• Likes received 33
  • Date joined 17 Apr '16
  • Last seen 24 Apr '17

Private Message

42 33

I like listening to calm musics. I also like to read mangas, write philosophy, draw art, do martial arts, play ping pong, and relax somewhere quiet.

42 33

Social media intensifies

42 33

@roshawnmarcellterrell said:
I think its important to not forget that regardless of what we like to think or believe. There still existence a strong tendency, a trend towards to certain state.

For example you mentioned some people may choose to deny technological immortality.

If that is the case, then the naturally tendency of the system is that everyone that held views agaisnt it, will naturally die off, leaving the only people left alive to be completely for technological immortality.

To be clear i am not giving a clear road map for what future people will believe, i'm simply pointing out that such naturally tendencies exist. Rather in fact if you look at the big picture, all of our societies, civilizations, and technological advancement is a consequence of these tendencies.

One tendency that reigns all, is the power of intelligence.

You can either get better and better at understanding how the universe works and why, or you can become food for the systems that do.

You see this tendency in the fact that just about every organism on this planet is subject to our direct control. We eat them, they don't eat us. Why? Because we are more intelligent than they are.

This same trend will carry on in the advancement of technology, any all who disagree with such a future, will simply become food for the people that strive for such a future. Simply because the natural consequence of incorporating more technology into your life also results in the tendency for a steep increase in intelligence.

Fair enough. I do agree that natural tendencies toward intelligence exist in our nature. Shift in Societal standards and even cultural development do show common similarities, which indicates survival instinct, which include desires toward both physical and mental benefits.

But I pointed out that (1) All actions are natural from interaction of existence (2) "picture" changes based on components/factors of definitions.

The recognition from personal being forms the picture in itself, by perception that it receives from different references of experiences. In other words, if someone is conscious enough to control himself, then he can control himself to deconstruct his life where he would turn into the "meat" as he resist the tendencies. In society, people will always face conflicts on development/progression, since origin of resistant is not only from a societal group, but also from self-awareness of its thinking and nature (subjective view). This is why even though there are tendencies for power, there are honest people (minorities) who are willingly to resist and die in their own life. They might become the food of the "system", but at least they act as "conscious being" in existence.

But again, your points still stand and I don't really disagree with it. It's actually really solid. I'm just trying to re-clarify it and wrap-up both yours and my points.

Thanks for replying to my comment. I appreciate it man.

42 33

@roshawnmarcellterrell said:
Vote for Zoltan.

Aye, it's interesting to see politics in Transhumanism view. Let me write down my thoughts on technology and scientific development.

The concept of "consciousness" means "ability of recognition", which humans commonly have. However, animals (ex. dog), computers & AI (Weak&Strong) also showed common features: repetitive processing, interactive reactions, calculations, and functionality. Yes, there are clear "differences", but the definition of consciousness always existed in natural form. It's just the matter of where you set the line and call it as consciousness, like the question of where you call it an individual life when you talk about abortion.

Consciousness does have relationship with individual life. The life acts as implications that gives ability to manipulate & control the surrounding in its own will. But the existence of "will" must exists behind the action it makes, which is made in its own cognition. Now don't get me wrong, every actions are natural as movements of interactions. However, the definition of consciousness can be deconstructed from "natural phenomena" back to "intellectual mind of cognitive thinking". The funny part is that if you try to apply this principle into politics, some people try deconstruct (deconstructivism) the meaning of "consciousness" again and again and again. They ask what are the reasoning and justification of consciousness, since it re-evaluates the definition that will greatly impacts ideas like free will, common welfare, citizenship, and individual applications.

Relationship: Constructivism (dependent on consciousness/perspective) -> deconstructivism

Consciousness comes from existence itself; we already know it physically. However, if government ruling is dependent on citizens, then the political meaning must be relative to citizens. Citizens have their own subjective view, opinions, and thoughts. People may differ on definition of consciousness , even though they refer to the same existence. People also have different opinions of how they deal it (ideology) like vegetarianism that argues "animals are sentiment and we must do our best to protect it" vs "it's our choice to do with animals. We will eat bacons and not give shit about it". Overall, diverse subjectivity exists as people try to grasp in its own sense.

Ah, but naturally, as it reflects at other groups, the societal standard forms in a big picture. It's not just the picture, but people realize the materiality behind the picture. For instance, You collect information and make it into a textbook. Society collects itself and look at its own picture. When picture is formed, they reflect on it. When they reflect on it, it may affect the thoughts they have within themselves. Technologically, it also develop and applies in its own form. At medieval time, full plate armors were revolutionary. Now, people think modern weaponry as revolutionary compared to medieval plate armor. What I'm basically saying is that gathering more understanding at many areas (including consciousness, technology, societal standards, politics, etc) WILL CHANGE components, which also changes the "picture" that people view within themselves. In other words, AI & advanced communication may be common thing after 20-30 years.

Relationship: Constructivism -> Deconstructivism -> Post-constructivism

So, can we stop technology? Can we stop the development itself? Not really.

