Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

TMPHBITEU

Member
  • Posts

    345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TMPHBITEU

  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.
  12. Please explain why you believe it's a complete and utter joke. To me it seems you're acting on emotion and are attacking my arguments defiantly through an act of sophistry. I do not claim in any way to know exactly why people do what they do. I do however recognize the possibility, that at some point in the future, it's possible that someone will be able to do so.
  13. That's not cliché at all. It's a psychological fact. In my posts I just call it "environmental factors/stimuli". Those are synonymous. Nurture is a form of environmental stimuli. Being humiliated, beaten etc. etc. also is. It's the sum of all these factors and the sum of our genetics that end up "defining" us. Our current knowledge of psychology is simply so severely limited that we don't at this moment in time know the value of said factors perfectly. In actuality, the science of psychology is probably one of the least investigated areas in popular sciences, especially because it's so severely limited by ethics and morality in terms of human experimentation. Let's go back to the movie example from before. I've used it on several of my real life friends, and I've tried it in different variations. One of my best friends - a really empathetic, yet naive soul - participated. I asked him the day before, that if I a movie was made about my life, which actor would play me? He for some reason said Brad Pitt (I don't look like Brad Pitt at all). In the following hours, I mentioned Brad Pitt in several contexts, coupled with talks of anything related to Brad Pitt and the seven deadly sins (I knew he was aware of the movie Se7en). I wanted to see whether I could actively influence my best friend to pick a movie of my choosing. He ended up picking the movie Snatch - with Brad Pitt. When I told him what I'd done he was scared beyond recognition. But it did reveal just how fragile his mind was, and he was able to take steps to correct his suggestibility. Of course, what I did would be considered "mental violence" or something worse. However, I did it with good intentions so at least I choose to believe I'm disculpated. It demonstrated just how suggestible the human mind can be. Because of this newfound knowledge of himself, he was able to correct what he believed was a fundamental flaw (or rather, perhaps what I believed to be a fundamental flaw?). Either way: I was the environmental stimuli that made him change. His genetics and experiences made up that person until then. Afterwards, he became different (he's still to this day one of my closest friends), due to the environmental stimuli that was and is the abomination of my autistic mind.
  14. It seems my lack of communicative skills clouded my intent Allow me to start with a small thought experiment (credit to neuroscientist Sam Harris): Think of a movie. You're free to choose. 1. I'm assuming you're a regular person who doesn't know the title of every movie ever created. Already here, you're limited in your ability to choose freely. 2. Before you're able to actively pick a movie that you have stored in memory, thoughts appear. In this case, let's pretend the choices your subconscious creates are "Avatar", "Lawrence of Arabia" and "A Beautiful Mind". In all honesty: Did you control which thoughts entered your cognitive state? 3. You now have the choice between these three movies. You pick Avatar: Why? Well, you just watched "Finding Nemo" yesterday. Finding Nemo is an animated movie and you liked it. This led you to pick Avatar. But the same argument - despite your liking of "Finding Nemo" may as well have led you to pick "A Beautiful Mind" - you're feeling adventerous and want to try a new experience. And you've already just watched an animated movie yesterday. My point is: All these thoughts you have, are not really yours. They're active ingredients of what appear in your subconscious. You may think you're making the decision based on "free will": But how could you? Onto what you wrote, and the implications of "my" philosophy: When I'm saying it has "nothing" to do with Jim Irsay, I simply mean that Jim Irsay is the sum of genetics + environmental factors that led us up to this very point. All those factors, actions and functions make up Jim Irsay, so it'd be foolish on my behalf to claim it having nothing to do with Jim Irsay, when in truth, it has everything to do with Jim Irsay. What I tried to relay in my post was the following: As I said, the action should be condemned. And even though Jim Irsay was as little to blame for everything that happened up until this very moment in time, which is true whether your name is Osama or Obama (yup, I just said that, and I'll defend those views avidly), it's irrational to 'judge' the person. Say you were born to be Osama: Basically you're following your natural