l0rd

It wasn't a funeral service, it was an entertainment event aired to 1.5 billion people. It would surprise me very much if it had not been planned, and she had not been encouraged to do what she did. What I expected and how I hoped the situation would play out are two different things; I expected something along the lines of what happened. But no, I don't want people to mourn (even though people are doing more than that for Michael) someone that they don't know. If you do, you are truly spitting in the face of human worth. I bet a lot of people were more, or just as sad over Michael's death than when their close relatives died.

I really hate this whole situation. The same people who were indifferent, or even hateful, towards him in the past are now idolizing him to varying degrees. Also, putting on display the daughters emotions as a resolute and strategic way of humanizing Mr. Jackson is just disgusting in my opinion. He had a tough millionaire childhood, okay, I'll give him that. But what about the children hundreds of years ago who had to work all day to keep their family's home and income steady, or the children today forced to work in developing countries. Or what about any child in any country who has a bad childhood, but doesn't incidentally have millions of dollars as recompense later in life? Come on people, you don't know Michael Jackson. You either have a deeply-rooted passion for all of humanity, or your feelings are superficial.

Birds aren't self-aware, meaning they don't have the capacity for introspection. How do we know what birds know? The frontal lobe is thought to be the epicenter for personality and cognition. In most animals, with exception to some mammals, the frontal lobe is almost nonexistent.

WB Lent. : You'll get used to you're bland suburban life in no time. To un-spam: Today I worked on my grandfathers farm all day, and will be (and have been) for 2-4 days a week during the summer. Always have a lot to do there, running an organic farm takes a lot of labor!

Birds aren't self-aware, meaning they don't have the capacity for introspection.

I open up a new tab And move the cursor to the address-bar, Somehow finding a URL lingering on the tip of my fingertips: "ME dot com," I type. >GO The brittle fan blades of my computer pick up, now blowing full-speed; But this is a manageable task for a mediocre computer. As the screen fills, my life loads and explodes before my eyes I see every memory, thought, experience, sentiment, and every other attribute that one would hold Nothing new, just reminiscence. Been there, done that. What then, what is worth-while seeing on this site? The materialized past before me, The simplicity of a programmed life, Formatted and created by my being, Algorithmically displayed like everyone else; It astounds me, yet is rather boring. There is seemingly no labyrinth of existence, Proved to me in this very instant. It is all uniform, scrollable bytes and bits. Bits of painful experience, bytes of jovial social times with friends, Bit to byte. Collective polybytes adding up to years. The monitor is just a medium for observance. I am looking, And looking some more, Searching for something on the page. Crtl + F, with a pop the search window opens; Like soapy sputs searching and clinging to each other. Cleaning everything but what is desired. Intuition searches the text "the secrets of life" Up and down, spits back, "no match found" I then right-click a blank. "View Page Source," I select HTML, nothing else there. Again, simply reassuring me that everything Is there because of coded purpose. The puzzle pieces fit perfectly; Nothing to scavenge or investigate. I awake in front of my computer screen, Now mad at the gloomy epiphany, I "shoot the messenger," Stab the nearest pen into my computer screen. I get up from my chair and proceed with what I've always done. Meaningful yet apparently insignificant experience. Secrets nowhere. Mirages of mysticism never failing to fade to reason, to code. Ode to the Google searchers Searching through bulk. I have found myself with 1 result.

It doesn't, it is determined by the post-length.

a couple Its weird they have the same color schemes, that wasn't intentional at all, and those colors aren't necessarily my favorites.

1.) Don't take me seriously. 2.) No 8-) l0rd-Adrenal/Palin 2012 But nah, not really something I do enough to buy colored pencils for.

Noooo, haha, my definition doesn't mean that. As my attorney advised, I will be taking no further questions regarding the matter. :D

You're looking at my point of view as one that denies science as truth, it is not. I pretty much already addressed your counterarguments previously, but the gist of what I'm saying is that I am happy to be myself, despite the fact that I can only exist as myself. So I am glad that the "I" I'm talking about is not instead a raccoon.

I realize the biological product of a body results in perception, but I'm trying to discuss why we exist an this individual, as opposed to another. I know the simple answer is that there is no secret thing possessing a personality, everything about us is simply produced by the body we have, but how and why are we the ones who we are. I think we take it for granted that we are a human rather than an ape, or a raccoon. I know it is not very realistic to say that "we" would exist as something else, because "we" is defined by the very thing that makes us up, ourselves. But I'm saying it is lucky that we don't exist as raccoons.

I like how he siggy'ed your inscrutable analogy. Just kidding, I'm sure it hit some profound note somewhere in his erudite humor. On topic: I could never get into quoting humorous quotes in my signature, after about the first week or so I would start to resent it. The humor slowly would ferment into a hackneyed burden, exuding awkwardness and vapidity. After it sucked the humor out of itself, it would slowly start to consume my persona, and make every post of mine increasingly lacking.

