Humans, what are they for?
Humans, what are they for?
Animals express themselves to each other in a way that humans don't fully comprehend.
We are sometimes arrogantly ignorant of such things.
I think that it is often a case of humans not listening.
And I'm using the term "listening", metaphorically as well as literally.
See a flock of sheep.
They herd together for safety.
Religion is the result of intellect and conceptualisation and is often used as a herd label.
So a herd doesn't necessarily require unifying labels, it just makes them up.
There are other labels.
For sure.
He had plenty of information to work on.
Everything that occurs within a Universe is naturally occurring.
Trans is just a development of a process, just as humans were.
Never sure what you mean by retarted.
Do you mean retarded?
Though you won't have to look too hard to find some fine white specimens in them swamps and backwoods listening to that good ole banjo rock.
Ah
Native Americans then, of African descent.
Rather than of European or Asian descent.
Nope, you said ancient aliens.
Debby said civilizations.
There are a plethora of FBA acronyms.
Are you referring to Fan-Beam Antenna or Fantasy Basketball Association?
Humans like to sub-categorize and label...It's an intellectual thing.
They also like being in clubs...It's a herd mentality thing.
They also fear death and consider the wider implications of existence...Religion became a strategic option, and has remained so...It's a data transfer thing.
Things could have worked out differently, but they didn't...Maybe it's an inevitability thing.
Hmmmmmm.
I would expect "transgenders" to have a tendency to think similarly and therefore react similarly.
I would expect the same of other social sub-groupings.
So Remy, how would you sub-categorize yourself?
Or do you think that you are generic?
What is a generic black person, other than a generic black person or just a generic person?
So, would you say that you are the norm or an exception to the norm?
Yes, there are undoubtedly differences in evolved ability.
Though dogs dream, so I suppose that other animals dream too.
I therefore assume that they can internally reconstruct acquired information into abstract imagery.
I would suggest that "I have a dream" was just a way of dramatically emphasizing a point.
MLK processed information, came up with conclusions and responded as he saw necessary.
He was a brave man to do so in 1950's/60's America.
50/50 is a likelihood wherein there a two definite options, either known or unknown.
A balanced view accepts that there are two definite but not necessarily known options.
Probably not, expresses an opinion and does not consider another option such as probably yes...So not intended to be either a balanced view or propose an alternative option wherein likelihood can be measured as 50/50.
BK is currently into a semantics thing.
BK also creates a false image of me ranting, whereas I'm just enjoying the compositional exercise. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't waste my time doing it.
You are correct.
Though discussing such things is entertaining.
Most folk don't give a toss.
You're quoting the few that like to make a song and dance about such stuff, the ones who will always blame everyone else for their own failings.
The Sun is as near to limitless as it gets. But we waste 99% of what it throws at us.
Though by the time the Sun is nearing it's limits I don't suppose that we will care.
Just did some quick research and it seems that one should not put ones faith if fusion reactors just yet.
The Chinese make some bold claims and did have one running stably for about 1.5 seconds, or so they say.
Saying either, probably yes or probably no, are 100% expressions of indefinite uncertainties, wherein one makes a preferred choice.
Saying 50/50, is an optional expression of an indefinite uncertainty, wherein one does not subscribe to a preferred option.
Though in the first instance, I did actually say, probably not.
And so, when do you generally talk to these groups.
You are actually just reconstructing second hand information in accordance with your established way of thinking, aren't you?
You could just get up, have some breakfast, do some other stuff, have some dinner, then go to bed again and ignore stuff that irks you so much.
Too much angst isn't good for you Remy.
50%.
That's like you saying banana, and expecting me to know what you are on about.
Sometimes you need to elucidate your thoughts and ideas BK...Especially when attempting to communicate your thoughts and ideas to others.
So, probably yes is one expression of thought, and probably no is another expression of thought. So how does this equate to a percentage?
A percentage of what?
Hmmmmmm.
It needs a lengthy essay to respond to that properly.
Vision, as in the sensory process, whereby external light signals are converted into internal imagery and can be stored for future reference.
Imagination, as in the internal fantasy reconstruction of acquired and stored sensory information.
The former as in an immediate process relative to an optical system that under normal circumstances cannot be expanded upon.
The latter as in a contrived process only limited by the potential of the brain and the potential of stored information.
They are not really competing processes, one just facilitates the other.
Though without an optical sensory system, there would be no relevant internal information.
Interestingly I seemingly do not process aural information in the same way...That is to say I do not imagine fantasy tunes or noises...Do you?
Maybe this is the difference between myself and a gifted musician.
Ok...So "The BIble" is an Anglicised book based upon hand me down tales and texts that purport to accurately describe events relative to a few specific characters from one specific region of the World during a period in time some 1500 to 2000 years earlier.
In relation to "The Bible" the old and new testaments are just two sections from the same Anglicised book.
Truth is truth is a truism.
And waking or asleep, we can process information and come up with all sorts of thoughts and imagery...Another truism.
And as you exemplify, word play allows us to self-substantiate any fantasy scenario or internal truth.
And as Debby and I exemplify others will do the same and either choose to concur or not.
So I suppose that until systems finally shut down we will never actually be able to verify either a material heaven or a heavenly extension of our consciousness.
But if it benefits you to do so, then live the dream for the moment Faux...That's your prerogative.
Did you compose that in a hurry.
Hmmmm. Green is not an energy source per se. It's just a representative term for non-fossil fuel alternatives.
I would suggest that an alternative approach to energy needs/demands is available, and that we are pursuing it, slowly.
Slowly, due in the main to financial considerations which take precedence over ecological considerations.
And like BK suggested, it would perhaps be helpful if we demanded less...But unless there is a considerable reduction in the human population I don't really see this happening.
And for sure AI will undoubtedly demand energy, just as we have demanded it, just as we have persisted in the creation of AI...I wonder why.
It's what I refer to as the GOD principle.
When do you generally talk to these groups?
Are you sure you're not just making this up, based upon right wing hearsay and propaganda.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Truth beats fear.
Unless a truth causes one to be fearful.
Truth beats fear, is a bit of an open ended statement.
And a truth that is not factually correct or verifiable so, is not specifically truthful is it...Unless you can actually prove the existence of heaven.
I wouldn't know, but Dart is still operational.
So Debby, I'm guessing that you were/are a DebateArt user under another name...Would I be correct.
Trump, lets things happen and then either does or doesn't demand credit for them.
Yep Doc.
Food is as food does and we will live as long and as healthily as we will relative to a plethora of factors...One of which, is who we are.