Cogito, ergo sum

Has this been refuted? Can it be refuted?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know much about computers so this might sound moronic but, assuming there is highly intelligent sophisticated system like in the Matrix, capable of creating complex programs like the Orcale, Agent Smith, etc. who exhibit individualism and consciousness. But are unaware that they connected to the system. Applying this to our world. How would you know that you "exist" and aren't a projection of a collective conscious of some being? Would that then refute Descartes' statement?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How would you know that you "exist" and aren't a projection of a collective conscious of some being? Would that then refute Descartes' statement?
      To expand on what I think you're talking about with your examples, this is already something we can observe in our world. You have split brain patients who, in the case of near-complete destruction of the corpus callosum, can be thought of as two sapient beings gathering information from one set of sensory organs. Then you have conjoined twins who share limited parts of their brains and can "hear" each other's thoughts. I've never seen someone adequately define consciousness in a satisfactory way. If they could, I think we'd be 95% of the way towards answering the Hard Problem. But whatever consciousness is, it's not a localized phenomena that can be said to exist within the confines of our brains. "You" exist in a certain sense, but "you" are a useful narrative and a convenient way of dividing up the world in the same way that we talk about a tree as being fundamentally distinct from the soil it's rooted in. There are no divisions in reality, just in our heads. Once animals became capable of conscious thought - that is, forming an abstracted representation of the world built from sensory information and prior abstractions - they needed a way to represent themselves within that narrative. It's an extraordinarily useful mechanism for navigating the world and ensuring our survival & reproductive success, but that "I" has no existence in reality.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are part of a sophisticated system called the universe. The hidden premise in your statement is that existence is mutually exclusive with other existences.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How would you know that you "exist" and aren't a projection of a collective conscious of some being? Would that then refute Descartes' statement?
      To expand on what I think you're talking about with your examples, this is already something we can observe in our world. You have split brain patients who, in the case of near-complete destruction of the corpus callosum, can be thought of as two sapient beings gathering information from one set of sensory organs. Then you have conjoined twins who share limited parts of their brains and can "hear" each other's thoughts. I've never seen someone adequately define consciousness in a satisfactory way. If they could, I think we'd be 95% of the way towards answering the Hard Problem. But whatever consciousness is, it's not a localized phenomena that can be said to exist within the confines of our brains. "You" exist in a certain sense, but "you" are a useful narrative and a convenient way of dividing up the world in the same way that we talk about a tree as being fundamentally distinct from the soil it's rooted in. There are no divisions in reality, just in our heads. Once animals became capable of conscious thought - that is, forming an abstracted representation of the world built from sensory information and prior abstractions - they needed a way to represent themselves within that narrative. It's an extraordinarily useful mechanism for navigating the world and ensuring our survival & reproductive success, but that "I" has no existence in reality.

      >>How would you know that you "exist" and aren't a projection of a collective conscious of some being? Would that then refute Descartes' statement?
      No, because to even acknoledge this in the first place, you would have to think it. To think is to be a subject in an subject-object relationship, regardless of things you may find emperically outside of it, in terms of the subject-object relationship, all things first start with the subject, everything else is concluded steps afterwards.

      In fact, Descarte specifically talked about the vary things you are talking about. How does he know that he isnt just an illusion? His conclusion is that even if he and everything else is an illusion, the illusion must have substance or it wouldnt even be a thing to be seen. And the one seeing must be him. to think in other words is to be an observer. without observation, nothing can exist. Because there would be no starting point to even formulate exitance.

      You are the witnesser and synthesiser of reality, the thinker.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because you are that being, just a limited part of it. Plus, in that situation, you either have consciousness, or you're a p-zombie who isn't actually thinking and is instead making profound sounding mouth noises.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you're a p-zombie who isn't actually thinking and is instead making profound sounding mouth noises.
      Would you know if you were one?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You wouldn't know anything. You would only seem like you do to an outside observer.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          But the person himself would know if he was or was not a p-zomboe, right?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, because p-zombies by definition lack self-awareness at all, and only appear to have it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, because p-zombies by definition lack self-awareness at all, and only appear to have it.

