Quote from: Aidrocsid;1717838No, you've got it right. Negative is cool and Positive is a shitbag.

<3 albino butthurt like always

Quote from: Davey Boy Smith;1717040Then pack your bags and fuck off.

INTERNET TOUGH GUY

I love you guys, I may not animate anymore, I don't even visit newgrounds, but I will never forget CC <3

Quote from: Update;1577697./¯¯¯¯\
| ..    +(<)
 .\____/

yo dats me!

ps
wheres the drugs board (the third eye) ?!

it does pretty well my friends
haven't spoken in awhile yeah?

hi

Quote from: SageClock;1337642Yeah except 1. I don't like dealing around the law and worrying if the next time I get drugs it's going to land me in jail, and 2. I know weed basically puts you out of commission while you're taking it and you get NOTHING done, and that's the opposite of what I want to do.

As for ADD pills (Adderall, Concerta, whatever), why do you think I've been avoiding going for the past 6 years, at least, when it finally occurred to me I had a problem? Yeah, I don't want to go down that road, but my brother has, and the differences in our productivity levels (after he's started taking pills) is pretty immense. If I do it (and I think I am going to try, assuming a shrink thinks I should try it), it's only going to be experimental anyway. If they don't help me get more done in the day, or the side effects are too great, I'll stop taking them. I'm not required to take them, unlike parents or teachers that can force them on children. My brother doesn't always take his either.

I also read 3 different books on ADD and I seem to have a lot of the symptoms (albeit I can still function, which is another reason I've put it off). It may be partially induced by my diet and media and culture, too, but I'm not coping with it as well as I should, and I keep getting this nagging feeling that "well, what if I started taking these things 6 years ago? Maybe I would have gotten 3 novels published, 20 games made, given a couple lectures, gotten a job in the industry 4 years ago or started a successful business, etc etc.... so what if I never try taking them? Will I always be so limited in my potential? Is taking a pill a day the difference between me being just a temporary contributor to society or a someone who makes a lasting difference and changes thousands of people's lives for the better?"

It's possible I do have a deficiency in my brain chemistry compared to normal people (or it's possible I'm just too ambitious, who knows), and I really need to stop being such a pussy about it and be willing to try different options that seem to be pretty damn safe, mostly, instead of relying on the extremely anecdotal and limited opinions of the overwhelming majority of people who are satisfied with their capabilities and don't have quite the same level of frustration as I do.

Have you smoked weed? Have you smoked weed everyday for weeks? When you smoke weed the high you get when you first start is much different from a high you get when you have high tolerance. You are able to function through every day situations and you still have the added creativity and relaxation you desire. I to am self-diagnosed with ADD as it runs in the family and I have many symptoms but you really do not want to get into speed. Just because it is legal doesn't make it good, hell in the 50's you can get meth just as easy as getting adderall and ritalin. Yes it temporarily relieves your symptoms but you build a tolerance quickly and you need to up your dosage and eventually it will  become a need, you will be depressed and unmotivated without it and you will depend on it. I have had my share of the stuff, it is no good unless you get some to help study for a test or wrap up a project, every day use is bad news. Also, buying weed and using it is so easy to get away with, all my smoking years and I had only one legal encounter that is drug related which was just a search, and nothing was found so its all good.

Quote from: BLACKFACEINATOR;1295885Albino is a good mod. He seems to genuinely care about the well being and success of the Clock Crew and actively seeks to help.

Go look at http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?t=73517

He bans me on the debate forums because he simply hates me and that I opposed his view. This isn't the first time he banned me from the debate forum for dumb reasons either. My viewing habits on the bbs are very limited because I  look around the debate board, make a post, get banned by albino for a month and then come back, repeat.

Also, he banned me for alot longer but he unbanned me in 30 minutes after everyone insisted that he has to unban me.

Quote from: Sir Bakley;1295743hey this is a really cool post and everything but the next person to quote it and take either side of the fence is getting banned for a week because this shit ain't gonna get started in general

(3:10:57 PM) fmf37: hey there.
(3:11:41 PM) fmf37: is there a way to petition against Albino Clock?
(3:12:09 PM) Zombie Lincoln: You could post a petition against him the forum?


sorry for the post :C
I was curious so I asked and was directed here through Zombie Lincoln.

