How can we die if we were never really alive?
The only difference between a living organism and a dead one is the presence of cells. But we invented that classification,didn't we?
Thoughts? People irl don't take me serious.
>The only difference between a living organism and a dead one is the presence of cells
I thought it was electrical activity in the organism's brain, nervous system or whatever it uses to control itself
>>27156201
>How can we die if we were never really alive?
We don't die, we just stop thinking
which might as well be the same thing
"How can we die if" - no, you're completely right, there is no coherent "how", there is no means by which we can die, because we don't exist. What's your point?
>>27156578
>because we don't exist
what do you mean
not being critical, I actually want to know what you specifically mean by this
>>27156380
That would be consciousness I guess.I was talking about life as in just existing,maybe a plant?
>>27156578
Then,if we don't exist,why do I persist with the illusion of doing so?
Wake me up
>>27156643
Oh I see what you're saying
That's interesting
>>27156696
Maybe we're not alive
Maybe we're just consciousness inhabiting dead meat and pretending it's something else
What a macabre reality...
>>27156716
You are a electric powered spaghetti monster piloting a meat clad bone golem to your own destiny. You are taking this all way too seriously.
>>27156773
I think I'm not taking it seriously enough, when you phrase it that way
>>27156602
Consciousness is a myth. It's all just energy. It's all just energy in different probability distributions that correspond to "electrons" "neutrons" "atoms" "cells" "organisms" - in the end it's just energy in certain quantum mechanical distributions changing to other distributions. Reality is just numbers ticking up and down. There's nothing in any part of that can be construed as conscious unless you believe in a soul.
Language assumes that people (i.e. consciousnesses) exist, and language is the only way to anything with the world, so "I" assume for the sake of argument that people are real. It's a useful enough model for understanding reality anyway. But that's all it is - a model. In the words of op, "we invented that classification", just to make things easier to talk about. In reality, we were never really alive, we will never really die, and the only reason to humor mentalities like "fear of death" is that it makes your life better to be in touch with your animal nature like that.
>>27156773
The future of humanity is to develop powerful psionic abilities to the point that we can cast off these meat suits and float about as brainstem+nervous system.
It'll happen eventually. We'll absorb nutrients through our nerve tendrils. And we'll get those nutrients by psionically breaking biological material down into a thin liquid.
>>27156833
then why am I me? and if I'm not, then why do I think I'm me?
I'm not taking you seriously over the Internet either
>>27156861
Not thinking big enough
What the universe is doing right now is developing isolated pockets of self-awareness that will eventually network with one another and expand to create one huge awareness
And the whole thing will wake up to see its entire self all right now
This phase is just transitory
Once all that happens the universe will probably kill itself because fuck that noise
And then it'll happen again...
>>27156865
You're you because of your brain. The higher-level explanations we all readily understand still hold. There is a human being there, it has a brain, brains are capable of thought and language and processing the inputs they get from attached eyes, etc. So the brain engages in verbal behavior (words) (making the air oscillate) that makes it seem like "I'm me". And the brain engages in thought - internal simulated experiences of that language-based behavior - that makes it seem like "I'm me".
But those are all higher-level explanation. They're about as correct as an economist saying "the economy exerts downward pressure on blah blah blah" - nigga the economy doesn't do shit, it's not real. It's just the most concise way to talk about what's actually happening. What's actually happening is that humans act in certain ways dictated by the contours of the evolved brain. And what's actually happening when you're you is that a bunch of cells got together and did cell things which had "interesting" "complex" results on a more abstract level. But you're really just cells and atoms and energy-currently-bound-into-matter, and none of those things are people. You don't become a person when they work together in certain patterns. You just think you do because "think" exists on the same abstract distance from reality as "me" does.
>>27156897
So our ultimate destiny is to merge our psionic tendrils together to become one super, hivemind being and then connect the universal consciousness, like some sort of parasite, and take control of it. Then we god.
