Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

TMPHBITEU

Member
  • Posts

    345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

TMPHBITEU last won the day on May 2 2013

TMPHBITEU had the most liked content!

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male

Profile Fields

  • About Me
    <p>The Most Powerful Human Being In The Entire Universe</p>

TMPHBITEU's Achievements

Walk On

Walk On (1/6)

0

Reputation

  1. Yes. https://t.co/2XKyExz2gB

  2. This thread seems extraordinarily relevant.
  3. Considering the potentially valuable inside information we could gain on the Houston Texans, D. Manning could be interesting. ... Who am I kidding?
  4. If I hadn't (mostly) agreed (Gisele?), I'd have never written "Tom Brady" in the first place ;)
  5. Just for the sake of satisfying my pathological intellectual curiousity in hypothetical matters, I'd like to see what would happen if we put Superman in charge of the Colts for a month or two. For some reason, I get the feeling that it's not the most insane thought I've ever shared on this board.
  6. Let's take nicotine as an example, as it's one of the most potent and used drugs there are: By absorbing nicotine you create a release of dopamine. This triggers a sense of happiness in the brain. Basically, everytime you smoke, you induce happiness. This is the same feeling as one would have (or so I imagine) when watching their kid ride the bike for the first time. Or hearing their kid say their first word. Of course, it's to a varying degree, and different drugs gives you different reactions. But largely, I think addiction can be summed up in this regard. The same way you let your hunt for neurotoxins in your endeavour into the world rule what you do, so does the drug addict. Different methods, same pattern. Of course, yours wouldn't be so onesided, as you wouldn't just crave the stimulus prevalence of a single neurotoxin. The point still stands, and it should at least give you a feel of what it's like.
  7. Emotions are quite hard to decipher, especially for me. Being emotionally handicapped (a degree of autism) makes me think about the world in ways that differ from what most people do, especially with regards to emotion. When I think about emotions, and the use thereof, I think about the absence of logic. I think of a chemically induced force that makes you act in a certain manner, based on drugs in your system. Basically "love" to me is a matter of chemicals (especially oxytocin). I think in some way rationality or rational behavior can be looked upon as the composition of emotions relative to logical reasoning. While it's emotionally logical to appreciate the lion for saving your daughter, it's not really logical to appreciate it in the sense of a mutual connection in terms of the word "love". Mutual empathy doesn't exist, as the lion, given the chance might eat you. So while you can appreciate the emotion as the drug it is, giving you a sense of happiness, can you truly appreciate the lion for the act when not looking at the intent? The word "love" to me implies mutual empathy. To be fair, this is based on my understanding and definition of the word "love", which might differ from the average romantic notion of what 'normal' people believe it means.
  8. Perhaps you're right. However: Aren't we all drug addicts in the sense that dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline, oxytocin and so on make us crave for certain stimuli? If you look at it this way, the behavior of an addict is basically the same thing as doing the things you do, based on how the things you do make you feel. To me, there's no real difference, except for the choice of stimuli. Personally, I think the mantra "it takes one to know one" is foolish in a lot of ways. Say you want to know what it's like to live in France. You then ask your friend - who has lived there for 20 years, but currently resides in the US: "What is it like to live in France?". If the mantra is correct: He wouldn't know, as he lives in the US. Of course, the counter-argument would be: Well, he used to live in France, so that is the foundation of his knowledge. But let's imagine your friend used to live on the very border of France - never having entered. Never having lived there. But from his door, he can easily inspect the lives of those in France. What's the real difference? I read the title as "28 Days Later", and read the remaining words within that context. Needless to say, I didn't catch your point fully on my initial glance
  9. My first thought: Make a joke orchestrated around drugs/addiction/Jim Irsay in relation to the OP. My second thought: "Too soon".
  10. I'm not a lawyer in the US, but I've studied US law in context of my danish law degree. I could probably write hundreds of pages why the legal system I'm eductated to understand is a bunch of semantics designed to manipulate and distort the truth to make it fit individual goals. If that is true in Denmark (whose legal system and democratic process is often heralded among international scholars as an ideal), I think it's fair to assume it probably would be true in the US as well. Don't ever trust a lawyer and the legal system he manipulates for the greed of his own or that of his clients. The legal system isn't designed to create justice. It's designed to create the illusion of justice by forcing sophistry down the throats of naive, good-willed people. At least, that's my conclusion based on my years of training to become a viscious vulture by optaining a masters degree in law. (Which is equivalent to the US "juris doctor").
  11. I failed at explaining my views on the environmental factors in a broader sense: It's basically the sum of every experience you've ever had in any shape or form. All those stimuli are in some way kept in your unconscious - you do not choose which are stored and which aren't. In fact, we don't really know how this works on a larger scale. However, some of these stimuli are in some shape or form stored, which leads you to have thoughts that lead you to perform actions. Those actions lead you to receive new stimuli and the circle continues. What I'm saying is: What you do today, what we're doing right now, should hypothetically be predictable - given complete enlightenment on all scientific matters (basically just physics, as physics determine the outcome of all the other sciences). It's based on the belief that if you deduce enough times by asking the question "why?": The common demoninator and answer to all questions in the universe could be looked upon simply as "The Big Bang". Of course, what came before that is perhaps the greatest puzzle of all (and as such, I'm not denying that a God could potentially exist). But what happened afterwards is basically just history, that may or may not follow a pattern. As such, all these functions and actions can in some shape or form be explained. I think the most interesting question in terms of quantum mechanics (which suggest lack of deduction, but rather induction) is a coined term of probabilities. Perhaps an outcome can't be fully deducted, but rather inducted through the use of mathematical probability.
×
×
  • Create New...