no u

Literally west point noob says "Communism will win"

I remember that, he got kicked out yeah?

I never followed it up im not sure

I wouldnt be surprised

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/361364444850290690/371843388879798272/1508718532988.jpg

This ^?

Well

If you really want to do it

Who runs the power plants

Who runs the mines

Who drives the trucks

We have the power

yo its a 1 time thing unmute me <:GWchadThonkery:366999788803325952>

THe fucking ants movie brahh

They need us

We make thes shit

"social contract"

We have the power

The joos dont work in the mines

Why do we listen to them

Ya know

Fugg my doot

It could end over night

All of this

But man is worthless corrupt and restless

donald dunk

dRumpfphhF

Y'all've just want to bicker over nonsense and dont want to ask the real questions >inb4 what can we do

AYE

Aye

No anime shit my bad doot

im catholic and i disapprove this message

🤔

liberal christians love to implement leftism

pius himself condemns it

My discord keeps crashing thats why I keep disconnecting from voice, dont mind me

how many women do you have to marry to become a god

Quantum physics will fuck you shit up

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos186.htm Heres a good method

K

MFW fucking cult shadow realm shit, like really what is that shit where do you get your facts from

But there is a difference between magic bullshit and OBE's

But witch craft is not real

Not in your reality

:biohazard:

Not in any reality

Then you live on a seperate realm of existence

Obe and other stuff like DMT etc. is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbkQ2HxYsOM

Best proof I think

Could be better stuff some where else

Jordan petersons take on the JRE on religion is pretty good

we're not dying for it because the pope didnt call for a crusade

by muslims they stick to their book instead of the order of higher rnaks

***B R I N G B A C K M O S A I C L A W***

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2006/03/prayers-dont-help-heart-surgery-patients/

theres the study

thats basically protestant belief

the catholic church condemns trudeau's beliefs, but excommunicating him won't have any effect because then he would just proclaim to be some sort of muslim atheist?

@Zephial whats your belief

@stag so you think Jesus was a Jew?

dumb kike

oy vey

Well what did you think about when you were first born

When you had no language to think in

A blank canvas ready to be filled? Programmed?

Is there nothing that binds us all together besides emotion which can be said to only be chemicals, part of our design

I guess the jews gonna talk amongst eachother

Man how can are perception and what we believe be affected so heavily by our cultures if we are not just empty vessels waiting to be programmed

good goyim

Is our entire personalities crafted only by outside influences?

Are we like the neurons in a brain that interact with each other to create something greater then the whole? But I can only ask this question based on the fact the we assume there is more to our brain, and that is consciousness, so if not that then what?

Do you feel conscious?

lol Blade

let me reference a paper

"For many years now I have been getting my students to ask themselves, as many times as possible every
day “Am I conscious now?”. Typically they find the task unexpectedly hard to do; and hard to remember to
do. But when they do it, it has some very odd effects. First they often report that they always seem to be
conscious when they ask the question but become less and less sure about whether they were conscious
a moment before. With more practice they say that asking the question itself makes them more conscious,
and that they can extend this consciousness from a few seconds to perhaps a minute or two. What does
this say about consciousness the rest of the time? "

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/There-is-no-stream-of-consciousness.pdf

I mean have you ever seen the movie ex machina

We create life our self, artificial life, we do this already in labs

Hell man you can order custom DNA online and have it shipped to your door

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5uNAMbDaQ

No response ???

lol k

@nightstalker thats basically mormonism

@stag still mormonism lol

wtf i love mormonism now

lol

mormons are white muslims

basically you work your way to godhood and then u get your own creations

John Smith was American Muhammed

@stag so you think Jesus was a Jew right?

I dont think Jesus was an Uyghur or a Turk no

He might have been what was considered as a Jew back then

But what is known as a Jew nowadays, the bastard diaspora of the Turkic races, no

So the relation between the hypothesis formulated by an abductive inference
and the testing and confirmation performed by an inductive inference
can be illustrated a bit more clearly in statistical terms. Imagine a set
of data points plotted on a graph.

It is possible, statistically, to fi nd a line
drawn through those points that describes, or fits, that set of points best.
Think about how science typically works

didnt ask you about his genetics kid

We make observations about the
world, map out those observations, and then try to fi nd an explanation
that fi ts them. A linear regression, the line drawn through the cloud of data
that fi ts the data best, is like a hypothesis.

Why do you care if I think Jesus was a jew or not?

Once drawn, that line can be
extended along its trajectory to suggest where we might look for more and
new data. If the original data suggest a particular line, then, statistically
speaking, we can expect to fi nd similar evidence along an extension of the
same line.

If the original data, to put this another way, suggest a particular
line of inquiry, then, if we follow that line, we can expect to find more evidence
like the evidence we started with.