That doesn't answer my question, and I'm not expecting an answer. Of course I'm me because I'm me, that's like saying that God exists because he does. I think what most people are not getting is, what you are asking. Correct if Iam wrong, but what you seem to be wanting to discuss is -- What makes my feelings or sentiments different from those around me and why ? Why do I have different thoughts and emotions, even though I may be biologically similar or perhaps hypothetically "in their body". In my opinion, conciousness and the ability to percieve are not out of this world, they mandatory functions. What makes people different, [this is what I think you are asking] or have differing reactions to different situations is simply because we are the sum of our experiences. To ask why am I not you, can be interpreted in different ways. Why am I not you as a person ? With a personality, a mindset, a number of values or beliefs or it can seen in the literal, as in why are you 10 inches when I'm only 8 ? Again, this is purely biological, and to answer why people are different is asking the reason why we breathe. [Again, if you ask me to go into it -- I will. But it's one of my long winded, biology analogy lecture things] I give up, my thoughts on the matter are too abstract to write down any further; everything that I can has already been written, and I don't want to be redundant. I did enjoy writing the ideas I could put words behind though.

If God invented infection, then by-golly I ain't takin' no devil-worshippin' anti-biotic! Its not my place to challenge or manipulate his creations, no sir. As for engineered fruit, I agree with you for the most part, but a lot of good things have also came out of edible plant engineering, such as broccoli. It makes fruit less tasty and more annoying to get into... Grrrr. Also, I'm not necessarily talking about GM foods. I'm talking about cross breeding. It's like having sex with a cheap hooker because you want to get more juice. Well, lets hope this millennium holds many tasty breakthroughs in the science of fruit cross breeding. I, of course, took your last analogy in a X-rated way. Do you mean because you will have more money for juice if you spend less money on hookers?

If God invented infection, then by-golly I ain't takin' no devil-worshippin' anti-biotic! Its not my place to challenge or manipulate his creations, no sir. As for engineered fruit, I agree with you for the most part, but a lot of good things have also came out of edible plant engineering, such as broccoli.

That doesn't answer my question, and I'm not expecting an answer. Of course I'm me because I'm me, that's like saying that God exists because he does.

Ah, okay. But what I'm getting at is that your "self" happens to exist within a human body. While of course their is no big hat that is chosen from determining our incarnation, I still do believe odds are relevant. The fact of that matter is that all beings with perception have a sense of self and individualization to them, whether they are aware of it or not. I am merely remarking at the reality we live in, not challenging science. I look at my dogs, and it just boggles me that I do not exist as something of less intellect. But then you will say "you" can't be something else, because you are you; to which I will say, "yes, but why am I not you, or that mosquito I just killed." Obviously there is a factual answer to "why I am me" but there is no factual answer to why I am not you, in the more interpretive sense.

Perception =/= Existence A rock exists whether it perceives or not. Of course it exists, I'm not saying it doesn't (Lol, "I don't believe in rocks"). But it is not in the realm of incarnation, as it does not perceive.

We is not only possible in human form, anything perceives has the ability of "being". Just because both a rock and a mouse are made of atoms, doesn't mean the product of those two things are both have the ability to perceive. A perception is an individualized phenomenon only experienced by the being perceiving it. Without perception, we cannot "be" something, and using the word "we" isn't fitting either.

Well, yeah because by the definition of incarnated it means to be embodied in flesh. However, my point is that we're all made out of matter. There is just as much of a "chance" of being composed out of something organic as there is to be composed out of something inorganic. I think probabilities are pretty irrelevant when it comes to this though. No, we can't "be" something inorganic. We can only "be" something if we are something that is capable of "being", thus the word being. A rock simply exists, a consciousness is part of a being.

A creature with the ability to perceive has been the product of inorganic material, yes. But, that doesn't mean that inorganic material can perceive. The odds of being incarnated into a rock are zero. well if you completely believe in evolution, why do you believe in incarnation lol You are confusing incarnation with re-incarnation. My interpretation of the word entails nothing supernatural; it is merely the act of a creature gaining the ability to perceive.

A creature with the ability to perceive has been the product of inorganic material, yes. But, that doesn't mean that inorganic material can perceive. The odds of being incarnated into a rock are zero.

I used to think that way too, but it's like saying you had a chance to be a rock. Instead of being constructed from organic material, you had a chance to be composed of granite and not have a life at all. That being said, I am grateful that I am a human and not a raccoon or a rock. I believe there's a purpose to being human. Well, a rock does not have the ability to perceive, so an existence as a rock would not be "anyone", and existing as one would be nothingness.

Is everyone "tl;dr'ing" and only reading the last couple sentences? This thread isn't about personalities at all. i'd say i pretty much agree with this, its important not over look our genetic factors, but the events in our lives, and how we deal with them is the greater factor :wall: :wall: I'm starting to think I was being too ambiguous.