I wake up, I have a song in my head, till the moment I go to bed at night. I was wondering if anyone else gets this?
> 
> Also, I seem to be a lucid dreamer, recently, I was having....not a bad dream, but it was crappy, can't remember why, but for some reason I distinctly remember saying to myself in the dream "Fuck this I'm waking up" moments later I was laying in bed trying to work out how the fuck I just managed to do that.
> 
> ...


 
Well, dear, that works in the following way.

1- The only thing that REALLY exists is the matter and itÂ´s diferent kindÂ´s of movement (in this chase, what we call energy is indeed movement)
2- We, as any other animal, perveive the matter and the movement.
3- We, as complex animals, categorize all what we perveive with identificable words
4- We, as humans, believe what we perceive, and that is where the error appears.

There is no love, no kindness, no cruelty, no moral events... all is just matter in movement. So, when we perceive such things, we start to imagine the meanings of it, but there is not a meaning behind the act.

So, forget your dreams and all your feelings, they are just erroneous perceptions of our own perceptions. The only thing that is true is the atom.

So, the next time you think about that, "that" is a invention of your imagination, it really does not exists, only neuronal conections and electricity.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 29, 2009)

IÂ´d recomend you to read books about psicology that focus on the phenomenom of perception of reality (I donÂ´t know any english book about it)

And so, read "The handbook of emotions", a very famous book in psicology that will clear your doubts with much interesting explanations (warning: that book is like 1000 pages lenght ^^


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 29, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> Well, dear, that works in the following way.
> 
> 1- The only thing that REALLY exists is the matter and itÂ´s diferent kindÂ´s of movement (in this chase, what we call energy is indeed movement)
> 2- We, as any other animal, perveive the matter and the movement.
> ...


You never explained why there's some sort of "error" in believing what you perceive. It's true that everybody perceives stimuli differently, and it's true that there are errors in perception (e.g., hindsight bias, "blind spots" in the eye), but your reasoning doesn't make sense. I'm guessing I can interpret your reasoning as follows:

We perceive matter in the universe.
We believe that our perception is real.
Our perception is prone to error.
Therefore, we cannot trust our perceptions about the universe.

Which is ridiculous. Because we're at least partially aware when we make errors in perception. I'm guessing most of us don't think dreams are "real," and most of us don't think that the A and O actually disappear in this test. We at least have a vague sense of when our perceptions are wrong.

Furthermore, why can't "matter in movement" act with meaning? Are you telling me that you're not acting with meaning as you type? That all language is meaningless? Because really, if nothing had meaning, we couldn't communicate.

We're communicating right now, aren't we?


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 29, 2009)

Ouch, this is gonna be hard to explain in english but I will try to... ^^;

Well, here I go.

The error about believing consists in which we only perceive a part of reality, and the perception about the perception will also be "contaminated" by the limits of our interpretation (those limits are result of the sum of all our circumstances), so, when we believe on it, no matter how, we will be comiting an error because what we see will never be true. That is what gives the science itÂ´s magic, because the only way in which you can know that something is true is by putting it in proof. But even when that seems to work, the answer is a big yes, we canÂ´t trust any of our perceptions because we are alive, and we have limits that we canÂ´t see (there are obvious limits, but there are other limits that you canÂ´t see, like the fact that your understanding structure is not capable to understand correctly the universeÂ´s way to function)

About the part of the lack of meaning, I was refering to that there is not an "original will" in the act of existing of any object. The objects in universe, including the living ones, are not created by an existing will (this mean, there is no god or destiny or whatever), such thing does not exist. So, the only thing that makes the things to change and become other things is just the relationship of movement (A then B then C at infinite). So, there is no meaning in living, dying, loving or even existing. All is what you can call with the word "accident".

And about the languaje, well, the languaje "as languaje" does not really exists. What really exists, is a subjetive social contract between you and me and the whole mankind. The people of all the world took determinated sounds and determinate laws about those sounds to represent determinated ideas. So, when we comunicate, we donÂ´t really comunicate, you perceive my acts and I perceive yours and you and me do understand because our act (in this chase, the act of languaje) haves a recognizable structure that you and me know. In this chase, the recognizable structure is the english grammar. Example: If I say you "wulamulakubotonnanana" you wonÂ´t understand me... but if I tell you "Give me my dream" you will understand me because IÂ´m using that structure that is accepted in our "invisible" social contract. I say "invisible" because it really does not exists, again, is just neuronal connections and electricity as the engraved bytes on a cd rom.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 29, 2009)

So, thatÂ´s right my dear. If you really consider that, probably you will feel really alone and probably you would want to cry because there is no meaning in the act of existing and that there is nothing that can REALLY tell you if there is a fly over your pc or a sandwich in your refrigerator. So, the "normal" people, in order to not feel sad, instead thinking about this, they preffer to be blind and assume that everything is fine. That is the risk of having knowledge.

So, well, this is other of the facts that makes me be always sad.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 29, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> The error about believing consists in which we only perceive a part of reality, and the perception about the perception will also be "contaminated" by the limits of our interpretation (those limits are result of the sum of all our circumstances), so, when we believe on it, no matter how, we will be comiting an error because what we see will never be true. That is what gives the science itÂ´s magic, because the only way in which you can know that something is true is by putting it in proof. But even when that seems to work, the answer is a big yes, we canÂ´t trust any of our perceptions because we are alive, and we have limits that we canÂ´t see (there are obvious limits, but there are other limits that you canÂ´t see, like the fact that your understanding structure is not capable to understand correctly the universeÂ´s way to function)


What we see may never be "true," but what we see (and otherwise perceive) is good enough.

What I'm trying to say is that "error" is irrelevant. We make errors, we adjust for the major errors, and the minor errors aren't devastating enough for us to stop perceiving and interpreting the world.



			
				Open_wound_ said:
			
		

> About the part of the lack of meaning, I was refering to that there is not an "original will" in the act of existing of any object. The objects in universe, including the living ones, are not created by an existing will (this mean, there is no god or destiny or whatever), such thing does not exist. So, the only thing that makes the things to change and become other things is just the relationship of movement (A then B then C at infinite). So, there is no meaning in living, dying, loving or even existing. All is what you can call with the word "accident".


It still doesn't make sense. You might say that there's no god or destiny, and I would completely agree with you. But it doesn't make sense when you say that there's "no meaning in living, dying, loving, or even existing." Why can't humans give their own lives, deaths, love, or existence meaning?

You made a leap in logic that I didn't follow:

God/destiny/etc. does not exist.
???
Therefore, life has no meaning.

What's the connector between god/destiny/etc. not existing and life having no meaning?

Even from a purely semantic standpoint, that makes no sense. Imagine the following scenario.

You're alive and you find that there's no meaning in life, so you decide to kill yourself. But then your death's "meaning" is to end your life. So you decide not to kill yourself. But then suddenly your life's "meaning" is not to end your life.

Unless you are not a conscious being, I would argue that everything you do "means" something.



			
				Open_wound_ said:
			
		

> And about the languaje, well, the languaje "as languaje" does not really exists. *What really exists, is a subjetive social contract between you and me and the whole mankind.* The people of all the world took determinated sounds and determinate laws about those sounds to represent determinated ideas. So, when we comunicate, we donÂ´t really comunicate, you perceive my acts and I perceive yours and you and me do understand because our act (in this chase, the act of languaje) haves a recognizable structure that you and me know. In this chase, the recognizable structure is the english grammar. Example: If I say you "wulamulakubotonnanana" you wonÂ´t understand me... but if I tell you "Give me my dream" you will understand me because IÂ´m using that structure that is accepted in our "invisible" social contract. *I say "invisible" because it really does not exists,* again, is just neuronal connections and electricity as the engraved bytes on a cd rom.


I understand that you might have a difficult time expressing yourself in English, but I urge you to look at the bolded text.

You just said that the subjective social contract exists, and then you said that the subjective social contract does not exist.

Anyway, I'm going to argue that it exists. My logical argument is as follows:

1. People are affected by things that exist.
1a. People are not affected by things that do not exist.
2. People are affected by language (or, if you prefer, a subjective social contract).
3 [based off of 1, 1a, 2]. Language exists.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 29, 2009)

Agh, this topic got pretty tl;dr >.<


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 29, 2009)

What I tried to say about languaje is that it REALLY does not exists, what do exist is the process that I described (that confusion usually appears when someone tries to tell you the diferences of something that is there and the appearance of that same something). Languaje does not exist, we believe that it exists but the fact is that what really exists is a subjetive social contract about acepted symbols of determinated ideas. So when we comunicate, we do a process with tons of errors that we call comunication, but indeed is not comunication.

