Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

General off-topic stuffs goes here.
User avatar
Absolut Zero
Posts: 610
Joined: December 24th, 2014, 3:51 am

Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Absolut Zero » December 24th, 2014, 10:01 am

Is our entire world a computer simulation? How can you know what is real or not? Does God exist? Is evolution real? Will the technological singularity occur in our lifetimes? Will we create an AI that will destroy our civilization? What is the meaning of life?

Do you have any insight on our purpose in this world? Share with everyone your thoughts on religion, life, death, and society in general.

This is a serious discussion. Please no flaming. If you can't state your case or refute someone else's case without calling him/her "stupid" then just don't post. This thread is for intelligent discussion, not for insulting someone else who holds a differing opinion. This rule will be strictly enforced.

As for my own beliefs, I am an Atheist. There just isn't enough evidence for me to justify spending so much time and investing so much blind faith into an organized religion. Maybe I have taken way to much acid in my day, but I comfort myself from death anxiety by hoping that time itself may be cyclical and I can have another chance to experience this life someday. After all, all we are is a collection of atoms and electrical impulses being interpreted. So maybe there is a chance that someday the same iteration of atoms that make up my body and memories will congregate somewhere else and I will have a chance to exist again. I know this sounds ridiculous but when you don't have anything else to comfort yourself with when you start thinking about death this small chance brings peace to my mind.

How about you? what do you believe?

User avatar
Frozelar
Posts: 175
Joined: December 24th, 2014, 2:05 am
Location: wait where
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Frozelar » December 24th, 2014, 3:22 pm

Well I've always been Christian and I'm sure I always will be. If anything at least it comforts me with what I believe is beyond death.

You know, my English teacher brought up the topic of 3D printers in class one day. I'm sure y'all probably know, but in case you don't, they take a variety of materials like plastic, certain metals, and apparently even chocolate, and can make anything based off of a picture of it. I think that's pretty cool, 'cause I'm sure as society technologically advances, we'll be able to get 3D printers down to a reasonable size and efficiency and they'll be just as common as 2D printers in households. Then I could be like "oh no my stapler broke, well that doesn't matter 'cause I can just print a new one."
Apparently they can also work with actual living tissue and cells, and they've even made body parts (like an ear) and stuff. I think this is cool and everything, but I feel like it's getting dangerously close to, like, human cloning or something. I feel like that's too far. We don't need to be playing God. But maybe I'm just crazy.
Oh, here's a couple pages about 3D printers: Wikipedia | 3dprinting.com

Another thing that I feel like is going too far with our technology is Rain on Request. It can supposedly solve, for example, all drought problems in California because it can just summon up rain year-round. I think it's really awesome that we're able to do that, but again... I dunno.
Image

User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3877
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Alice » December 24th, 2014, 6:51 pm

Absolut Zero wrote:As for my own beliefs, I am an Atheist. There just isn't enough evidence for me to justify spending so much time and investing so much blind faith into an organized religion. Maybe I have taken way to much acid in my day, but I comfort myself from death anxiety by hoping that time itself may be cyclical and I can have another chance to experience this life someday. After all, all we are is a collection of atoms and electrical impulses being interpreted. So maybe there is a chance that someday the same iteration of atoms that make up my body and memories will congregate somewhere else and I will have a chance to exist again. I know this sounds ridiculous but when you don't have anything else to comfort yourself with when you start thinking about death this small chance brings peace to my mind.

I used to just identify as atheist for simplicity's sake (the actual proper term for my beliefs would be agnostic atheist apatheist which always takes some explaining) but ever since we started getting those droves of militant atheists coming from Reddit and such I've started telling people I'm simply not religious.

To explain that term though for those who don't know what it means already: An agnostic atheist is someone who believes there is no god but doesn't write off the possibility since there's no evidence proving god does or doesn't exist. The apatheist bit means that I don't actually care whether there's a god or not. The existence or non-existence of a god doesn't affect my personal beliefs in the least bit. I'll do my best to live a moral life regardless.
💙💙💙
Image
Image

User avatar
spitznagl
Posts: 15
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 2:53 pm
Location: .qc.ca/

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby spitznagl » December 25th, 2014, 4:58 pm

Frozelar wrote:... going too far with our technology ... playing God ...

Let it be, It'll all burn soon anyway.

User avatar
Sephiko
Posts: 113
Joined: December 24th, 2014, 2:08 am
Location: Ontario

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Sephiko » December 25th, 2014, 5:12 pm

Image
Last edited by Sephiko on December 25th, 2014, 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Sarusig
Posts: 345
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 4:54 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Sarusig » December 25th, 2014, 5:28 pm

Everytime a new scientific breakthrough is made, some people are afraid of it being dangerous and us "playing God". And in 10 years we'll laugh at it because we'll actually have developped early teleportation and that will look too powerful and "playing God".
It's just humans being afraid of what they can't comprehend easily - and with good reason, most of that scientific stuff is hard to get.
Project Pokémon team - Music, QA, Writing, Master of taking notes in .txt forms sometimes

#shootitinthemouth

User avatar
Frozelar
Posts: 175
Joined: December 24th, 2014, 2:05 am
Location: wait where
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Frozelar » December 25th, 2014, 7:02 pm

Yeah, and I can definitely see why people would feel that way. I just adamantly feel that God made people, God made time, God made space. We shouldn't mess with that stuff and should leave it to him.