But, does that change anything Roshawn?
Yes, I understand that people can be intelligent and be rational about it.
Yes, I understand that people will choose to develop themselves.
But, some people choose to stay conservative and enjoy their simple lives.
I can choose to deny technological immortality and die after 30-40 years.
Ah, but you may also "choose" to control me and deny the act of natural death.
You may think that having superior power means superior authority on control of human choices.
Here's the thing.
Everything we're experiencing are movements of existence.
Any philosophy: aesthetics, ethics, moralities, theologies, sciences, etc
It's just the difference of knowing or not knowing the nature of existence.
To recognize or not to recognize cognitively
or to control or not to control power that's formed in momentum of interactions.
But ultimately, the origin of all thing is existence within ourselves.
There is no such things of "superiority" in the nature.

:P Just my 2 cents.

42 33

Definitely not meme guy

42 33
  • 24 Jun '16

@CaptainGaymer said:
a weebobo

Guess again, the avatar is not "weebobo" at all. She is one of the character in Touhou Project.

Hint: The Embodiment of Scarlet Devil

42 33

0 percent accuracy stormtrooper

42 33

No meme songs...sry

42 33
  • 16 Jun '16

what does "military body armor" constitute

I know this is just some dumb facebook-tier shitty zombie thread, but this still triggers me

Maybe I could have said anti-riot armor or kelvar armor, but I didn't want to go too specific. Sorry if it bothered you haha XD

42 33

What would be your location in the world?: South Korea

Your gear? (Weapons, armor, etc): Gasmask, Full Military Body Armor, Metal Quarter-staff, One hand Machete, Karambit, Phone, GPS, Map.

Your shelter/base?: Korea Military Head-Quarter/Agricultural Farming places (country-side).

Who could you trust the most: Myself

Who would be in charge of the guns: Firearms are controlled by Military.

Who would be in charge of the food: Government

Who would go on scavenge runs with you: Armed men/Police men

Who would you be okay with leaving behind if he/she got bit?: Yup.

Who do you think would die first in your group: Marox

Marox is infected. What do you do?:


"(Cough Cough) J...Just call the medi..."


"...But the memes corrupted the files..."


You get infected. What do you do?: Go to science department and donate your body to them for medical contribution...or just stab yourself nice and clean.

Who would most likely be a traitor?: My life

Who would most likely be the jackass of the group?: Me

Your group manages to find a katana. Who takes it and puts it to use?: One of trained men

Your rival group (whom you fight against) consists of the following people...: Ourselves

Your rival group takes somebody prisoner from your group that you don't care much about saving. Who would this person be?: Marox's spirit

Other information...?: You can literally prevent yourself being infected with gas-mask (counter against plague) and body armor (counter against zombie-biting). The only concern is food and water pollution...but we can sustain ourselves with canned food and bottled water until vaccine is created.

42 33
  • 12 Jun '16

@roshawnmarcellterrell said:
I like you TouhouCarol동방


42 33

Let us not turn this place into sexual thread...please keep the posts relevant to "post your waifu here".


(This art is drawn by Bita, and I found this image on Danbooru)

This character is called Yuyuko Saigyouji, who was first appeared as the Final Boss of Perfect Cherry Blossom. If anyone is interested about her, then click this wiki and feel free to check the information.

I don't really see Yuyuko as my "persoanl waifu", but she is notable enough to be mentioned in this thread :P

42 33


42 33

With an apple

42 33

There was Marox

42 33

@vanguard said:

Yes it doesn't always leads to political application, but it is eminently political, its a rebel thought. About your science example, I heard that what moves science is war. Most of the technology is made for war, and has "good technology" collateral effect of making our daily life easier.

False. I mean in WW1 WW2 Cold war they did develop technologies, but those technologies were for military purposes. Even invention called internet was for military purposes, which was adapted into public us in modenr era. Now what, is war really happening in Modern society, which drives 100% of them to shithole, and forces scientists to create or study everything in relation to war for purpose of "war" once again? In other words, I agree that war CAN drive the technology, but not always, as today's modern example directly shows how technology can still develop fine without purpose of war.

The political thing here is the fact that the areas of science that gets more investment are those who the benefits can create advantage in war, instead of those who would benefit our daily living or something else. Science is a consequence of politics, and politics can be changed with science. Technology changes politics, look at the industrial revolution for example. Technology IS politics if you think about it. You can expand the concept of politics if you add to that the fact that economy is politics as well. So if a technology affects economy, probably it will affect politics at some level.

When I say that religion is political, I'm saying it based on the reality I live. I mean, idk where you are from, but here in Brazil religion fucking rules everywhere. They control a big part of the official politics and the daily politics as well. There is a SHITLOAD of people here who votes on true assholes just because they believe in god and say beautiful things said god. So anyone who is atheist here, progressist or conservative, is eminently a rebel against the brazillian status quo because he will see this bullshit happening.

