Carl-Richard

I changed my response. It's semantics in the sense that there was no new lesson added (or at least you didn't specify it). There was no novelty ? It's very simple. You first have form vs. formless. Then within form, you have order vs. disorder. The balance is life, health, intelligence, beauty, wisdom. That is the lesson. Novelty is neither order nor disorder, but it's a form of change, maybe development. You can have a state of order which changes to disorder or vice versa. I guess whether it's novelty or not depends on the particular forms that are being produced (e.g. a new species), or maybe even just an abnormally long or short period of either disorder or order can be considered novel. You can think of it as laying somewhere on the balance between order and disorder. Order and disorder are more fundamental.

Chaos is disorder (hence it's the opposite of order). Do you really think of novelty as disorder? How is it better?

These non-duality things don't negate distinctions in the relative realm. They don't change anything. Taking it as belief will corrupt your thinking.

The question is does AI experience human thoughts, feelings and emotions?

...it's not all fake ._.

What does that mean? Does LaMDA qualify? Do they give massages?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning Ti strikes again!

His name is Bowblax, I remember now. He had an absolute meltdown: 3:31:53 Btw Destiny looks fucking hot in that pic ??

@Danioover9000 This is very tangential and a bit out there and also a little personal, so please don't take offense, but I remember you once called some streamer who got triggered by Mr. Girl's talking style "autistic AND schizophrenic" in that they prefer to use highly literal language. That is of course commonly known to be true for autism, but I was surprised why you would mention schizophrenia, but indeed, it does seem to be true for schizophrenia as well: "[...] several studies confirm that schizophrenia patients often choose concrete interpretations when asked to interpret figurative language." (Brune & Bodenstein 2005; Chapman 1960; Kiang et al. 2007). Now, you're a pretty literal guy, and you also say you see things that other people don't see (your long-term contact with a spiritual entity), so I'm just curious, do you also experience other symptoms commonly associated with schizophrenia? Note: I'm not trying to infer that you would qualify for a diagnosis (as that requires many more criteria than just a few symptoms), and it's not like I would care anyway, but nevertheless, I'm curious.

They were always a public group or at least intended to be, they became famous decades before 2016, and it was not due to a controversial political opinion (that is what I really meant by "controversial position"; sorry, I should've clarified that, you being overly literal and stuff ). It's an explanation, not an excuse. Calling surgeons butchers and calling women on Twitter ugly is not civil.

At the 4-5 day mark, my mind starts becoming an insight-creating machine, but my body becomes restless.

He certainly could make his points in a less inflammatory and culture war-like way, but you also have to be a bit understanding that he has been involved in nothing but controversy since 2016, and it was a big change from his usual life, so it's not a surprise that his approach has become a little less virtuous. Imagine if you yourself became famous over night and half of the political world starts being on your ass for 6 years straight. You might say "ah, but many people are involved in controversy", but I would say not in that way. Does there even exist an analogous example in the age of social media of a non-public person suddenly becoming world famous over night because of some controversial political opinion and then gradually becoming more hot for half a decade?

His energy alone is enough to guide you.

With reproductive organs?

Lmao fine this is not getting anywhere.

I'll admit that Mr. Girl isn't making it exactly easy for people to completely miss the point, but I guess that's his forte. However, if you take the context of the entire movie review, the takeaway isn't that he enjoyed the movie, or that he likes kids. Rather, he felt uncomfortable, he thinks it was wrong, and yes, he said "they're pretty hot", as a segway to the point that this was actually the point of the movie (to make you feel that and then experience that inner conflict with your social conscience). Is it completely unreasonable to assume that this applies to the rest of the male population? I mean, considering how people get married at 12 in certain countries, how Elvis met a 14 year old and later married her, how some 14 year olds look like 18 year olds and vice versa; this is just common sense, that sexual attraction can happen at any point on that scale and to various degrees, and that it's indeed normal. That doesn't mean it's good, or that we should marry 12 year olds. It's just the case. And none of this is pedophilia btw.

All I said was that what Mr. Girl said accurately summarizes the entire male population. I did not use loaded terms like "pedophilia" or "attracted to children". You did that. If it's that hard to provide a definition of something you feel so strongly about stating over and over again, I'll do the work for you: no, Mr. Girl did not claim that the entire male population are pedophiles or "attracted to children". He said among other things that men get uncomfortable around underage girls who dress or act above their age. Why is that? That is what you have to unpack.

How attracted are we talking? Remember: you made the claim, so substantiate it.

You can't even define what you're talking about, so I don't know why I'm weird.

What if the thing in question is normal? We were first talking about something which is non-pedophilia, and now you're talking about pedophilia, only because you're yet to define what you mean by attraction.

I thought you would have some actual stats. I wouldn't expect much testosterone to sit in a teaspoon of semen for the same reason that I don't expect much red blood cells to sit in my left toe. The testosterone in your body circulates in the bloodstream. It doesn't just sit idly by in your semen radiating nofap energy.

Wot. Max is probably the most coherent speaker in the debatosphere.

The whole point is that it's taboo to say it. That's why nobody says it. Mr. Girl says it, and it's true. You can keep linking videos or you can define what you mean by attraction.

Define attraction, because if you're referring to what he said in the cuties review, I would say he accurately summarized basically the entire male population.

No.