>>27156201
Life is a rebellion against Death itself. It is said that the closest way to us to get to death without actually dying is by sleeping; that is when our brain shuts down and we end up being just the same as everyone else that are asleep. In a sense it is kinda ironic that life requires sleep (borderline dead) to survive, and that eventually each one of us will permanently be asleep forever (dead). Assuming rebirth is not real, then one can say life itself emerges from death itself (not literally), performs a futile struggle against fate, then slowly creeps back to death, merging with the environment, back into its old state.
Where I am going with this is that; Death is a passive, rational and natural thing, whereas Life is rebellious, irrational and out of control (for a given period of time).
>>27156894
I don't care,I made that comment to hook you into the thread.I'm sorry.
>>27157295
But how can duality exist if we get rid of it?
Just like good and evil,day and night,life and death could not really exist as two different concepts then,can they?
The only thing that I don't like about sharing and producing these ideas is the fact that everyday I have to work to stay alive,making all higher assumptions about the universe secondary and just as pointless.
>>27157073
So why am I me and not you?
I don't mean that the way you think I do, I'm guessing
Why is the locus of experience centered here and not there? Why is "what is being experienced" the interactions between this particular cluster of material and not another?
>>27157431
>just as pointless.
Bingo, you struck gold. Welcome to nihilism, enjoy your stay.
>>27157073
If your statement were true,we would not be having this conversation. What makes all these theories disposable is the limitations of the material world.Why can't I develop telepathic abilities? Why am I incapable of a more specific understanding of things?
If knowledge is limited by matter(for example,if I need to buy a book to know chemistry),then,I it really worth it,true,or valuable?
How can I learn something on my own? Or maybe I can't? I'm confused.Sorry If this doesn't make any sense,if so,don't bother with a reply.
>>27157482
I'm not dismissing you btw, I actually think you're right but I also think there's more to it
>>27157526
The only problem I have with nihilism is that by definition it delegates the responsibility of meaning to the universe/time/space/higher being (like,why is everything meaningless just because "life" ends eventually")when "meaning" is such a limited packaged concept. Sometimes I think humans are flawed by nature,wouldn't you think so?
I'm saying nonsense I know,maybe I'm just not a good communicator .Maybe that's why I'm here after all.
>>27157702
>Sometimes I think humans are flawed by nature,wouldn't you think so?
Depends what you mean by flawed. Not perfect? If so what is perfect? Omnipotence? Then sure, humans are flawed.
>>27157874
No,none of that.With flawed I meant inadequate,like there's always something missing,something that doesn't feel right,you know what I'm talking about.
>>27157702
I think the problem with meaning is that what we're really searching for isn't meaning itself, but the "ultimate" meaning. Life, I know experientally, is not meaningless. We derive concepts from things all the time. The problem is that we then seek to validate those meanings with an additional meaning (because if the meaning has no meaning itself, then meaning must be meaningless, because it traces back to nothing at all), and we either can't or get yet another meaning that has to be validated further by another meaning in an endless, infinite, arbitrary-seeming and nonsensical chain. So either we're missing something, and it all does trace back to something that doesn't need to be validated by yet another meaning that follows (its meaning is self-evident), or it truly does trace back to nothing at all, or it truly does go on infinitely and will therefore always be unsatisfying because you cannot ever perceive infinity itself, because whatever value you perceive will be one thing and not another, which makes it finite.
I guess I'm some sort of pseudo-nihilist
>>27157937
It's because we're trapped in our braincages imo. We're so limited by being just us.
>>27156201
All classifications were invented by humans :)
>>27157937
>With flawed I meant inadequate,like there's always something missing
That could be, but how would we even know what was missing? What I want to ask is; is the fact that humans are flawed really such a bad thing?
Just want to throw it out there; is there answer we are seeking out there/here, or in here/there? This is something each one of us has to decide for ourselves, which kind of implies we decide it yes? That is, the answer can be found in here/there, that is, yourself.