But I know a lot of people disagree. I guess it's my religion "clouding" my judgment.
Image

Sarusig
Posts: 345
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 4:54 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Sarusig » December 25th, 2014, 7:09 pm

Honestly, God got pissed off at humans for building a big tower - back when humans thought sky was the limit.

We have done faaaaar worse since then (and we are still building big towers, hello Dubaï, hello China). We've sent stuff to the Moon. If there is a God, I feel like he probably doesn't really care about our petty achievements. We're still just a little dot in the grand scheme of things. We are nothing. <3
Project Pokémon team - Music, QA, Writing, Master of taking notes in .txt forms sometimes

#shootitinthemouth

User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1461
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby EarthPhantomTS » December 25th, 2014, 7:38 pm

Well, my beliefs can best be described as a weird cross between Goddess-worship, Atheistic Satanism, Pandeism, and Discordianism. Basically, the idea is that there's a Goddess in each of us, and the meaning of life is to get in touch with Her. We do this by being ourselves, basically. But it's during sexual acts that we're particularly close to Her, as it was through sex that She (and I'm convinced it's female) created, and became, the Universe, leaving a seed of divinity within us all. One which can create, or destroy, one which can make the universe a better, or worse, place. That being said, I believe reality is a facade in some sense, and what we perceive as order and disorder (and here's where the Eris-worship comes in) is an illusion. The Goddess is ever-changing, chaotic, and, essentially, random or semi-random (like in the case of natural selection, which isn't random but is affected in large part by randomness), and we humans want security, but we're looking for it in the wrong places. Namely, masculine "order", "control", and "authority", which unfortunately sacrifice freedom, rather than the true sources of security, which give us comfort while allowing freedom, feminine "nurturing", "calmness", and "beauty". In the history of the world, humans have repeatedly made the mistake of prioritizing order over disorder, regardless of which would be more positive, when we should be prioritizing positivity over negativity.

It's a very...Chaotic Neutral philosophy I have :/ (to make a D&D reference).

As far as technology and the fears of "playing God" go, well...I think those fears are largely groundless. Anything that has the potential to improve millions of lives (like 3D printers and raincloud machines) should be embraced and encouraged, not feared. Especially if you're worried about the wrath of some deity that may or may not even exist :/. But on that note, I think the Goddess, if anything, would want her children to have the best quality of life we can have, just as any good human parent wants for their child. Moreover, I don't think she would've given us our brains with the intent that we not think for ourselves and just blindly do what a millenia old book tells us (or, rather, seems to tell us, since our understanding of the Bible/Koran/whatever is less than perfect) to do. Sorry if this is a bit rude; I assure you it's not my intent <3 :).
Last edited by EarthPhantomTS on December 25th, 2014, 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey

User avatar
Sephiko
Posts: 113
Joined: December 24th, 2014, 2:08 am
Location: Ontario

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Sephiko » December 25th, 2014, 7:48 pm

I have some catholic faith; though I believe dying leads to nothingness. When I had mono or whenever I had the flu I got more optimistic.
Image

Sarusig
Posts: 345
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 4:54 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Sarusig » December 25th, 2014, 8:16 pm

Oh yeah I should have mentioned, I'm an atheist, but coming from a country where the parts between faiths are fairly balanced, I feel very open towards other ideas/faiths.

Sephiko wrote:I have some catholic faith; though I believe dying leads to nothingness. When I had mono or whenever I had the flu I got more optimistic.


Man, mono sucks. Did it last long?
Project Pokémon team - Music, QA, Writing, Master of taking notes in .txt forms sometimes

#shootitinthemouth

User avatar
Sephiko
Posts: 113
Joined: December 24th, 2014, 2:08 am
Location: Ontario

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Sephiko » December 25th, 2014, 8:26 pm

Sarusig wrote:Man, mono sucks. Did it last long?


About a month, lucky compared to others.
Image

User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3877
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Alice » December 25th, 2014, 8:31 pm

Sarusig wrote:I feel very open towards other ideas/faiths.

This is basically how I feel. I won't push my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on people and I expect the same in return but I don't particularly care what religion someone identifies with and am typically open to discussing religion with people too so long as it doesn't devolve into arguing.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
Leet
Posts: 60
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 7:10 pm
Location: the sea of the unconscious
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Leet » December 26th, 2014, 4:37 am

i have fluctuating personal beliefs unrelated to any organized religion
Image
Genie wrote:No one is innocent so Karma doesn’t care who it kills. It strikes out randomly assured it destroys a sinner.