About the conection of the meaning and god, hereÂ´s the explanation. Yes, Sartre and the humanists from the XX century showed us that we can create an artificial meaning to our existence and live for it. However, the problem is that when we do such thing, we are not being sincere, we are lying when we do such thing. The only thing that could give us a natural meaning to exist could be god or another superior mystical thing, but the fact is that such thing does not exist. So, when we create our artificial meaning to exist, we are just lying to ourselves, and that is the problem that I have. If there is a void, a 0 in which there it should be a something to give a meaning to any act (breathing, eating, mating, etc), when we try to give it a meaning is like closing our eyes and supose that it exists, when it really does not.

Maybe this donÂ´t seem very logical, but I donÂ´t follow logic. Logic is a serie of absurd rules that mankind did to try to say what is true and not, but the fact is that if we donÂ´t know what is really true, then, how we dare to create rules to know something that we INDEED donÂ´t know? This may sound paradoxic, but I donÂ´t believe in logic or in math. I do only believe in phisic, biology and chemistry, I mean, I do only follow them because the analysis of matterÂ´s movement is the only thing that is innegably true.

Note: If you are curious about this part, because all the people with which I speak always asks me that "if there is no meaning in life and all is a scientific process and all our emotions and beliefs are just neuronal connections, then why donÂ´t you kill yourself" and the answer is that IÂ´m very afraid of death, because I know that there is no life beyond death. So it does not matter how much I hate to be alive, I canÂ´t die because there will not be any return, death is absolute, the absolute end to what we are: our concience.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 29, 2009)

And, about the error... well, in this part I may sound a bit rude but I consider that is coward to ignore the errors. You canÂ´t just ignore the starving kitten that cries for help in an alley of a grey city. You must find the way to solve such thing, and if you donÂ´t do so, then it means that you are a coward. Errors produce meaningless and unnecesary pain. ThatÂ´s why we canÂ´t ignore this error and any other error, we canÂ´t just go there and walk blindly suposing that all what we do is right.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 29, 2009)

I think, therefore I am. If all data can be false then it's up to me to choose in believing or not believing. If I choose to believe I can live happy moments and bear sad moments, experiences and beliefs, conversations and etc. If I choose not to believe I might as well kill myself, ergo boring.

I, and you do as well Open Wound, chose to believe. If you honestly believed all data (sight, taste, touch, hearing, etc) was non-existent, then you would have already killed yourself.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 29, 2009)

As far as I can tell, openwound is trying to say nothing exists. Which to me is utter BS.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 29, 2009)

OP - it sounds like you have a perfectly normal mind.  Nearly everyone has a song stuck in their head.  I know I do.  Running stream of an inner voice?  Yup.  

As for lucid dreaming: I've been a lucid dreamer since I was 4.  It wasn't until I met a New Age group with a lot of people who were trying to learn how to do lucid dreaming that I realized that some people can't always do that.  The few times I don't have control of my dreams are usually because I'm on some prescription painkiller or something, and I HATE it.  The thought of not controlling my dreams is just downright strange.


----------



## Hir (Oct 29, 2009)

Telnac said:


> OP - it sounds like you have a perfectly normal mind.  Nearly everyone has a song stuck in their head.


Just as you mentioned that, I realised I've been singing to myself a song in a different language for the past 5 minutes.

Yay for being crazy.

Oh and to show you how crazy I am, heres the song I was singing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMPKJpNvXuc


----------



## Telnac (Oct 29, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> Just as you mentioned that, I realised I've been singing to myself a song in a different language for the past 5 minutes.
> 
> Yay for being crazy.
> 
> ...


Damn, that's an awesome song.  I wish I knew German so I'd know what the lyrics meant.


----------



## Hir (Oct 29, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Damn, that's an awesome song.  I wish I knew German so I'd know what the lyrics meant.


Well German wouldn't get you far here - it is Austrian.  Yes, doom metal is absolutely wonderful and that whole album is an absolute masterpiece.

*Estatic Fear* - *Chapter IX*

The female vocalist is fantastic.

_Delightful shades were all that I dare hope for
Thy silent charm alone remains to adore_


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 29, 2009)

Okay, let me put it this way.

Let's accept your uh... postulate? All human interpretation has errors.

So let me set up the argument like this.

1. All human interpretation has errors.
2. Anything that has an error is false.
3. All human interpretation is false (1 and 2).
4. Sentences 1, 2, and 3 are human interpretation.
5. Therefore, sentences 1, 2, and 3 are false.

You're writing yourself into a paradox. So something is wrong with 1 or 2.

All human interpretation has errors. Fine. But it doesn't make sense that anything that has an error is false. Assume that clocks are never "precisely right." Does that mean when I tell you that the time is 11:32 AM (MST, no DST) as I'm typing this message, that the time is false? No. It tells you that the time is around 11:32 and close enough to 11:32 and for most purposes, we can accept that the time is 11:32 without causing grave mishaps in the universe.

Not everything that has an error is false. There are worse errors than others. To be off by one minute is not as bad as being off by six hours and thirty-two minutes.

And what's the difference between "artificial" and "natural" meaning? Who says that there needs to be some deity or whatever in order to assign our lives meaning? Why is assigning our own lives meaning somehow "lying?" If we understand that we're assigning our own lives meaning, we're not lying.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 29, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> Okay, let me put it this way.
> 
> Let's accept your uh... postulate? All human interpretation has errors.
> 
> ...


This. Also don't forget that relishing in the idea that all human sensory data being fake is an impossible spiral. Any clues that prove you wrong can be waved off by being part of the sensory data, but any clues that prove you right can also be waved off for the very same reason. It's a paradox, but one that doesn't actually have to exist if you just don't give a shit. lol.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> Okay, let me put it this way.
> 
> Let's accept your uh... postulate? All human interpretation has errors.
> 
> ...


 
DonÂ´t try to use logic to understand this. Logic is just a plastilin that you can mold as you wish in order to give a justification to anything according to your instict of survival.

About the part of the "natural" and "artificial" terms, I designed the word "natural" to speak about the conclusions that can appear from things that REALLY exist. In the chase of god or the supreme being, it does not exist, so when we try to give a meaning to our lives we find that since "it" does not exist, we must then lie to ourselves and act as if it were there, so it becomes artificial (or, if you want to use other words, "fabricated ideals")

Why I say that god is the only thing that can give us a "natural" meaning in life? Is simple. If god exists, then it means that all the daily drama (be born, be killed, eat, copulate, love, hate, etc) was ordered and determined for a special cause. However, god does not exist, so the daily drama does not have a predetermined purpose, we live and die as merely coincidences of movement. It does not matter if you are "good" or "evil", when the temperature of your blood is below the necesary point, you die. So, when we try to give a meaning by ourselves, we are not basing such conclusion on something solid, we just do it in lies that we fabricate (for example, "be the best runner in the world").

About the part of that I tried to say that nothing exists... oh come on dear, IÂ´m not playing the philosopherÂ´s game from the XVII century, IÂ´m not like Descartes or Kant who try to guess what is there or not, IÂ´m a scientist. Such thing as to say that "nothing exists" would be really incoherent. Therefore, what I tried to explain, was that all (or almost) all what we perceive is incorrectly perceived by the circumstances that I explained before. 

So, now, which is the problem? I see that you now ask yourself "well, we have errors, but what is the problem with it"? And that is the part where we leave a bit behind the epistemologic sense and enter into the etic. Since nothing haves a real meaning, then pain also does not haves, so the pain is unnecesary. However, due to our erroneous way in which we perceive reality, we, as result of such ignorance, commit everyday stupid acts that only produce pain to the rest of living beings (a clear example: the Nazis killed a lot of jews during the WWII because they tought that they "were a superior race destined to conquer the rest"). So, the errors indeed do produce a lot of innecesary pain, thatÂ´s why I said that we canÂ´t ignore the starving kitty in the alley of the grey city.

