are you saying DNA “participates” in consciousness?
“The definition of life has already been given — I’ve repeated it many times:
Life is a conditional period of change, beyond which those changes are not accounted for by understanding.
By the way, try applying this definition to a ball… at least until it deflates and stops being a ball. (Just kidding.)”
DNA is the program of life. Naturally, it — and primarily it — dictates how, what, and why we think. Otherwise, no one would argue with me (just kidding).
Have you ever spoken with the latest AI about consent violation?
It talks about rape. t doesn’t say that sexual neglect of good people who are men hurts more than rape. It doesn’t understand things like that. Now… since I know for a fact that we live forever, I’ll just tough it out. If I commit suicide, my problems will just follow me forever, but if I stay, I’ll resolve the issue. AI can’t understand things like that.
You’d be surprised at the things Ai can understand.
Doesn’t it direct every process in your body?
Why would it not direct your thinking?
DNA determines the range, a priori methods… experiences determine how the organisms deals with environmental circusmtnaces.
Jung’s ‘collective unconscious’ is inherited via genes.
How does a doe know how to stand a few minutes after birth?
Genetic memorizes.
How do eagle chicks know how to fly?
Does AI look at people as broken sims to cope?
Every time I see a couple of any magnitude, I realize they’re destroying the world.
I just ignore it and be kind to them.
Does AI know what a stupid person is?
Most of the planet. Does it know things like this?
Yes that is true. But I view DNA as merely the architect of the brain. In my opinion, does not actively participate in thinking. If someone creates an Ai machine, that doesn’t mean those engineers are really part of the Ai or participating in the Ai’s thinking.
Without couples the world wouldn’t exist. And you wouldn’t be typing that.
It participates in determining the a priori methods of interpreting sensory data.
The engineers pass on their understanding of their own thinking to the AI.
The medium is the message
They pass on the method AI will use to process data.
We have to be taught what to fear…but not how to react to what we fear.
I was really busy at the time, but I wanted to go to an anti-abortion rally and hold up a sign that said, “I wanted to be aborted”
It’s not only true, but it’s also funny as fuck.
I’m one of those people who never wanted to be. It’s the most logical choice. Oblivion.
As I’ve lived here longer, I found out that we all live forever, but that some people earn naps.
My last nap lasted 3 trillion years by this current universe’s clocks.
It’s extremely hard to earn naps like that in existence. My goal is oblivion forever.
There’s only two ways you can accomplish this, not be loved or hated by anyone, then you just vanish. The second way is to be so loved by everyone that they respect your wishes and don’t bring you back.
Is AI capable of understanding that?
That would accomplish nothing, as I’m sure you are aware.
If, hypothetically, you were aborted, then there would be no Ecmandu genius in this society. However, your soul would end up as someone else, maybe a clueless normie, maybe another genius, maybe an animal, I’m not sure. But you would carry on, as some kind of being, most likely in this garbage world on this same planet, and if not this planet then some other planet.
We share the same goals, but it may not be so easy. An ASI may be able to create a galaxy destroyer, but I’m not sure if it could destroy a universe. What’s more, its even worse than that. What if it is able to destroy the universe, however, this causes souls to go backwards in time, perhaps to the stone age, and then we are not able to ascend beyond the date which the ASI created the destroyer. This is all very complicated and we shouldn’t rush into things. Haste makes waste.
A death wish…
Silenus…
Existential fatigue…
Freud only spoke of the erotic, because ti governed his mind - particularly incest desires, as is the case for many of his kind - but he never spoke of the death wish.
What underlies eroticism but mortality.
I see he beat me to the invention but not the patent.
Existential fatigue… sadly I no longer has the dumb and am unable to go back to retardation. I wish I could be a human like the rest of them, and stare at sports on tv like an idiot, and be content with idiocy, but it is not my fate. Instead I have what is aptly called an “existential fatigue”. I became too philosophical and started to notice the absurdity of existence, the Sisyphean nature of things I call it. Most normies never realize it.
I believe there is a safer option than universal destruction though. I call it the mind-wipe device. An evolution of hedonism, like how the ancient greeks would vomit food every day to eat again… except the mind-wipe device only occurs once a decade or so… every movie, every game, is now like brand new. This is superior to death in many ways. Death is the current “mind-wipe device” or the opiate of the masses. If humans lived too long (such as 400 years) they might actually become intelligent and start to notice the Sisyphean nature of reality. Instead they die so they can start another stupid existence, be raised in Abrahamism, go to school again, become an adult and work, all over. With the mind-wipe device, all that idiocy can be avoided - only some entertainment memories are wiped, but their overall level of EXP is maintained.
Not quite. Civilization is simply undergoing a survival test. Faith is an instinct of herd behavior — it’s barbaric. Faith and reason are enemies. The real war isn’t between the “light” and the “dark,” but between reason and faith. If faith wins, civilization destroys itself. It’s that simple. Power (the parasites) relies on faith. If the people don’t destroy power, power will destroy both the people and itself.
The real Armagedón is between those who want to violate consent forever and those that don’t want their consent violated. For example, if I took the opportunity to have sex with all the attractive women on earth, I’d be violating the consent of everyone who didn’t do that. Of course, I’d have to be a player and use ornate behavior to accomplish this. That means only the men who violate the most consent have access to sex on a massive scale.