My advice is find your own meaning in life and stick to it. Then again, do not get influenced by what I just told you. Wops, I stepped on the paradox mine there.
>>27158207
But how do you know that the meaning you stick to isn't, itself, ultimately meaningless?
You only get so much closer to the truth by doing as you suggest, but as soon as you stop seeking further meaning beyond the meaning you've already found, you've also halted the process of actually becoming truly complete IF true completeness is possible (which it might not be).
But, on the other hand, if it really doesn't mean anything, then it is also equally as meaningless to not find your own meaning and stick to it. But we don't really know that for sure, we can only work with the data we have right now, which is limited. Which is why I personally suggest attempting to acquire more, but that very well could be futile.
>>27158207
The flaw is a bad thing because we can never be "fulfilled" . Desire goes on and on indefinitely
>>27158396
>but that very well could be futile.
It could be, and you are currently in the middle of everything. It is all up to you, you must decide what you will go for. It is one or the other. I can not help you much further sadly.
>>27158490
If you ask me a flaw is either good or bad, depending on how you see it. Personally I find flaws necessary, because I can not imagine our world without it, or life as is. Then again, my thinking is probably limited to whatever my brain tells me. I can not even prove myself right or wrong.
>>27158490
The flaw is a good thing because without it, life would truly be meaningless. What is there to do once you're perfect? We can never reach perfection, but that's why it's worth striving for.
Whoa an actual interesting and insightful thread on /r9k/? It feels like it's been years. Did the retards finally go back to /b/?
>>27158897
Not really, 34 replies and 9 posters. But let us be honest, civilized discussion is not something one should expect from 4chan. The requirements for a good thread is an incredible well timed alignment of just the right people at just the right time.
>>27156773
>pilot
There is no "pilot". You aren't a little green man sitting behind your eyes, hitting switches and turning dials so that your arms and legs move.
It's all you, except there are different degrees of you. For example, your personal thoughts are you to a high degree. Something else's thoughts in a different galaxy are you to a very low degree.
The sun is you to a high degree. You make it shine and it makes up you.
>>27158897
Nah these things happen all the time
/r9k/ actually has some interesting people if you bother to look
They're just isolated events so it seems like they're not happening
This is probably the only reason why I stay here
>>27157641
Differentiation.
What happens when something dies? It decomposes and it is used as the building blocks of life for an innumerable number of other things. One is used to feed many.
You are just one of the many that came from the one, and still are the one because you were derived from that one.
Can I ask something whilst I'm here
How the fuck does a brain even store memories and data and information, it's a chunk of flesh and yet this one makes me ME. And then you die and the data, what? It's all destroyed? It's all rotting away?
>>27159372
That doesn't really answer my question
>>27159397
Association, I think. I'm not sure how electrical signals can actually translate to thoughts and images themselves, like what particular electrical configuration has to occur in order for a specific memory to be recalled, and, more importantly, WHY does that particular electrical configuration signify something else that is totally unrelated to it except in that one manner? It's like, why can you derive the phonetic "zzz" from the letter Z, except this is more mind-boggling because it's inscribed in the fabric of the greater universe itself and not one of our own arbitrary inventions. But it still seems like an arbitrary invention, even if it isn't our own!
Like what the fuuuck
>>27159397
Man I asked the same shit.
Do we have a finite amount of space in our brain?
Are we constantly deleting shit making way for new information?
So fucking weird.
It's just meat right?
How does meat save data?
But it isn't is it?
It's electric meat.
>>27159287
This nigga gets it. "You" is the invention;everything singular is an attenuated, shorthand definition to simplify the interconnected complexity of reality itself.
Further, language is what facilitates this.
>>27159495
>electrical signals
See electric meat. I knew it.
Humans are so fucking strange.
>>27156380
>bacteria have brains
for real?
>>27159397
But yeah, it's all destroyed dude unless it's magically stored on some external "server" elsewhere
Which would be nice...