About the "paradox"... well... there is not a paradox here. According to you, "there is not problem if..." and then the example of the clock. However, here, in the real world, out of false propositions, that minute means the diference between be alive or being in coma in the correct circumstances. To believe that the "little errors" doesÂ´t matter, is the source of mankindÂ´s mediocrity. Indeed, the whole planet is the sad poor dying thing that it is because all our stupid ancestors tought that "those little errors were not a big problem"

And, about the point number 5 of your suposed paradox... well... that is other of the things that give science itÂ´s magic. Philosophers are just a bunch of deceivers who think that they can understand and categorize the universe sit on a sofa. We, the scientist, instead, we donÂ´t just stay with the hipotesis, we analize and we proof. When you can prove something, when you can prove the relationship of cause between the event A and the event B, then you get out of your erroneous perception and then you get true knowledge.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> DonÂ´t try to use logic to understand this. Logic is just a plastilin that you can mold as you wish in order to give a justification to anything according to your instict of survival.
> 
> About the part of the "natural" and "artificial" terms, I designed the word "natural" to speak about the conclusions that can appear from things that REALLY exist. In the chase of god or the supreme being, it does not exist, so when we try to give a meaning to our lives we find that since "it" does not exist, we must then lie to ourselves and act as if it were there, so it becomes artificial (or, if you want to use other words, "fabricated ideals")
> 
> ...



Stop posting, now. I find it very hard to believe anything you are saying. Or even understand it for that matter. All I see is a load of gibberish.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I think, therefore I am. If all data can be false then it's up to me to choose in believing or not believing. If I choose to believe I can live happy moments and bear sad moments, experiences and beliefs, conversations and etc. If I choose not to believe I might as well kill myself, ergo boring.
> 
> I, and you do as well Open Wound, chose to believe. If you honestly believed all data (sight, taste, touch, hearing, etc) was non-existent, then you would have already killed yourself.


 
Uhm... ^^;;;

The problem is that when you choose to believe in order to be happy, then you become a monster that can kill and destroy withouth even knowing it because believing blinds your tought. For example, when most of the people of my stupid country choose everyday to think that there is not problem if you throw garbage in the streets and/or not recycling it in order to be happy and donÂ´t carry the moral responsability of it... thatÂ´s mediocre, and due to that mediocrity thousands of inocent trees die everyday.

So, we canÂ´t choose to believe and be happy with the lies. Because when those lies produce acts in reality... someone will bleed and suffer due to our ignorance.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> Uhm... ^^;;;
> 
> The problem is that when you choose to believe in order to be happy, then you become a monster that can kill and destroy withouth even knowing it because believing blinds your tought. For example, when most of the people of my stupid country choose everyday to think that there is not problem if you throw garbage in the streets and/or not recycling it in order to be happy and donÂ´t carry the moral responsability of it... thatÂ´s mediocre, and due to that mediocrity thousands of inocent trees die everyday.
> 
> So, we canÂ´t choose to believe and be happy with the lies. Because when those lies produce acts in reality... someone will bleed and suffer due to our ignorance.



Now that I understand


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Stop posting, now. I find it very hard to believe anything you are saying. Or even understand it for that matter. All I see is a load of gibberish.


 
Gibberish? Read any modern psicology text and you will reach more or less the same conclusions after some books ^^;;; Or, if you feel lazy, there is a TV program that haves a lot of very good epistemologic content, itÂ´s Dr. House.

Anyway, this is your post and I promise to shut my cute muzzle. If anoyone wants to follow this discussion, pm me.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> Gibberish? Read any modern psicology text and you will reach more or less the same conclusions after some books ^^;;; Or, if you feel lazy, there is a TV program that haves a lot of very good epistemologic content, itÂ´s Dr. House.
> 
> Anyway, this is your post and I promise to shut my cute muzzle. If anoyone wants to follow this discussion, pm me.



1: I don't understand all of it.
2: What I did manage to understand I find hard to believe.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> 1: I don't understand all of it.
> 2: What I did manage to understand I find hard to believe.


 
If you allow me to explain it, thatÂ´s because the modern common man (also the old common man was like this) do bear itÂ´s existence suposing that everything what they do is OK and that there is no problem.

The problem is that the mexicans think that all what they do is ok and that there is no problem (but the real fact is thay they are a bunch of mediocre ignorants), the americans think the same (but the fact is that they are a bunch of ridiculous consumists) etc etc etc

What I mean is that what the people must do is doubt about what they usually think that is "ok" in order to see the reality, and the reality is that what the mankind is doing is indeed not ok.

And why this all appeared? Because at the begining of your post you asked about what is real and what not and how does brain works. Well, that tickled my epistemologist part and was what moved me to speak ^^;;

BTW, I do also have 24/7 a song in my mind, IÂ´m always listening a song in my mind too.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 30, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> Uhm... ^^;;;
> 
> The problem is that when you choose to believe in order to be happy, then you become a monster that can kill and destroy withouth even knowing it because believing blinds your tought. For example, when most of the people of my stupid country choose everyday to think that there is not problem if you throw garbage in the streets and/or not recycling it in order to be happy and donÂ´t carry the moral responsability of it... thatÂ´s mediocre, and due to that mediocrity thousands of inocent trees die everyday.
> 
> So, we canÂ´t choose to believe and be happy with the lies. Because when those lies produce acts in reality... someone will bleed and suffer due to our ignorance.



The only thing that can bleed and suffer are humans and a few other mammals. Yes that's right. Animals feel pain, yes, but most of them don't actually have the complex brain or nervous systems to actually feel pain like we do. Most feel pain and instinct simply takes over, to whimper or to pull away. We have this, we cry and we attempt to get away from things that cause us pain. But we also then remember and feel the pain more deeply, this is unique to only a few living things known.

Trees don't feel shit.
We don't cause any pain or suffering, most species and things will die without us ever knowing, they already have.

Now you're tossing the ball into another court, however you still don't actually believe what you're saying and are merely playing (a poor) devils advocate.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 30, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> DonÂ´t try to use logic to understand this. Logic is just a plastilin that you can mold as you wish in order to give a justification to anything according to your instict of survival.



If this is what you're basing your responses off of, I can't continue this discussion. We have absolutely zero common ground to work off of if you're going to discredit logic.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 30, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> If this is what you're basing your responses off of, I can't continue this discussion. We have absolutely zero common ground to work off of if you're going to discredit logic.



Pretty much.
"That proves what I'm saying wrong so I will choose to disregard it. Oh look nothing can prove me wrong so I must be right."


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> If this is what you're basing your responses off of, I can't continue this discussion. We have absolutely zero common ground to work off of if you're going to discredit logic.


 
Awwww... If I just could explain you this in spanish Y..Y

The last year (I mean, in 2008 ) I presented a homework with a new perspective in logic to the teacher of the Logic and Argumentation II class. In that homework I described a new perspective in logic that could help to remove the errors of the actual logic.

The esence of that homework I had already explained. If we donÂ´t know the truth, then why do we put rules about how to know it if we donÂ´t really know it?

The teacher was not convinced about it but gave me a 10 in such work. What I exposed was that, according to quantic phisic, the natural laws of phisic are only limited to our space and time. Far from this galaxy, or in the past or future, our natural phisic laws donÂ´t apply, so, according to the space and time the natural phisic laws change, they donÂ´t stay static.

What does it means?

That the phenomenoms are able to transform the laws. So, then, the laws donÂ´t hold the phenomenoms. The phenomenoms are indeed what create the laws. ThatÂ´s why logic is more or less useless. We had made a logic only about what we had known, but what about what we donÂ´t know? Our rules donÂ´t apply to that camp.

So, instead playing with words (what is the logic does) I proposed to trash out all those rules and just analize the phenomenom (each phenomenom) in an independient way in order to develop absolute and pure data that donÂ´t get contamined by our culture.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The only thing that can bleed and suffer are humans and a few other mammals. Yes that's right. Animals feel pain, yes, but most of them don't actually have the complex brain or nervous systems to actually feel pain like we do. Most feel pain and instinct simply takes over, to whimper or to pull away. We have this, we cry and we attempt to get away from things that cause us pain. But we also then remember and feel the pain more deeply, this is unique to only a few living things known.
> 
> Trees don't feel shit.
> We don't cause any pain or suffering, most species and things will die without us ever knowing, they already have.
> ...