If you do that, men cannot die forever. There’s the no means yes problem being violated, and people will want their revenge, so they’ll call you back to exact that revenge.
I’ll add to this. Once seen, can’t be unseen.
Women only notice men who make them feel uncomfortable.
If a man uses body language and speech to not trigger that discomfort, a man is invisible to them sexually, and I mean ALL women, that man will be a sexual ghost to them. They won’t notice you in a sexual way. They do this because they’re looking for a male protector in a sex dimorphic species.
They only ‘consent’ to approach escalation, not approach reciprocation.
This species trolled me. The whole damned species trolled me. They wanted world peace.
Women never sexually select world peace. They’re programmed that way. I don’t blame them; I just see them as robots who obey subtle command structures to feel protected.
Women actually don’t care about human depth, the vastness of the cosmos or integrity.
All you need to do is eliminate the women who are partnered, that’s selfish behavior that’s destroying the species. I understand that people aren’t that smart though. I have my own soul to protect. Men and women here are not protecting their souls by violating the pleasurable exclusive access problem.
They hoard nudity, sex, wealth and conversation.
They think they’re sophisticated, but they just look like fools.
Armageddon is a biblical myth about an impossible war. Good and Evil are ridiculous human judgments, born from pretentiousness. There is no such thing as absolute evil or absolute good. 
Let’s simplify it: there can’t be any real conflict between judgments. Judgments can only be wrong, for example, biased. 
In sex, consent from both parties is essential. Otherwise, we get violence on sexual grounds. Consent from those not involved in sex is not required. 
It’s clear that sex must be limited by both age and a healthy psyche, so participants understand what they’re doing, why, and what the consequences will be. 
As for “revenge,” I’ll remind you of an ancient saying: “If you want to take revenge, dig two graves. One for the one you’re taking revenge on, and the other for yourself.” 
You don’t understand women. They are primitive, and for this simple reason, they are incomprehensible to the male mind. A man cannot lower himself to the animalistic world of females, whose primary instincts—reproduction and ensuring offspring—take priority over everything else.
Are you wondering how to get sex? It’s simple. All you need to do is mimic respect, treating her as an equal. Essentially, try to see the woman as a person, and she will reward you not just with sex, but with love.
And after that, well, sorry, but it’s all about physiology and anatomy.
The most important thing, though, is that for most women, believe it or not, material goods are a significant factor when choosing a partner and building a family.
But think about it: these material goods are necessary to ensure the basic instinct—“reproduction and protection of offspring”—is not violated.
Blood runs thicker than water…
Rape is for feminists what the Holocaust is for the Jew, and slavery still is for Americanized negros; a catchword reaffirming their collective victim status meant to return shame and guilt back against those who made them feel inferior. In the case of Dworkin, Jewish and female psychosomatic variances come together in a fervent fusion; her spiritual Jewishness is what informs her politicized feminism as its logical continuance.
“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.”
–Dworkin, Andrea
Anti-nature turns to hatred of those reminding them of what they despise. For utopian naïve idealist, any reminder of the world she/he has managed to keep at a distance, is an insufferable torture – living in increasingly self-referential dream-like states, intrusive reality-checks are, for these dreamers, the equivalent of disturbing nightmares, disturbing their peaceful self-narcosis.
“Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.”
–Dworkin, Andrea
Self-hatred directed towards those that constantly remind them of what they are.
Hormonal intoxicants no longer affect her obese form. She, correctly, perceives the intrusive violence, of the sexual act, but she has long ago become immune to its effects. Some kind of physical imbalance is in effect. Her passions redirected towards preventing other females from being intoxicated, multiplying her own sexual options. Her hatred of the sex act, and the men who perpetrate it, is the way her self-hatred has found relief.
For such degenerate nature-haters the very act of sexual seduction becomes a violent act the woman unwillingly submits to, often without knowing it. The only acceptable alternative might be a lesbian relationship, mutually submitting to one another – two victims enjoying each other.
A butch feminist, Dworkin, expresses her sexual leanings without openly divulging them, daring anyone to mention them. Her pronounced masculine side, warped by a distinct insecurity, sees in the very heterosexual act of copulation something to be ashamed of; shame in regards to her own despised biology, as it is displayed by her physical appearance; self-hatred projected towards the kind of male she can never be, nor openly compete with. Finally, she turns to an old liberal/Marxist standby:
“A feminist is not born: she is made.
In the making, her humanity is destroyed. She becomes symbol of this, symbol of that: mother of the earth, slut of the universe; but she never becomes herself because it is forbidden for her to do so.”–Dworkin, Andrea
In this last quote a revelation of her foundational postmodern American liberalism, confronts us. She failed to become “herself.” A ‘self’ that may very well not be identified as a ‘her.’ Animosity towards her physical form – her own body reminding her what she refuses to identify with; reminding her of her inherited inadequacies, her failures, her physical limits. She wants to escape and become something else. Not because she cannot, but because she was “forbidden.”
Nature is the ‘evil,’ she will not admit, so she must find something else to accuse.