EPThttp://soundcloud.com/bowling-green-bullshit/no-stress
High Thread - Page 706
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ZulphuR
United States1 Post
http://soundcloud.com/bowling-green-bullshit/no-stress | ||
|
dreamsmasher
816 Posts
On June 01 2012 09:10 DOMINOSC wrote: hey high thread has been so long since ive been in here about to smoke a joint now got a question for you all what is your career? if you dont have one yet are you in school if not do you plan on going and for what? me im not in school i currently work part time dont know what i want to do with my life. economics/statisics, taking actuarial exams etcc.. i haven't smoked in the last month, while at home in CALI (of all fucking places) cuz i udnno the GODS DONT WANT ME TO SMOKE and i can't get any. regularly i burn like 1/8th a week though. | ||
|
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
"You are not a body. You have a body. You do not have a brain. You are a brain." This called to mind 'reincarnation doctrine' in some religions. If you are either a brain or a body then reincarnation may not make intuitive sense. However, suppose that you are a consciousness generated from the brain. Is it necessary to the doctrine of reincarnation that we recall memories from our previous life? If we did have such memories then that would be strong evidence in favor of reincarnation theory. However, in the absence of such memories, is reincarnation an attractive or at least plausible theory? I'd say reincarnation could be plausible even in the absence of memories from previous lives. While memories or some other sort of trace evidence seem to be an integral element in the original descriptions of reincarnation, these features may not be a requirement in order that reincarnation is true. You are you. Suppose your brain and body dies and your consciousness fades. If 'you' reappear then you are you once more. That is, if you experience the consciousness of another life form the same like your current conscious experience then that too is you. Perhaps we identify very strongly with our conscious experiences or our memories. The particular events or facts concerning our body and brain. Though, if you were amnesic and you could not recall events prior to today, you would still be your conscious experience today (and from here onward). So you are not the events of your life, or you not just the events of facts of your life. Surely there are moments in each person's life that the person cannot recall. And yet you probably believe that you were you when those events were in motion. "If you wake up in a different place, at a different time; could you wake up a different person?" _Fight Club Even our memory experience of events is probably not in the same 'time' like our present experience of events. You may recall the events of 16 hours in the span of just moments, yet intuitively you would expect that some data is lost in this fast-forward action. And yet you feel comfortable to say "I recall these events, their order. That is me, or that was me." To most people if you have memory of an event then you are happy to say "Oh I was there or even I am there in my recollection." | ||
|
CyDe
United States1010 Posts
On June 02 2012 12:23 Failsafe wrote: I read in the Teamliquid channel today: "You are not a body. You have a body. You do not have a brain. You are a brain." This called to mind 'reincarnation doctrine' in some religions. If you are either a brain or a body then reincarnation may not make intuitive sense. However, suppose that you are a consciousness generated from the brain. Is it necessary to the doctrine of reincarnation that we recall memories from our previous life? If we did have such memories then that would be strong evidence in favor of reincarnation theory. However, in the absence of such memories, is reincarnation an attractive or at least plausible theory? I'd say reincarnation could be plausible even in the absence of memories from previous lives. While memories or some other sort of trace evidence seem to be an integral element in the original descriptions of reincarnation, these features may not be a requirement in order that reincarnation is true. You are you. Suppose your brain and body dies and your consciousness fades. If 'you' reappear then you are you once more. That is, if you experience the consciousness of another life form the same like your current conscious experience then that too is you. Perhaps we identify very strongly with our conscious experiences or our memories. The particular events or facts concerning our body and brain. Though, if you were amnesic and you could not recall events prior to today, you would still be your conscious experience today (and from here onward). So you are not the events of your life, or you not just the events of facts of your life. Surely there are moments in each person's life that the person cannot recall. And yet you probably believe that you were you when those events were in motion. "If you wake up in a different place, at a different time; could you wake up a different person?" _Fight Club Even our memory experience of events is probably not in the same 'time' like our present experience of events. You may recall the events of 16 hours in the span of just moments, yet intuitively you would expect that some data is lost in this fast-forward action. And yet you feel comfortable to say "I recall these events, their order. That is me, or that was me." To most people if you have memory of an event then you are happy to say "Oh I was there or even I am there in my recollection." Shit dude, that makes a shit load of sense, and I am not even high yet. *enlightenment* | ||