So i can see how much a Jew you are

lol

Im not jewish

sure

Of course, in any scientific measurement
not all the data, or even most of it, will line up perfectly. The
data are always somewhat loosely clustered or scattered into a rough shape
of some sort, but even a general clumping of data is enough to suggest
where you can draw a line that describes most of them. An educated guess
at where to draw the line is abductive. Looking for data to confi rm the line,
after it is drawn, is inductive.

Once a hypothesis has been well established, once we fi nd a lot of
data points where an extension of the line predicted they would be, or
when we continue to find evidence that maps into our same, original, cluster, we
have good reason to become suspicious of new data points that
fall too far from the line.

In other words, once we have enough evidence
to believe our hypothesis is true, new evidence that does not confi rm our
hypothesis will not be easily accepted. In fact, data points might show up
so far off the line that we can reasonably suspect that they are not real data
at all but artifacts of the measurement or mistakes in our observations: like
a smudge on the lens we mistake for a distant galaxy, or a glowing weather
balloon we mistake for a UFO, or even, perhaps, crazy observations that
belong to a category we have to label with a variable like “X."

Points like this, well off the line of an accepted hypothesis, are called “radical outliers.”

Inductive method tells us that when enough radical outliers appear,
like a second flock of data points landing adjacent to the fl ock we used
to draw our original line, they stop being radical outliers and begin to
suggest that our initial data set was not large enough.

A lot of new points suggest that we got it wrong from the start and that our original line needs
to be bent or shifted to include them, or that we may have found an entirely
separate line of evidence, a second hypothesis we need to look into.

Scientists with well - established theories will assert in public that when
suffi cient amounts of new, nonconfi rmatory, data enter the system, the
hypothesis will be swapped out for one that accounts for the new data,
but this is never what happens.

Once accepted, hypotheses have their own
inertia. Once we adopt a hypothesis, usually based on a relatively small
sample size, we are reluctant to let go of it, regardless of how many radical
outliers we find later. A great deal of both data and psychological motivation
is required to force us to reexamine hypotheses and explanations we
have accepted and to which we have grown accustomed.

It seemed crazy to fifteenth - century scientists, for instance, to think that Earth orbited the
sun. What is interesting is that it was not a preponderance of new data that
changed Copernicus’s mind about the relation of the sun and Earth.

The hypothesis was changed, not by a flood of radical outliers or new data, but
by a reformulation of Ptolemy’s hypothesis into one that would explain all
the data more economically. Prior to this, data suggesting a different, non -
Ptolemaic, orbital arrangement were ignored, ridiculed, or bent into pre -
Copernican orbits in increasingly dizzying ways.

Aliens are probably nonfeeling for other species

t b h

The power and inertia of a previously accepted hypothesis kept even Einstein clinging to his narrower
vision of the universe long after quantum mechanics began to raise
serious questions about God and dice

I hope aliens come here one day and give us all their shit.

Sheeeit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=48&v=X3ihcfJdAMs

hhh nngg ggg

stick that tail up my arsehole

hnng

So to investigate whether anyone has free will, we must first be clear what
we’re talking about and looking for, the conceptual nature of freedom
and free will. Philosophers have put forward various accounts of what
constitutes some conditions of human freedom: lack of constraints, open -
future choice, reasons - responsiveness, capability of being held responsible,
and so on.

However, following J. L. Austin and some others, let’s generalize
from these more focused suggestions and say that freedom in general
always requires two interrelated components of ability and opportunity (or
opportunities—more about this in a moment).

The idea here is roughly that one can be free if and only if one is able to be free in some relevant
way, such as being able to think, speak, move, and so on, and one has a
course of thought or action open to the exercise of such abilities, so one
isn’t unduly distracted, one’s lips aren’t duct - taped, one isn’t superglued to
the floor, and so on.

Note that freedom in general then is a state of affairs
where one has some sort of internal capacity or power, and one has as well
an external situation so that that capacity or power can complete its function.
Only when both these internal and external conditions obtain can
one be said to be truly free to think, to speak, to move.

Applying this picture of freedom to the specific issue of free will requires
a bit of explanation. To begin, philosophers are for the most part
divided into two mutually exclusive camps that are at odds on the question
of how human brains and/or conscious minds function.

The question here is whether the basis of consciousness is only an immensely complex system
of causes and effects, such as a purely biological account of thought might
provide, or whether consciousness might include deviation from the strict
rule of cause and effect, for example by appeal to quantum physics or supernaturalism.

no

@stag so you understand that after Jesus completed their goal and became our saviour the laws of the old testament were no more

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-christ-fulfilled-and-ended-the-old-testament-regime

I am on the snail spectrum

Respect me

These two views are respectively termed determinism and
indeterminism. To begin to understand the relevance of these views to the
question of the freedom of minds, note that one main difference between
them is that by determinism the future of such a mind’s function is locally
(in the next moment) “closed,” and by indeterminism the future of
a mind is locally “open.”

to who wanted to fuck a reptile

well

yiff

That is, by determinism a given state of mind at
one present moment causes one, and only one, state of mind in the next
future moment as an effect. All other conceivably different future states of
mind relative to the present one are “closed” off by the present causal one.
By contrast, the indeterminism of a given present state of mind that is not
causal is “open” to at least two alternative local future states of mind.

