zedvictor4

I've read cases many times.

And I never dispute the probable existence of a person, who is referred to as Jesus in historical Middle Eastern myth and folk tales.

Well as I see it, what we have is historical hearsay, jotted down some time after the event and subsequently transcribed, translated and exaggerated to fit the developing religious ideology.

So there is no actual evidence that a biblical character referred to as Jesus, died and rose again. Though certainly it can be hypothesised such, and ideas developed.

Which isn't to say that the biblical Jesus wasn't based upon a real person. Person being the operative word.

As for the emotions and values that you describe...As I understand it, these are electro-chemical responses to sensory stimuli, and therefore detectable and presumably measurable to some degree.

And for sure, people respond in widely varying ways to sensory stimuli, associated internal data management and consequential ideological conclusions.

Hence you are happy to believe without proof.

And in the absence of concrete evidence, I remain sceptical.

Though currently based upon what we do know, theological hypotheses, to say the least, do seem somewhat fantastical.

Robots are.

Freaky is all in the mind.

A space robot would look at a human and think, wow look at those freaky organic blobs.

Nah.

Virtual reality wanking machines will be as cheap as chips.

The Chinese will churn them out in the millions.

They will also provide you with you first pack of anti bacterial wipes.

Hi Trade.

Science is a naturally occurring faculty associated with thinking beings.

So therefore is the need to understand, theorise and explain.

So GOD the thinking being, was an obvious theoretical proposition for a thinking being to propose.

A sound enough proposition in terms of a theory of universal developmental hierarchy.

Though the associated ritual devotion that developed concurrently, brought very little if nothing to the scientific table.

Ritual devotion in the main, is an unnecessary but seemingly necessary offshoot that mortal beings developed as a coping strategy.

Sort of...Look guys, there might be a GOD, so might as well pray to it and perhaps not die...Failing that, you might die here, but will perhaps go to a magical place called Heaven.

For sure, invent a religion, build a church and write a book about it....But remember, we haven't actually substantiated the theory yet.

And so thinking man was burned at the stake for doubting GOD.

Clever stupid gene.

In my opinion.

The key to longevity is not dying.

A good set of genes for sure.

Though, it is clearly apparent that an active, healthy and mentally positive lifestyle is key to avoiding the exacerbation of common degenerative problems that will inevitably occur if one is inactive, unhealthy and mentally negative.

Nothing wrong with the occasional wank I suppose. I expect that studies have been done.

Keep it up y'all.

Sounds like BK will live for ever at his rate of self abuse.

And of course, they wouldn't do it for free.

As I suggested previously, trading brain cells for cash is a calculated but lucrative risk.

Hey McMieky.

Going soft at 58 is nothing to be ashamed of.

Ask FLRW.

Depending upon universal evolution and it's reasons and/or purposes.

AI, is likely to make most organic organisms redundant.

Whether or not it will abolish them completely, remains to be seen.

Though at this moment in time  over sexed male munchkins will need to evacuate their gametes when and wherever possible.

Ovulation is obviously a less expressive process.

Though the endocrinal need for the female to fuse, is similarly weighted with profound sexuality. 

For sure the process seems amazing, but nonetheless is what it is.

Though everything you explained is just a more technical and expanded version of my explanation.

Whereby incoming "stimuli" are processed internally, and also stored to short term memory.

Presumably any information can also be stored as long term data.

I hope that I will wake up.

I assume that I will wake up, based upon previous experience and confidence in my current health.

I don't believe that I will wake up.

In my opinion, based upon technological advancement, anyone could have been reasonably confident that man would eventually travel to the moon.

Belief wasn't necessary.

Based upon the rate of technological development since JFK's day, I would further suggest that man will venture further afield...But I don't believe this.

Yep, lovely poem fauxlaw.

And I had heard the same rumour.

Good to have you back.

Hope that you are well.

Do gooders think that they are socially righteous.

Whereas hormones are a fact of life.

Observation is the result of an internal process.

So if we take sight for example, what we see is an internal image reconstructed from incoming light signals.

Which for all intent and purposes does seem to be direct observation.

Everything that we experience is actually a simulation reconstructed in the brain from sensory input.

We assume accurately simulated.

Give me an example Mall.

I would say that I function according to knowledge.

But of course, we obviously cannot know outcomes in advance, so there is often an element of risk associated with a course of action.

Though coping with such situations and moving forwards ,means taking a calculated risk based upon experience and/or knowledge. 

Belief is not relevant.

I once saw a video of a guy who believed that if he prayed, he could swim safely in a crocodile infested river....He promptly disappeared never to be seen again.

This was the outcome of a belief based system.

If the guy had made a knowledge based assessment of the situation, his Mum would have been happier.

Wherein lies the illogic in my previous statement?

All barring those with significant developmental anomalies, everyone else is unalterably born one of two gamete producers.

OK, so we can chop things about and become a synthetic hormone drug dependant...Such is the evolution of the mind and sexual fantasy.

And perhaps over time the species will alter biologically...As mind clearly affects psychological systems, so it might also affect biological systems.

Though currently, I would suggest that there is still a distinction to be made between sexual fantasy and sexual reality.

So Mall, what is your logical take on the subject.

All our experiences are internal.

Self contained.

Electrochemically powered.

In my opinion, I fully engaged, albeit somewhat satirically.

What to do with your dick and all those endocrinal messages.

You're caught up in the world of socio-psychological recreational sexual fantasy. (Nothing new)

What to do with all those gametes.

The body says one thing and the mind says another.

So settle down with a partner, get a puppy and a new fitted kitchen and shoot your load from time to time.

You can always adopt or find a surrogate, if you want a child to call your own and your partner isn't the egg producing sort.