User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1461
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby EarthPhantomTS » December 26th, 2014, 10:46 pm

Oh, something else I remembered as I was coming home from my vacation. This picture and accompanying description is of a fictional religion, but it sums up my views on sexuality quite well (seriously, when I first saw it, I was kinda amazed at how well it fit me). As a warning, this link is definitely NSFW: http://kennoarkkan.tumblr.com/post/79118888102/stream-commmission-for-mr-xaviero-the Link contains futa furries licking penises
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


Sarusig
Posts: 345
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 4:54 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Sarusig » December 27th, 2014, 1:28 am

So er, we fine with Futa furries? I'm asking, cuz I surely am.
Project Pokémon team - Music, QA, Writing, Master of taking notes in .txt forms sometimes

#shootitinthemouth

User avatar
Isocitration
Citric Acid Spectre
Posts: 454
Joined: December 24th, 2014, 12:33 am

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Isocitration » December 27th, 2014, 3:27 am

Still not sure I'm completely comfortable with allowing these kinds of things, even with nsfw labels
<Isocitration> metaphors are hard to swallow
<tovakj> that's why we have analogies

User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3877
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Alice » December 27th, 2014, 3:31 am

Isocitration wrote:Still not sure I'm completely comfortable with allowing these kinds of things, even with nsfw labels

Oh yeah, this reminds me. We still have this from last night that we never finished since both of us were too tired to get what the other was saying, lol.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1461
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby EarthPhantomTS » December 27th, 2014, 3:35 am

Alice wrote:
Isocitration wrote:Still not sure I'm completely comfortable with allowing these kinds of things, even with nsfw labels

Oh yeah, this reminds me. We still have this from last night that we never finished since both of us were too tired to get what the other was saying, lol.


Oh dear...umm, sorry?
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3877
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Alice » December 27th, 2014, 3:39 am

EarthPhantomTS wrote:Oh dear...umm, sorry?

Nah, don't worry about it. Since the rule we currently have was just something I thought up as I was trying to lay out a basic ruleset for the forums we haven't actually really discussed it past last night which started after I'd taken a sleeping pill and Iso'd been up quite awhile on little sleep so we both weren't quite understanding each other, lol.

Regardless of the outcome of the discussion though, you shouldn't worry about it. You're following the current rule and we can't expect you to know how or if the rules will change in the future so if it does change we'll just let you know what to do differently at that point.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


Sarusig
Posts: 345
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 4:54 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Sarusig » December 27th, 2014, 3:54 am

So it's okay for now then? I don't have access to your private club and can't see the link, but this is a type of things I can occasionally link to for lulzy purposes. And because of the hilarity that is Shantae google image searches.
Project Pokémon team - Music, QA, Writing, Master of taking notes in .txt forms sometimes

#shootitinthemouth

User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3877
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Alice » December 27th, 2014, 3:56 am

Sarusig wrote:So it's okay for now then? I don't have access to your private club and can't see the link, but this is a type of things I can occasionally link to for lulzy purposes. And because of the hilarity that is Shantae google image searches.

For the time being, since we're still discussing it, yes. Once we've reached a conclusion I'll make a post here about it and I'll update the rules to account for any changes.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


Sarusig
Posts: 345
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 4:54 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Sarusig » December 27th, 2014, 4:04 am

Alright, "post nsfw, the mods are asleep not sure yet". I'll get to it. Thanks for the answer, and all the work you've done already.
Project Pokémon team - Music, QA, Writing, Master of taking notes in .txt forms sometimes

#shootitinthemouth

User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3877
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Alice » December 27th, 2014, 4:49 am

Alright, so we've come to a conclusion. The current rules will pretty much stay with a slight change. The nsfw content has to actually be relevant to the thread it's posted in and stuff like porn-centric threads and such aren't going to be allowed. So EarthPhantom's post is just fine, for example, but if she did something like posting her wallpaper from the other thread here then it would be a problem if that makes sense.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
potato_sniff
Cousin Janet
Posts: 73
Joined: December 24th, 2014, 2:04 am
Location: In some box somewhere

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby potato_sniff » December 27th, 2014, 7:36 am

Makes sense to me, only post when relevent

User avatar
Septentrion Pleiades
Posts: 3
Joined: December 26th, 2014, 9:52 pm

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Septentrion Pleiades » December 27th, 2014, 7:46 am

Is our entire world a computer simulation?

No.

How can you know what is real or not?

It is as real as I am. There is no division of the material world and the mind as per what dualism

Does God exist?

No

Is evolution real?

This is a science question, not a philosophy one. The answer is yes.

Will the technological singularity occur in our lifetimes?

Yes, but it is overrated.

Will we create an AI that will destroy our civilization?

Civilization often implies a connectivity across large areas and tiers of social structure. AIs do not benefit from a lost of infrastructure. It's more likely that they will usurp the human race from power while keeping civilization intact.

