Self-Identity

[Wizard22]

LOL SHOW, EXACTLY, WHERE I SUPPOSEDLY SAID 'differences are illusory'.

you have ALREADY FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, to SHOW WHERE I HAVE, SUPPOSEDLY, SAID something ELSE. So, we now WAIT, FOR 'you' "wizard22" to back up and support 'this CLAIM' of YOURS here, this time.

Right here:


An awareness of being 'different' is forming.

This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY', as "dontaskme" would say, then forms a 'sense of self', which AGAIN is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, but which ACTUALLY exists, though just in ILLUSION.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Genetics = racists, nazi, eugunist??? that is primitive as in the olden days, perhaps even at present, however note;

Note the uniqueness of DNA in convicting criminals, rapists, murderers and solving cold-cases that are very old.
Also the uniqueness of DNA in tracing long lost parents, relatives, etc.
There are many other utilities from the uniqueness of DNA as unique self-identity.

All humans are programed with the primal & tribal "us versus them" to facilitate survival on a group basis.
As such there are inherent neural algorithms that seek out similar patterns [features, faces, skin color, thoughts, ideology, etc.] that one recognize as of the same feathers thus of no threat - feel good to be company with.
You will note this is so evident in the present [with refinements] as in the past.

To facilitate the progress of humanity, individual[s] must self-develop to modulate and manage this deeply embedded inherent critical-for-survival instinct toward the future.

I agree, but when it comes to tribal identification, affiliation, cooperation...or animosity and warfare, these genetic compulsions run deep. Hence why the very topic is politically sensitive. It's (morally) "okay" for some groups to be "racist", but not others. In other words, it's (morally) "okay" for some groups to practice Eugenics, but not others. Can you remark about this?

In the beginning, humans were programmed with various primal instincts [4Fs, kill or be killed, primal emotions, us vs them, etc.] to facilitate survival that is optimal to the conditions then and some are still relevant at present.

Because some of these primal instincts are necessary and critical, they are not got rid off during the various phases of evolution.
Rather inhibitors [neural brakes] are programmed to inhibit, modulate and manage those primal forces.
For example the majority of humans do not fuck like dogs in the fields or on the road when triggered by the primal sexual impulses. There are inhibitors in the human brain of the majority [other than perverts] to confine sex as a private matter.

Unlike the stronger inhibitors of the sexual impulse, the majority has weak inhibitors to manage the primal us versus them impulses which lead to racism.

There is also a not so primal 'superiority complex' instinct that drives heroes [risk takers] to bring food to the community and explorers to find new lands for an expanding population. The lack of inhibition in this frontiers leads to racism with eugenics.

My definition of morality is: eliminating and managing of evil acts to enable its related good.

Racism and eugenics as an ideology is evil.
As such we need to get rid of such ideologies to enable moral progress.
The neural basis for racism and eugenics are strongly embedded deep in the human brain and to some extent they are still useful in the future.
Humans are programmed with various inhibitors to modulate and manage this primal impulses.
To get rid of the associated evil ideologies humanity need to develop stronger inhibitors so that the modulation and management of these inhibitors are more effective; this cannot be done at the present but only in the future, next 50, 100, 150, or >200 years.

This is where genetics, molecular biology is critical in the future [not now].

I believe genetics is a very deep topic, that most people are scared about, because of the negative attention it draws from Neurotic Anglo-Jews like Flash. He sniffs it out. He senses it. He wants to interrupt it. Hmmm, is it a coincidence?

It is very natural at present for the majority to worry about the topics of genetics due to heavy ignorance of the subject. Caution is needed but not abandonment.
Once the majority were fearful of heart transplants, but now in 2023 it is a norm no one will complain about.
I am quite familiar with these topic since I have taken courses from MIT-x and Harvard-x on Biochemistry, genetics, molecular engineering.
I believe humanity will be able to do a lot with FOOLPROOF methods to improve morality from a neural basis.

Flash? that pervert? anyone not of his feathers is better off to ignore him.

[Age]

LOL SHOW, EXACTLY, WHERE I SUPPOSEDLY SAID 'differences are illusory'.

you have ALREADY FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, to SHOW WHERE I HAVE, SUPPOSEDLY, SAID something ELSE. So, we now WAIT, FOR 'you' "wizard22" to back up and support 'this CLAIM' of YOURS here, this time.

Right here:


An awareness of being 'different' is forming.

This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY', as "dontaskme" would say, then forms a 'sense of self', which AGAIN is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, but which ACTUALLY exists, though just in ILLUSION.