Grow older shoot your load once a month if you can get it up.

And eventually die.

One of the drawbacks of being a modern human, rather than a proper hunter gatherer.

Nope, that is not correct in my book.

If one doesn't know something, then that is that.

Believing that one knows something is a tad silly, isn't it?

And why would I need to believe in myself?

Within the limits of the self, I accept what I know.

Depends upon how you define the word I suppose.

For you... Is "belief" just a trivial word, with a hundred synonyms?

For me it has a specific meaning.

I always think that afterthoughts are pointless.

But, perhaps there was some nugget of knowledge that might have made a lasting difference.

I'm content enough to not need to worry about it now though.

Procreational sex is one thing.

And socio-psychologically inspired recreational sex is another thing.

If a cis male fucks a Kangaroo, does that make him a marsupial.

NO...He remains an organism that produces male gametes.

I do not believe anything.

One can either know or not know.

One can be hopeful or uncertain or assumptive etc.

Or have faith, even.

But to simply accept something without proof is futile in terms of knowledge gathering.

Which isn't to say that for some, belief does not produce positive electro-chemical reactions in their brain.

If I made a convincing argument for turnips, would that convince you to become a turnip.

You sound like me.

Country...Wales UK.

Occupation...Semi-retired, multi tasker.  Currently working part time for a Pharmacy Company.

Religion...None. Though The GOD principle is a sound enough hypothesis.

Priorities...Health and fitness and Immediate family.

Political ideology...Nothing that I can pinpoint. Eclectic but reasonably moderate.

You never know. 

Technology moves on apace.

Maybe one day we will be able to down load our conscious minds to an electronic device. And live for ever on line.

Does it have a middle, or is it just relative?

Still worried about my profile.

What is it that you need to know.

Correct.

Aliens can seemingly manipulate these "souls".

Now.

Is this knowledge?

Or wild speculation.

There are many things to be discovered, and I don't think this is one of them.

According to the aliens.

Which aliens specifically?

Fantastic.

Undoubtedly.

Compared to some peoples lives, the life that you described would sound like luxury.

Very special relativity, is very specially relative.

Effort is work.

Doesn't matter how we do it.

And effort requires input.

And input costs, no matter how we pay for it.

Presumably your parents currently fund your luxury lifestyle.

Would today also be the first time you heard of the Universal Doughnut of Jam and Custard?

So, other than fuck sex robots, what are we going to do the rest of the time.

Hours of endless leisure time will require very lucrative redundancy packages.

Either that or hunter gathering.

Though if humans aren't required to do anything.

Then humans are therefore not required.

Does his new plan also replace human Presidents with AI ones?

A coping strategy.

Unless you are being picky about who gets reincarnated.

Then I think, that statistically reincarnation is regarded as unlikely.

Because currently, the birth to death ratio favours birth.

In simple terms, if one person dies and two people are born, then only one can be a reincarnation.

Even so... If it were the other way around, not only would we become extinct, but there would always be a backlog of potential reincarnatees.

For it to work fairly, whereby everyone gets reincarnated, it would always have to be a one to one ratio.

Unless you are also factoring critters into the reincarnation equation, whereby we occasionally have a spell as a Tsetse fly or something.

Not sure how this works statistically though.

Nonetheless, I would suggest that like an afterlife, reincarnation is the wishful thinking of a mortal blob of matter.

Which certainly isn't to suggest that our component parts cannot be recycled.

And then there are gametes to consider.

Hmmmmmm.

I meant relative to the statement.

All events generate a duration.

It's a time and space thing.

So OK... Conceiving ideas is  eventful.

Well what is right and wrong?

Who decided.

It was decided by collective decision, and is maintained by collective decision. 

Though this is a generalisation.

Because we can obviously cite examples where the greater collective is oppressed by a smaller collective.

Even so, if we look at the global picture, killing each other is easily justified.

Which suggests to me that right and wrong are merely conceptual ideas rather than innate qualities.

Maybe.

At 65.

I am no longer in touch with any of my Schoolfriends.

We might rarely meet in the street and exchange pleasantries.

Though where I currently live, I have lots of good acquaintances; but I would not regard any as close friends.

Though looking back at my early years, I see that friends were nonetheless always competitive.

Always trying to gain one-upmanship.

In my opinion a group of friends/acquaintances, are a collective because of circumstance and commonality.

Though always subject to a naturally discriminatory survival instinct and pecking order.

Well, I suppose that what we know is going to seem normal.

But the existence and complexity of organic structures as we know them, is perhaps also an extreme.

The other extreme being nothing at all.

But hang on a mo... Was  there ever any middle ground, between A and B?

All that I was stating, was that old regional narratives would have been spoken or written in Hebrew or some other Semitic language and therefore not referred to as scripture. 

The word scripture wouldn't have been devised until some time after 1066.

As we get older I'm not sure that we make friends.

Acquaintances perhaps, with more or less levels of trust.

Depends upon how one chooses to differentiate between the concepts of friendship and acquaintance I suppose.

Which idea in particular?

It's logical.

So Jesus was a Roman Catholic then and not Hebrew.

Though the word scripture is actually a Middle English derivative, from the Latin.

So Jesus was Church of England then.

Well, what is a scripture?

Scripture essentially comes from the Latin, meaning written.

Though adopted to afford a written narrative a sort of gravitas.

In this context, the basis of scripture is probably derived of a spoken narrative.

Probably a spoken narrative of a spoken narrative, and so on.

Firstly spoken in some archaic Middle Eastern tongue.

Probably recounting hearsay myth and story.

It is what it is.

Neither reliability nor unreliability are pertinent considerations.