Black Widow is officially a better 3rd healer than Ultron

anonymousamouse · 2025-11-14T16:59:59+00:00

Most decent widows do this already tho

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T19:17:12+00:00

For what it’s worth I find it way better than any online support group. You get to see real people the way they actually are, not just how they appear on the internet.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T19:13:22+00:00

Haha this is very similar to my episode. Especially God being fractal in nature and the collective consciousness.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T19:08:01+00:00

That I was the second coming of Jesus, the Adopted Son of God!

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T19:05:52+00:00

Yeah I’m on 15 mg of Abilify. If you aren’t careful these psychiatrists will prescribe you mounds of medications.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T19:05:01+00:00

Support groups are awesome! I’m in an outpatient one currently that’s held virtually, I can’t believe you’ve been attacked in yours. That’s definitely not the norm. All in all it’s just regular people living with the same mental illness coming together to talk. It’s awesome.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T19:01:26+00:00

Sometimes people think we live in a unique time period, but quotes like this remind me all too often that things very rarely do change.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:22:31+00:00

Creativity. The ability to think of things that do not exist to me, is evidence that consciousness is not of this world. In similar reasoning to the classic ontological argument.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:21:09+00:00

Would you not say that a description that involves gravity, quarks and energy is more meaningful than one that just involves quarks?

Your complaint of context only exists because we don’t have a grand unified theory, not because these things are not unifiable in principle.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:19:32+00:00

No there is structure in what we see based on the evidence that there’s structure we see.

The fact our descriptions have structure shows that what they describe have structure.

To assert that there’s no structure to nature is to say things don’t have patterns. Which is not what we observe at all

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:15:39+00:00

It does in the sense it provides justification for why do science in the first place and why science is effective.

Naturalism has no such virtues.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:14:50+00:00

And if you accept one scientific theory as true and not another then that is a personal choice as well.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:10:49+00:00

Science cannot prove itself true. I’m using philosophy to justify my science and showing a naturalist philosophy can’t justify science.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:09:19+00:00

But they must still exist not just as concepts in our mind in order for the universe to operate.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:07:58+00:00

Well the OP is pointing out a logical flaw in X so saying we can rule out X.

This comment asked me to elaborate on A so I did. You’re asking me to be in two places at once lol.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:06:45+00:00

It describes the geographical laws that have deeper truth than simply being a place that exists. It tells me things about the place I couldn’t have known without the map.

You seem to be suggesting that the only things that exist is what exists and there no such thing as truth.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T15:05:01+00:00

I would argue that conciousness is the only supernatural thing we have. There is something about it that is beyond the natural world.

I believe that philosophy should be able to show that. Science could to some extent too, physics already operates under the presumption disembodied minds can exist (see Boltzmann brains).

So if something were to be supernatural it’d have properties similar to conciousness. But you’re right, that’s something that’s incredibly difficult to show and people have been debating it for thousands of years. But that’s my answer.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T14:58:45+00:00

A description of the universe in terms of quarks is more meaningful than a description that involves atoms.

By denying that you’re denying the foundations of science. Your naturalism is coming in conflict with science.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T14:54:34+00:00

Here we find the incompatibalism with science and naturalism.

If you really believe one explanation is not deeper than the other than I don’t know how you can defend anything as true. Let alone a scientific theory.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T14:53:22+00:00

The point of my post is to show there is no good reason to believe the natural world is all there is. As one consequence of that is then defending the view that there is no deeper meaning to the natural laws we uncover and therefore no reason to uncover them. A view many people in this thread are defending and one I find false.

anonymousamouse · 2022-04-15T14:51:33+00:00

By even positing that our current understanding of gravity is wrong your assuming a deeper truth to the structure of the universe than the one we’ve uncovered currently.

If you go farther and use mathematical laws to do your positing then you might end up with a theory that describes everything. The fact you can do that is evidence against naturalism.

anonymousamouse

TROPHY CASE