Satanacism

Thats satanacism

zeph

you christian

One can see that these two views have one immediate tie - in to opinions about
the freedom of such minds. If our minds’ futures are always closed by determinism,
then those futures based on our “choices” only go one particular
way and no other. By indeterminism, on the other hand, our futures are at
least sometimes open to this future and that future, as the 1980s Modern
English song Melt with You goes, “the future’s open wide!” So it may seem
that determinism robs us of a free will to choose between distinct futures
and indeterminism restores it.

Unfortunately, things are more complicated than that in part because,
depending on what exactly “freedom” means, each of the determinist or
indeterminist views of minds can lay claim to free will, and one can be
made to exclude it as well. It all depends on what free will ability is supposed
to be, and what opportunity or opportunities are additionally needed,
and what determinism and indeterminism can provide in terms of these
components of freedom

rick and morty ^

Say, for example, that a determinist interprets an ability to make a free
choice as weighing options and coming up with the best one. Sophisticated
computers can do this, and they are essentially causal mechanisms (their
functional states are such that their futures are always locally closed). So a
determinist view of mind can accommodate such an account of ability and
thus regard our minds to be a form of mechanistic supercomputer.

head too small

LOL

wtf put it back @Dominic

i want to pin it

@JacobFox I was not for a long time but I am going after Christianity now. I think it is great for people. I am just having trouble figuring out exactly what it means to be christian and trying to feel such a pressence

Say then also that the determinist puts forward an additional account that states, for
example, if a mind is caused to select the best it can in a situation, and that
selection is objectively correct, proper, and satisfactory (by some measure),
then it is properly freely chosen because no other possible future course of
that mind would make sense. Such a view combining deterministic ability
with the sufficiency of just one future opportunity is in fact called a compatibilist
account of freedom, and some like, believing determinists dub
themselves thus.

@trent i didnt remove it

ascended rick and morty fan

SKACHUAN

But what if, to the contrary, such a closed future is deemed insuffi cient
for freedom? (That the future, to be freely chosen, should be “open wide.”)
For example, what if the best a mind can select in a situation is a fifty - fifty
proposition of heads or tails, without any further preference between the
two?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GC5rAX0xHg

<:HyperRage:354350216767340549>

A determinist account of this mind says that one actually is preferred,
for one is fi nally caused to be selected over the other. But here indeterminists
cry foul—how can that one be truly freely chosen if the other is
equally preferred? Truly free choices in these circumstances demand that
both future alternatives are available for choosing. This means that any
such choice requires plural opportunities in the future—and real ones, in
a genuinely open future way

And if that is correct, determinism is false, at
least for minds that are conceived as free in this way (so they can’t be supercomputers).
So for philosophers that demand such a plurality of future
opportunities for any stated ability of mind to choose freely, freedom is
incompatible with a determinist account of the locally closed future. Such
philosophers of freedom are termed incompatibilists; they hold that the necessity
of the plurality of opportunities for choice cannot be reconciled
with locally closed future determinism.

@trent u can check logs to find out the mod that deleted it <:GWchadThink:366999782348292108>

Incompatibilist, indeterminists, sometimes called libertarians—believe that minds at least sometimes
function in indeterminist ways, and when they do, the plurality of future
opportunities assures that this free will to choose actually exists.

So there are determinists who believe that compatibilist freedom exists,
and indeterminists who believe that incompatibilist freedom exists. But
now for a moment think hard (so to speak) on this matter of incompatibilism.
Incompatibilism as a belief is only a very abstract conceptual view
about the philosophical need for locally plural open - future opportunities
for freedom of choice and does not commit to whether such a future exists.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Rick’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they’re not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick’s existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon’s genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂

And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎

Thus there are some determinists who agree with this view, and since they
are also determinists about minds, reject any belief in such freedom of mind
and will. For them the truth of determinism rules out such incompatibilist
free will. They are called hard incompatibilists, determinists who do not
believe that the opportunities form of free will exists.

Does this answer your question now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppmPNCNM8A

You should have listened

Ya missed out

why do black people do stuff like that

they put pictures of decease on their shirts

or hoodies

bad meemea

@AngryToastJoe not all bronies cum on figurines. some of us just work day jobs and on our off time talk about kikes

because you're too poor to afford a figure

this is why we need a gas emoji

reminds me of

GAS

GAS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG3H0oNW46c

GAS

GAS

REEEEE

if we nuke nk what even happens to that land

the chinese get four arms and shit like that @Cooper

FAL is best battle rifle