 
Oh, come on, are you tossing to me the clasic consumist argument? So, since trees donÂ´t feel pain letÂ´s go and kill them all. Is that your point? Obviously you donÂ´t understand of what IÂ´m speaking about so donÂ´t show me your ignorance trying to act as if you knew... 

BTW, your signature picture is cute ^^;


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 30, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> So, instead playing with words (what is the logic does) I proposed to trash out all those rules and just analize the phenomenom (each phenomenom) in an independient way in order to develop absolute and pure data that donÂ´t get contamined by our culture.


Inductive logic is what gets us through the day. Inductive logic is what lets us believe beyond any reasonable (and most unreasonable) doubt(s) that the sun will rise tomorrow. Without inductive logic, you can't make assumptions about the world. Without making assumptions about the world, you cannot function.

Seriously, if you couldn't assume that food would sustain you based off of past experiences with food, then you'd starve to death.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

The problem with it is that you need to have all the existent data in order to do a conclusion. However, we donÂ´t have such data and then the conclusion becomes partially false, partially an error. Again, thatÂ´s when science does itÂ´s magic.

For example (taking the example of the sun): Year 2000 before Christ, and the sun rised, VI century and the sun rised up, yesterday the sun rised up. Inductive logic would use those data to give the conclusion that then the sun will forever rise, but then the science shows us that no.

That is the point of analizying the pure phenomenom.

So, even when it helps to survive, the inductive logic does not solve any real problem, just helps to "live the day" and that is quite inneficient in terms of bigger things. Why comform with half-truths when you can have the absolute truth? ThatÂ´s what I seek, kill the lies in the heart of men and let the light of science erradicate all the incoherent and absurd ideals that has led us to this point. See the real reality and not your own fabricated reality.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 30, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> For example (taking the example of the sun): Year 2000 before Christ, and the sun rised, VI century and the sun rised up, yesterday the sun rised up. Inductive logic would use those data to give the conclusion that then the sun will forever rise, but *then the science shows us that no.*


But science is based off of logic.

So uh... you're still using logic. Specifically, inductive logic about how other stars work. And inductive logic about how hydrogen (and oxygen and carbon and helium &c.) particles react.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

I already know that, and I already know that the scientst did read Bertrand Russell in their lonely nights as they builded up the actual tons of knowledge that we have.

If you read a bit closer my post, you will notice that I said " a new perspective in logic" Obviously the other scientists donÂ´t know it because I havenÂ´t published it. 

However I understand the irony that the knowledge that IÂ´m praising in my new logical perspective was indeed discovered by people who used the logic that IÂ´m trying to discredit. However I just search the truth, and the actual model of logic haves a lot of errors that make it unable to lead us to the truth.

Science haves some basis over the logic, BUT... when you said that "science is based off of logic." you are lying my dear, because indeed what makes science be science is the lack of trust about the logic.

Why history considers Aristotle the first scientist in history? ThatÂ´s why Aristotle, in his books, proposed that PlatoÂ´s idea that everything can be understood by just thinking in it was absurd, and that the only real way to enter into in was thru the experimentation. However, the modern experimentation took much time in being developed as we actually know it (obviously) but the fact is that. Logic is insuficient, the real knowledge appears when you experiment on the matter and see how it reacts in all the diferent circumstances.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 30, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> Oh, come on, are you tossing to me the clasic consumist argument? So, since trees donÂ´t feel pain letÂ´s go and kill them all. Is that your point? Obviously you donÂ´t understand of what IÂ´m speaking about so donÂ´t show me your ignorance trying to act as if you knew...
> 
> BTW, your signature picture is cute ^^;



I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth.
I said it doesn't matter, not that you should.

I understand what you're saying, however it's simply wrong. And how you're presenting the concept is also wrong. If you don't accept logic as a counter-argument then you're basically saying "anything that proves me wrong can't be used to prove me wrong" which in itself is a big logical fallacy.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 30, 2009)

What are you going on about Open Wound? Science is no more or less apt at explaining the natural universe than your perceptions of it are. Science has no fundamental "magic" to work. People forget that all of the scientific theorems and explainations of the universe are nothing more than human interpretations of natural events; the numbers, math, proofs and procedures we used in science are all human concepts. 

But perception of reality does not make reality; and your claim that because our perception is wrong the reality doesn't exist makes no sense. Fallacy and existence are not mutually exclusive. It is very possible for us to perceive a natural event wrong and have it still exist. We would just be ignorent to how it "really" exists. 

And in all truth it doesn't really matter. All that matters to us is our perception of reality. How the universe actually does or does not work means nothing to us because we can never know it. Our perceptions may not be "correct" insofar as the way things "actually" work, but that is unimportant, they are correct for us. 

There is no rational point to bickering or arguing over something that you could never prove or has no meaning in the first place.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2009)

You know what....The more I think about what Open_Wound has said, the more I am making sense of it and I am beginning to see what she means.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 30, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> I already know that, and I already know that the scientst did read Bertrand Russell in their lonely nights as they builded up the actual tons of knowledge that we have.
> 
> If you read a bit closer my post, you will notice that I said " a new perspective in logic" Obviously the other scientists donÂ´t know it because I havenÂ´t published it.
> 
> ...


I don't recall saying that science had nothing to do with "real-world" observations. But you always (always always always always etc.) use inductive logic when you string together multiple events/observations and make a generalization about them.

When I say that science is based off of logic, I mean that observations alone are useless. Obviously, logic alone is useless as well. I'm assuming you know the scientific method (since you've been referencing Bertrand Russell, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, et al.). Recall that the scientific method requires both observations and interpretations about observations. Without observations, you're not in the "real world." Without logic, you have nothing meaningful to say.

I have a point. My point's right here:


Open_wound_ said:


> Well, dear, that works in the following way.
> 
> 1- The only thing that REALLY exists is the matter and itÂ´s diferent kindÂ´s of movement (in this chase, what we call energy is indeed movement)
> 2- We, as any other animal, perveive the matter and the movement.
> ...



So unless your new perspective in logic addresses the supposed continuous errors that humans make (which, recall that you said these errors don't even allow us to properly communicate except by "tons of errors" that are "not communication"), you're stuck. Anything that you do is error-laden, including your new perspective in logic, because it was made by you, and you are (presumably) a human.

Alternatively, human error is not as bad as it seems, inductive logic is fine, and your new perspective in logic might be interesting.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2009)

They way I am interpreting this, and forgive me because I am not very good at explaining, is like this:

Open_Wound is saying there is errors in the way humans perceive things correct?

Lets take a rapist as an example, lets say the rapist perceives what he does is 100% ok, he see's nothing wrong with what he does. The rapist then has an error in his/her perception over what they do. 

If someone explained something to me, and I perceived what they said in the wrong way, then there world be an error in my perception of what was said.

At least, this is how I am interpreting what Open_Wound is trying to tell us. Most of the time we all believe the way we perceive things in life, but the way we perceive things as individuals is not always right.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 30, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> They way I am interpreting this, and forgive me because I am not very good at explaining, is like this:
> 
> Open_Wound is saying there is errors in the way humans perceive things correct?
> 
> ...


If she's saying this, then I agree with her.

But very confused about how she was trying to explain it anyway.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 30, 2009)

Randy you're kinda close, but Open Wound isn't saying that some things are errors but all things are. If somebody gives you a mathematical equation, you answer it correctly by what we as humans have perceived to be the correct answer you're still wrong. Both the equation, the person asking (and how they asked it) is wrong, and so is your answer. Because a human came up with "math" as we know it, it's all flawed and therefore wrong.

This is a paradox, seeing as Open Wound is human and therefore her theory is flawed, making it wrong.

However amount of errors we Humans have in anything we do doesn't make us, or anything we think/do wrong. We may be flawed slightly, but we're not wrong.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

Wow, I got some work here, IÂ´ll answer to each of you in diferents posts to try to show you this new perspective and, if IÂ´m lucky, change your lifes in order to help the world by making you better people (suposing that my words can convince you).

Remember that this topic is being analized in two diferent categories, one is the epistemology and the other is the etic.

Epistemology = the analysis of the methods to know how to reach the truth and so how to identify it (this is where all the discussion of logic vs phenomenom appeared)

And

Etic = the determination of how we must act and why we must act based on what we know.