The thing is Mr. Carol, rare are the things that are not political. If you consider ideology by this definition here:

In the Marxist economic base and superstructure model of society, base denotes the relations of production and modes of production, and superstructure denotes the dominant ideology (religious, legal, political systems). The economic base of production determines the political superstructure of a society. Ruling class-interests determine the superstructure and the nature of the justifying ideology—actions feasible because the ruling class control the means of production. For example, in a feudal mode of production, religious ideology is the most prominent aspect of the superstructure, while in capitalist formations, ideologies such as liberalism and social democracy dominate. Hence the great importance of the ideology justifying a society; it politically confuses the alienated groups of society via false consciousness.

Some explanations have been presented. György Lukács proposes ideology as a projection of the class consciousness of the ruling class. Antonio Gramsci uses cultural hegemony to explain why the working-class have a false ideological conception of what are their best interests. Marx argued that "The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production.

You can see why I say that religion and atheism are political things

At this point, you're talking about the relationship between ideologies and politics. I will say this once and for all: The relationship between two factors ARE NOT ALWAYS TO BE DOMINANT AND STATIC ENOUGH TO BE DEFINED AS A SAME MEANING. They may be related but that doesn't mean such beliefs are always for politics, or politics always dictate beliefs. It also doesn't mean science changes politics, and politics dictates science. You have to ask yourself, is A = B and B = A, just because A is related to B and B is related to A? Other question is, does A always relate B, and B always relate to A (in other words, can they be separate?) And, even if some parts are relationships are dominant enough (which we don't even know the standard at the first place) to be defined as same thing, if such strive for (1) purposes (2) application (3) reasoning impacts its definition to be different within A or B, then is it even possible for both factors to be SAME thing at the first place?

Ex. If A = A , B = B, and A = B, but A and B both differs based on 3 things (I previously mentioned), then will definition of A (or B) always stay the same?

42 33

@vanguard said:
I think the very thought of atheism is already political, because by default you are supposed to have a religion and believe in some god, and thats for a political reason.

So, the fact that religion is imposed on basically every modern society with political intentionalities, makes atheism a very political thing as well imo. It is kind of rebellion against this old structure that is religion, and that still has a lot of power. If you are an atheist, you are less prone to be exploited by many things, like the religious institutions themselves who wants to sell you salvation.

You see guys, atheism is kinda political thing even as a idea, because it has a revolutionary aspect inherent to it. Just like science does.

I already gave you an example that Atheism doesn't always lead to political application. It can simply be as an idea or be ambiguous and apply it in political situation. Also, if you say that religion is also're restating the fallacy, since religion CAN be political but it's only sufficient cause of it (which is not necessary cause of it). So yeah, let me give you an another example. In science they study technologies, and if we say that study of technologies are "ideas", can we say that those ideas are "political" despite the fact that some are not applicable at any way? Exactly, if study of technologies are merely ideas, then political elements merely restricts or tolerates "utilization" of the technology. That's the fundamental differences between ideas and political definition.

Edit: I simply view smoke and mirror reality as observation that we make with certain "existence" (which we call it reality), but I always acknowledge it as something that can be wrong, since such possibilities exist due to lack of certainty. That's why I said to have INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY and philosophical purposes...Huehuehue

42 33
  • 29 May '16

@vanguard said:
But atheism is political. Political things are not right wing or left wing, political ideas are idea that eminently wants to somehow change or confront reality. For many conservative people, atheism is a real problem, exactly because it is eminently political and can change reality.

In sense yes, but that's only when people are wanting to bring Atheism into political application. For example, professor A would only think Atheism as philosophical study and only allow students to discuss in academic purposes. In the other hand, leader B would use Atheism in political speech to influence the population to vote himself and compete against standard christian or other religious parties. In other words, having the ideology is one thing, but applying it into different situations is another thing. Even if Atheism = Political idea, the WAY of developing political idea is different from people to people, which will once again split into conservative vs liberal.

42 33

Share your thoughts down below!

Edit: I do not care if it contains political arguments as long as the person is honest and constructive to give out their reasoning and its importance behind their thesis statement. Please be polite to others, and at least try to understand their philosophy/ideology, before you can even criticize or comment on them. Last of all, this thread is absolutely not for offensive purposes, but to share and broaden the fundamental perspectives of our community.

Edit2: I'm not going to say ALL of my philosophical thoughts (I sorted out in google doc and it goes over 10 pages 0_0), but basically what I believe is similar to Kant: Scientific Analysis is limited to what we observe, and principles dictate our observatory experiences. However, I also believe that person's life is justified as long as it has intellectual humility AND philosophical purposes, due to the fact that we (1) do not know the absolute truth of what is right (2) do not know the ultimate reality of what is true. Even if the world we live in is somewhat "reality", if we don't know the 2 things that I previously mentioned, due to the fact that theoretical possibilities has not been eliminated with identification, verification, and confirmation with CERTAINITY (which we don't even know if we are the certainty or certainty is beyond the universe or certainty is just nonexistent or...anyway you get what I mean), we simply do not know if this reality is even ultimate reality at the first place. That's why we only have epistemology, which reflects based on existence of reality we reflect on, but other than that we can't confirm or verify anything beyond it, since we can't observe and confirm what Ultimate reality/Absolute truth did (which can doesn't mean always).

42 33

We did it!