Dank Bank Deposits - dank's soul is claimed! - New music Nov 30th

[mobodick]

Oh, playing guitar doesn't take work.  The strings move by their self.

The thing with playing guitar is that you not only have to work to make the strings move, you also neet to be able to put intention into it in some skillfull way.
None of your material shows any skill at making strings move in an acoustcally pleasing or otherwise cohesive way.
What you presented is nothing more than moving strings.
Music is not about moving strings, it is about structuring sounds no matter where they come from.

So while you may be working, you do not create anything of any appreciable value from expending that energy.

[MildBill]

So while you may be working, you do not create anything of any appreciable value from expending that energy.

Woah... dank is bitcoin!   

[fgervais]

Well if careers are so superior, why don't we just make a federal law requiring every human being to have a 'career.'  Who needs freedom, when fgervais can choose for you?

Superiority is disgusting.

Implying that one needs a university diploma to have a career.

Fine, be a drifter, constantly switching from one dead-end minimal wage job to another, "asking" your parents to cover rent and depending on mystery checks.

Oh wait, billionaire rockstar shisha bar owner 1000 acre land developer seasteader in 10 weeks. My bad.

And I already hear you cry "but that was last year, doesn't count". Bitch please, you were begging for 5 mil in February.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48949.0

I am a different person, completely, from February.  You're not open to freedom of choice, it seems.  One needs nothing other than the free will to do as they wish.  Hope any children you may have doesn't have their own dream to follow, your expectations will be crushed.

I have the freedom to call you on your bullshit.

Oh, wait.

[dank]

Oh, playing guitar doesn't take work.  The strings move by their self.

The thing with playing guitar is that you not only have to work to make the strings move, you also neet to be able to put intention into it in some skillfull way.
None of your material shows any skill at making strings move in an acoustcally pleasing or otherwise cohesive way.
What you presented is nothing more than moving strings.
Music is not about moving strings, it is about structuring sounds no matter where they come from.

So while you may be working, you do not create anything of any appreciable value from expending that energy.

I mean, it takes time to learn an instrument.  I never claimed to be a master, at this point.

[fgervais]

Oh, playing guitar doesn't take work.  The strings move by their self.

The thing with playing guitar is that you not only have to work to make the strings move, you also neet to be able to put intention into it in some skillfull way.
None of your material shows any skill at making strings move in an acoustcally pleasing or otherwise cohesive way.
What you presented is nothing more than moving strings.
Music is not about moving strings, it is about structuring sounds no matter where they come from.

So while you may be working, you do not create anything of any appreciable value from expending that energy.

I mean, it takes time to learn an instrument.  I never claimed to be a master, at this point.

Yeah, I mean, you still have 10 weeks to go before that.

[mobodick]

Oh, playing guitar doesn't take work.  The strings move by their self.

The thing with playing guitar is that you not only have to work to make the strings move, you also neet to be able to put intention into it in some skillfull way.
None of your material shows any skill at making strings move in an acoustcally pleasing or otherwise cohesive way.
What you presented is nothing more than moving strings.
Music is not about moving strings, it is about structuring sounds no matter where they come from.

So while you may be working, you do not create anything of any appreciable value from expending that energy.

I mean, it takes time to learn an instrument.  I never claimed to be a master, at this point.

Sure, but your original premise of being a well known musician by the end of 2012 is a bit.. uhmm. . premature.
For now you show no skills that would label you a musician. Never mind a 'highly known' one..

[dank]

Exactly, 10 weeks of exponential evolution.

[mobodick]

Exactly, 10 weeks of exponential evolution.

Only single celled organisms and virusses are capable of evolution on the scale of weeks.
You propably mean something like 'learn' instead of 'evolve'.

[dank]

Humans have been evolving exponential as long as we existed.  We are getting close to this point:



Just found that image trying to describe the point of growth, turns out the website is talking about the same thing.

http://www.futurewinners.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=24&cntnt01dateformat=%25b%20%25d%2C%20%25Y&cntnt01returnid=70

[mobodick]

Humans have been evolving exponential as long as we existed.  We are getting close to this point:



Just found that image trying to describe the point of growth, turns out the website is talking about the same thing.

http://www.futurewinners.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=24&cntnt01dateformat=%25b%20%25d%2C%20%25Y&cntnt01returnid=70

What do you mean by exponential evolution?

Kurzweil talks about the general evolution of information systems, not humans.
If you'd understand anything about what he's saying you'd understand that humans are only a relatively short and straight line in biological evolution.
Human culture, however, is not limited by the informational constraints of biology and so can change according to the general increase in complexity of informational systems.
Or, to put it short, one informational mechanism leads to two, which leads to five, etc etc.

So in our case it's the 'evolution' of culture, not humans, that makes it exponential.
Humans (how they are built) haven't changed in at least 100.000 years in any meaningfull ways.
The information that enters their brains from the previous generations has. And that is mostly science nowadays. Most information culture deals with is in some way scientific. And that is exactly what kurtzweil is proposing. He says that there is this evolution of informational systems that transcends biological evolution. He states quite clearly that according to him this general evolution will soon outpace human evolution.
So the exponential graph you posted does not show human evolution.
Its related to a culmination of information systems into what he calls the singularity.

You should realy learn what it is about before you use it as something that you claim agrees with you.

[kentrolla]

Why does it make you upset?  Does it confuse you or is it too much to accept?  It seems to make sense to me, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as bullshit.

^
It's questions like these that make me upset.

You make a claim that getting high is the transfer of energy from the plant, then when people give you legitimate reasons why your statement is false you start talking about philosophical bullshit in order to make it seem like such a claim is not false. Next, is probably arguing about what reality is and the "there is no such thing as false" argument.


That type of arguing, to me, is upsetting.