I feel happy that Randy is understanding the etic part, which already is the part that really interests me, but still I need to convince the rest of you about the part that bases the etic part: the epistemologic analysis that I purpose.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth.
> I said it doesn't matter, not that you should.
> 
> I understand what you're saying, however it's simply wrong. And how you're presenting the concept is also wrong. If you don't accept logic as a counter-argument then you're basically saying "anything that proves me wrong can't be used to prove me wrong" which in itself is a big logical fallacy.


 
IÂ´ll be a bit kantian right now. Had you ever heard the popular phrase "the one who ignores (or allows) a crime is as guilty as the one who makes it", or, therefore, the other that says (in more poetical words) "the only thing that the evil needs to thriumph is the good man to do nothing"?

What I mean with it is that is the same thing if you say that "it does not matter" and if you say "it should be", because ignoring the problem is becoming part of it. For example, in my country (Mexico), the police is quite mediocre and usually when a crime appears (people selling drugs, killing a woman, kidnaping a girl, etc) they say "oh, it does not matter" and then instead trying to fight the criminals they just stay sit over a chair and drink beer. Here, in the real world, to think that "it does not matter", indeed produces big quantities of crude crimes. Other example: before the year of 1980 (more or less, according to the country) almost no one protected the forests because most of the people tought that "it doesÂ´t matter". Well, here we have this agonizing planet earth thanks to all those who everyday said that "it does not matter"

About your second paragraph.... well, probably you have that perception because IÂ´m not acepting the counterargument of the other guy but trust me, itÂ´s for a good cause. If this thread continues youÂ´ll find some light in my words.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2009)

I will read through any replies Open_Wound puts in here tomorrow cause I am to tired to make them out right now.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> I don't recall saying that science had nothing to do with "real-world" observations. But you always (always always always always etc.) use inductive logic when you string together multiple events/observations and make a generalization about them.
> 
> When I say that science is based off of logic, I mean that observations alone are useless. Obviously, logic alone is useless as well. I'm assuming you know the scientific method (since you've been referencing Bertrand Russell, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, et al.). Recall that the scientific method requires both observations and interpretations about observations. Without observations, you're not in the "real world." Without logic, you have nothing meaningful to say.
> 
> ...


 
Well, here is when we get into the epistemological part.

About the part of being stuck, well, we are in the XXI century and like 100 years ago the philosophical movement of existencialism (Kierkergard, Sartre, Ortega y Gasset, Heidegger...) showed us, with a lot of poetical words of course, the same stuck point that you noticed. I partially described it when I said in one of my firsts post on this thread, that our perception is limited by the sum of our circumstances. What I tried to mean with it is that is that we are result of organic processes, and so our concience is just a temporal stance that is result of the organic function of our brain. This is something that any scientist know, but here is when the things become interesting.

If we have those limits, then the conclusions that we can make about what we perceive will also have limits. Those will be:

1- Obvious limits (our senses, our global position, the progress in tecnology, etc)
2- All what we perceive will be interpreted instantly, and the interpretation will be contamined  by our all past perceptions. So, when we see something new, we will naturaly try to categorize it with the things that we had perceived in our past. ThatÂ´s why when America was discovered, the europeans killed much people that lived in this place because they did never perceived before brown people like the indians that lived here, so they killed them. Other example, if you had never seen the red colour and suddenly you see it, you will think that it is wrong because your logic will tell you "this is imposible to exist"

If we have limits in our perception, then our conclusions SHOULD also be limited. However, the people always tends to have a general conclusion from particular events, and there is when the mistake appears with inductive logic. You canÂ´t do a conclusion if you donÂ´t have all the data, so, then, your conclusion will be false and mediocre.

Due to the point number 2 is why I want to kill logic, because the people instead analizing the phenomenom in itÂ´s pure form, they instead blind themselves and try to categorize in in their own categories.

You insist in that those "poor little human errors are not that bad", but I had show you with historical examples that indeed those apparently inofensive errors indeed had caused and still cause much destruction. When, back in 1940, a nazi soilder looks a jew and kills him, he says to himself "oh, my sacred logic says me that if I had lived all my life below the Hitlerian domain then it seems to be the only way to live, so the form of life of the other people is inferior and deserves to die". In this chase, the nazi soilder used the inductive logic, because he did sum all his particular experiences (being born and live under that dictatorÂ´s ideals) and then made an universal conclusion ("we the nazis are the only good ones!")

So, your logic must die, because due to your logic a lot of innocent people has died and animals are being killed just right now by those "inofersive errors" 

IÂ´m also a human, just like you, and this perception of mineÂ´s also haves a percentage of error because I have the same organic-cultural limits that any human. I just want to make conciousness about those facts in order to make a better world. In the past I wanted to graduate in philosophy and publish my books but I actually (a few months ago) found that maybe that little percentage of error will not be able to be eliminated by me and that someday someone will continue my task. So I actually, as I said in my introduction to the fandom, just want to be a visual kei musician, and I want to transmit the etic part to the people to help them to leave false ideals and erroneous perceptions just to try to donÂ´t let die this already bleeding world.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> What are you going on about Open Wound? Science is no more or less apt at explaining the natural universe than your perceptions of it are. Science has no fundamental "magic" to work. People forget that all of the scientific theorems and explainations of the universe are nothing more than human interpretations of natural events; the numbers, math, proofs and procedures we used in science are all human concepts.
> 
> But perception of reality does not make reality; and your claim that because our perception is wrong the reality doesn't exist makes no sense. Fallacy and existence are not mutually exclusive. It is very possible for us to perceive a natural event wrong and have it still exist. We would just be ignorent to how it "really" exists.
> 
> ...


 
Uhmm... ^^;; I want to say this with gentle words in order to not seem to insult you ^^;;

1- When I say "thatÂ´s sciences magic" IÂ´m using a METHAPOR. In this chase the word "magic" is just an adjetive to say "that is what makes wonderful the science" DonÂ´t be a child dear, obviously I wasnÂ´t speaking about true magic, that would be very stupid aint it?

2- I did NEVER said that the reality does not exist XD There was a greek philosopher who said it (he was called Georgias), but not me XD Indeed the point that I deffend about this discusion is that reality indeed exists, but we are perceiving it in erroneous ways and that makes us do cruel and absurd things withouth even noticing it.

3- Knowing the truth indeed is important my dear. One example is the religion. People in the past and some guys in the present, expend all their lives believing in something that they think that is right and "kool", but the fact is that the thing that bases their acts (god), does not exist, so all the religions are based in a lie. When you act based in a lie, your acts will be wrong, just think a bit deeper about the example of the nazis, think what did they were thinking when they mass murdered jews, and you will find that not knowing the truth makes us horrible people.


----------



## Zhael (Oct 30, 2009)

Okay, here's my oddity:

When I'm reading something, my mind can wander.  If I'm on task and topic, I comprehend immediately, but if I'm thinking otherwise, I continue to read subconsciously and when I'm back on task, I can take a few split seconds to think, and everything I read is registered and understood.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 30, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Randy you're kinda close, but Open Wound isn't saying that some things are errors but all things are. If somebody gives you a mathematical equation, you answer it correctly by what we as humans have perceived to be the correct answer you're still wrong. Both the equation, the person asking (and how they asked it) is wrong, and so is your answer. Because a human came up with "math" as we know it, it's all flawed and therefore wrong.
> 
> This is a paradox, seeing as Open Wound is human and therefore her theory is flawed, making it wrong.
> 
> However amount of errors we Humans have in anything we do doesn't make us, or anything we think/do wrong. We may be flawed slightly, but we're not wrong.


 
Well, in more common words you just described a bit the paradox that the logic guy noticed. IÂ´ll explain it. When we discover that we are absolutely free (in the manner that good and evil does not exist, there is no destiny, there is nothing that can tell us what is right or wrong) we must then start to crawl across our own circumstance. However, using logic we indeed get stuck in our own circumstance because we do universal conclusions basing ourselves into our circumstance. What we must do is forget our circumstance and then see the rest of circumstances withouth our own prejudices (yes, I called logic a prejudice) in order to have a perception not contamined by our ignorant selves. 