            Well, thinking on it, a non p-zombie will know they aren't one as long as they know what one is.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Gods, I hate the p-zombie argument. It's literally
      >but what if solipsism
      Except with a stupider buzzword attached to it. We get it, there's no solution to solipsism just like there's no real solution to consciousness as of now. You don't have to use the moronic phrase p-zombie to make the point.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    easy, just ask why is it true and "I think therefore i am"
    presupposes a self (i) human thought, and existence.
    none of which Descartes has proven and just assumes them

    even if all that is exists in actuality how do you know thinking = existence

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >presupposes a self
      It doesn't, the self is already there

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    yeah he refuted it himself by making assumptions and then later being wrong

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    "I think, therefore I am" presupposes that thinking requires a thinker. That is not a fact in reality. It is an artifact of our language, in which a verb requires a doer. Thinking occurs, but if you search for someone who is doing the thinking you will come up empty handed. You may have the thought "I am thinking," but that too is just a thought. Thought does not require an "I" narrative in order to happen.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      give an example of a thought without a thinker or shut the frick up with the pseudery

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >give an example of a thought without a thinker or shut the frick up with the pseudery
        Show me the thinker. If you say "the brain", I'm not arguing that the brain doesn't exist or that it doesn't produce thoughts.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          the mind

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is the mind apart from thoughts?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            pure awareness

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And pure awareness "does" thinking?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            no it has thinking

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then where is the doer?

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How would Day Kart interpret the npc meme?

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think therefore I am ... don't you have to be before you can think?

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm putting Descartes before the horse.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    By saying that it's I that necessarily thinks you make a bunch of assertions that quickly get you into trouble

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    being proceeds thinking.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Has this been refuted?
    you can't prove it has any meaning at all.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm Thinking! I'm such a thinker! I have thoughts!
    Has anyone considered that thinking is involuntary and the default state of neural activity? And that said neural activity simply has the appearance of emergent reason and sentience, like watching a movie and and how each scene ties into each other and then you construct a "plot"?
    What if it is just post causal rationalization? You are just experiencing the appearance of having deliberation and decisions, similar to how Déjà vu is experiencing some the same situation but is simply a cognitive error, but it appears and feels real.
    Going back to thoughts, everything has a flood of stimuli and "reacts" to it, whether its me looking at a nice pair of cans or an ant sensing a pheromone.
    I honestly think that the only real "Higher" consciousness can come from being able to silence your thoughts, to control the bombardment of stimuli and rise above it.
    Ironically Pic related are exactly the opposite because there is no other position of "not thinking" as it is the default neurological state.
    The one who can silence their mind is in control.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's still existence.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think therefore I am isn't about existence, it's about him saying that because of his extraordinary mind (he was a genius) he can almost fabricate reality around him through his "flawless" understanding of the world.

      This is where leftism came from, and like leftism his theories were typically unsound outside of his specialty

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I think therefore I am is realism vs idealism
        Thanks Plato

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Rationalism is more about self delusion than idealism, he hated the church and recognized his own genius. Thus he concluded that any conclusions he came up with would be more valuable inherently than the conclusions the church was still peddling (mostly still greek metaphysics) even if they weren't 100% correct

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That wasn't what he was getting at. He was trying to boil things down to their most basic and fundamental truth. When you get right down to it, you don't have proof of anything existing beyond yourself. The only thing you can know, is that you exist, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be able to form ideas.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          He was trying to recreate science because he thought greek metaphysics was moronic because it was associated with the church

          He was probably one of those guys that got off on controversy, when he announced his new theories basically everybody called him a crackpot

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also Kant, which is considered in-line for the Rationalist throne thought Rationalism was moronic and.. prone to self delusion. He correctly points out that Rationalism claims to have all the knowledge of the universe at their fingertips without having discovered anything yet.

            Kant didn't like empiricism because it doesn't give room for interpretation "room" in this case for the human condition. But pure science doesn't NEED humans, it already exists without humans. That's why these "modern philosophers" were not scientists (Descartes was).

            "Philosopher" after Descartes came to mean someone who debates the nature of reality while claiming to know the secrets of reality, which honestly is completely pointless.

            >spent at least twelve years thinking about the subject
            pointless

            What's the purpose in debating the flawed nature of human perception in the scientific process when the scientific method exists? I think these people genuinely thought they would have an idea that would instantly change the course of history which is the self delusion I describe, it's also incredibly hypocritical to be so concerned with human intelligence being a linchpin of existence, so shit sherlock, you're human. Now do some actual science

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >most autistic philosopher rejects other forms of autism

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Legitimately can anybody tell me a reason why "modern philosphy" is a thing? It's because philosophy matured when science became concrete and tangible.