What is the meaning of life?

Boobs

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1949
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » December 30th, 2014, 11:07 am

Oooh this is my subforum, woo

>Is our entire world a computer simulation?
Plausibly metaphorically. Literally? Absolutely not. But metaphorically, if entanglement is the same as observation, then in a sense every state in the universe is entangled with every other - in a sense, leaving reality as "quantum bits" oscillating with each other, sort of what you might imagine an abstraction of a computer to be. But it might be beyond the scope of physics, and other interpretations such as the Many Worlds Hypothesis is a wee bit more parsimonious. I should stress, they all fit the data we currently have.

I should also say this - the Holographic Principle you might have heard of has nothing to do with whether everything's a hologram. It has to do with entropy scaling not with volume but area - this means that everything's real, but one of our dimensions might be emergent, or arising due to interactions of the others. For example, running exists, but if there were no legs to run, it couldn't.

>How can you know what is real or not?
Fun fact - you can never be absolutely certain of anything; it's part of the problem of induction. Pressed for this you'll be left either to a dead chain (muh senses which can fail) or a circular argument (cuz god sez cuz the bible sez cuz god sez etc). Philosophers have known this since before Rome conquered Judea, and you can learn it sometimes on the first day of any epistemology class. Beware the Sye Ten Bruggencate types - there's a very good reason no one cares about this seeming great hole.

However, we can be reasonably certain of things, and it has to do with a certain property. Say you have a set of satellite dishes. One detects a signal at a certain time. With that alone you don't know where the source is, but you know its strength and can draw a circle of probability of where the source is. But your second satellite dish picked up the same signal; you can used the same data to draw another circle, and where they overlap, is the source. The process is called triangulation. The more dishes you add, the more likely that their concordance, or independently arriving at the same conclusion, is not due to chance or error, but due to a more parsimonious reason: they're acting on the same data. So if it walks like a duck alone, you don't have any kind of reason to assume it's a duck, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, breeds like a duck with ducks, loves water like a duck, eats like a duck, has generally the same composition and mass as what can be expected of ducks, you have enough reasons to be confident in a Bayesian way that it's a duck.

How do we know what's real? Our senses are in agreement with what's real. We can be fairly certain from that what's real. But we can never be absolutely certain, and should keep that in mind to some degree, though statistically it usually doesn't matter.

>Does God exist?
God is a multifacited concept.

Some liberal Jews and other theists define their god as the summa bonarum; the totality of good things. No one can argue with a definition - however it does not imply that the other properties they ascribe to the summa bonarum are valid descriptors of it.

The prima causa is usually associated with creation. What happens if you trace cause back to the first cause? What happened to cause that? With a conventional conception of causality, you arrive at a paradox - an infinite regression of causes, a reduction to absurdity. So many theists posit an unmoved mover, a cause of causes; this is the heart of the cosmological argument. I think there are multiple serious problems with it. First, it's usually non-parsimonious; working without a prior assumptions you can't assume god until you have the reason to, and if assuming that something is a prima causa it's methodologically better posit something we know exists like the universe itself than to invent an external thing (all going back to Bayes and Occam). Secondly, it's premises might be flawed; it you run the equations backward, expansion of the universe is symmetrical to contraction, and eventually we arrive at a hypothetical point where space and time contracted to a singularity. While a singularity probably doesn't exist, the farther back you go, the stronger the gravity and the more contracted space-time is. At or near t=0, space-time would have been sufficiently small that essentially everything was in the same planck space, effectively in the spot. The same would of course be true for temporal things, and thus we would have phenomena acting in the same instant. This leads to exotic flavours of causality, including simultaneous cause and effect and causes being caused by their own effects. That means causes without a prima causa.


The ontological argument is poor. "Imagine the most good thing. Wouldn't it be better if that thing existed?" Well, "Imagine the most evil thing. Wouldn't it be worse if that thing existed?" That there shows that property>existence is neither good nor evil, and can't be intrinsic to the superlatives given. So it doesn't necessarily follow that the most good thing you can imagine exists, or that the most good thing that does exist is god.

The teleological argument rests on so many invalid assumptions and contradictory explanations that it's silly to outsiders. Here: "Now consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature… provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects"

Pascal's Wager isn't an argument per se, but an appeal to negative consequence and a false dichotomy. There are, for example, many faith not works religions besides some protestant interpretations of Christianity - e.g. Bhakti Hindus or Pure Land Buddhists. And simply taking all the religions into account, the probability that XYZ is the One True Religion™ is incredibly small, and needs more than an argument from bad consequence to even take the consequence seriously, and has nothing at all to do with whether it's true or not.

Then there's the fine-tuning argument. It's entirely based on arguments from ignorance, and is equally probable as the arguments for hidden variables or the anthropic principle.