So yes, we are wrong. Everyday, withouth even noticing it, we still act like nazis when we blind ourselves and think that all what we do is "good and kool". We all are nazis and do the same horrible things withouth even considering it.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 31, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> 2- All what we perceive will be interpreted instantly, and the interpretation will be contamined  by our all past perceptions. So, when we see something new, we will naturaly try to categorize it with the things that we had perceived in our past. ThatÂ´s why when America was discovered, the europeans killed much people that lived in this place *because they did never perceived before brown people like the indians that lived here, so they killed them.* Other example, if you had never seen the red colour and suddenly you see it, you will think that it is wrong because your logic will tell you "this is imposible to exist"



Uh. I think most scholars agree that the Europeans killed the Native Americans because they wanted Native American land and natural resources. Not because the Europeans were so freaked out that people with darker skin existed. So your example is ... well, it doesn't help your case.



Open_wound_ said:


> If we have limits in our perception, then our conclusions SHOULD also be limited. However, the people always tends to have a general conclusion from particular events, and there is when the mistake appears with inductive logic. You canÂ´t do a conclusion if you donÂ´t have all the data, so, then, your conclusion will be false and mediocre.



False and mediocre. But less false and less terrible than if you didn't use inductive logic at all.



Open_wound_ said:


> Due to the point number 2 is why I want to kill logic, because the people instead analizing the phenomenom in itÂ´s pure form, they instead blind themselves and try to categorize in in their own categories.



Except that the example you provided is ... not true.



Open_wound_ said:


> You insist in that those "poor little human errors are not that bad", but I had show you with historical examples that indeed those apparently inofensive errors indeed had caused and still cause much destruction. When, back in 1940, a nazi soilder looks a jew and kills him, he says to himself "oh, my sacred logic says me that if I had lived all my life below the Hitlerian domain then it seems to be the only way to live, so the form of life of the other people is inferior and deserves to die". In this chase, the nazi soilder used the inductive logic, because he did sum all his particular experiences (being born and live under that dictatorÂ´s ideals) and then made an universal conclusion ("we the nazis are the only good ones!")
> 
> So, your logic must die, because due to your logic a lot of innocent people has died and animals are being killed just right now by those "inofersive errors"



Truth be told, I'm almost offended by this example.

Do you have any evidence that that's how these soldiers thought? Do you have any diary entries or letters to relatives or recorded confessions to support this thought? I'm willing to bet that you don't. You're speculating, and you're making one of the worst kinds of speculations, which is to interpret somebody else's thoughts based on their actions.

And actually, let me reiterate that really quick. You *interpreted somebody else's thoughts* and you did that *based on their actions*. Didn't you say that we as humans can't/shouldn't do that? That like, that's one of the most fundamental human errors is to make interpretations?

The above point I just made doesn't contradict any of my statements, by the way. *There are good interpretations and there are bad interpretations.* The above just happens to be an example of (what I believe to be) a bad interpretation.



Open_wound_ said:


> IÂ´m also a human, just like you, and this perception of mineÂ´s also haves a percentage of error because I have the same organic-cultural limits that any human. I just want to make conciousness about those facts in order to make a better world. In the past I wanted to graduate in philosophy and publish my books but I actually (a few months ago) found that maybe that little percentage of error will not be able to be eliminated by me and that someday someone will continue my task. So I actually, as I said in my introduction to the fandom, just want to be a visual kei musician, and I want to transmit the etic part to the people to help them to leave false ideals and erroneous perceptions just to try to donÂ´t let die this already bleeding world.


So why haven't you shared your idea for this "new logic?" Or is this it, what you've been arguing here?


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 31, 2009)

Actually, I completely forgot to address one more point.



Open_wound_ said:


> So, your logic must die, because due to your logic a lot of *innocent people has died and animals are being killed just right now by those "inofersive errors"*



But recall the first post you made in this thread:



Open_wound_ said:


> *There is no love, no kindness, no cruelty, no moral events... all is just matter in movement.* So, when we perceive such things, we start to imagine the meanings of it, but there is not a meaning behind the act.



So which is it? Does morality exist, or does morality not exist? Is it "wrong" that "innocent people has died and animals are being killed just right now" (sic.), or should we just not care that "innocent people" and "animals" are dying because morality does not exist?

You've contradicted yourself.


----------



## Hir (Oct 31, 2009)

Open_wound_, please be quiet.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 31, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> Well, in more common words you just described a bit the paradox that the logic guy noticed. IÂ´ll explain it. When we discover that we are absolutely free (in the manner that good and evil does not exist, there is no destiny, there is nothing that can tell us what is right or wrong) we must then start to crawl across our own circumstance. However, using logic we indeed get stuck in our own circumstance because we do universal conclusions basing ourselves into our circumstance. What we must do is forget our circumstance and then see the rest of circumstances withouth our own prejudices (yes, I called logic a prejudice) in order to have a perception not contamined by our ignorant selves.
> 
> So yes, we are wrong. Everyday, withouth even noticing it, we still act like nazis when we blind ourselves and think that all what we do is "good and kool". We all are nazis and do the same horrible things withouth even considering it.



But we're not wrong, also good job using goodwins law so early.

Ok as an example think about this:
I give you this image of wood. You say that it isn't wood because "wood" is what we as humans call it and that's flawed and therefore wrong. But hold on a moment, why is that wrong?

Using all five of our senses we can determine that it is indeed wood as we know it. It smells, tastes, looks, feels (and somehow sounds...creaking or something) like wood. We have about seven billion people on this planet and a vast, vast majority of them will agree that this wood is in-fact wood (or the language equivalent to wood). So for all intensive purposes we will call this substance wood, and because we have such a vast sample of people that deem that conclusion correct we are correct.

We may be wrong, but we will never know it. As I said, for all intensive purposes we need to call it -something-, as well as everything else.

We set principles, inventions, and language into place for us, by us. We can't be wrong if we're the creators and sole interpreters.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 31, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> But we're not wrong, also good job using goodwins law so early.
> 
> Ok as an example think about this:
> I give you this image of wood. You say that it isn't wood because "wood" is what we as humans call it and that's flawed and therefore wrong. But hold on a moment, why is that wrong?
> ...




When humans first appeared on the planet and started developing intelligence, nothing had names, a river wasn't a river, a tree wasn't a tree, a bird wasn't a bird and so on. Neither was their an indication of any "names" around to identify these objects. So, humans obviously at some point started to give objects names, eventually a rock was a rock, a bird was a bird, a tree was a tree, including all the different names for the various varieties of trees.

Our perception of things also helps us to identify objects, which in turn helps us in life.


----------



## SnowFox (Oct 31, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I give you this image of wood.



If that was anyone else, I wouldn't question the link as being innocent. But because it's you....


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 31, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> If that was anyone else, I wouldn't question the link as being innocent. But because it's you....



It is just a pile of wood. it is innocent.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 31, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> When humans first appeared on the planet and started developing intelligence, nothing had names, a river wasn't a river, a tree wasn't a tree, a bird wasn't a bird and so on. Neither was their an indication of any "names" around to identify these objects. So, humans obviously at some point started to give objects names, eventually a rock was a rock, a bird was a bird, a tree was a tree, including all the different names for the various varieties of trees.
> 
> Our perception of things also helps us to identify objects, which in turn helps us in life.



Thank you.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 31, 2009)

However, I can see where Open_Wound is coming from aswell. Although instead of her saying "there *is*" errors in our perception, I think it would of been better for her to say "Some of our perceptions *may* have errors, *some do* have errors, and some are *correct*."


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Oct 31, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Well, it is 1:30am, and I am sitting here thinking about my brain (not that I have much upstairs anyway) and some of the strange things mine does, or at least they seem strange to me. The main one that springs to mind is, that I always have music playing in my head, 24/7 it does not stop! it changes to different songs now and then but as soon as I wake up, I have a song in my head, till the moment I go to bed at night. I was wondering if anyone else gets this?


I do.
The music only stops when I'm approaching a breakdown, so it's actually rather useful.



> Also, I seem to be a lucid dreamer, recently, I was having....not a bad dream, but it was crappy, can't remember why, but for some reason I distinctly remember saying to myself in the dream "Fuck this I'm waking up" moments later I was laying in bed trying to work out how the fuck I just managed to do that.


I've done it.



> Another thing about the brain that puzzles me, is the ability to hear yourself.....well....think, or stupid sound effects (or at least in mine), just like when you sit quietly using your imagination, except I don't need to actively sit there and use my imagination, I can sit here looking normal, having a normal discussing when perhaps I have the sound of a car in my head, for example.