impulses, regardless of how wrong they may be based on the standards of society. What I mean to say is: Don't throw bad feelings toward Jim Irsay, Osama or anyone else for that matter, as that - to me - is completely irrational and shows to some degree, ignorance. Let me ask you this: If someone close to you were attacked and killed by a lion, would it be rational to judge the lion with the feeling of hate? Isn't the lion just following its natural impulses? You might want to lock the lion up, or remove yourself from the threat of being attacked: But would you deem it rational to kill it as vengeance? To me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't believe the word "justice" should exist - rather I think the word "symmetry" or "balance" should replace it. Which brings me to the implications of my views: Does this mean that punishment, corrections etc. would be wrong, considering the person didn't really have a choice or not in the first place? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Let me make this abundantly clear: As a society, we both can, will, should and have to correct behavior detrimental to our ability to evolve (which seems to be the purpose of our existance). As such, we shouldn't allow killers or drunk drivers for that matter to roam freely. But what I'm advocating is: Don't hate what you don't understand. Dislike the behavior, because it's detrimental, but remember: In the end we're all reactions based on functions that came after the event we know as "The Big Bang". To me, we're nothing but extremely beautiful and extremely complicated physical processes. As such, I find hate to always be irrational, and the result of ignorance. Punishment should ONLY be used when it has a purpose in terms of correcting a problem detrimental to life being able to evolve (correcting and understanding the behavior of addicts, so they don't end up drunk driving etc.), but I do not believe that punishment, just for the sense of punishing someone to make yourself feel better can ever be rational. To me, that has severely limited - if any - foundation in logic.
  15. It wasn't meant as an attack, or a direct contradiction of what you said (as you appear to have understood based on what you just wrote). More as a thought experiment that I thought you, or someone else might find interesting or useful.
  16. The exact same way as you would before this happened. I mean: A constructive counter-argument from Brazill could never be: "Well, I now have reason to do drugs because the owner does it too". That's not really logical in any way. It'd be the exact same logic that would say: Well, because X commited this murder, I am allowed to murder X as well. It just isn't rational, because you failed to understand why everything ended up happening the way it did. It'd be like saying: X person drove drunk then happened to hit a kid who died. The natural reaction is disgust over the action, followed by a condemnation of the person. But let's say X person drove drunk because he had a brain tumor: Wouldn't it be completely unconstructive to deny the removal of the brain tumor based on hatred, when we understand the actual cause of the problem?
  17. Although we can condemn the action because it's detrimental to society, that has nothing to do with Jim Irsay. His addiction, while being his problem, is not something he chose to have. Rather it's a cocktail of different factors all of us are absolutely clueless about. While you can dislike the action, don't automatically hate the person. He's as much to blame for his reactions to the various stimuli from society based on his capacity to respond due to genetic factors that most of us have: You are suffering from the delusion of free will. It's completely irrational to blame the person for what he did. Rather you should understand the processes that lead to this outcome. Remember: Tolerance is always the outcome of defeating ignorance. Understand that tolerance toward race, religion and mental health are all equal in this regard.
  18. If your house was on fire, would you throw more fire at it in order to extinguish it?
  19. Lions at #2? And the argument for them now being the second best offense is Golden Tate? I'm missing something here...
  20. I agree with the Manning part. The delicacy of the quarterback situation is unique to all of sports which is what got me interested in the first place. Peyton Manning is the reason I ended up with the Colts. In terms of the second part, I'll ask you this: It seems your logic is this: Ryan Grigson is the GM of the Colts -> The GM picks the team and coaches -> The team plays the matches -> Whoever fields the best team given the format of the NFL eventually wins the Super Bowl -> Seeing as Ryan Grigson's job is to pick the team, he's ultimately the explanation for the success of the Colts if and when we win the Super Bowl. If the above seem flawless to you, I'd strongly urge you to reassess your views on the use of logic.
×
×
  • Create New...