Saturday, November 30, 2013
But one recent series has raised my ire for far too long, a current-gen game long heralded as the best on its console and even one of the best video games ever. I would be remiss to allow my viewpoint, no matter how objectionable it may be to others, to go unspoken. There are many people who attest to the quality of this game, and yet I find myself with an opinion contrary to the overwhelming majority, as I usually do. To put it simply...
I fucking hate Uncharted 2. I hate it so fucking much. The first Uncharted game is just run-of-the-fucking-mill, yet the sequel is the same shit but it gets accolades up the ass! Fuck this game!!!
Ok ok, I promised myself I would dispense with my usual vulgarity, and attempt to discuss this somewhat
sensitive topic in an intellectual manner.
Monday, November 18, 2013
1) Eyes. If souls can look down on us from heaven. that means they can see. So why do we have eyes? Isn't that rather redundant? And why is it that blind people are blind? They should still be able to see, even if their eyes do not function, since our souls can see. The existence of eyes and damage to the eyes resulting in blindness or at least some degree of vision impairment is said by most people to be because the eyes are quite simply the only mechanism through which we humans can take in visual stimuli which our brains can then process. Pit that against the idea that there is a soul and things like vision and consciousness (see the next point) are received by the brain rather than generated by it and apply Occam's Razor. I think it is pretty clear which of the two ideas is wishful thinking/nonsense.
2) The brain. Our souls are supposed to be us. Who we are. Our personality, our identity.......yet, changes in brain function alter our personality. It can change "who we are." Brain damage can make someone forever unrecognisable to even their families. How could this be? Some people, in response to this query, will posit the "transistor radio" hypothesis of consciousness, which, for those who do not know, is the idea that the brain acts as a receiver of consciousness rather than the catalyst for it. So according to this conception of consciousness, brain damage would alter behaviour not because the structures and electrochemical activity of the brain is responsible for said behaviour but rather due to the fact that the brain acts as a receiver for consciousness signals, and if a radio is damages the signal reception will be altered.
The problem with this idea, other than the fact that it is clearly just a way to rationalize away the evidence that runs contrary to the idea of a soul is that it doesn't explain things like dissociative identity disorder.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Monday, November 4, 2013
Eh, maybe.....or maybe not.
See, I have come across some rather disturbing evidence that his death, while it was in fact a heart attack, was actually the result of an absolute unwillingness, on his part, to eat vegetables, and this cause was actually known to the coroner and others involved in caring for Mr. Gandolfini but the truth of the matter has been suppressed by pasta and meatballs industry. Lobbyists from the industry descended upon Rome immediately upon the news of his death going public; the goal of this was of course to put pressure on those involved in the investigation to ensure that no mention of pasta, meatballs or vegetables (the presence of the former and regarding the latter, a lack thereof) was made in either any official reports or any press conferences or interviews.
I cannot reveal how I cam across this disturbing information but suffice it to say the fact that vegetables tasted less like pasta and meatballs and more like, well, vegetables, was the cause of death and this fact was forcibly kept from the public due to the presence of and pressure by the pasta and meatballs lobby.