You're on your own there.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 31, 2009)

On the subject of Brain, just made me think about my memory. My brain has 26 years worth of data stored in it somewhere, you can't beat a brain as a mass storage device. lol

I have a very bad short term memory. When I was younger and still living with my parents, mom would ask me to go get lets say, her smokes, I would get up, get as far as the lounge door, turn around and ask here "What was it you wanted?". I will guarantee when I get off the net tonight, and go to bed, when I come back and check in the morning I would of forgotten what I posted on the forums. If I read knew posts in my threads when I come on in the mornings, sometimes I have to read back threw my own posts because I have either forgotten what we were discussing, or I don't know what is being referred to cause I have forgotten what the last thing I said was.

As for my long term memory, it is better, but often everything is like hidden, and it often takes someone saying something specific, or seeing something to trigger those memories, especially with past events. I don't know, maybe I can just block out memories untill such time when I need them.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 31, 2009)

Actually that's not true. The amount of data the brain can hold is somewhere around 1000 terabytes on average. Googles server farm is like... twenty times this.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 31, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Actually that's not true. The amount of data the brain can hold is somewhere around 1000 terabytes on average. Googles server farm is like... twenty times this.



. We live and learn.


----------



## Hir (Oct 31, 2009)

braaaainnnnssssssss *eats NewfDraggie's brain*





Halloween and topic related.


....brains *eats SnowFox's brain*


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Oct 31, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Actually that's not true. The amount of data the brain can hold is somewhere around 1000 terabytes on average. Googles server farm is like... twenty times this.


Oh yeah? What filesystem does the brain use?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 31, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Oh yeah? What filesystem does the brain use?



XD!

My brain must be from microsft cause it keeps freezing up on me and forgetting things.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 31, 2009)

I donÂ´t want to continue with this due to three things. First, I find very difficult to express what I want to express using this languaje so it tires me. Second, this new wave of counterarguments is less interesting than the other, so this is no longer interesting because I see now how closed-mind you are. Third, it was supossed that I was not going to speak about this with no one more since, thru the years, I had discovered that the other humans are so interested into making happy their own lives that they forget other important things like trying to find what is aunthentically real, but something (a vague emotion) moved me to open my mouth about this again. The last time at least you tried to be a bit more imaginative, but now you fell into just launching etnocentristic arguments like any other human who sees defied the bases of his/her beliefs.

No voice in my heart.

BTW: I got no contradictions in all what I said, please learn to read people.
BTW # 2: IÂ´m 19 years old, I still donÂ´t want to publish anything.
BTW 3: I left the Philosophy career the past year because I was tired of peopleÂ´s blindness... I actually study psicology because I find it interesting, but I no longer want to change the people, seemÂ´s that all hearts are dead.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Oct 31, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> XD!
> 
> My brain must be from microsft cause it keeps freezing up on me and forgetting things.


Don't feel bad. Mine still uses FAT12


----------



## Open_wound_ (Oct 31, 2009)

And so, even psicology is not actually my objetive. I want to take my short life and use it in something that really fills me. Music.

So I will just live for myself and disolve my heart into musical notes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrHfY8V4fwI

Maybe someday my band will get a contract to record an album... *sighs*

I put that video because we are making a cover of that song that indeed now expresses very well what I feel about this all


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 31, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> I donÂ´t want to continue with this due to three things. First, I find very difficult to express what I want to express using this languaje so it tires me. Second, this new wave of counterarguments is less interesting than the other, so this is no longer interesting because I see now how closed-mind you are. Third, it was supossed that I was not going to speak about this with no one more since, thru the years, I had discovered that the other humans are so interested into making happy their own lives that they forget other important things like trying to find what is aunthentically real, but something (a vague emotion) moved me to open my mouth about this again. The last time at least you tried to be a bit more imaginative, but now you fell into just launching etnocentristic arguments like any other human who sees defied the bases of his/her beliefs.
> 
> No voice in my heart.
> 
> ...




To be honest, I don't think whether our perceptions of every day things are right or wrong really matters, what does matter is that most people are happy, and most of the time, our perceptions, true or false do no harm. It is only a minority on this planet who's perceptions do serious harm.


----------



## Urbanwolf (Nov 1, 2009)

Hahaha..sometimes i think that everybody can hear me "speak" in my head.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 1, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> BTW: I got no contradictions in all what I said, please learn to read people.
> BTW 3: I left the Philosophy career the past year because I was tired of peopleÂ´s blindness... I actually study psicology because I find it interesting, but I no longer want to change the people, seemÂ´s that all hearts are dead.



BTW: Even I spotted the odd few contradictions. And not all hearts are dead, reading this makes me feel very cross >:[. Just because people do not want to see things "your" way does not mean all hearts are dead! You are not god, you are a human, a living being like the rest of us with individual thought, like everyone else. 

You can not change everyone's point of view for everyone has their own INDIVIDUAL thoughts. Also, just because a few people in this thread "disagreed" with you, does not mean any of us are blind to what you said. 

I saw perfectly well what you were talking about and understood it. What I did not agree with is, the very fact that you said all our perceptions have errors, and even if they did, many, many, many of our "false" perceptions do no harm at all. IT is only a minority of false perceptions that do us harm. 

If you can not, or refuse to see the other side of an arguement, you too, are being close-minded.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Nov 1, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> BTW: Even I spotted the odd few contradictions. And not all hearts are dead, reading this makes me feel very cross >:[. Just because people do not want to see things "your" way does not mean all hearts are dead! You are not god, you are a human, a living being like the rest of us with individual thought, like everyone else.
> 
> You can not change everyone's point of view for everyone has their own INDIVIDUAL thoughts. Also, just because a few people in this thread "disagreed" with you, does not mean any of us are blind to what you said.
> 
> ...


 
I understand your point, but there is something I must say you. Keep this words, because there is much behind them: there is a point where relativism causes a deep wound...


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 1, 2009)

And there's a point where you'll realize everything you're saying makes no logical sense.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> And there's a point where you'll realize everything you're saying makes no logical sense.



Agreed.


----------



## Scarborough (Nov 1, 2009)

I think Open_Wound_'s conclusions would be easier to accept if they weren't so absolute.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 1, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> I think Open_Wound_'s conclusions would be easier to accept if they weren't so absolute.



Indeed.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> And there's a point where you'll realize everything you're saying makes no logical sense.


The only way this statement could be more ironic is if this turned out to be one of the two times per day that you're right, you rosy stopped-clock you.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 1, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> The only way this statement could be more ironic is if this turned out to be one of the two times per day that you're right, you rosy stopped-clock you.



Two is better than your none, ho.


----------



## Dass (Nov 1, 2009)

I just did a ton of research on Carl Jung (for Anthropology), and it was confusing as hell. The brain is an esoteric piece of work, eh?


----------



## Open_wound_ (Nov 1, 2009)

Dass said:


> I just did a ton of research on Carl Jung (for Anthropology), and it was confusing as hell. The brain is an esoteric piece of work, eh?


 
*Evil laugh* Oh my dear, that is just the beggining... the authentic brutality starts with the humanist focus of psicoanalisis in 1950... 

To have a good theory I recomend to match this 4 psicological currents:

1- Humanist psiconanalisis (and so penetrate on FreudÂ´s texts about the instinct)
2- Evolutive psicology (in order to be less egocentric   )
3- Modern conductism (M.C. = original conductism + the theory of social learning ) and then read about general anthropology to get stronger data about the diferent development of the human tought in the history.
4-Neuropsicology (in order to recognize that the mental processes INDEED exist but as the reflect of the physical movement of matter in the brain)


----------



## Open_wound_ (Nov 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> And there's a point where you'll realize everything you're saying makes no logical sense.


 
Well my dear, 300 years ago ignorant people (like you) told that "it was ilogical that the man could fly since we donÂ´t have wings". So, well, as you know in the reality we indeed could flight ^^

So I donÂ´t care about your useless comentary ^^

AS I said like 600 times in this thread, I donÂ´t care about logic, what I care about is the phenomenom (as the logic can be considered a neumenum, and with it just a metaphysical worthless game)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 1, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> Well my dear, 300 years ago ignorant people (like you) told that "it was ilogical that the man could fly since we donÂ´t have wings". So, well, as you know in the reality we indeed could flight ^^
> 
> So I donÂ´t care about your useless comentary ^^



Man can't fly, machines can. Without the invention of the plane, man still would not be flying. And you only don't care cause we proved your earlier theory's wrong, which is why you have dropped out of the discussion.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Nov 1, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Man can't fly, machines can. Without the invention of the plane, man still would not be flying. And you only don't care cause we proved your earlier theory's wrong, which is why you have dropped out of the discussion.