The strongest argument is intrinsically personal - having had a religious experience. I really can't tell you absolutely that what you experienced is right or wrong. But you should realize that, others, not privy to the necessarily first-person nature of your revelation, don't have sufficient reasons to take your claim seriously, in the same way you don't have sufficient reasons to take theirs seriously. Heck, wanna know the truth? I'm an atheist, but I had a religious experience. It's just that instead of Jesus talking to me, it was a servant of Osiris. Just beware - while parsimony isn't absolute, there are better, simpler explanations for nearly all religious experiences, whether hallucination, fraud, or just plain biochemical reactions.

But I also think there are strong arguments against God's existence. The problem of evil is pretty big, and no, original sin isn't an adequate explanation however many times you insist it is. Bad design exists; things like our bad backs, the nerve controlling our thyroid, the whole business about putting in males an organ very prone to swelling around a vital but collapsible tube. There are reasonable kind hearted people who have never heard of god as well, and his revelations are inconsistent. Omnipotence is utterly incomprehensible unless it's taken to mean superpotence, and that's quite a bit different than what's ever been claimed. And nearly every argument *for* god, if you assume perfect validity, can be used to create other entities equally valid.

But for me most of all - Gods that exist with theologies positing life after death have effectively been ruled out: For any meaningful definition of information, we know in principle how it behaves - this is the foundation of quantum mechanics. We know from experient how things interact; if you posit a "psychon" (soul+thing) that interacts with the fundamental particles that make us up (the only meaningful exchange of information that acknowledges physics), say psy ~ e, and that it yields sound results (necessary otherwise everything would be literal chaos), psy ~ e > psy ~ e , we know a symmetrical interaction must also take place: e ~ e > psy ~ psy . But we've been smashing things together now for years and years and years with increasingly sensitive instruments. We can calculate the probability of this interaction existing by taking into account what we've already done. And here's the thing - gravity is extremely weak. Lift anything nearby, and you've overcome the gravity of the entire Earth. So our instruments got stronger to detect weak things. Guess what? We can plug the strength of the Higgs field found from the higgs particle in July 2013 directly into our equation - the probability that a force as strong or stronger than gravity exists in 1/10^10^120. Not a typo. The other neat thing? Gravity has about the weakest possible effect for sound cosmological reasons; anything weaker than it simply would not interact with matter. So from this, we can rule out with extreme confidence meaningful interactions like telekinesis, astrology, or the afterlife.


>Is evolution real?
Positively. Even creationists don't deny this; they deny variously that evolution is caused by darwinian natural selection, is capable of speciation, or think it's a figment of last thursdayism. All but the frankly most undereducated will agree that allele frequencies in populations change over time.

But instead of going on about that, I'll say this: natural selection affects far more than just biological species. Look at any idea anyone has ever had, and ask yourself, "what tricks has this idea developed to make sure it gets passed along"? If you know what a lie is, you'll know a meme doesn't need to be true to be replicated. You'll also see why systems of any sort can build exotic logical flora like circular arguments into themselves - it's not that they're true or false, but it makes them more readily held on to and passed on. Likewise you'll see why men go to war over ideology - the memes don't want to die according to their respective truth-values, therefore, they accumulate militant rhetoric until instead of truth, the physical power of their carriers assures an end to competition and the reproduction of the meme into the next generation.

>Will the technological singularity occur in our lifetimes?

Don't actually know much about the topic.

>Will we create an AI that will destroy our civilization?

Not in a meaningful sense; I think people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of AI. We make it, and we make it in labs. Only once it's proven profitable do we see it, and the thing is, most ais we have now are calculators. They rely entirely on our inputs. For consciousness, we have to model a certain way, different than our calculators. Not only would that not be ai but effectively real intelligence, but the likelyhood of putting an imprecise thing like that into a significant position is very low - it's extremely cost heavy, and the calculator-type ais perform at billions of times the efficiency; that's why we invented calculators in the first place. The only way the capable ais would destroy us is if we ourselves gave them the inputs to; the fault then would be in our own hands. And the only way we'd let the inefficient neurological computers into power is by literally putting them there. We'd actively be having to desire to destroy ourselves.

>What is the meaning of life?

Freud said Freude (Joy), Nietzsche said Power and Complacency, Franki said to learn. Freud's hedonism doesn't explain stoicism and can be dismissed as a consequence of natural selection. Power is part the latter, and Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrance stuff is basically just existentialism (basically, make you own meaning). Learning is closest to right, but relies in part on a wager-like understanding of morality.

In other words, I've tried and tried to find it. Heed me: there is none, objectively speaking, unless you're prepared to take a wager.

