if our creator did not want swims to get high why can we?

[ReAlitY-HoLds-NonE]

Originally Posted by Alicia

science does like to try suck the fun out of things. look at other threads on "opinions".

thank you
almost every thread started in matter of opionion is turned to science for the sake of easy rep points..

[imyourlittlebare]

Im getting rid of my signature. Because its giving the wrong idea. Opinions can be wrong and I like to point that out somethings. And science is my god and my insight so i use it a debate against deities and other insight to help she light on why the insight may have happened or such. And I started this whole thing friendly by bringing up david buss and his theory about drugs (not alcohol. he thinks we developed a fancy for that through eating fruit). Someone else trying to dismiss me called me out and I delivered. Especially on a debate on naturallity. And I would say that kid and I had fun. Its not my fault other people dont want to add in to that conversation. You want to have "fun" have a thread that says "no facts allowed" or "no neuroscientists allowed" or maybe "noone with a bachelors in neuroscience and psychology". Because there opinions wont be fun. And I cant help it, when other people call me out on my opinion or what i say and say its wrong i have this urge to defend myself. This however, is causing problems for me in real life. I need to accept that I dont always have to be so forceful and dismissive in real life. I need away from this site. A few days wouldnt hurt. ill cya guys.

[Alicia]

u say all that, but you have a habbit of talking down to people who r against your view points its been seen in other threads. You attack things which go across your code and treat people like they dont know wht there on about. even thou other people points are just as valid.

so dont be petty!
im not perfect either and have been known to be obnoxious too.


regarding dmt iknow it is released before death, and is supposedly in more higher amounts in people with schizophrenia. there has been talk according to some people on wheather dmt is reponsible for nde's as they flood the brain before one dies, hence time slowing down and people who are revived whos insite emerge from.

[imyourlittlebare]

u say all that, but you have a habbit of talking down to people who r against your view points its been seen in other threads. You attack things which go across your code and treat people like they dont know wht there on about. even thou other people points are just as valid.

no see that is where you are wrong. I dont talk down. i just make people justify themselves, Im held to prove myself i hold the same expectation for other people who argue with me. I do not attack things that go across my code. Tell me when and where i do this and I would gladly fess up. But I dont. Read how this debate got started here. It was a debate. People defend there side. In a debate you have to believe what you are saying is true and defend it to the best of your ability. Defending your point of view and systematically questioning someone elses is not mean or attacking, its a debate. Systematically questioning someone about what they say does not treat people like they dont know anything, on the contrary, it gives them a chance to tell me what they believe and why or answer questions that im confused about. if they cant answer my questions then i can understand how they feel like i treat them like they dont know anything but its only in there mind. And if they still try and poke holes in my theory but put their theory as an alternative even though their theory cant stand the burden of questioning then I will say their theory is not an alternative and defend my theory readily on the basis of if they attack it. Peoples points are valid, if substantiated. This debate is a perfect example of living up to a burden of proof. I defended my side and he did his. We did so readily and systematically questioned eachother. In the end the person was able to change my mind and let me see what they saw. And they understood how I was able to draw the line and we made a definition that was irrefutable to either. I would do this with anyone if they lived up to a burden of proof and made me understand what they were thinking and how it is substantiated. Not an ubonxious way but a respectful way like we do. However, if all someone does is tell me whats wrong with my theory, I am going to make them feel silly especially when they cannot offer me an alternative or the alternative cannot be readily defended. do you understand?

[Lunar Loops]

Apologies if we have derailed the original question....got carried away there...or maybe should be carried away. Still intrigued where DMT fits into your categorisation IYLB. Maybe PM your answer.

As regards the original question......this particular non-believer can not possibly answer as for him there is no creator (as such).

[imyourlittlebare]

I think I heard something about DMT from a friend. It just happens to be a lucky chemical that can pass the bbb and effect the brain. So this is a natural substance, that what not created endogenously by the body and thus is a surplus. THis surplus causes things to happen that normally wouldnt happen. So I would say the action excessive DMT causes that wasnt produced in the body causes an unnatural reaction that wouldnt happen otherwise.

I think our definition is pretty universal now. I like it im saving it for some stuff im writing

[Cakes]

not much on accurate definitions are you?

an unnatural reaction <<once i do it on purpose it is no longer an unnatural reaction.

[imyourlittlebare]

once you do it, the process is still an unnatural one that takes place biologically. It can only take place with the right circumstances that stem from a natural substance and a natural way to deal with the substance. however, no matter how many times its used, it doesnt change thats its unnatural circumstances. Just habitual behavior as well. sorry bud.

this is not changed by how many times you habitually smoke. the facts still stand.