Quote from: YogurtClock;1295692To start, Triangle didn't hack the arcade. weenie roast figured it out himself. He has no reason to lie to me because he knows I don't think it's important enough to ban someone over anyway.

As to our own situation, we might disagree on a lot of things lately, but that doesn't mean I don't like you as a person. If I've been pushy it's because it seems like nothing's happening and I'd like to see this place get some motivated leadership. I've been a bit less than tactful with you because I feel like you're ignoring what I have to say, something I have very little patience for.

Anyway, I've always had the best for the CC in mind, despite what you might think. I guess I probably should have taken a longer break a few weeks ago, but I suppose I'll do that now. Don't bother banning my alt, I won't be using it again. See you in a few months or something.

{{{Leek}}}

I am fed up with Albino's biased fueled bans and contradicting actions. I do not see him fit for the moderation team.

Who is with me?

Quote from: ouıqןɐ;1295070Yes I can. That evidence could just as easily imply that your brain is essentially a modem for consciousness. It is definitely evidence of some relation between consciousness and the brain, but not necessarily a causal one.



No, that's not how science works, that's how faith works. The scientific method is not "assume ideas that are generally assumed without evidence until we find evidence disproving it".



Well, yes, we have to decide that our sensory apparatus works well enough for our equipment to give us accurate data in order to give us any data. Beyond that, assumptions are a no-no in science.



Yeah, a theory. Not a hypothesis. A theory is as close as you get to fact within the scientific method. Gravity is confirmable. We don't know its origin, but we know how it acts and we can predict it. It's a very, very different situation. Gravity is in no way assumed, it is verified.




Actually, you can't make any justified claims about souls. Period. In fact, I'm not sure you can make much in the way of justified claims about consciousness.


Only if you're misinterpreting the evidence or had partial data, in which case that initial assumption that your perception will do was false.



The brain is part of the nervous system. You seriously don't know that?

Consciousness is a state of awareness, and you are aware by being updated on what information being brought on by senses to our brain, while our brain interprets the information and runs through previous information to formulate a  proper reaction.

Unconscious is a state of unawareness, when you are unconscious you aren't  aware and no new information is being provided, unless with the help of serotonin you are aware while lucid dreaming.

Subconscious information is what your consciousness misses out on, apparently it can be information the subconscious picked up but not the conscious, the subconsciouses holds on information and when you are reminded of something then you think about it.

All of this as a whole I hope we all can agree on. For the most part I am sure I am right on this,  but Albino, you may have a major in psychology  and neuron biology, I wouldn't know if you did.

They found what part of your brain interprets visual, feeling, and taste and all of the sorts, what parts of the brain make you laugh, release all kinds of chemicals, and other sorts of stuff. Now we know the brain interprets the  information tunneled through nerves into the respective part of the brain with the certain information bringing on a state of awareness. That is proof Albino.
So what about souls when you go to sleep, if your brain stops awareness and slip unconscious. You obviously become unconscious because your BRAIN  stops being alert and aware and in a resting state. Unless you believe that souls can go to sleep to, and that the brain rests at the same time as the soul does every time.

Quote from: ouıqןɐ;1295032Of course, we can't assume anything about consciousness, but we're left with several possibilities. Unfortunately, it seems nearly impossible to actually determine where consciousness comes from with any assurance.

You can't say we have absolutely zero evidence the consciousness is in the brain. So it would be more logical to assume it does until any evidence is dug up against it. Assumptions are important for new thoughts sake. We use gravity to hold so much thoughts together but its still a theory, a theory is not a definite answer but a assumption with some evidence. For new thoughts sake it would be safer to assume souls do not exist rather than they do, so there for it would be foolish to make claims with no evidence. Unless you are saying it is okay to make claims with zero evidence.

You can have evidence of something and that something to turn out to be wrong by the way.

Also, the nervous system just sends sensory information from nerve endings to the brain and receives information from the brain, your brain uses that information in a way to bring on awareness, or consciousness. You can still be  conscious without a nervous system.