Basically,
There may be a most moral thing to do (premise)
The definition of morality is what ought to be done (definition)
The most moral thing to do is the most moral thing to do (tautology)
You likely don't know the most moral thing to do (vis Problem of Induction)
Reliable ability requires knowing (the verb even deriving from the same root as can, whence the silent k) (definition)
Knowing the most moral thing to do requires knowing the most moral thing to do (tautology)
Because it is moral (definition), it is in your interest to know what the most moral thing to do is so you can most effectively do it (I think this is logical)

I think it therefore follows that you should strive to increase collective meaningful experience, so we can use the knowledge gained to discover if there is in fact a great moral thing to do. This entails making lives better, so that instead of struggling to eat and breathe and so on, they can spend their time contributing to the knowledge of everyone. Providing a meaningful experience entails almost everything from conventional morality, although it's notably agnostic on issues like the right to die with dignity etc. But it's extremely altruistic.


Anyways it's a wager because it requires thinking of morality as some great thing in itself, and betting on that existence. But it's likely just an emergent property of altruistic behavior - it's not a coincidence that every moral system that's lasted more than a few centuries has preached survival. In other words, moral behaviours may be nothing more than behaviors that lead us to live to the next generation best. Putting it in the same category as Freud's Pleasure Principle (pleasure is shaped by the activities that lead to our successive reproduction, like sex or eating) and Nietzsche's Will to Power (power gives security to reproduce to the next generation).

>Do you have any insight on our purpose in this world?

No purpose. Sadly. The things most likely to keep going are most likely to keep going, and here we are. You can be happy if you make yourself a life you'd like to live again, but generally no, we're cosmic accidents.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".
Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1461
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby EarthPhantomTS » December 30th, 2014, 9:07 pm

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:Pascal's Wager isn't an argument per se, but an appeal to negative consequence and a false dichotomy. There are, for example, many faith not works religions besides some protestant interpretations of Christianity - e.g. Bhakti Hindus or Pure Land Buddhists. And simply taking all the religions into account, the probability that XYZ is the One True Religion™ is incredibly small, and needs more than an argument from bad consequence to even take the consequence seriously, and has nothing at all to do with whether it's true or not.


Not to mention, worshiping Yahweh specifically requires swearing off all other deities/potential deities, which could mean even worse punishment if you're wrong and the real god(s) are insulted by your worshiping of a false deity with a commandment to not put other deities above him :/. With how little information there is about deities and how many deities could exist, or not exist, you'd be better off not playing Pascal's game at all and just go with what your heart/brain tells you.

Also, I think the morality of the deities in question should have some impact on whether or not they deserve worship. And in this regard, Yahweh/Allah loses...badly. I mean, he's a fucking genocidal maniac for heaven's sake! Read the Old Testament and you'll clearly see that. By any reasonable standard, he (or any deity that causes Pascal's Wager to make sense as written, since even the worst dictators have only caused a finite number of deaths) is clearly evil, so maybe being sent to hell by him is preferable to being in heaven, right next to him.

P.S. Sorry about the foul language, but this is something I feel pretty strongly about. Living in the Bible Belt, eventually you get tired of idiots trying to take away a lesbian woman's freedoms to placate an evil god that they think is good but who probably doesn't even exist.

Alice wrote:Alright, so we've come to a conclusion. The current rules will pretty much stay with a slight change. The nsfw content has to actually be relevant to the thread it's posted in and stuff like porn-centric threads and such aren't going to be allowed. So EarthPhantom's post is just fine, for example, but if she did something like posting her wallpaper from the other thread here then it would be a problem if that makes sense.


What if I told you that I basically worship the woman depicted in my wallpaper :P? So it might actually be relevant?

(Nah, I kid! About the "relevance" part anyway. But I do basically offer some worship to Tiamat :oops: )
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1461
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby EarthPhantomTS » January 8th, 2015, 1:19 pm

Also, sorry for the double post, but while I was lying in bed, I realized something. Namely, while others have said that evolution is a scientific question, as well as scientific truth, not a philosophical one (which is true), I think there's a philosophical statement that the truth of evolution makes as well, though it's not the Social Darwinism generally feared by creationists. On the contrary, I think creationism is what actively encourages elitism, judgmentalism, and...dare I say it...Social Darwinism (due to the idea that humans were created to "dominate the land", as many creationists believe the Bible says in Genesis's second chapter), while evolution implies that we're all connected and that harming others is, in a sense, harming the self (especially with the hypothesis of common descent saying all living things come from the same ancestor implying this). Moreover, evolution provides a surprisingly good explanation of where our morals come from, but (unlike with the idea that they come straight from the Abrahamic God's dictates) it also allows for a bit of flexibility, particularly with the fact that the pressures of today's environment (others generally want you to be openminded and fear of the unknown tends to lead to deadly war) are different from the pressures of yesteryear (when fear of the unknown just kept you safe).