 
1- You didnÂ´t proved that my theory is wrong (only a person in this world has been able to make me doubt about my theory, she is a friend from the philosophy career)

2- I got out because I got bored of trying to change people, at least by now.

3- Since the very first moment than "DEwfdraggie" opened his mouth I gave 0 importance to his words, even when I answered him the first times I just did it in order to take examples.

If you still want to, we can continue with this via msn, my msn is open_wound_@hotmail.com

After all, one of the few things that I find interesting is to philosophize with others, however IÂ´m not always on that mood


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 1, 2009)

I think Open_wound_'s name isn't a reference to her emotions, but to her e-mouth. It's not only a gaping maw of sufficient magnitude to forever eclipse that of Goatse in our minds, but it's perpetually roiling and festering with disease and idiocy.



NewfDraggie said:


> Two is better than your none, ho.


You say that like you expect it to hurt me. How amusing.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Nov 2, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I think Open_wound_'s name isn't a reference to her emotions, but to her e-mouth. It's not only a gaping maw of sufficient magnitude to forever eclipse that of Goatse in our minds, but it's perpetually roiling and festering with disease and idiocy.
> 
> 
> You say that like you expect it to hurt me. How amusing.


 
"Open Wound" is the name of my Visual Kei band, and your words have nothing to do with reality ^^ But what the hell I feel poetic today, so IÂ´ll say that your words are the black flesh that overtake with itÂ´s putrefact nonsense even the last petal of a flower that tries to arise in a sea of garbage below the tear of a lost sight.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> Well my dear, 300 years ago ignorant people (like you) told that "it was ilogical that the man could fly since we donÂ´t have wings". So, well, as you know in the reality we indeed could flight ^^
> 
> So I donÂ´t care about your useless comentary ^^
> 
> AS I said like 600 times in this thread, I donÂ´t care about logic, what I care about is the phenomenom (as the logic can be considered a neumenum, and with it just a metaphysical worthless game)


You do know you look like an idiot attempting to compare such things like the idea of flight back when birds were the only things in the sky, and the idea that everything is wrong?

Your logic is -heavily- flawed, no amount of "I don't believe/care in logic" will make you correct.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> "Open Wound" is the name of my Emo band, and your words are completely correct ^^


Fixed that for you.



> But what the hell I feel poetic today, so IÂ´ll say that your words are the black flesh that overtake with itÂ´s putrefact nonsense even the last petal of a flower that tries to arise in a sea of garbage below the tear of a lost sight.


You're not a poet, you're a pretentious 14-year-old.
Your purple prose gives you away~


----------



## 8-bit (Nov 2, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> The brain in awesome.
> It can help you make haikus.
> Refridgerator.



That was bitchin.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

Did you know we actually have more than five senses?

There's the sense of balance, for example, and a few others I can't remember.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 2, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Did you know we actually have more than five senses?
> 
> There's the sense of balance, for example, and a few others I can't remember.



True, however the five senses are all "input" senses. Eyes input pictures to our brain, ears input sound, touch inputs texture and temperature, smell inputs well smells, and taste inputs taste, good and bad. 

Sense of balance just keeps us balanced, doesn't really input anything, not in the same way as the other five do.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> True, however the five senses are all "input" senses. Eyes input pictures to our brain, ears input sound, touch inputs texture and temperature, smell inputs well smells, and taste inputs taste, good and bad.


Right, that's why they're the ones that get focused on. But if you ever wanna ask a trick question, "People only have five senses: True or false?" is a good one.


----------



## Open_wound_ (Nov 2, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Fixed that for you.
> 
> 
> You're not a poet, you're a pretentious 14-year-old.
> Your purple prose gives you away~


 
Yes, you are one of those ignorants who canÂ´t distinct between visual kei and emo.

About my prose... XD You donÂ´t know to who you are speaking, lukewarm maggot


----------



## Open_wound_ (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You do know you look like an idiot attempting to compare such things like the idea of flight back when birds were the only things in the sky, and the idea that everything is wrong?
> 
> Your logic is -heavily- flawed, no amount of "I don't believe/care in logic" will make you correct.


 
You are blind man, you are not even seeing what IÂ´m speaking about, you only read the words with the prejudice of "everything what she says is wrong so in order to appear inteligent I will repeat her words with a negation at the end of each phrase"

About being idiot, I love to be insulted by society, because for me it means that what IÂ´m doing is right ^^


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 2, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> You are blind man, you are not even seeing what IÂ´m speaking about, you only read the words with the prejudice of "everything what she says is wrong so in order to appear inteligent I will repeat her words with a negation at the end of each phrase"
> 
> About being idiot, I love to be insulted by society, because for me it means that what IÂ´m doing is right ^^



What? if people insult me, it tells me I must be doing something wrong. how can you be doing something? Or are you out to upset people?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

Open_wound_ said:


> Yes, you are one of those ignorants who canÂ´t distinct between visual kei and emo.


No, I do know the difference. That's why I maintain that you're emo~



> About my prose... XD You donÂ´t know to who you are speaking


I'm speaking to a snotty little early-teen or preteen twat who thinks overusing trite metaphors, clichÃ©d similes, and bombastic histrionics makes her a poet.

Sweetie, has anybody ever told you you're very like a whale?

Oh, and by the way: It's "to _whom_"--never "to who".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 2, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> No, I do know the difference. That's why I maintain that you're emo~
> 
> I'm speaking to a snotty little early-teen or preteen twat who thinks overusing trite metaphors, clichÃ©d similes, and bombastic histrionics makes her a poet.
> 
> ...



Again, I chuckle, except this time I chuckle to myself as I head off to bed.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Again, I chuckle, except this time I chuckle to myself as I head off to bed.


'Night, sweetie :3


----------



## Scarborough (Nov 2, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Did you know we actually have more than five senses?
> 
> There's the sense of balance, for example, and a few others I can't remember.



Proprioception. Hell yes.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 3, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> Proprioception. Hell yes.



whats Proprioception?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> whats Proprioception?


The medical term for when a guy's erection won't go down :V (Actually, that's "priapism".)


----------



## Scarborough (Nov 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> whats Proprioception?


Being able to sense where your body parts are.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 3, 2009)

God damn it! I awoke from a nights worth of dreaming and had another fecking head ache!....Mom said I should see a doctor, but I feel stupid about seeing a doctor. Although these headaches are happening more frequently, and ONLY when I dream, aqlthough I dream quite frequently, these headaches don't happen frequently, but for the last two or three months it has happened two or three times.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> God damn it! I awoke from a nights worth of dreaming and had another fecking head ache!....Mom said I should see a doctor, but I feel stupid about seeing a doctor. Although these headaches are happening more frequently, and ONLY when I dream, aqlthough I dream quite frequently, these headaches don't happen frequently, but for the last two or three months it has happened two or three times.


You know, one headache a month is pretty good >_>


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 3, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> You know, one headache a month is pretty good >_>



My head is fine now, but damn it was pounding when I first woke up, I mean wtf is causing it? am I banging my head on the wall repeatedly in my sleep? but then I would feel a bruise on my head, which I don't.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> My head is fine now, but damn it was pounding when I first woke up, I mean wtf is causing it? am I banging my head on the wall repeatedly in my sleep? but then I would feel a bruise on my head, which I don't.


Are you drinking enough water?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 3, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Are you drinking enough water?



Umm, few pints a day. >.>

EDIT: I have a pint glass I use, and I fill it three, maybe four times a day. Or if I get a bottle of soda, 2 liters a day.........That ain't good is it.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Umm, few pints a day. >.>


If you have long hair, do you keep it tied back during the day and/or at night? :V


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 3, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> If you have long hair, do you keep it tied back during the day and/or at night? :V



Short, very short hair.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 3, 2009)

So, anyone able to shed some light on why this is happening to me? Or is my mind just going completely nutty at night?


----------