It'd make existing a little less ridiculous
ITT pseudo intellectuals ramble about shit they don't understand
>>27158796
Maybe perfection is just the absence of pursuits. Maybe death is the ultimate answer we seek.And because we do not know death, and we'll never will,"perfection" or "fulfillment" is impossible.
I actually like this thread
>>27159397
>How the fuck does a brain even store memories and data and information
As far as we know it is something like >>27159495
said. However you are delving into one of the key questions in neuroscience, and it probably is not going to be answered anytime soon. It is quite interesting however, and could have a major impact on AI if we could understand it better, since that would perhaps let us replicate it by the use of computers. As far as I know this is already happening, but on a very very explorative stage.
>>27159515
And the question that follows, imo, isn't what is language, or why is language, but HOW is language. What is the actual functional relationship between the signifier and the signified that specifies the two as related? We know what the signifier and the signified are, and we have a word to describe the connection between the two, but we don't know what the connection actually IS. Or at least I don't.
>>27156201
Actually it is the difference of the free energy difference of your metabolism, it should be positive.
It is never at equilibrium, if it is, then you are pretty darn dead.
>>27159397
Data in a machine is a just long series of "offs" and "ons" using magnetic polarity to imply a 1 or 0 (on or off).
The substrate for memories in the mind is synaptic connections; it's complex as fuck, and "data" overlaps tremendously. Keep in mind none of that data is truly objective either, and a big part of what your brain does is take what little you know and reconstruct it constantly.
>>27159503
Your brain does not have a good analogous machine to make comparisons too yet. I think computer scientists and even biologists today are being overly hopeful and even arrogant in how easily they think we'll be decoding and reconstructing brains soon. The brain is literally the most complex thing in the universe.
Think about that for a second. That thing in your skull is more complex than anything that has ever existed.no pearlmans in this thread either
>>27159598
I want to live forever, even if just to see stuff happen.
>>27159417
No one has a precise, cogent answer. There's just so much involved that we cannot pin it down right now.
The reason you are you is because events have transpired in a way such that your perceived seat of consciousness started from "this" point (your mom and dad) and not "that" point (someone else's mom and dad).
If you believe in the Big Bang theory then it may get a little easier to understand. At first, there was just one thing and then that thing diverged into a bunch of things (that are still made from, and essentially that thing).
You are one tiny, tiny, FUCKING TINY branch of that great divergence that (probably) took place around 14.5 billion years ago. Now, why are you "this" branch, why did you spread out in this direction, why are you now on Earth and a human who was born to your particular pair of parents? A super complex series of events. This happened, that happened, these things happened...And then the sperm and egg derived from that crazy series of events forms anon.
But, the important thing to understand here is that the "division of life" isn't really a division at all. When the Big Bang happened (if it did), all the parts it split into weren't different-they were perfectly in keeping with the original whole.
So, yes, you are you. You see from your eyes and no one elses. But just try to think about how that split between you and others-that division, your particular "branch"-is more of a *pseudo-split* than a hard demarcation.
You really are everyone else, is what I'm trying to say. You just have to experience it as a "branch" (because of the whole divergence, differentiation, and division thing I've been talking about) and that makes it feel like you are an alien in your own world.
>>27159567
Of course! That's the beauty of this thread and anonymous posting! It doesn't mean shit,nor it wants to. We just found our little space to let our chain of thoughts go its own way. When you are not under pressure you can come with pretty interesting conclusions.Don't be shy,join us,I'm not gonna judge you.
>>27159634
What if we grow a brain with stem cells?
>>27159495
>>27159503
Life is amazing when you think about it
As far as I'm aware I'm bathing in hot water from pipes in a home I indirectly paid men to build for me using standardised currency set by the Bank of England who somehow determine the value of it based on how everyone else is doing in the country and in the world
And then I'm posting a reply on a mobile phone mass marketed by a company and produced by children thousands of miles away so I can communicate across the seas in an instant
>>27159645
Mortality is such a fucking joke, it just invalidates everything that could come from all of this. It's a shame, really.