Just admit it.  You were wrong. Getting high is NOT caused by the transfer of energy from the plant.

Also, you can't cure diseases through ignorance. Sorry.

I do agree that placebo plays a huge role in everything, but it's not the cure for cancer. I'll admit, optimism could help increase your chance of survival via the placebo effect.

Does science confuse you? or is it too much to accept?

Do these questions seem condescending to you?

I called it.  Dank is now arguing about what reality is.

[dank]

What do you mean by exponential evolution?

Kurzweil talks about the general evolution of information systems, not humans.
If you'd understand anything about what he's saying you'd understand that humans are only a relatively short and straight line in biological evolution.
Human culture, however, is not limited by the informational constraints of biology and so can change according to the general increase in complexity of informational systems.
Or, to put it short, one informational mechanism leads to two, which leads to five, etc etc.

So in our case it's the 'evolution' of culture, not humans, that makes it exponential.
Humans (how they are built) haven't changed in at least 100.000 years in any meaningfull ways.
The information that enters their brains from the previous generations has. And that is mostly science nowadays. Most information culture deals with is in some way scientific. And that is exactly what kurtzweil is proposing. He says that there is this evolution of informational systems that transcends biological evolution. He states quite clearly that according to him this general evolution will soon outpace human evolution.
So the exponential graph you posted does not show human evolution.
Its related to a culmination of information systems into what he calls the singularity.

You should realy learn what it is about before you use it as something that you claim agrees with you.

Humans evolve with technology.  We can gather information faster (google), we can process information faster (look at kids text compared to elderly), we can communicate information faster (internet).  This means we can enact more change in a smaller amount of time, literally making time go faster.

I believe we are evolving exponentially, if what one believes is true, it will happen (it has been happening for me, in my life).  You are free to stay in the lower frequency, if you choose.

[mobodick]

What do you mean by exponential evolution?

Kurzweil talks about the general evolution of information systems, not humans.
If you'd understand anything about what he's saying you'd understand that humans are only a relatively short and straight line in biological evolution.
Human culture, however, is not limited by the informational constraints of biology and so can change according to the general increase in complexity of informational systems.
Or, to put it short, one informational mechanism leads to two, which leads to five, etc etc.

So in our case it's the 'evolution' of culture, not humans, that makes it exponential.
Humans (how they are built) haven't changed in at least 100.000 years in any meaningfull ways.
The information that enters their brains from the previous generations has. And that is mostly science nowadays. Most information culture deals with is in some way scientific. And that is exactly what kurtzweil is proposing. He says that there is this evolution of informational systems that transcends biological evolution. He states quite clearly that according to him this general evolution will soon outpace human evolution.
So the exponential graph you posted does not show human evolution.
Its related to a culmination of information systems into what he calls the singularity.

You should realy learn what it is about before you use it as something that you claim agrees with you.

Humans evolve with technology.  We can gather information faster (google), we can process information faster (look at kids text compared to elderly), we can communicate information faster (internet).  This means we can enact more change in a smaller amount of time, literally making time go faster.

I believe we are evolving exponentially, if what one believes is true, it will happen (it has been happening for me, in my life).  You are free to stay in the lower frequency, if you choose.

LOL.
You're full of bullshit fantasies.
Humans do not evolve because of technology. Not yet at least because we're working hard at understanding how the genes work.
If we could do more things in the same amount of time time would seem to go slower, not faster.

You can believe anything you want but that doesn't make it reality.
The experience of life adapting to your beliefs is a known illusion.
What happens is you 'believe' in things that are likely to happen, take on a different attitude to life because of the believe, and boom, there it is.
That's not realy believe, that's auto-programming your brain.
You basicly tell your subconcious to look out for clues that will help you achieve some goal.
You're actually putting your brain to work in the background.

Anyhow, i'm tired of explaining reality to you.
Go learn real stuff, because there is (and i'm not kidding) an incredible ammount of knowlege out there than you can not learn from believing in your own brainfarts. There is more knowledge than any single human can absorb in a lifetime and it is all realted to reality.

[dank]

This reality is an illusion, it's not our true reality.  We can leave it at that, we will see who is right later this year.

[evolve]

Give us an exact date so we can come back here and laugh at you....

Wait, what exactly are you saying will happen? Are we talking about your rockstar in three months fantasy, or have we moved on to some other crazy bullshit now? I want to be sure to laugh at you for the right thing.

[mobodick]

This reality is an illusion, it's not our true reality.  We can leave it at that, we will see who is right later this year.

If it's an illusion it realy sucks.
And it's pretty consistent.
And do i get a hint of 'the comming of the end of the mayan calendar and the rapture in general' scam?

[mobodick]

Give us an exact date so we can come back here and laugh at you....

Wait, what exactly are you saying will happen? Are we talking about your rockstar in three months fantasy, or have we moved on to some other crazy bullshit now? I want to be sure to laugh at you for the right thing.

LOL.,
That guy!

[dank]

Except 2012 was also predicted by the Incas, Aztecs, Chinese, Egyptians, Hindus and other ancient societies, that were all completely isolated from one another.

But hey, what did they know?

[evolve]

If the Mayans could predict the future, why didn't they see the Spanish coming?

Ancient civilizations weren't magic, they were ordinary people just like you and I (only less technologically advanced).

By the way, saying the world is going to end in 2012 because of the Mayan calendar, is like predicting the world ending on Dec 31 because of our calendar. The end date is when the calendar starts over. Or do you not know how a calendar works?

[mobodick]

Except 2012 was also predicted by the Incas, Aztecs, Chinese, Egyptians, Hindus and other ancient societies, that were all completely isolated from one another.

But hey, what did they know?

That is bullshit as it has been shown that the ancient civs were very prolific at interacting with other cultures.
Again, you are replacing facts with what you want reality to be.