see: Other thread >>1

How did you get a picture of the bean without any Asians in it? I've tried on like 5 different occasions.

Who you believe you are is your personality, history, experiences, thought and things you based your self off of at an impressionable age

My personal thought, is that before you were taught and defined, you were a blank disk with a desire and will so defined yourself to satisfy it

If you have amnesia, essentially who you were has died and your someone else with no impressions[except maybe habits and emotional things].
That why some foreigners [and the courts, because they know something we dont] refer to themselves and "my person" instead of saying me,I, myself etc

Also everything can be explained by science, but whether scientist want to explain it is a different problem.

>>135
Ok, you've convinced me. You are either trolling or simply not intelligent/matured enough to formulate arguments "So now you're saying that one should merely listen and not actually do?" way to try to cloud things with semantics and/or drive things further off-topic. Either you know this and are trolling or you should avoid similar conversations in the future. Strike that, you should just avoid future discussion regardless. "where does the difference stem from? " one is harmful, the other is not. Just like I said earlier. Twice. Whether you're trolling or deficient, or even if you do believe what you are saying, then I can rest assured that your behavior will, through interactions with other people, bring about sufficient punishment for your flaws. "I am not assuming anything about you" Yes, you are. You assumed I hadn't been thorough the dance thing or something like it. hence your paragraph starting with "Disregard the time and assume".

If you seriously do think that you should ignore people that do care about you, then they soon won't. But whatever, fuck your life up however, I'm done with you. You deserve whatever shit comes your way.

The End.

>>136
>one is harmful, the other is not. Just like I said earlier. Twice.
At the time people didn't know this. You're avoiding the actual question. At the time science actually claimed that this was harmful, science claimed that teenagers would perform sexual orgies and take heavy drugs because they were dancing, science claimed that jazz and dance turned you into a violent jungle-monster with no feeling for anyone else but youself.

The question was wether or not it would have been correct to correct yourself after these concerns at that time. Not what science has concluded since then.

OP here, I haven't stopped by in a while.

If your parents are the ones that are being harmed by watching you harm yourself with your luxuries... can't this be seen as a direct harm. The average child raised to 18 years of age costs them $124,000-$250,000.

If you were to hurt yourself in any serious way, or die, you are taking their quarter million dollars and flushing it down the toilet. If I were the parents I would feel as if it *is* my responsibility to make sure that my child isn't harming him/herself.

OP again, disregard this post.
>>137

When you have a child you are sort of gambling, you should understand that you are investing your time and money into something (someone*) that has it's own free will.

>>138
>>139
Am I the only one not understanding what is happening here?

SAGE has been used.

>>108

Okay, to keep things productive as was suggested, I'll answer why. I cannot see how initial axioms can be derived without intuition- intuition being defined as, "the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or reason". Establishing that neuron interactions represent a depiction of the rules of the reality they inhabit seems to accord with this, if the validity of these rules is derived from the existence of these interactions ipso facto.

But mentioning that human experience merely "might" be part of a nonconceptual entity creates additional possibilities. This means that concepts themselves are derived from nonconcepts which posses characteristics absent from accessible knowledge.

An empirical issue I have with the example regarding neuron functioning as a microcosm of the principles of reality is that the cognitive representation of the latter is imperfect. Cognition can deviate from what is generally accepted as rational; mental disorders are an extreme example of this.

>>110

Yeah I can't argue with any of this. I think we're of a like mind on this issue.

>>115

Been a nice chat, Shipguy.

SAGE has been used.

>>117

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

>>118

Hey, I get the last word.

SAGE has been used.

>>2
Woah woah woah, WHAT?

Well, it's a way to trick yourself into deciding by removing the fear of making the wrong decision.

When it's the coin deciding, you don't have to worry about making the wrong decision, because the coin did, so your brain relaxes and you know what you want to have happen. Then you know what you answer is.

That picture doesn't work if youre in on it. Another person has to implement for you to hope for a specific outcome. Trust me, I saw it on Frasier.