So, in short, creationists are wrong on the philosophical aspect of evolution as well, in addition to the scientific aspect. Perhaps even more terribly wrong than I ever realized before :(.
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3877
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Alice » January 8th, 2015, 1:23 pm

EarthPhantomTS wrote:Also, sorry for the double post

No need to apologize. It's not like you made two posts like this within a short time of each other. If the forum lets you make a second post in a row (it won't unless you're an admin if your last post in the thread was less than 24 hours ago currently) then it's perfectly fine.
Moreover, evolution provides a surprisingly good explanation of where our morals come from, but (unlike with the idea that they come straight from the Abrahamic God's dictates) it also allows for a bit of flexibility, particularly with the fact that the pressures of today's environment (others generally want you to be openminded and fear of the unknown tends to lead to deadly war) are different from the pressures of yesteryear (when fear of the unknown just kept you safe).

Is this at all related to that comment on Youtube? And I completely agree with you on this.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1461
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby EarthPhantomTS » January 8th, 2015, 2:45 pm

Alice wrote:
EarthPhantomTS wrote:Also, sorry for the double post

No need to apologize. It's not like you made two posts like this within a short time of each other. If the forum lets you make a second post in a row (it won't unless you're an admin if your last post in the thread was less than 24 hours ago currently) then it's perfectly fine.
Moreover, evolution provides a surprisingly good explanation of where our morals come from, but (unlike with the idea that they come straight from the Abrahamic God's dictates) it also allows for a bit of flexibility, particularly with the fact that the pressures of today's environment (others generally want you to be openminded and fear of the unknown tends to lead to deadly war) are different from the pressures of yesteryear (when fear of the unknown just kept you safe).

Is this at all related to that comment on Youtube? And I completely agree with you on this.


Yeah, possibly ^^;. If anyone's wondering, the comment she's referring to is my comment on this video: http://youtu.be/hSy2OatC1WQ. She was certainly correct there, but it kinda got me thinking about how certain instincts aren't so useful today (to make another example that has nothing to do with morality or eating habits, optical illusions play on this theme. Also, our tendency to see faces in random images is an artifact of evolution, though it's still certainly important to recognize a face when one is presented to you), and that in turn got me thinking about how people might evolve in different directions if we continued going, or started again with an ancestor while we homo sapiens were still around.

Yeah, getting all science fiction there, huh (admittedly, emphasis on the fiction)?

Also, good to hear that double-posting is fine if it's been a while ^^;.
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


User avatar
Leet
Posts: 60
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 7:10 pm
Location: the sea of the unconscious
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Leet » January 9th, 2015, 9:04 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:>Is our entire world a computer simulation?
Plausibly metaphorically. Literally? Absolutely not.


Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:>How can you know what is real or not?
Fun fact - you can never be absolutely certain of anything


hmm something seems off here
Image
Genie wrote:No one is innocent so Karma doesn’t care who it kills. It strikes out randomly assured it destroys a sinner.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1949
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » January 11th, 2015, 7:23 am

hahaha

let there be a lottery

let subject a have a 1/googolplex chance of victory

will a win?

you cant be absolutely certain he won't

but you can feel as safe as can be betting the universe againt him


this is the case of the former. look up Bayes law sometime, it'll help you weigh probabilities in a way that restores your sense of absolute certainty. Basically, there's a difference between effective absolution and literal.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Leet
Posts: 60
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 7:10 pm
Location: the sea of the unconscious
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Leet » January 11th, 2015, 10:48 am

this isnt a question of probability though

its a situation that either is or isnt

and a situation with an incredibly broad description, i should add
Image
Genie wrote:No one is innocent so Karma doesn’t care who it kills. It strikes out randomly assured it destroys a sinner.

User avatar
Zummorr
Posts: 382
Joined: January 4th, 2015, 12:00 am

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Zummorr » January 11th, 2015, 11:08 am

Is the entire world a Computer simulation?: Wouldn't that make the god of the world a computer programmer, that is an odd image...

How can we know if the world is real or not?: Since in order to prove if the world (or universe) were real or not it would require evidence outside the world...which would be impossible to get. Its the whole Plato's Cave problem, as long as you are stuck in the cave you have no idea if the world is just the shadows on the wall or if there is more.

As far as the existence of God. It is a matter of faith. If one could prove that God exists then it wouldn't be a test of faith. From my little understanding of Christian religion, God gives human's free-will and from that wants them to accept his existence through choice.

As far as Evolution goes, the scientific community is assured that Evolution is as factual as history is to historians.

I don't think we have to worry about about Rogue computer intelligences or Zombies...but I do think that we have to worry about the fact that despite the Cold War being over there are still plenty of nuclear weapons pointed around. And remember we have come very close to firing at each other in the past over realistic drills. (There is also the possible resurgence of Spanish Flu but details)

If you were to strictly interpret purpose through structure...the purpose, and therefore meaning, of human life would be to support their gametes and pass on their genetic information, why? because any organism that does not pass along its information goes extinct.

But the implications of the above thoughts are terrible, hollow, and purposeless. Since we are much more than tape-worms. The human body after all devotes about 20% of its caloric intake to supporting its nervous system. And by using that lump of neurons have developed amazing tools, art, mathematics, we've even explored the stars.