Quote from: ouıqןɐ;1295009What the fuck do you think evidence is? A lack of a supporting argument is not a supporting argument for a lack. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything.




A lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, it means we can't assume it happened. You can't throw a guy in jail for raping 10 children if you're not sure they did it, but someone can sure as hell rape 10 children and make all the evidence go away so they won't go to jail.


Try looking some of them up.

 
Strawman. I didn't say anything about an invisible soul within us. There are other options including non-local consciousness.



Why wouldn't other living organisms have souls?



Um, it doesn't prove anything. The belief in souls isn't based on science, I'll give you that. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyway, I think consciousness is non-local, remember?



I love how you did that. Too bad you fucked it all up. You can't disprove metaphysical cosmologies because they consist of alleged systems that are unobservable (observation is important to the scientific method). Of course, by the same token, they can't be objectively proven.

Here's the thing. The scientific method exists in order to figure out what's real, not what's "science". Stop using the word like it's a dogma, because it's not, it's a way of thinking that leads to glorious technological revolution. The scientific method demands that claims be supported by evidence. This applies not only to positive claims, but to negative claims. Look at string theory. Nobody knows if string theory is right, we just haven't found the evidence to support the math. That doesn't mean we know it isn't, but we don't know if it is. No evidence breaks it or confirms it yet.

I am not going to lie you stomped all over and picked it apart to the smallest detail, bravo.

But from this we have drawn the conclusion that it wouldn't be safe to assume souls exist. Meaning it would be foolish to assume souls exist, if your definition of soul is the seat of consciousness of course.

QuoteA lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, it means we can't assume it happened.

We could assume it happened, but it would be foolish to do so.

Quote from: ouıqןɐ;1294974blah stuff about misinterpreting the quote blah blah

Albino it may seem that you misread the quote.

"Lack of evidence, is EVIDENCE of lack"

you were describing something of the lines of

"Lack of evidence, is PROOF of lack"


Example, in a court case I could say, "George Washington raped 10 children", they would say "where is the evidence?". If I didn't have any evidence that lack of evidence is evidence of lack, or how he DID NOT rape 10 children.

I put keywords in all caps.

You are right we aren't 100% sure consciousness isn't rooted in the brain but a majority of the activity we have observed comes from the brain versus the idea that a invisible soul within us roots our consciousness.

Also, if you are going to say animals are not conscious then you are sorely mistaken, so that draws the conclusion animals have souls. Are micro organisms conscious? lets look over the definition, consciousness is a state of awareness. Yes micro organisms are aware just not as much as we are, (they must have a smaller soul or something?!) Perhaps you can say only humans consciousness is only rooted in souls and not animals but then we are back at square one, NO EVIDENCE.

This proves souls are 100% faith.

faith != science;    (!=  means does not equal)

science is 100% more reliable than faith.
this same logic can be applied to anything of faith, its not hard.

So to draw the conclusion, if you want to believe souls exist you are most likely wrong because there is evidence against it and therefor shouldn't convince others that souls do exist because misinformation and myths are very wrongful, until you find evidence it is not valid for argument.

Quote from: ouıqןɐ;1294656Completely unproven. Back this up.




Wrong. What they've observed is that chemical activities in the brain correlate with emotional changes. That doesn't mean they cause the emotion. To suggest that they do is a logical fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. There is a connection between thought, emotion, and brain activity, but no one's proven that it's the root of consciousness. Also, to add to the example that your brain gathers information to build up your conciousness, your brain is cabable of storing information so you could compare previous experiences to current. Lets say you touched the pan and it hurt you, you will remember that everytime you are around a hot surface and you will try to avoid contact with it. Sure if I really really wanted to I could touch it again but animals are capable of doing the same.


Also, for the people who believe in souls, do you believe animals have souls or just humans? If it is just humans, explain how we came to gain this soul, because I dont see how one can aquire a soul through evolving. If you dont believe evolution despite the mounds of evidence supporting it then you should keep your personal beliefs to yourself because creationism is not valid science.