But at the same time you could also say that life itself may be immortal, and the things we say, do and think can persist tangentially by how they affect other things. But we'll never experience that ourselves as singular people which is sad.
>>27159615
A good question, familia. You should check out Heidegger. That nigger became obsessed with that question. Good luck though; the actual topic is so fundamentally complex and confusing he invented an entire vocabulary for it, which has been translated into English imperfectly.Yet it still makes more sense than Pinecone, so give it a go.
>>27159567
>ITT pseudo intellectuals ramble about shit they don't understand
Come on, everyone should discuss philosophy every now and then, even if it seems like psuedo-intellectual talk. It is a good outlet for everyone to give an opinion on a matter that is universal for each and every one of us humans (assuming you are human as well). Although close to zero percentage chance, a person here might actually have an opinion that is unique and that challenges deep topics on a whole new level.
>>27159711
I think mortality rather validates life.I mean,it's more important to do things because you are going to die,than doing things knowing you are going to live forever.Now that I think of it,we are so limited that the amount of things we could do eternally are just as good as the things we do now.
>>27159669
So, for this branching to occur, something specific would have to signify the "me" or "pseudo-me" that you seem to be describing, that is carried through all of the events that transpire (or is created when the events themselves do transpire).
And what the heck could this thing be? I'm not trying to describe the process, I'm trying to describe a specific piece of it and it's eluding me.
>>27159686
>by a company and produced by children
>children
If you own any kind of major brand smartphone, the chances are that it was made by a Foxconn employee. They used to have like 50 minor employees (among tens of thousands), with all the scandals and shit, they probably don't hire minors anymore.
Their employee suicide rate is high tho.
>>27159809
hmmm
I don't think many people's passion come from "damn I will die one day"
but I see what you are trying to say
>>27159567
Dude, are you going to participate or are you going to just mindlessly criticize? Get the fuck outta here boyo. You might not like what's going on, but I do so can it.
>>27159397
I once heard of a theory that said the brain cells don't "store" the data into the brain,they go back to the past,or the same exact moment you recorded it and bring it back to the present instead.
Just a theory though.
>>27159711
>>27159686
What really drives me crazy is the idea that this is the culmination of billions upon billions of years; that we're the product of chemical interactions that are really atomic and subatomic interactions which are really interactions of fields, which are really interactions of who the fuck knows. That the brain is both unimaginably slow compared to the subatomic lives of particles, but unbelievably fast compared to the slow permutations of the universe.
I think even the idea of significance somehow sullies how goddamned grand and complex such a notion. Life is utterly incredible, but even the smartest of humanity can only sit and wonder and become lost when they consider all of this. Even if you had dozens of lifetimes to master several fields, you'd still have barely a speck of a speck a speck of what was going on-and that'd still just be a model that simplifies everything.And yet so many of us spend our time on the board about frogs, boypussies and poverty waiting for it to end
>>27159809
But the problem is that we'll forget it all
The universe itself might not (well, it will forget at least some of it, going back to what an anon said about death and brain data loss), in its own strange way, but we will.
It's just sad, idk.
>>27159645
You will though. You can't die in the traditional sense. You will never "fade out" and then be shut in a dark room for all of eternity. That just doesn't make sense.
If you're "off" (your brain isn't working, you can't move, you can't sense anything, etc) then there's absolutely nothing. You aren't in a dark room, you aren't floating in some sort of celestial void. If you're "off" then there's just nothing.
All there is to know is that you'll be "on" again in literally no time. How are you alive right now? You're "on" right now, aren't you? Seeing things, breathing, reading these words in your little internal voice.
The interstices between "on" (right now, you're alive) and the next "on" (your "next life" but it will inevitably feel like your first life, as you feel your life right now) are experienced as instantaneous.
