Prince Myshkin

Are they touring my lovely country?

I would also suggest reading Ben Goldacre on phoney doctors and dodgy studies. His books (both Bad Science - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(book) and Bad Pharma - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma) are enlightening. Somewhat of a whistleblower, he rips the pharmaceutical industry apart and is respected within the industry he dissects. Famed for exposing quacks and bullshit homeopathy, his focus is on making things more transparent. I would basically recommend reading chapter 8 of Bad Science ('Pill Solves Complex Social Problem') and the entirety of Bad Pharma.

Indeed. I also find it interesting that the guy who made the documentary (G Edward Griffin) follows the theory that we could cure cancer but don't want to because of the powers that be, and also believes in and has made a documentary on Noah's Ark. I concede that I have not read the thread in its entirety, however. Nor do I have the time.

You should check that you haven't missed any of his other collaborations. Stuff with Modeselektor, Flying Lotus, etc.

I wanna know where Crestoid is philosophically at the moment.

Different freedoms, different restrictions. Throughout your entire life it all comes down to how you perceive and interact with your environment, and this is completely down to you (providing you are not suppressed or in poverty). I, like yourself I imagine, found that as I got older (and I've still got a long way to go), I became more free. When I was younger I took certain things too seriously which weren't important. Had I had the maturity earlier then this may not have been the case and my younger years may have felt more free.

How come? (Not an aggressive question) Indeed. If it would be what you wanted for the rest of your life, then it wouldn't be real. Unless you weren't conscious of the fact that you were in heaven and everything was just awesome. Unless it was a situation where there's multiple versions of yourself, like in my opening post. Then it would be truly with the person. You get to be with the versions of people you knew. Except obviously they were all super cool having been absolved of all sin. You could chill with Hitler. I always wonder what the technology would be like too. Would it have current consoles, old consoles, new consoles and you can pick and choose what you want? Or would you be limited to what was available when you were alive? Or does heaven progress at the same speed as earth when it comes to technological advancement? If any of that were to be true (and I don't think it is), it would have to be interdimensional as paradise would have no boundaries, so each individual would feel like they had a universe for their lives, whether they were conscious of being in heaven or not.

What would you choose for there to be after death if you had the choice?

You might as well ignore the ignorance isn't bliss comment. Far too vague.

To be honest I was more talking in terms of comparison of being a human or an animal.

Fair enough, though the chances of that are as remote as any other random outcome, including that when you die it turns out that had you chopped off your left foot at the age of seventeen you'd have had thirty minute long orgasms for the rest of your life. Generally speaking though, ignorance is not bliss. It is simply ignorance. Being an animal would be the equivalent of never living as you wouldn't comprehend it in anywhere near the same way. Of course you would feel suffering, so I'm not saying animals don't matter, but compared to the life you are living now there would be no conscious appreciation.

Fair point.

Ignorance isn't bliss.

Some people don't have the privilege to be able to simply change jobs and taje another one, unfortunately. Especially these days.

http://www.edfenergy.com/ http://englishdefenceleague.org/

Indeed Science can only tell us so much (although it will tell us much more the further we go forward), but I don't understand why you would actively believe something when the chances were so remote and there's a theory behind there not being an afterlife. I can understand entertaining the idea and seeing it as a possibility, but actively believing something so specific like an afterlife seems bizarre. I'm inclined to believe that there is no afterlife but obviously I'm not going to laugh at people for saying they think there will be one. I just find it weird when they say there is one. And if they think there will be one and are more inclined to believe that, then I'm interested to hear why, that's all. But I'm all for random possibilities and musings on possible outcomes, as it's why I created the thread. If it's something you specific that you actually believe, I'm interested to hear why though.

Apologies for my post Mrk. I'm intrigued at what you mean by mere scientific laws though. Just because you understand the specifics of something, doesn't make it any less enjoyable. We know that the function of sexual intercourse is to reproduce, but when it is used in a manner not to reproduce (when using a condom or simply through masturbation) it doesn't mean you don't enjoy it. Emotion is emotion. It is a pure experience. You can better understand why you feel a certain way and inform your reaction to something but just because you understand the reason you fall in love with someone is to increase the chances you will stay with them after you have a child together so as to improve the chances of that child child reaching sexual maturity themselves and continuing the species, it doesn't mean that you can turn off love because you view it as mere scientific law.

I love Mrk. It was all "organised" on an Excel spreadsheet by the way.

It can be depressing and depressed me for a while, but it then made me strive to make sure I impact those around me in a positive way and eventually try and fight causes that are worth fighting for for future generations to ensure that their lives are at a minimum as good as mine and possibly, in terms of equality, better. That and also self fulfillment, learning as much as possible and enjoying myself.

It doesn't have to be commitment. It just has to be something past homophobia, juvenile remarks, a lack of understand of ones impact on others and pop culture.

It's worth noting that hell is a more modern invention than heaven, though. It was not decided until much later on that it existed, and this is often speculated as being down to control rather than any form of philosophical realisation of ying and yang.

There wouldn't be a need for justice if it was bliss and everything was right. All sins absolved. That would fit in with the heaven that is often sold to religious people. I'm guessing your focus on justice is more punishment than rehabilitation. There would be no need for justice if people learned from their mistakes. If the afterlife was simply a separation of good people from bad people then it seems a bit weak from whatever would be powerful enough to create such a thing. From what I gather I think she meant personally we would find out when we died IF there was an afterlife. And if there wasn't then we just wouldn't find out. That's how I read it anyway.

I guess so, but people that age just tended to be dumb. I mean there was fun to be had (I was the class clown) but it was all very limited and juvenile and unfulfilling in the long run. I guess I was a forty year old at fourteen.

I wouldn't want for there to be a hell though. I don't think there could be a heaven with a hell. In the same respects that if one person is persecuted, then society is too. I understand what you mean though. I just don't think you need any form of threat or reward in order to make you good or bad, providing we aren't forced into actions by the surrounding culture.

That'd require a tolerant society though. In my country at least, it's not enough to have a few friends, everyone interacts with each other and if you aren't the same as others you receive hostility. And generally, in a school, there are enough people there to ensure there'll be hostility from someone.