            The "forms" that the greeks described are nearly perfectly explained by physics and chemistry, really, greeks were assuming the existence of physics and chemistry before they had the ability to test it. That's true philosophy (science).

            Calling rationalism "the birth of modern philosophy" is hilarious because it's failed philosophy.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Only I exist even though I assume an outside world when I try and ‘prove’ it
          God, this board is moronic. Philosophy is moronic in general. It’s literally just mentally ill people have panic attacks and jerking off each other.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not meant to cause you to spiral into a sophistic nightmare world where nothing is real. It's just an interesting thought. Basically, your senses are flawed and your perception of the world is flawed. If you were just a brain wired up to a simulation, you'd never know because for you, that is reality. Whether the world is true or false, you can at least know that you exist, because if you didn't, there would be no thoughts. You can't trick nothing into thinking it exists. You can be deceived about many thing about yourself though. Maybe the "you" that you perceive isn't completely accurate, but "you" definitely exist, because if you didn't, you wouldn't even be able to make a flawed self-image.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            except the problem is the people saying this are genius level mathematicians who are actually arguing through the power of arithmetic they can divine all the universe's secrets.

            Spinoza overtly turns this into the modern atheistic science worship we have today with libtards. The "unknown" that later rationalists claim to have knowledge of is God himself, the universe, infinity, the technically unknowable substrate that binds the universe together. So by worshipping themselves and their own intelligence they are divining the secrets of God himself and they are his messengers.

            This ideology in the hands of the modern moron creates ignorant easily programmable attack dogs (the modern left)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This post except with religion instead of philosophy and the right instead of the left.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, Christianity is about being humble and knowing your limitations. I guess you can see the seethe that these first atheists had when contending with a conglomerate like the Catholic church, but the popery was a flaw of the Roman Empire.

            No I don't think there is any philosophical movement like you describe because there is nothing in the Bible that tells you to engage in intellectual self fellation and think you can just "get rid of" two thousands years of philosophy because you solved a complex math problem

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no religious political movement
            >the church does not tell you to engage in made up shit and pretend there is a heaven in the clouds with flying babies which isnt in the bible
            >paul didnt just get rid of thousands of years od the old covenant and luther didnt just get rid of thousands of years of tradition because they felt like it
            What the actual frick

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the Bible says that, but the American religious right is rotten to the core, and they don't practice it what it preaches.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            can you post anything in the bible that resembles giving into delusions of grandeur?

            Isn't that a sin?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The idea that you're going to heaven is a delusion of grandeur, and it also rejects the actual teaching of the resurrection.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That has nothing to do with what I posted

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's something most Christians believe. We're talking about real world Christianity in practice, not philosophy as written in The Phenomenology of Spirit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not Christian so you can't use my nature of belief to try and claim I'm a hypocrite

            you are factually wrong about the content of the bible and that's why you're resorting to personal attacks, you are scum

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not claiming anything about the nature of your belief, and you brought up the bible.
            >This post except with religion instead of philosophy and the right instead of the left.
            This statement could have been made about most major religions. You unilaterally decided it was about the Christianity and you choose now to engage in taqiya.
            >>This ideology in the hands of the modern moron creates ignorant easily programmable attack dogs (the modern left)
            Now this is what you said. We're talking about the thing in question, be it religion or philosophy, in the hands of modern morons. We're not talking about the content of the Bible nor the the content of any philosophical treatise. We're talking about the effect of these things on morons, and how they make ignorant easily programmable attack dogs. The fact that you have to resort to moving the goalposts and sophistry shows how weak your original position was.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Except your argument is moronic because you're proposing the very nature of Christianity is to promote philosophical ignorance on the level of excessive pride (Descartes' Rationalism) in one's own abilities which is the gravest sin one can commit in Christianity.

            So literally you're wrong. You thought you were intelligent by thinking that Christianity promotes ignorance but the damage of Rationalism is Prideful ignorance, an entirely deferent societal poison compared to institutional ignorance.

            Which is probably where Descartes was coming from, he viewed the Catholic Church as institutionalized ignorance and thus created something worse

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You brought up Christianity, you're the one obsessed with it, bad faith debate, and are clearly a Christian despite your taqiya claiming you aren't a Christian. Somehow you also managed to defend non-Catholic Christianity, Protestantism, which is the definition of prideful ignorance versus Catholic institutional. Whatever sect of religion you are, it has clearly rotted your brain.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You brought up Christianity, you're the one obsessed with it
            Descartes was obsessed with Christianity

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >be you
            >posts about spinoza
            >BUT DESCARTES
            Yes, I know the OP is about Descartes, but that doesn't make you not moronic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Spinoza was also obsessed with Christianity? There's a reason why these morons were considered the first atheists

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every European intellectual living somewhere under the influence of the church was "obsessed" with Christianity.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct, I don't know why he's trying to pretend like Christianity is irrelevant when it's literally how Descartes validated his worldview

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because the Church isn't the bible, and proddies vehemently assert.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which I already said was the case, Descartes' perceived problem was with the institutionalized ignorance of the church and thus created something worse

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly, you said it, but you refuse to have any internal consistency in your world view. He wasn't obsessed with the bible, he was obsessed with "Christianity" as it existed. The same sort of "Christianity" not in the bible that makes people morons.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            seems like you're the one that can't separate the institution from the book

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no reason to. The book doesn't exist except as a collection of myths outside the Church.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did you even read what I wrote? Because it doesn't look like it. I said:
            >Yes, the Bible says that
            As in, the Bible says to be humble. But then I said:
            >but the American religious right is rotten to the core, and they don't practice it what it preaches.
            Which means that the American religious right does not do what the Bible says.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What "american religious right" are you talking about? The US is the most decentralized Christian nation in the world, specifically to counter shit like the Catholic Church

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is an informal political faction in the United States that is made up of people from various different denominations of Christianity (and groups that claim to be Christian, like Mormons). They wish to influence the country to better fit their vision of Christianity, but many in the modern day have become so intertwined with the Republican party that their politics have shaped their religious views even as their religious views shape the Republican party. It's how you end up with the kind of person who would call Trump a godly man. They're not as influential as they were in the past, but they still aren't that uncommon. An example of a politician who is aligned with this group is Mike Huckabee.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you mean the same morons that have been here since the beginning, the ones that caused a civil war and gave the excuse halfway through that it was "to save the Black folk"?

            the ones that actually passed civil rights and not the democrats?

            those are tories

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's actually interesting how much US politics mirrors british politics and how it influenced US history but nobody talks about this

          • 5 months ago
            Cult of Passion

            >it's actually interesting how much US politics mirrors british politics
            Yeah, in the 18th and early 19th century, perhaps...

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Looks like black culture to me

            see what happens is all the "intellectual" ones become marxists because they can't cope with being worthless. The actual gems are the ones that aren't bad neighbors, but that's like 1/10 blacks

          • 5 months ago
            Cult of Passion

            >Looks like black culture to me
            I watched a BBC news broadcaster use new-speak for blacks/Africans as African Americans in reference to Britons. I was flabbergasted. A culture so potent it overrides logic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            When the brits investigated claims of the Congo genocide they concluded that even if a genocide had occurred they could never actually determine its validity because the blacks had no concept of time and were compulsive liars even when asked about the genocide.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            i want a source for this one

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            really? that's not even that crazy, ill look for it later

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh wait I remember, it was the official investigation into the genocide by the british government which was started because a famous socialist irishmen invented rumors that there was a genocide because there were only weapons being shipped there.

            rumors that were started by the Catholics I believe because the Belgians executed a priest for running guns to the arabs through the congo.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You forgot the part about the pope

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I never dug that deep, the pope was involved?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            also I assume they were Catholics, I never actually remembered what denomination they were, they could have been Anglicans, whatever proselytizing group sent missionaries to the Congo.

            They really didn't like their gun running operation foiled from the UK

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            and it was one dude who was executed, not like everybody was in on it

            but it is curious that every single photo of the supposed Congo genocide were by missionaries, who then came to the US to spread the "truth" (almost entirely verifiable fiction)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you mean the same morons that have been here since the beginning, the ones that caused a civil war and gave the excuse halfway through that it was "to save the Black folk"?
            >the ones that actually passed civil rights and not the democrats?
            Not the same people with the same beliefs for the most part, just the same party.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >has it been refuted
      In the way Descartes meant it, yes. We’re not the grounds of our own being. That’s moronic.

      In the way normies think about it, no. We definitely exist.