Thank you for PROVIDING 'this' "wizard22".

ONCE AGAIN, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that I have, ONCE MORE, NEVER even SAID what "wizard22" CLAIMED.

It can be CLEARLY SEEN that I NEVER SAID, 'differences are illusory', as "wizard22" CLAIMED I had SAID.

What I ACTUALLY HAVE SAID WAS, 'This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY', as "dontaskme'" would say, ...', AND, 'I have NEVER even suggested that 'difference' is an illusion, let alone said ANY 'thing' like that. As I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, I SPOKE and WROTE CLUMSILY, which is WHY I can SEE WHERE you might have thought, or believed, there was some sort of CONTRADICTION there.'

Now, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to READ, and TO ASSUME, ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' in what I SAY, and WRITE, BUT what I ACTUALLY WROTE can be CLEARLY SEEN by the ACTUALLY CLEARLY TYPED LETTERS above here.

Also, if ANY one WANTS to KNOW what I ACTUALLY MEANT, then all they have to do is just ASK their CLARIFYING QUESTION/S. UNTIL then ANY one of 'you' is completely and utterly ABSOLUTELY FREE to ASSUME, and/or BELIEVE, absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL here.

BUT ONLY the CURIOUS and Truly INTEREST will EVER KNOW the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here. But what IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS IS that I NEVER SAID, 'differences are illusory', as CLAIMED I did.

[Wizard22]

In the beginning, humans were programmed with various primal instincts [4Fs, kill or be killed, primal emotions, us vs them, etc.] to facilitate survival that is optimal to the conditions then and some are still relevant at present.

Because some of these primal instincts are necessary and critical, they are not got rid off during the various phases of evolution.
Rather inhibitors [neural brakes] are programmed to inhibit, modulate and manage those primal forces.
For example the majority of humans do not fuck like dogs in the fields or on the road when triggered by the primal sexual impulses. There are inhibitors in the human brain of the majority [other than perverts] to confine sex as a private matter.

Unlike the stronger inhibitors of the sexual impulse, the majority has weak inhibitors to manage the primal us versus them impulses which lead to racism.

There is also a not so primal 'superiority complex' instinct that drives heroes [risk takers] to bring food to the community and explorers to find new lands for an expanding population. The lack of inhibition in this frontiers leads to racism with eugenics.

My definition of morality is: eliminating and managing of evil acts to enable its related good.

Racism and eugenics as an ideology is evil.
As such we need to get rid of such ideologies to enable moral progress.
The neural basis for racism and eugenics are strongly embedded deep in the human brain and to some extent they are still useful in the future.
Humans are programmed with various inhibitors to modulate and manage this primal impulses.
To get rid of the associated evil ideologies humanity need to develop stronger inhibitors so that the modulation and management of these inhibitors are more effective; this cannot be done at the present but only in the future, next 50, 100, 150, or >200 years.

This is where genetics, molecular biology is critical in the future [not now].

I believe genetics is a very deep topic, that most people are scared about, because of the negative attention it draws from Neurotic Anglo-Jews like Flash. He sniffs it out. He senses it. He wants to interrupt it. Hmmm, is it a coincidence?

It is very natural at present for the majority to worry about the topics of genetics due to heavy ignorance of the subject. Caution is needed but not abandonment.
Once the majority were fearful of heart transplants, but now in 2023 it is a norm no one will complain about.
I am quite familiar with these topic since I have taken courses from MIT-x and Harvard-x on Biochemistry, genetics, molecular engineering.
I believe humanity will be able to do a lot with FOOLPROOF methods to improve morality from a neural basis.

Flash? that pervert? anyone not of his feathers is better off to ignore him.

To what degree is your 'Self' an individual, as opposed to your genetic tribe? Or to your specie? Or to Biology universally?

[Wizard22]

This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',

Thank you for PROVIDING 'this' "wizard22".

ONCE AGAIN, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that I have, ONCE MORE, NEVER even SAID what "wizard22" CLAIMED.

It can be CLEARLY SEEN that I NEVER SAID, 'differences are illusory', as "wizard22" CLAIMED I had SAID.

You said it, now own it.

What I ACTUALLY HAVE SAID WAS, 'This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY', as "dontaskme'" would say, ...', AND, 'I have NEVER even suggested that 'difference' is an illusion, let alone said ANY 'thing' like that. As I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, I SPOKE and WROTE CLUMSILY, which is WHY I can SEE WHERE you might have thought, or believed, there was some sort of CONTRADICTION there.'