It's like in a video editing program. If you plop two media files onto the timeline and there's a gap between them, what do you do? You splice them together, because in the space between them literally nothing happens. No sound. No video. Nothing.
So, you're immortal because of this basic deduction. If you're not "on" then you're "off". And if you're "off" then...Well there's nothing and because there's nothing to be experienced you just start being "on" again in a snap.
>>27159905
You ever done drugs anon?
Not saying you should, but I've had an experience like this on DXM. I would alternate between one moment in time and another instead of progressing normally, and I could tell this because of the time on my computer. But I was aware of the alternation and I knew it was happening in both moments simultaneously. And this went on for (subjective) hours and then suddenly ended and I was dropped off at a normal place in time.
Shit was whack.
>>27159998
And as a footnote I'm not trying to imply that I time travelled or anything like that, but I do believe it did something very, very strange to my awareness of the present and my memory recall.
This shit is so in our heads it's not even funny but it kind of is.
>>27159961
This is why I want to freeze myself when I do die, because IF they do find a way to bring me back to life, the only thing I will experiance is going to sleep and waking up the next day 10's or 100's of years in the future. I won't experiance the nothingness, I won't be waiting, I'll just wake up like I fell asleep for a few minutes.
>>27159917
And yet I can care about all this shit right now, and yet the second I see a qt my heart pangs and you listen to what your dick has to say
why can't I be asexual
>>27159924
>but we will forget it all
That doesn't mean much.You are attributing value to time. You are placing value in the wrong places.You have limited amount of time,that doesn't mean it's not worth anything.What "matters" is now,not tomorrow,not yesterday,now.and since its the only thing you really have,its the only thing you can place value into .And "now" ends for you only when you die. I understand what you are trying to say though.
>>27159645
You will live forever, but in a different state (death).
>>27160067
damnit iktfb
there are so many different priorities floating around in there, and one second I'm behaving like someone else entirely different from the person I was behaving like the previous second
that could just be me, though
Death is when life stops consuming
You shut down when you die. One or more systems stop then you stop needing oxygen for energy, nutrients for fuel. We're machines
>>27159841
Getting into specifics is almost impossible here, though. No one can tell you what signified you. We can just guess and use metaphor to try and get as close as possible.
For one, you weren't "carried" through that massive series of events. You weren't necessarily latent in the way that you're thinking. Yes, you were latent in that it was entirely possible all along for "Anon" as you are now to be formed from the very beginning of the universe. But it's not like the universe had a "plan" to make you. You are just the product of how shit went down.
I find it difficult to describe, but how about this: consciousness is split into pieces, just like how the universe has diverged and stuff. There is really just one universal consciousness, but it is split because of physical necessity (how can you see through an ant's eyes and your eyes at the same time?).
>>27160089
But my understanding of "now" becomes more complete when I can incorporate my understanding of "then" and "later" into it.
That's the entire point of memory.
I'm not placing value in time, I'm placing value in pure information and memory facilitates the collection of information.
>>27160138
You say that like its a bad thing. Machines could feel and validate their existence,like a vacuum cleaning shit from the floor,right,right?
>>27160048
That's exactly it though. You can't experience "nothingness" because it's fucking nothingness. You can't wait because there is no one to do the waiting!
How will you wait when you can't even think, sense, or anything? That's not called waiting. When I picture waiting I think of being bored fiddling with my phone in an uncomfortable chair waiting to be called on.
Did you wait to be born? Did you wallow around in nothingness for billions of years, waiting to be born? No. In fact, there was SO little waiting and floundering around before you were born that you have zero conception of it.
>>27159634
Fine no pearlmans here either.
But why does my brain have to like farts if it's so complex?
I lost the lottery, I wish I had telepathy instead.
>>27160156
Does information depend on the wielder or can it exist by itself?
Either way,do you really care what happens to your "info" after you die?
Silly creatures we are.
