Oh and one more thing before I leave you in your jibber-jabbering...
victorel21 wrote:Write to be understood.
Boy, when you hear French and you do not understand it, what little you can understand is independent from what is being said.
Your ability to piece together an understanding does not change what is actually said but it does affect only how you, YOU, react to it.
victorel21 wrote: Statemment: a human being is an isolated chemical system. agree7disagree.
Boy are you independent, in an absolute sense or is this sack of skin porous and constantly interacting with the environment?
Absolute isolation would constitute a singularity, a complete independence, isolation, freedom, Godliness.
Are you God, boy?
Until you actually do become God, you are not independent from external influences.
victorel21 wrote: I predict that you cannot feel the pleasure I am felling or any of my other emotions. Or can you? do you know what I am doing right now? How the place from where I am writing this looks like? Nope because, your nervous system is not is not attached to mine.
I predict that you are confusing the personal experience of reality with reality.
Two people can watch a movie like The Matrix
and experience it differently and on different levels.
One can appreciate the philosophical messages and make connections with the metaphors, the other enjoys the action and the explosions and the fights and that is it.
Both interpretations, both experiences are not equal notr the same, and both are independent from what the creator intended. The one who could associate with the creator's vision the closest is the one who experiences the movie more fully.
victorel21 wrote:The premise is that everything is predetermined since everything has a cause, thus, there is a reason why people believe in god independently of whether he exists or not. But how is this proving me wrong?
If you still can't manage to understand that, then no philosopher are you.
Boy, whether some retard believes in God or not does not affect the existence of God.
If a schizophrenic is convinced the CIA it following him this does not mean that it is so. He may act as if it were so, he might live his life within that "interpretation" of reality, but it has no effect on reality...and without the protection of the system he faces the consequences.
victorel21 wrote:They are rejecting the discomfort. it is the same to everyone. (roghly speaking ofcourse). you must understand that this is talking in very general terms, nothing is exactly the same as such I use concepts or generalizations, all these things you are saying do not prove me wrong at all.
But nothing can ever or will ever "prove you wrong" boy as this would shatter your delusion and you need it to remain sane.
The idea that emotions are not innate is ridiculous and flies in the face of reason. If you accept that the past informs the present and future, that it is in fact part of the same continuum, then the reactions they represent are pre-programmed instinctive and present from birth.
What is learned, boy, is how to direct these emotions, how to suppress or enhance them, how to symbolize them, how to react to their reactions.
victorel21 wrote:Ah no sorry about that. misinterpretation of one of your quotes, you write is somewhat different so it is hard sometimes for me to understand.
Yes, and that'
s part of your MO.
When stressed you look around for an escape...you redirect, confuse the matter, turn the tables by accusing the other of what you were claiming to frustrate him and cause him to stop shaming you.
Changing the subject or convolution it with accusations you cannot support will not save you from the fact that you just talked out of your arse and you are now covering your tracks.
Besides all that shit about interactions, at what point have you justified the idea that emotions are not present in an infant as innate reactions to stimulation?
victorel21 wrote:Yes and no I was just conditioning you since you where starting to get personal. ( decending into emotions)
Yes, boy, even this innuendo is part of your usual pattern.
When pressured you convince yourself that it was part of a brilliant plan, on your part, that your shame was really how you trapped your prey.
victorel21 wrote:It is still being taught, i am afraid.
Yes, and then the past would just disappear and you would be free from it.
A tabula rasa
, that can reinvent itself with no restrictions....how liberating that would be for you, boy.
It would be a constant Becoming, like the Red Dragon
, who tried to escape his childhood shame and his facial disfigurement by morphing into a monster.
You would be my little Purple Dragon
. Running, hiding, finding pride in not being discovered, reinventing your past, constantly morphing, in your mind, by shedding the shame and restrictinos the past imposes upon you.
Emotions being such undesirable reactions. You wish to be like Spock.
No more than him, because he controlled what existed whereas you deny. You wish to be a monster.
And how many e-mail accounts you create to construct your multiple faces...one for every attitude and contingency.
you are freed with the masks. You can post an absurdity and then disappear as that character, reemerging as another, cleansed of your errors and lack of judgment, you suppose.
With every reinvention you hope that the past no longer follows you.
victorel21 wrote:Yep. presumptuos by nature. Your grizzly example is not valid, to the topic. ( most of what you say isnt.)
Of course not because your fate cannot be dismissed as easily as you can on-line where you can pretend to be the creator of your own world.
Boy, reality decides....remember?
You have a theory ...you test that theory in the world...the world, as it is determined by the sum of all interactions determines if your theory is accurate or not.
Living in your head only works if mommy and daddy or the system are there to protect you from your childishness, otherwise it leads to a high price.
the world does not care about what you think, boy. If it has no effect on it it is irrelevant and only important in relation to you and your interests.