Now, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to READ, and TO ASSUME, ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' in what I SAY, and WRITE, BUT what I ACTUALLY WROTE can be CLEARLY SEEN by the ACTUALLY CLEARLY TYPED LETTERS above here.

Also, if ANY one WANTS to KNOW what I ACTUALLY MEANT, then all they have to do is just ASK their CLARIFYING QUESTION/S. UNTIL then ANY one of 'you' is completely and utterly ABSOLUTELY FREE to ASSUME, and/or BELIEVE, absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL here.

BUT ONLY the CURIOUS and Truly INTEREST will EVER KNOW the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here. But what IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS IS that I NEVER SAID, 'differences are illusory', as CLAIMED I did.

This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',

[bahman]

There is a part of the brain that is responsible for generating a sense of self. How it is done? No-one knows.

We know in the sense that we experience it.

Yes.

It can be simplified. You respond to people calling out your name, or in this forum, your Username. How does your brain do this?

As I said no one knows. All we know is that neurons in the brain keep firing. How that firing can possibly lead to all sorts of phenomena in humans nobody knows.

[bahman]

From the thread: (viewtopic.php?t=40329)


I wanted to divert the Cartesian thread to a more generalized concept of 'Self' or 'I'/Identity.

You cannot have any sort of experience without the mind. A materialistic viewpoint takes you nowhere. Self is the mind. I/identity is the result of experiencing the stuff, Quadia.

How do people, as young children, begin to develop their "Sense of Self"?

There is a part of the brain that is responsible for generating a sense of self. How it is done? No-one knows.

I ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED HOW young children begin to develop a 'sense of self'. So, YOUR CLAIM here IS False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

So, you don't know what you are talking about.

How did/do you? What is "you" or "I"?

I am a body interacting with the mind.

Just two sentences ago you SAID and WROTE, 'Self IS 'the mind', but now you SAY and WRITE, 'I/Self IS a body, interacting with 'the mind'.

Will you EXPLAIN WHY this apparent CONTRADICTION exists here?

If you ANSWER this QUESTION, then 'that' MIGHT HELP in EXPLAINING ALL of your VERY MANY CONTRADICTIONS here in this forum.

The mind is an unchangeable substance with the ability to experience and cause Quadia. "I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

For example, humans developed the literary concept of Naming one-another. You are known/identified by your name. Animals don't do this, at least, not in a literary/textual sense. Animals may make noises or communicate verbally, to call-out and identify their own kin, but their communication is crude and base level by comparison. It's not sophisticated. Human identity, however, is. So what's your take on this?

I don't think that language is relevant in the discussion about the sense of self.

Okay. But the thinking within that body can be Wrong, right?

Yes.

[seeds]

The mind is an unchangeable substance with the ability to experience and cause Quadia.

Come on now, bahman, what the heck is "Quadia"?

You have used that same word twice now in two separate posts.

If you mean "Qualia," then please pay attention to what you write. Some of your comments (such as the next one below) are already misleading to begin with without you adding misspelled words.

"I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

The "I" is most definitely not the body. No, the "I" is the self-aware "agent" (or "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind.

The "I" is the subjectively based owner and controller of its own personal matrix of mental imaging energy that it can wield and shape into absolutely anything it wishes (any object or circumstances imaginable) within the mind's spatial arena.

The "I" is the locus of the soul, with the soul being that which will survive the death of the body and live eternally in a higher context of reality.
_______

[Skepdick]

I disagree. Reality is the Antithesis of Abstraction.

In so far as your tiny evolved monkey brain can't grasp all of reality at once (e.g you are incapable of omniscience) you are necessarily speaking about an abstraction.

[Age]

This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',

Thank you for PROVIDING 'this' "wizard22".

ONCE AGAIN, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that I have, ONCE MORE, NEVER even SAID what "wizard22" CLAIMED.

It can be CLEARLY SEEN that I NEVER SAID, 'differences are illusory', as "wizard22" CLAIMED I had SAID.

You said it, now own it.

LOL "wizard22". OF COURSE I SAID 'it'. BUT 'it' is NOT what you SAID and CLAIMED, LAUGHABLY.

I SAID, 'This sense of being different, or separate, which IS ACTUALLY ILLUSORY, as "dontaskme" would say,' IS what I SAID, and thus what I OWN.