|
MSUDude111
United States10 Posts
| ||
|
the_business_og
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
LtCalley
United States244 Posts
| ||
|
Fermats_last
England336 Posts
On June 01 2012 09:10 DOMINOSC wrote: hey high thread has been so long since ive been in here about to smoke a joint now got a question for you all what is your career? if you dont have one yet are you in school if not do you plan on going and for what? me im not in school i currently work part time dont know what i want to do with my life. Just taking final exams in High school (england) and I'm going on to study mechanical engineering at bath university (woo, its damn nice) then If I'm lucky I can get a job in the research and development side of things and if not I'll probably move back here and work in one of the few engineering companies near where I'm from. It's all looking good :D | ||
|
BeanerBurrito
1010 Posts
The more i listen to this song, the better it gets. | ||
|
Alabasern
United States4005 Posts
| ||
|
enslaved[t]
Norway46 Posts
I was just going for a sig when I caught my boss smoking a joint on the roof of our companies building, I startled the shit out of him, and he tried his best to play it off like a cigarette. The look on his face when I asked him if he was willing to share was priceless. It looked like that question removed all his fears and worries (Made me feel like Jesus no jk), this was about 20mins ago, needless to say I'm high as shit right now, and work has just started (09.30 in Norway). Mindless chill IT job ftw! What I'm listening to right now: Don't open if you hate rap : / + Show Spoiler + Edit: Also, watching Starcraft 2 being played in SPL is a pretty alright thing to do at work : D | ||
|
Hamboigahz
Australia55 Posts
| ||
|
jcroisdale
United States1543 Posts
On June 02 2012 12:23 Failsafe wrote: I read in the Teamliquid channel today: "You are not a body. You have a body. You do not have a brain. You are a brain." This called to mind 'reincarnation doctrine' in some religions. If you are either a brain or a body then reincarnation may not make intuitive sense. However, suppose that you are a consciousness generated from the brain. Is it necessary to the doctrine of reincarnation that we recall memories from our previous life? If we did have such memories then that would be strong evidence in favor of reincarnation theory. However, in the absence of such memories, is reincarnation an attractive or at least plausible theory? I'd say reincarnation could be plausible even in the absence of memories from previous lives. While memories or some other sort of trace evidence seem to be an integral element in the original descriptions of reincarnation, these features may not be a requirement in order that reincarnation is true. You are you. Suppose your brain and body dies and your consciousness fades. If 'you' reappear then you are you once more. That is, if you experience the consciousness of another life form the same like your current conscious experience then that too is you. Perhaps we identify very strongly with our conscious experiences or our memories. The particular events or facts concerning our body and brain. Though, if you were amnesic and you could not recall events prior to today, you would still be your conscious experience today (and from here onward). So you are not the events of your life, or you not just the events of facts of your life. Surely there are moments in each person's life that the person cannot recall. And yet you probably believe that you were you when those events were in motion. "If you wake up in a different place, at a different time; could you wake up a different person?" _Fight Club Even our memory experience of events is probably not in the same 'time' like our present experience of events. You may recall the events of 16 hours in the span of just moments, yet intuitively you would expect that some data is lost in this fast-forward action. And yet you feel comfortable to say "I recall these events, their order. That is me, or that was me." To most people if you have memory of an event then you are happy to say "Oh I was there or even I am there in my recollection." A theory that came to me a few weeks ago. "What if we are reincarnated and all of our past memories from all our past lives make up our subconscious?" | ||
|
Th30nE
United States44 Posts
| ||
|
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