The only way to affect reality is to understand it....not as you would prefer it to be, but as it is, then test your assumptions and then, even this is not enough, as you also have to figure out ways to apply your ideas in the real world.
victorel21 wrote:Are you talking to yourself as a way to seek satisfaction over the "victory" of winning the debate?
No boy, I'm venting and using you as an example to be avoided.
victorel21 wrote:Fair enough if the bay does not get fed he will feel discomfort regardless of the environment, but he will not experience fear, or hatred or any of the more complex emotions since they are dependant on the associtions present with the discomfort.
My God boy....upon what grounds do you even base these projections?
If fear is taught then why is it present in animals?
You are adopting the usual Judeo-Christian liberal "progressive" world-view which posits man as a clean slate at birth, void of emotion, evilness, greed and all those nasty natural instincts they wish to do away with so as to construct their utopia.
Boy, a mother fox, does not teach its cubs to fear, the fear/anxiety is already present in them as a reaction to the unkn0wn, the mysterious world, it directs this fear upon objects and other animals. It teaches how to apply the reaction more efficiently.
Without fear here is no survival.
Hatred is fear directed upon an object/objective. Disgust is its extreme.
Boy, love is a reaction to this reaction we call fear...necessary for sexual reasons that are then evolve and are applied towards social ends.
It is rarely instantaneous, but it can be, but a gradual habituation, resulting in a decrease of fear and an increase in comfort. Love is a more complex emotion and this is why it is slower to develop.
It overcomes the fight/flight mechanism and is a result on habituation, trust (agape) and in the case of eros of sexual attraction.
Nobody teaches someone to love, and oftentimes it happens without the individual knowing or understanding why. One can teach how to express love, how to symbolize it, how to direct it or suppress or enhance it but the emotion pre-exist as a possibility of interacting, and is an innate quality.
Even language it is now theorized is innate, well according to Chomsky.
Evolution ingrains certain aspects of human nature in time....Nature does not reinvent itself with every birth, as if the baby comes free of all genetic programming and automatic reactions to stimulation.
It relies on pre-programming so as to gain the advantage of efficiency, boy.
One need not think to react and this offers that millisecond in reaction time that can make all the difference.
But you are bundling all emotions into one sack and pulling generalities from your arse.
The primary emotion, in my view, is anxiety/fear...and this in a complicated organism....for in lesser organism we cannot speak of emotions but of sensations triggering automatic responses.
Emotions are more complicated reactions and so evolve within more complicated organisms.
This fear/anxiety, boy - I know you are drinking this up- is a natural response to the unknown world.
We are born ignorant...ergo the world is mysterious.
But why fear, you might ask?
For the same reason we automatically and sometimes irrationally fear the dark or feel a bit apprehensive in it.
Why do we assume there is danger in what we do not perceive, if we have no reason to think so?
Simple boy, because this presupposition offers us an advantage, in a universe which is mostly threatening to life. We assume the worse to avoid it...to do the reverse is to become foolish and in time to lead one's self to dire consequences.
It is, in fact, the absence of fear that must be taught, if it is not the product of some mental dysfunction. It is what characterizes domestication or the present human condition which breeds it, or teaches it, as a way of accomplishing social cohesion....and for other reasons which I will not get into here.
One must teach the child not to be afraid, when it's mind matures and develops its full potentials. Just like with sexuality, the infant is born heterosexual, it is automatically attracted to the opposite sex, when it reaches maturity.
Up to that point it is still developing outside the womb...this is why the first years are crucial.
One cannot teach a child to be a homosexual, for homosexuality is a particular mutation caused by hormonal effects, coupled with genetic predispositions.
One can teach the child to accept homosexuality as a choice or another sexual expression; you might teach the child to use particular symbols wear certain clothes and words to express its sexual preferences, but its attraction is ingrained and decided by its genes as these have developed not only during gestation and later weening, but also as they have been affected by centuries of natural selection.
And here is the important thing:
We might say that these innate qualities can be suppressed, shamed into hiding, taught as being undesirable, or that they can be enhanced, promoted as desirable and nurtured to their fullest potential, but this does not mean that they are not innate.
Boy, think of it this way: The body, including the brain, is a representation of the past. The mind, which is nothing more than the brain's continuing interaction with the ongoing flow, or with the world, is an immediate reaction to the present.
Ergo the past is immutable, as it cannot be changed, but the mind is the application of this past to the ongoing interaction of existence. To change this past one must for centuries promote certain reactions, in time burying the past further and further back...like the reptilian brain is still present in the human brain, affecting the cortex but the cortex often imposing itself over it.
The past cannot be erased on denied, it can only be dealt with and controlled.