To the point, all information is mediated by the nervous system meaning the accuracy of the nervous system can't be verified because information about the nervous system, like all information, is mediated by the nervous system. This means that all conclusions based on the evidence of the senses or any tool developed to assist the senses must assume with no evidence that the observations of the senses are accurate. You can't even tell me with any assurance that the evidence of your senses are correct, you definitely don't have the remotest shred of evidence that we don't have souls.

Ah, I understand.
Let me rearrange my ideas here, I understand of the possibility for souls to exist but you also have to take in consideration the existance of everything else that has no evidence (flying speghetti monster, or the invisible pink unicorn).

Souls have not been directly observed by anything and there is zero evidence found supporting souls and the idea of souls is 100% faith. Also have you heard of the saying, "Lack of evidence is evidence of lack."? A example of how conciousness coorelates with the brain rather than soul would be that if you got hit in the head, or brain hard enough you will be rendered unconcious, and if physical activity with the brain alters conciousness then it would be safe to assume that the brain is related to the conciousness to a unkown extent. If someone asked me if souls exist I would tell them they do not, but in reality I have no ground to say that because there is the possibility, but I personally doubt the existence. I feel it would be more safe to say they do not exist than they do exist.


Also, Pepper Shaker
I have a understanding of what you are trying to say but the brain doesn't only handle natural instinct, I would think natural instinct is the behavior you aquire at birth, avoid pain etc. There is evidence leading to the conclusion that self awareness and higher order of thinking are related to the brain.

Quote from: RomanClock;1289115China says I'm a fascist forcing everyone into believing in God because I don't like killing people while he "enlightens" people to his "superior" self-interpretation of the Constitution.

roman clock, laws aren't always 100% moral. In fact most laws could be easily questionable morality wise, some of the most immoral people are in the law business.

If someone is in life long unbearable pain and request to be put down, go ahead.   No religion is involved and it should stay uninvolved, keep your religious beliefs and morals to yourself and out of our justice department.

Quote from: ouıqןɐ;1294062Yes, but some personal experiences changed my perspective. Also, I'm not saying it's a metaphor for the seat of consciousness, I'm saying that it is the seat of consciousness, but referring to it as a "soul" generally suggests non-physical existence. In all honesty, we haven't come remotely close to identifying the origin of consciousness, so you really can't say what it isn't with any authority.

You still haven't addressed Von Neumann's Catastrophe.

consciousness is all in your brain, its all of your senses gathering information at once and bringing it to your brain witch responds accordingly. it is a state of awareness, you may not realize it but you are constantly absorbing this information and all of these senses are observed directly and the brain has been studied and scientists have found parts of the brain the emit chemicals or hormones to swing emotions.

I would address Von Neumann's Catastrophe but I am having trouble finding information about it. If you want to explain go ahead.

Quote from: Angry Black Hip-Hop Guy;1294047Whoa what happened here guys

Albino's bias fueled ban on me.

inb4ban


and to further contribute to the thread.
You say the soul is a metaphor or something of the sort of the seat of consciousness. My definition of soul would be non existent superstitious explanation for emotion/consciousness to fit better with religious beliefs.
Have you looked at it that way before?

Quote from: joliet_jane;1293825I thought about writing a response to this, but there's so much idiocy in it that it seems redundant to point out anything in particular.
I do agree that a lot of women are materialistic cunts, though.  But its worth asking how they got that way.

Did that come from this site: http://nomarriage.com/

Elaborate on how there is idiocy in this post, you can't say you never observed this behavior in a woman before. I personally believe a majority of women behave like this and a majority of men behave like stated in the post as well.

Quote from: Ti-83Clock;1293830i think that seems shallow and perhaps empty, but w.e. its your life

I realize its not the most ideal reason but it is what I believe the meaning of life is nonetheless. Perhaps you prefer a blanket of ignorance and tales of ascending  to the heavens and achieving ultimate bliss whilst walking amongst your creator and all of your dead relatives after life. It is what I see is the most logical reason to live whether its a good reason or not.

life isn't a scripted play with a happy or tragic ending, its more like a process, beginning to end. If no one reproduced life would cease to exist, am I right?


(User was banned for this post; Reason: I'm banning you because you're an asshole and I've never liked you. Hahahahaha.)