Despite all the doubts, whether the world exists or if there is an afterlife, I'd argue that the meaning of human life is to learn, explore, create, and to teach. There is so much that is still not known and so much that each individual doesn't know and probably will never know.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1949
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » January 11th, 2015, 12:15 pm

Everything is a probability question
Is this true > is the probability of this = true =1?

bad explain incoming

Assume logic

For "computer simulation" to be true, it has to have satisfied premises

Observations made thus far do not agree with computer simulation premises

Every observation can be overwritten, the hypothesis can be saved

But to do so requires revising data for every time universe has been observed not behaving computerly

So roughly its the probability of all our observations going back times likelihood of new thing divided by






I'm skipping a lot as assumed. But the computer simulation dealy is fundamentally "who are our designers" "why" "for what" "what are we running on" "does universe behave like computer > 'where is flushed memory' 'what happens if memory leaks' 'can we leak memory' 'what would be signs of what we're in'" etc

The first lot is the same as the theism argument. The second doesn't agree with trivial observations; we don't see glitches either. When we zoom in far enough it ceases to be meaningfully a computer and more an entropy box which is abstracted enought to be identical to what we would reasonably call a universe


But most importantly this is our only actual experience. We haven't lived as computer organisms from our own perspective. We have no reason to assume we're not what we experience. That's probability



but I'm arguing for it shittily, I'm el linguo and hegelianism with will to power and does theism etc shit not math dweeb. Sorry, talk to someone actually smart maybe like a weird sun, one of the Matsushitas I went to highschool with, or Richard Carrier (historian)



I'm really dumb and forgot what I was arguing
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1949
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » January 11th, 2015, 12:18 pm

but also i want to add that my views on the meaning of life have changed

"Breaker Of Combo

They thought life was about control, but it was about turning light into heat.


The dewfall in the night. The burning sun. The seemingly endless replication of the form of leaves. These are mere complications."
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
chridd
Posts: 210
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 9:20 pm
Location: the internet
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby chridd » January 11th, 2015, 9:32 pm

I'm an atheist (small a) and irreligious, and always have been and probably always will be. Other than that, how I feel about religions is not always the same, but I tend towards just not thinking about (a)theism/(ir)religion that much. I think it's most likely that there's a lot of variation in how good or bad religions are, both for the people believing them and the people around them, just because there are so many different religions and so many different people who believe in some religion.

EarthPhantomTS wrote:[...] Namely, while others have said that evolution is a scientific question, as well as scientific truth, not a philosophical one (which is true), I think there's a philosophical statement that the truth of evolution makes as well, though it's not the Social Darwinism generally feared by creationists. [...]
(Not really a direct response to your post, but...) I think that the relation between evolution by natural selection and Social Darwinism is similar to the relation between particle physics and nuclear weapons, or between chemistry and burning stuff. The science says that the action is possible, and how to do it, but just like believing that chemistry or particle physics works does not mean the person supports arson or using nuclear bombs, believing that evolution happens doesn't mean the person supports Social Darwinism.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1949
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » January 14th, 2015, 3:50 pm

Thing about that though, Social Darwinists fundamentally misunderstand evolution's altruistic implications; but to build a nuke requires understanding physics, and arson requires just enough knowledge to start a fire. SocDars spin philosophical implications out of real ignorance, nuke builders have alien philosophies, and arsonists need no philosophies.

(The part in question is they misunderstand the viability and sheer advantage of a diverse gene pool; we reproduce sexually, not asexually. No evolution derived good can come about from genocide and poor-fucking).

I used to like to phrase it more like evolution generally describes what is, not what ought to be. But now I think the theory also gives us the tools to pursue what ought to be, and we should work exactly to curtail the behaviors that work to narrow our gene pool. Also we should K-select, definitely K-select. We aren't bloody minnows.


but maybe I'm just being dumb and splitting hairs or something
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Zummorr
Posts: 382
Joined: January 4th, 2015, 12:00 am

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Zummorr » January 14th, 2015, 9:24 pm

I used to like to phrase it more like evolution generally describes what is, not what ought to be. But now I think the theory also gives us the tools to pursue what ought to be, and we should work exactly to curtail the behaviors that work to narrow our gene pool.


That is a dangerous road to wander down. Because implementing a program to support "genetic diversity or genetic favor-ability" is basically reviving a nasty old thing known as Eugenics.

The problem with a system which tries to control the genetics of a society is that it ultimately restricts the freedom of the societies individuals, it would prevent people from procreating. At the same time how does one determine which traits (because ultimately that is what you are selecting for right?) are favorable to society and should be passed on.

At the same time, while holistically genetic diversity generally healthier for a species it isn't an end all be all. Since many species like Elephant Seals or Naked Mole Rats have extremely poor genetic diversity but do just fine. The Mole Rats in particular have overcome those unwanted negative disease traits despite generations of inbreeding.


Return to “General Perversion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest