It was operator airhead, when I first tried it didn't work because the picture was too big, (I assume so), so I shrunk it down to 400x400 and saved it, then kept trying over and over but somehow had the huge file and the small file transposed, so kept trying the huge file. When I finally realized, it worked fine with the 400x400 pic.
That operator airhead thing tends to happen when I'm stoned.
It was a really great debate, both did a fantastic job, but in the end, I don't think they were that far apart, both are arguing for the same thing from different angles, so to speak. You both fundamentally want the same thing, a place for intelligent discussion and the free exchange of ideas, ensuring that is what the site will be will in fact require moderation, and the moderators will have to do what is necessary to keep in from becoming something else altogether. It's as simple as that.
Does it really matter if we call it “strict” or “Laissez-faire”, it will need to be done by a small group of moderators, and when the site is presented with a damaging situation that threatens the well-being of the site, they will have to act, and practically speaking, it can't be a democratic process. We can speculate all day long as to what might jeopardize the site in the future, but to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, the mods will know it when they see it.
I figured out what I was doing wrong, thanks guys.
There’s no scientific evidence to support the idea that a person’s consciousness can actually travel outside the body.
There's no “scientific evidence” to support the idea that a person’s consciousness is actually a function of the body either.
The mind body problem isn't anywhere close to resolution, there's isn't even a credibly speculative theory that addresses the “hard problem”, physicalism can't even define consciousness, much rather account for, or explain it.
Without a mechanistic explanation, the only thing that could possibly be considered “scientific evidence” would be subjective reports and observed behavior.
Fact is, you have no way of knowing if anyone else beside you, is in fact, conscious, you just have to take our word for it, that or infer it by observing behavior. In the end, the only way we can know anyone else is experiencing anything, in or out of body, is for them to tell us so.
If the only thing we have to go on scientifically is the reports of subjects, then what we can know scientifically is the so called “out-of-body-experience” is a widespread phenomenon, that has occurred in all times and places humans have existed. The “experience” is real, and locating it in time and space, or understanding it physically, are currently beyond the reach of science.
Go to your profile page. Hit update avatar. Drag and drop. Hit upload. Try that and if it doesn't work send me some screen shots in discord
Tried that a bunch of times,t just isn't working.
And I also couldn't log into the discord server, says my email is already used, and I can't get past that stage os the sign-in/sign-up process.
Sounds like operator airhead issue to me.
I'm sure the feeling is mutual; women hate you so it's only fair that you should hate women.
And yes, this was my original username and profile pic
I can't seem to get a profile pic to stick, is there a trick to it?
I can't seem to create an avatar, I follow the same process from Deate.org, in my profile it seems to work, but it disappears when I leave the profile page.
Looks like everybody else has figured it out, what am I doing wrong?
Consider this, only humans seek absolute truths via their experience of relative truths.
That's the thing about absolute truth, truth is by definition, contingent
All we really know directly and in an unmediated form is our subjective experience, which is to say, our sensations, the cause of those sensations can only be known by the manner in which we interact with it, which is to say, subjectively. Immanuel Kant is considered the father of modern philosophy for a reason, and Kant’s major contribution was to explain to us that the mind is constructive, all we can know is phenomena, the underlying realty that is causing these sensations is no more than a presumption of sorts. The only knowing there can be is a “mode” of knowing. We pretty much have to presume that there is something “out there” causing these sensations we have “in here”, in our mind, but we don’t, and can’t, know it directly, we can only know it by the uniquely human manner of sensing and knowing available to us.
Consequently, what is commonly referred to as “objective” reality is nothing more than the presumed cause of our sensations, and it is necessarily conceptual, a theoretical construct that is developed by the mind, within the constraints of the structure of the mind, and utilizing the raw materials that the mind produces by processing our sensations. What we call “objective reality” is a projection “out there”, of the subjective experience we are having “in here”, in our mind. What we end up with, is not reality per se, it is only the kind of reality that our kind of mind produces.
Within the mind, our sensations result in perceptions, which are given form by a process of the mind, and which subsequently, results in concepts, which are further given form by a process of the mind. What we call “objective” reality, is something that results from a chain of inferential reasoning, and it is a uniquely human style of inferential reasoning, inferred from a uniquely human set of sensitivities, with a uniquely human way of processing information.
You pretty much have to conclude that the world we experience is completely defined by the mind experiencing it, and it logically follows that a different kind of mind would experience a different kind of reality, and they would live and move and have their being in a different universe. So the resulting “objective” reality isn’t really all that objective, it is nothing more than a mental construct extrapolated from our uniquely human, and completely subjective, way of experiencing reality. Our five primary senses aren’t exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, and our process of thinking isn’t necessarily the only way of thinking, an intelligent being with a different set of senses than ours, and with a different manner of reasoning, a different kind of mind so to speak, would necessarily experience a different universe than the one we experience.
We seek absolute truth, via our experiences of relative truths, that, sometimes contain misconceptions, false narratives { intentional or otherwise }, mis-perceptions, etc.
The function of our cognitive faculties are to relate the individual to its environment, the "truth" of beliefs is a matter of their correspondence to reality, and that's a matter of the reconciliation of inner and outer reality. When we use the word truth, there is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described.
A correspondence theory of truth calls for representation, and there are many different ways to represent reality, none of which, are absolute. The very nature and use of the word "truth” implies that it is referential to a dynamic; it refers to a relationship between some sort of conception and a reality presumed to be objective. The very nature of the word “dynamic” implies it is subject to change with time, place, and progress.
Since we are unable to step outside of our minds to compare our thoughts with objective reality, perhaps we can never really know whether correspondence between thought and reality is even achievable.
That certainly raises the question as to whether “absolute truth” is even a coherent concept.
I feel good, altho, I didnt know that I would.
There you go, Descartes famous quotes “I think, therefore I am” comes to mind. He said the only thing we can know undeniably and without question, the only absolute truth we can possibly know is that we exist, to think, or to “feel good”, is incontestable evidence of the absolute truth that we exist.