BUT YOUR CLAIM that I SAID, 'differences are illusory', IS NOTHING that I EVER SAID.

'That' is what YOU SAID, and CLAIMED that I SAID 'it'. You SAID 'that', now own 'it'. But this issue we WILL HAVE here now is that you are NOT BRAVE ENOUGH to OWN up to SAYING 'that' and MAKING 'that False CLAIM'. Which you WILL PROVE me True AND Right here, ONCE AGAIN.

What I ACTUALLY HAVE SAID WAS, 'This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY', as "dontaskme'" would say, ...', AND, 'I have NEVER even suggested that 'difference' is an illusion, let alone said ANY 'thing' like that. As I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, I SPOKE and WROTE CLUMSILY, which is WHY I can SEE WHERE you might have thought, or believed, there was some sort of CONTRADICTION there.'

Now, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to READ, and TO ASSUME, ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' in what I SAY, and WRITE, BUT what I ACTUALLY WROTE can be CLEARLY SEEN by the ACTUALLY CLEARLY TYPED LETTERS above here.

Also, if ANY one WANTS to KNOW what I ACTUALLY MEANT, then all they have to do is just ASK their CLARIFYING QUESTION/S. UNTIL then ANY one of 'you' is completely and utterly ABSOLUTELY FREE to ASSUME, and/or BELIEVE, absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL here.

BUT ONLY the CURIOUS and Truly INTEREST will EVER KNOW the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here. But what IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS IS that I NEVER SAID, 'differences are illusory', as CLAIMED I did.

This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',
This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY',

AND here IS the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that I did NOT SAY, 'differences are illusory'. Like "wizard22" Falsely BELIEVES and, LAUGHINGLY, even CLAIMS I did.

I will AGAIN now NOTE that I had ALREADY EXPLAINED, to you, by ALSO SAYING and STATING, 'I SPOKE and WROTE CLUMSILY, which is WHY I can SEE WHERE you might have thought, or believed, there was some sort of CONTRADICTION there.'

How much MORE CLEARER could I have made 'things' for you here "wizard22"? YET you STILL COME back with YOUR OWN DISTORTED VIEWS, BELIEFS. and CLAIMS, which have ALREADY BEEN PROVED False AND Wrong. AND, besides this Fact, you have NOT even YET HIGHLIGHTED WHERE ANY, supposed and alleged, CONTRADICTIONS IS here.

I STILL STAND BY absolutely EVERY WORD I SAID and WROTE, although CLUMSILY. Do you STILL STAND BY your CLAIM that there is some PROPOSED CONTRADICTION in MY ACTUAL WORDS?

If yes, then WHERE and HOW, EXACTLY?

We now AGAIN WAIT.

[Age]

There is a part of the brain that is responsible for generating a sense of self. How it is done? No-one knows.

We know in the sense that we experience it.

Yes.

It can be simplified. You respond to people calling out your name, or in this forum, your Username. How does your brain do this?

As I said no one knows.

And as I said this CLAIM is False AND Wrong.

All we know is that neurons in the brain keep firing. How that firing can possibly lead to all sorts of phenomena in humans nobody knows.

This CLAIM here is ALSO False AND Wrong.

[Age]

You cannot have any sort of experience without the mind. A materialistic viewpoint takes you nowhere. Self is the mind. I/identity is the result of experiencing the stuff, Quadia.


There is a part of the brain that is responsible for generating a sense of self. How it is done? No-one knows.

I ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED HOW young children begin to develop a 'sense of self'. So, YOUR CLAIM here IS False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

So, you don't know what you are talking about.

LOL

you sound like one of those who BELIEVED that the sun revolves around the earth and when one is INFORMING you that they KNOW that ACTUALLY the earth revolves around the sun, and that they had ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED this to you, you would, VERY LAUGHABLY, come back with, 'So, you don't know what you are talking about'.

These people REALLY could NOT see just how much their OWN made up BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS were affecting their ABILITY to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' CLEARLY and Accurately.

These people were so DISTORTED, BLIND, and CLOSED that they ACTUALLY BELIEVED that what they were currently ASSUMING and BELIEVING was true was ACTUALLY TRUE.

I am a body interacting with the mind.

Just two sentences ago you SAID and WROTE, 'Self IS 'the mind', but now you SAY and WRITE, 'I/Self IS a body, interacting with 'the mind'.

Will you EXPLAIN WHY this apparent CONTRADICTION exists here?

If you ANSWER this QUESTION, then 'that' MIGHT HELP in EXPLAINING ALL of your VERY MANY CONTRADICTIONS here in this forum.

The mind is an unchangeable substance with the ability to experience and cause Quadia.[/quote]

Are you able to produce A PHOTO, or at least A DESCRIPTION, of what this 'substance' supposedly IS, which is supposedly 'unchangeable' and what makes up this 'mind' 'thing', which you CLAIM here exists?

"I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

SO, HOW, EXACTLY, is 'I' supposedly DIFFERENT from 'Self'?

HOW can 'I' be a physical human body? And, HOW could 'I', which you CLAIM here is simply 'MY body', if 'I' is NOT the one the 'my' word refers to, EXACTLY?

WHO and/or WHAT is the 'one' that the 'my' word REFERS TO, EXACTLY? you KNOW the one that you that you are here SAYING is the one that possesses or owns 'the body', which you ALSO CLAIM IS 'I', and therefore 'I' AM.

I don't think that language is relevant in the discussion about the sense of self.

Okay. But the thinking within that body can be Wrong, right?

Yes.

GREAT. Let us REMEMBER 'this'.

[Age]

The mind is an unchangeable substance with the ability to experience and cause Quadia.

Come on now, bahman, what the heck is "Quadia"?

You have used that same word twice now in two separate posts.

If you mean "Qualia," then please pay attention to what you write. Some of your comments (such as the next one below) are already misleading to begin with without you adding misspelled words.

"I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

The "I" is most definitely not the body. No, the "I" is the self-aware "agent" (or "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind.

CLOSE, and NEARLY 'THERE', but NOT, EXACTLY, Right.

The "I" is the subjectively based owner and controller of its own personal matrix of mental imaging energy that it can wield and shape into absolutely anything it wishes (any object or circumstances imaginable) within the mind's spatial arena.

What IS this 'mind' 'thing', EXACTLY, which you have used twice now, in this one post?

The "I" is the locus of the soul, with the soul being that which will survive the death of the body and live eternally in a higher context of reality.
_______

WHY do you KEEP CLAIMING, or IMPLYING, that there is some OTHER PLACE, where there IS some so-called 'higher context of reality'?

To me there is ONLY One Reality, of which 'we' are ALL IN HERE, and NOW.

And which SOME ALREADY SEE and KNOW.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To what degree is your 'Self' an individual, as opposed to your genetic tribe? Or to your specie? Or to Biology universally?

As stated earlier,
ALL humans are programmed with the potential [neural] to be self-aware and self-conscious then have self-identity; this is self-identify is crucial for survival of the individual.
As such it is very natural for toddlers to be very egocentric, i.e. its mine, me, I.

The Swiss psychologist and biologist Jean Piaget pioneered the scientific study of egocentrism. He traced the development of cognition in children as they move out of a state of extreme egocentrism and come to recognize that other people (and other minds) have separate perspectives.

Within the framework of Piaget’s stage-based theory of cognitive development, the infant in the sensorimotor stage is extremely egocentric. During the first two years of development, infants are unaware that alternative perceptual, affective, and conceptual perspectives exist. Once they reach the preoperational stage (two to seven years), children come to recognize the existence of alternative perspectives but usually fail to adopt those viewpoints when necessary. Using a variety of ingenious tasks, Piaget discovered that children in the preoperational stage often do not recognize that another person who is looking at the same nonuniform object as they are, but from a different angle, sees the object differently. Piaget’s observation that older children stop displaying such instantiations of egocentrism led him to argue that children overcome egocentrism when they reach the concrete-operational stage and come to appreciate that different perspectives afford different perceptions.

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development posits that by age seven most people are free of egocentrism.
https://www.britannica.com/science/egocentrism

By age, a child is not totally free of egoism, by age 7 or so, the primal tribalism instinct takes over to facilitate to extend the survival of the tribe.

It is unlikely individuals at present will have species consciousness or species identity but nevertheless all humans are programmed [as inferred] fundamentally to ensure the preservation of the human species.
However with self-awareness and personal identity of individuals, some could do otherwise [i.e. exterminate the human species] in reality.

This is why the program to expedite moral progress within humanity is critical.

[Wizard22]

In so far as your tiny evolved monkey brain can't grasp all of reality at once (e.g you are incapable of omniscience) you are necessarily speaking about an abstraction.

So reality is an abstraction unless you're omniscient...wow, that's bonkers.

Thank you for proving me right yet again Skep. When are you going to win an argument against me? I'm waiiiiiting!