On June 05 2012 17:30 jcroisdale wrote: A theory that came to me a few weeks ago. "What if we are reincarnated and all of our past memories from all our past lives make up our subconscious?" my interpretation is that reincarnation is traditionally thought to be a function of karma, or that somehow our deeds from previous incarnations weigh in to how we are reincarnated. presumably not all humans are eligible to be reincarnated once more in a human body--one conjecture is that humans are karmic vessels the potential to do a lot of damage. i don't know how the rules evolve, or if they evolve, or alternatively if the rules are set in stone since before the beginning of time or something like that. if karma is real and reincarnation is real then the rules of their operation are probably somewhat odd. perhaps they evolve in a non-linear way, something like what Douglas Adams talks about in Hitchhiker's. perhaps the beginning references the middle and the future references the past and so on. Adams talks jokingly about there being nine different tenses instead of the traditional three. Someone from the future might influence the past, and that retroactively affects the present. By extension, someone in the present makes a move that influences the future, and that retroactively affects the past, which then affects both the present and the future. The possibilities are endless. Even if you maintain a belief in a deterministic universe, if there were some way to alter the past, then the future would be determined differently. So this is one possible way in which 'the will' could act in the present to affect the past, indirectly influencing the future. To me a deterministic universe seems like the only plausible or comprehensible Universe, because I don't subscribe to there being forces that don't obey the laws of matter. If there were evidence that there were some sort of field force like the Force from Star Wars that didn't behave anything like the conventional matter that we are accustomed to observing in physics, then I would be inclined to revise my theory that the brain is the only thing generating the mind -- or at least that the brain is a structure composed from matter traditionally conceived. If you allow the possibility that the mind also influences the brain in some sort of teleological loop or whatever you wanna call it, then perhaps I'd also be inclined to consider the possibility of karmic action and reincarnation. Pretty much there is not a direct one-to-one function mapping matter -> brain -> mind, and instead there's some unexpected or convoluted relationship; especially if you demonstrate that mind is not strictly a function of matter, and that 'mind' perhaps even without reference to matter could influence matter, then karma and reincarnation do indeed look plausible. Circumventing empiricism in this way seems to lead directly to a sort of Eastern mysticism, and there you find the realm of all sorts of things that are quite boggling to a mind trained in the Western scientific discipline. in this sort of mystic realm i think all one may do is speculate very cautiously, and hope to make some discoveries. these discoveries may not be easily transmitted to others, or even translatable into contemporary language. i think it's this difficulty in communicating 'mystic revelations' that gives rise to a great deal of skepticism, and also that most people making claims about true psychic powers are either abusing spiritual substances or committing some sort of fraud. while it's true that i think substances like marijuana are powerful spiritual substances that can confer some interesting and enlightening experiences, i don't think that the average marijuana-user is capable of producing some great psychic force. anyway, suppose that there is some sort of mind that exists independent of matter. or alternatively, consider the possibility that we've got the relationship between mind and matter reversed (or at least that the relationship goes both ways). obviously if you imbibe alcohol, and alcohol reaches the brain, then there are effects. so there's no doubt that the brain is generating the mind. however, is it possible that the mind is also generating the brain or rather that the mind is also influencing matter? if there is the possibility that some higher consciousness exists independent of matter, or that matter itself is a function of some higher consciousness then your idea that we carry memories from our past lives into our present subconscious could be true. perhaps it is the lower or egoistic consciousness that is generated primarily from our brain, and that it is the same lower consciousness influenced when we imbibe alcohol. a heavy night's drinking has a serious effect on our brain and on our mind; however, at the same time it's possible that the same event is just a footnote in our higher consciousness (this seems especially true if we allow the possibility that this higher consciousness is eternal). so, if there is some higher consciousness that catalogs the events of our life, and this higher conscious is also responsible bringing order to matter in our universe, then perhaps our bodies and brains are just manifestations that find their shape or form from this higher consciousness. there are some beings like the Dalai Lama and perhaps also the late Emperor of Japan who claim to have some memory of their previous lives. There are accounts that these people seem to be the keepers of knowledge from events they could not possibly have encountered, and so the source of this knowledge is presumed to be an effect of their incarnation. That is, these 'recognized' spiritual beings bear some of the wisdom and some of the impressions from their previous lives. | ||
|
randommuch
United States370 Posts
On June 04 2012 08:12 the_business_og wrote: any one fan of dabs? ~_~ so faded I'm about to order a custom dabber, trying to get a mushroom with a wigwag on it's bottom as a cap for the dabber ^.^ My buddy picked up an oz of this BHO that has a red tint to it, think it got tested at 89%. | ||
|
GRCJH
Canada76 Posts
| ||
|
OneBaseKing
Afghanistan412 Posts
| ||
|
slam
United States923 Posts
| ||
|
AcesAnoka
Belgium262 Posts
| ||
| ||