[TMM]

Unnatural is perhaps the wrong word. Irregular might be more fitting. Nothing that occurs within nature can ever possibly be unnatural.

[imyourlittlebare]

I said before it was a poor word. However, i believe its appropriate in this case. Because if it would not otherwise naturally occur in the body, than the circumstances are unnatural. Ex: THC. the body reacts to it how it naturally does. THC is a naturally occuring chemical. However, in the human body, you would never see us naturally manufacturing THC nor our endocannabinoids creating these mechanisms. Therefore the circumstances are unnatural

its very confusing but right. its hard to word and i wish there was a way I could convey that it wouldnt happen otherwise except under those conditions and that it breaks homeostasis of the cannabinoid system. but the only series of words that seem to convey that are "the circumstances are unnatural"

[TMM]

Originally Posted by imyourlittlebare

I said before it was a poor word. However, i believe its appropriate in this case. Because if it would not otherwise naturally occur in the body, than the circumstances are unnatural. Ex: THC. the body reacts to it how it naturally does. THC is a naturally occuring chemical. However, in the human body, you would never see us naturally manufacturing THC nor our endocannabinoids creating these mechanisms. Therefore the circumstances are unnatural

I think I see your point, and I don't disagree, but I think it's certainly a misleading choice of word; just look at this thread, lol. This explanation may work on one level, but when the context is altered slightly, eg. "it is unnatural to take in THC", the point is lost. In the grand scheme, as I suppose you're looking at it, the circumstances aren't so much unnatural as they are anomalous.

[imyourlittlebare]

oh yes. definately. That was discussed here or in another thread. Just the luckiness of that alkaloid to
A. Not be metabolised immedietely
B. Make it through the Blood brain barrier
C. Fit in the "shape" of the cannabinoid receptor
D. create distortions in our consciousness. Not in just our physiology or how our brain works or stuff like that but our actual conscienceness. The essence of us. Which makes one wonder further. Is there a soul? Or are we are brains? I would say this evidence proves that we are our brains and our reality and "free will" are all just consequences of such a complex neuroanatomy.

its mind blowing.

[Alicia]

*random* partially related


lol... anything.. or nothing . be yourself and believe, what u read in moderation. people can make u believe anything. including people who say there certain types which demand your believes. For thous who understand there psychological make up need not listen to idiots or attempts at mental health.

real life is what u of make it. not what people who will tell u what will happen, i mean are they god, are they in charge of change, no they are jus a voice. a voice. not yours u still have an opinion on beliefs.

[imyourlittlebare]

Originally Posted by Alicia

*random* partially related


lol... anything.. or nothing . be yourself and believe, what u read in moderation. people can make u believe anything. including people who say there certain types which demand your believes. For thous who understand there psychological make up need not listen to idiots or attempts at mental health.

real life is what u of make it. not what people who will tell u what will happen, i mean are they god, are they in charge of change, no they are jus a voice. a voice. not yours u still have an opinion on beliefs.

From reading this, I can tell your a strong advicate for existential psychology and a humanistic side. That is, you believe the individual is too complex to be characterized nor their behaviors be measured and predicted. The existential side is that you believe life only has meaning if you give it meaning.

I wouldnt say behaviorists are idiots. I would call them scientists. I cant answer for all of them because psychology in this field does seem to minimize the human experience. However, they do contribute in great ways. Think of exposure therapy. A behavorist approach. 90% success rate for those with phobias. You would think its cruel and hearing it off hand without the rates, you wouldnt believe facing your fear would CURE it.They are just trying to measure what they can. Im sure some do to try and "control" behavior. Others for measurable traits and ways to reduce ailments of the mind and to help those in need. I dont believe in taking any psychology movement to the extreme.

This is way off topic and apologize. Just thought id get that out there since there was a bit of animosity towards some schools of thought. Sorry

[Cakes]

Just the luckiness of that carbohydrate to
A. Not be metabolised immediately
B. Make it through the Blood brain barrier
C. Fit in the "shape" of receptors within us
D. create distortions in our consciousness. Not in just our physiology or how our brain works or stuff like that but our actual consciousness. The essence of us<and this is why people use fasting as a tool for self revelation and even as a social tool to affect others.

Which makes one wonder further. Is there a soul? if not, then what is one appealing to if going on a public fast?

its mind blowing

yes it is.

However, in the human body, you would never see us naturally manufacturing THC

absolutely. SWAN does all of her gardening while out of body..