      Braindead post of the century.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    ^forgot to attach^

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Easy, things that do not think also exist.
    >how do they
    we can easily experiment this
    you exist, your hand exists
    knife exists
    if knife cuts your hand, it also exists
    knife does not think

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      ->~=<->

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    "I frick around, therefore I am" is also true, but thinking works too.

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Descartes made a pretty big logical leap from "I think" to "I am (a thinking Being). He didn't suspend enough assumptions in his phenomenology, which is why we had Hegel's transcendental phenomenology, which let to Heidegger's existential phenomenology. Heidegger's dasein is a much better model of what the human Being is than the Cartesian individual.

    Furthermore, the Cartesian individual is dying as we witness the destruction of things like objective, coherent truth due to our addiction to technology and the fact that, like in the trial in The Stranger, "everything is true and nothing is true". So I might point to the Guttenbergian printing press as humanity's big frickup that led to modernism itself, and now the tail is wagging the dog, technologically, so to speak.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Today I finally managed to get my erect penis all the way into my own butthole. I became the thing-in-itself

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's so dumb it's unreal. the only reason it's popular is because the phrase alone without the full argument sounds so sensational
    >ummm.... you can't be sure that 1+1=2 because muh evil demon
    >but god obviously exists and he is a good guy 🙂

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The reason Descartes' god argument was moronic was because it was tongue in cheek to appease people accusing him of being atheist. Hey look guys I proved god exists I can't be an atheist wink wink.

  20. 5 months ago
    Cult of Passion

    >Has this been refuted?
    Not all think...some can only feel without thinking at all.

    Brainless folx, the BioNPC, Biblical in its historical notation, it is known to the knowers.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism refuted him 1000 years earlier

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, it is the same.
      When I do not think I am not.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Still wrong.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you homosexuals talking about Christianity in a phenomenology thread?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      phenomenology is dumb

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        prove it
        >ctrl-f ontology
        >0 results
        hm I guess ontology is dumb, too. Make your own thread you losers

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          ontology is also dumb

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay whatever, the trinity is dumb and isn't supported in any of the original Greek NT. Nicaean Christianity didn't develop in a vacuum, and early Christianity was mostly just israelite-washed neoplatonism

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            the trinity was created to explain the creation of jesus as a pagan symbol to bridge the gap between european and middle eastern tradition

          • 5 months ago
            Cult of Passion

            >the trinity was created to explain...
            No.

            Of each eye pertains to a hemiaphere then why is a third one depicted? Because humans have a "virutal partitioned" hemisphere like a RAID array.

            Phenomenology meets Cognition, operating Physiology like tools and analyzing their abilities seperately, Split Perception...

        • 5 months ago
          Cult of Passion

          >ontology
          Funny way of typic BioElectric, BioMagnetic and Physiological Collective Cognition.

    • 5 months ago
      Cult of Passion

      >phenomenology
      Im literally the leading expert on Phenomenology.

      You've confused that with "qualia" or whatever the frick neo-pronoun kids use these days.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Im literally the leading expert on Phenomenology.
        based

        • 5 months ago
          Cult of Passion

          Its underwent some retooling, like Psychology has in the last 10 or so years, and turned away from the Pseudo-Science it was becoming with the "lived truths" and affirmation therapy that was feeding Psychological asymmetries.

          Thus...the google information that will come up is not going to be accurate, things take time to "New World Order".

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That can't possibly be true, because I am the leading authority on phenomenology, and it would be pretty dumb and gay to say that we're two persons who are one essence.

        • 5 months ago
          Cult of Passion

          >Funny way of typic BioElectric, BioMagnetic and Physiological Collective Cognition.

          You should have a HEAVY background in these fields then...Psychiatry is not a vector point of entry I will accept.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dude frick your gibberish you goddamn namegay

          • 5 months ago
            Cult of Passion

            >gibberish
            >BioElectric, BioMagnetic and Physiological Collective Cognition.
            You are scientifically illiterate. Stop LARPing like youre some wise and learned man...YOU ARE NEITHER.

            Thats not name calling...THATS A FAILING GRADE.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Unfortunately, you can't just take your meds with the condition you are in
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532981/

          • 5 months ago
            Cult of Passion

            Haha, wow, we have another doctor in the thread? What was you thesis on? I already told what mine was on, surely a DOCTOR would be able to PEER REVIEW my credentials, right?

            Haha, RIGHT?

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't speak Spanish, sorry. Idk what that means.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *