I may be a different kind of genius - not even I am ready to accept it.

"

Deceptionist wrote:

Where does that knowledge come from? The Universe. We're speaking the cosmic tongue, in spite of neglecting our cosmic tools.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

*eye roll*

In all my time online, I've never read anyone so consistently condescending, nor anyone less warranted to behave in such a manner.

Even if it's all one big facade, some part of you actually believes you're this superior to others. And that's just a little tragic.

My one remaining hope for you is that someday you get over yourself, because you'll be a lot happier and who knows, maybe I might even be able to have a normal, amiable and even fruitful conversation with you without feeling like my brain is being used for dental floss by a drooling giant with unusually small shoulders.

Do not mistake pity and incredulity for anger. Anger results from beliefs being challenged. You'd have to remember how to talk to other people to do that.

I have not mistaken your pity for anger - to pity, one must judge and admit to playing god. I am a void - I have built my entire life around nothing; I have never felt whole before taking this reality in as an ephemeral mirage of my own self-proclaimed desires mistakingly cherry-picked out of my collective consciousness. It is you that must oppose me because my life's work opposes your means to devour and compensate for your infinities of natural and cosmic emptyness. Your unreasonably large vocabulary tells a tale of a hungry beast that will cease not their actions for the petty drop of invigoration.

I am an enemy to your hunger - I don't feed; for I am always free.

Shall this be a contest of who can spout the most drivel then? If that's the case then I shall choose the scripture route.

Belief without a basis in reality is a dangerous thing; some people call it religion, others insanity, but it takes a special individual to mistake it for philosophy.

"

Mephasm wrote:

Shall this be a contest of who can spout the most drivel then? If that's the case then I shall choose the scripture route.

Belief without a basis in reality is a dangerous thing; some people call it religion, others insanity, but it takes a special individual to mistake it for philosophy.

They say insanity is next to genius - I say that arrogance is next to genius, thus when great minds share great things, it tends to inadvertently draw the wrong crowd. Ideas are the most non-physical elements of life, which build and destroy this world, and you want to argue about basis with that inflation of yours? Unwise.

Most philosophical debate I see today revolves around 'Science doesnt understand and cant explain this (e.g. the mind), therefore the conclusion must be this (non physical consciousness, spiritual afterlife, NDEs, spirits, ghosts, multidimensions for storing afterlife spirits).

Whereas if you instead bothered to learn the actual information behind the topic being philosophically debated, you might develop some understanding of whatever issue it is (e.g. atomic + molectular structure of organic life, brain impulses, synapses, neurotransmitter substances, types of nerves, how electrical impulses travel through the body).

After learning all that, you would end up seriously lolling at anyone that believes that consciousness can survive after physical death, or well, unless you fail the subject.

On the other hand, I am a genius composor and pianist, just too lazy to do anything. Im also a genius at science, but too lazy to read any books.

So therefore I am the best human.

Yes you may vote.

"

bhavv wrote:

After learning all that, you would end up seriously lolling at anyone that believes that consciousness can survive after physical death, or well, unless you fail the subject.

If you were a genius, you'd know that life and death don't exist. There is no beginning or end - everything is perpetual, through what is physical and metaphysical. The entire experience of physical life is the same cycle of water turning into solid, gas and liquid. Our lives are the biography of the stars that have existed billions of years ago when we stare up at the sky.

Keep your satire and sarcasm to yourself - I am not the one here fooling myself. I already tried to accept what everyone expects me to accept, but no matter how hard I try to forget my potential as a collective consciousness, I am stricken with an even stronger enlightenment than before.

Dont have to be a genius to understand that, my major in Human Biology educated me well enough to realize how incorrect you are right now.

If everything is perpetual, how does the universe expand? If there is no beginning to life then what is DNA and what are gametes?

Matter turning into different states (liquids, solids, gasses) is based purely on the physical law of boiling and melting points of different atoms / molecules. This has absolutely no correlation whatsoever to organic life, since organic life for the most part (unless sick or in a hazardous environment) needs to maintain a constant body temperature.

"

Upandatem wrote:

"

Sublime82 wrote:

"There are more stars in our galaxy than atoms in the universe."


-Neil Degrasse Tyson

Number of stars in the milky way = 10^11 (in order of magnitude)

Number of atoms in the observable universe = 10^80

I smell a misquote, being an astrophysicist, astronomer and director of a planetarium I find it hard to believe he would get this one wrong. Consider, since stars are made of an exeptional amount of atoms each, how are you going to get them to outnumber the stuff they're made of?

"

Deceptionist wrote:

There are more connections in our brain, than there are stars in the universe.

Number of synapses in the human brain = 10^11.

Number of stars in the observable universe = 10^23

Im pretty sure that was intended as a joke


as for this thread, deceptionist is batshit crazy or a troll, i kind of expect a "trolled you all lololo" shitpost tho

"

bhavv wrote:

Dont have to be a genius to understand that, my major in Human Biology educated me well enough to realize how incorrect you are right now.

If everything is perpetual, how does the universe expand? If there is no beginning to life then what is DNA and what are gametes?

Matter turning into different states (liquids, solids, gasses) is based purely on the physical law of boiling and melting points of different atoms / molecules. This has absolutely no correlation whatsoever to organic life, since organic life for the most part (unless sick or in a hazardous environment) needs to maintain a constant body temperature.

The Universe's expansion is the same perpetuate state, on a grander scale, of our heart beat. The Universe is a cosmic heart that is in the process of its cosmic heart beat. The DNA is the result of cosmic interactions creating a temporary state we call "existence" - the beginning of our life is not the beginning of the universe's; our life is just another star fulfilling a temporary role.

Water is older than this planet - it's the reason why "form" can exist. It is the reason why our emotions, our memories, our personalities and our dreams are "alive" and "real". Water birthed amoebas - amoebas produced "human" chemicals. Our body runs solely on water more than any other element. Lava which creates land has a chemical which is interchangeable when mixed with water.

You can play god all you want - it doesn't change the fact that our neurons look exactly like the universe. It appears different, but the subatomic processes we can not see with the naked eye that advocate its existence, are very much the same.