>>27160144
No, I don't think that's the way I used the term "carried".
What an anon said about language struck a chord with me. There has to be some specific thing or function of some sort that determines what branch is what. I don't know how to be more clear about this atm, and it's a thought I just had now so it's not fully formed.
I'm not talking about "plans", I think you think I think something different than I think. What I'm thinking, right now, is that there is some static, innate "thing", some code of some sort, that signifies what will be experienced where and when. I have a visual of it but I can't put it into words! Because even though things themselves change, the connection between them remains the same. Like, if you look at an apple using human eyes that belong to a brain configured in the same manner as your own, you will always see that apple in the way that you see it. If one day apples stop existing, you won't see any apples, obviously, but if apples do start existing again, maybe billions of years later, and you see an apple again, it will appear similarly to the apple that you saw billions of years before. Which means that although the human eyes, the human nervous system, and apples themselves are not static, the connection between them is (unless it isn't, but I haven't experienced anything that would contradict the notion that it is). So what if "youness" follows a similar principle? And if it does, how could that connection be defined? We probably can't do it yet, heck we might not even have the perceptual resources to, but it would be awesome to!
I mean this is totally hairbrained so it might not even be true but it's just something I thought of.
>>27160282
Yeah, I do care! Because my info is a fragment of the truth and I want to know the truth.
I don't want to wander around all dissatisfied forever
>>27160382
Ugh that was such a terrible example
>>27159678
We can't.You can't make coca cola just because you have the ingredients.You need the step by step formula.Only God knows it.
>>27160416
What if not knowing the truth was the truth? The emptiness propagated from that lack of fulfillment could be actually the whole point of the story
>>27160587
To expand on that what if there is no "answer" or "truth"? What if that's just an innate intellectual mechanism in the human brain that became ingrained in our evolutionary DNA because it helped us survive, like human logic?
As an aside, I thought Persona 4 did a decent job at exploring the theme of "truth".
>>27160587
But it also could not actually be the whole point of the story. You would have to know the whole story in order to know, would you not? And that's why memory is essential
If you keep forgetting the story over and over again, how will you ever know what the point of it in its entirety really is?
>>27160667
How can the concept of "truth" be a genetic defense mechanism if I want to kill myself every night? Huh
>>27160729
Because if the point of life relies on memory to be discovered,I would we so disappointed that not even death would be enough to forget it.
>>27160667
What if survival is only the means and the mechanism, and not the purpose? Sure, it may only exist because it helped us survive, but you're acting like survival is the only thing that matters. Human logic has basis some basis in reality, as random and fortunate of an occurrence it may be, because it exists in reality. Our conception of "truth" might not be "truth" itself, but it also might be. The only way to know is to keep pushing forward.
>>27160818
What I'm saying is, regardless of whether or not it only exists because it helped us (and therefore itself) survive, it can do more than that now. I see no reason not to explore that option.
>>27160810
Eh, well I'm gunning for some kind of expanded temporal aspect of awareness than actual memory (which memory, crudely, kind of is). Maybe it can develop into something more, who knows!
>>27160265
Thanks.
If everyone had the same fetishes sexuality would be the most boring, lame shit ever, 3.5934-san. I have a butt fetish, along with an ass-eating and face-sitting fetish. I can take or leave scat, but farts don't do much for me, though I do think they're funny.
A shame you're not a 2d anime-loving degenerate like other fart-lovers; the only place you can find that fetish fulfilled is on roleplay sites filled with disgusting, undesirable men and women pretending to be sexpots.
>>27160906
too much for me for tonight.thank you for the insight.
>>27160966
>tfw alien fetish
>tfw your fetish will never be fulfilled
The scary thing is it might have already been but probably not...
>>27161042
>scary thing is it might have already been
That's 11spooky.
>>27160966
>the only place you can find that fetish fulfilled is on roleplay sites filled with disgusting, undesirable men and women pretending to be sexpots.
here?checked.
