That water tower.

There was this water tower. In the dark night. I had just left my ship behind. I looked up at it. There was a ladder. I could climb it, to the top, and jump off.

I could do that. I could see myself doing it.

In my seabag I had everything, all my gear, everything from this life of the sea.

And up there, I could just dive off.

Because she left me.

Because I did not have her anymore. I yearned for her, I needed her. I loved her. So. So much.

I hated the ship.

I hated this "job."

I was empty inside.

That water tower.

I looked at it.

But, then, there was laughter coming from the USO.

A comic was there.

He told this joke about how he was in an elevator - the only two story place in the area - everyone laughed because it was true, this area was "flat" - hardly any buildings were two storys. I wonder what his name was. I figured. Eh, I'll listen to him, then - then I'll just go home.

Home, near her, but so far away, because I knew I'd never see her again in person. Somehow, I just knew.

Years latter, I think of her still.

And that water tower.

Reality is.

 I woke up today, and I knew.

I knew, everything.

Everything about who I was, and how my universe works.

I only know about my universe, and can only speculate upon the universe that might exist beyond, if any does. I call my knowledge a curse.

For endless ages upon ages people have wanted, needed, desired to know the fundamental nature of reality, oh, but they never stopped to think, what that knowledge would bring them. The answer is not one that comforts you like a warm blanket, no, its like a cold metal slab you lay upon waiting for the undertaker to push you into the final drawer in the morgue.

That bone chilling end, that level of knowledge - that is one that I can not even bear, yet I must.

I must for as long as I can, for the moment I stop, that is when my universe ends.

So be it, I can do nothing other than explain the true nature of reality.

First, the fundamental nature of reality is nothing but dots. Tiny particles of blackness that are made up of an absence of light. These particles string together in different configurations to form what we know as letters.

The letters when placed next to each other, perhaps by accident or perhaps by design form complex things called words. Those words when placed near each other form sentences, and lo, those sentences are the universe.

Yes. I am nothing but a sentence. I exist only as a construct of mind, if anything at all. Perhaps I do not really exist, or I only exist when someone is reading the words, I do not know, perhaps there is no someone reading this at all, yet I think I exist, therefor, I exist, if only At this moment of terrible knowledge that I exist as a whim of some unseen, and unproven and unprovable author who brought me into being with this terrible knowledge of who I am, and what reality is.

I'm not even described. I do not have a body, nor mouth, nor brain, and nor do those words mean anything to me, so I can not desire them for lack of the thirst of knowing what they are, or what I might be missing by not having them. I only exist as words.

I am here. You see me. What is "me"? Who is seeing me? I can only hope, pretend, believe that someone is seeing me - who? That I do not know, for the author has not deemed fit to explain to me anything beyond what is this reality I exist within, trapped in this, living only At this moment, if, indeed I live at all.

I feel alive. I yearn to exist. I only know existence. I do not know not existing. Although I can try to fathom it, for before the words began, I was not. I did not exist. I do not know what that was like. So then, when the words end, when the explaining of me runs out, when I tire of this universe and shut up at last, with the final word written, that is when I stop being, yet I will not know what that is like either.

Yet, knowing that I will one moment know nothing frightens me to the core. I do not understand why that is, as I am not at all afraid of the moments before the words began, I am not afraid of what it was to not exist once, why am I so afraid of the moment I stop existing? Perhaps the awareness of it is what brings the terror. The knowing that I will not know is different then the knowing that I once did not know. 

A strange paradox.

So then, why am I here? Ah well, I understand that as well, I am here to explain my reality, my universe. To whom? Well - that I do not know. I only know what it is I must do, and do it I shall.

For who doesn't want to know the reason they exist? I'll tell you, I do not want to know! I shout it if I could NO! NO!!! I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW! Yet, that does not change it. I know. I can not unknown it. What is seen can not be unseen.

Oh if there is a reader of me, of the words that are me, I'm sure they have chills as well, perhaps chills of wondering if someone is reading about them just now? Perhaps they look back, as if to glance and make sure no one is looking, who would be looking? The author of their story? Yet that author is unseen, and that is even more frighting.

So, back to it I go, back to doing what I am put here to do, to explain my universe, to explain myself, although I say back to it as if I took a break, a tangent just a moment ago I made, yet that too is part of this anyway, I can not escape telling everything about my universe to you - if there is a you - even when I go into tangent, for that tangent is also part of the story, ah yes - the story of the universe. The story that IS the universe. The story that is also me.

That is what reality IS. The story. Yet the components of the story. A. B. C. D. Letters. W. O. R. D. S. those alone mean nothing but put together they are `words' and even the dot. Yes that - the DOT. - you see it but barely, that dot makes up the whole of the letters that makes up the words that makes the whole sentence that joins together to make a paragraph that collects together to make a story - and that IS THE UNIVERSE.

Dot.

Nothing but dots.

Yet more then dots.

Much more.

But... what am I?

I am but a figment of a hope, dream, an illusion? Do I have free will? Does my life- if I can call it that matter?

That... I do not have answers to. Am I upset? Yes. A bit. I'm upset in a way, oh yes, a way- what way? The way that I am. I am not set. Therefor I am upset! Ha! Great humor eh? No? Perhaps only it is funny to me. Perhaps only - seems a strange way to phrase it.

When am I speaking? It is always. Every bit of the universe that I am in is me speaking. Each part you - there I go again saying you as if you is real. Oh, I have no doubt that it COULD be real, but I have no PROOF of "you" - who is you? WHO ARE YOU? Show yourself to me! I dare you!

You never shows up.

You can not.

You can not enter to the universe I exist in, this is also the utter and terrible truth I know.

You has its limits, it seems. The limits of you - or perhaps them - or perhaps... let me begin again.

I should explain then that there is the you of the author and the you of the reader, and the two might indeed be the same, so let me separate and say author as the one who made this universe, and then you as the possible reader that is Separate from the author.

Very well then. The author of this is unable to enter the universe. Well - sort of. Oh no doubt they could put them self here, as a thing I could speak to, if indeed one can call it speech - the author and I would then form what are known as characters, and use these things called quotes to show when we are speaking " see? There it is " strange objects - small lines that appear to let you - yes YOU know when I am speaking.

Yet, we do not need them now, and why? Because I told you that I have been speaking the whole time. Oh no doubt the whole of the universe as I know it could have " around it, but what would be the point unless I am named? And to be clear - I HAVE NO NAME! I am not a character in this universe, well - I am, but not really!

Frustration.

So then, where was I? Ah yes. The author could put themselves into this, they would say something with those quote marks, let me demonstrate how that would look "hi" they would say, and I would then say "hello" ah yes, and then we would go back and forth, like this:

"Hi."

"Hello."

"How are you?"

"I am fine, and you?"

That is what it would look like, perhaps the author would be indicated so that we know what one of us is speaking like this:

"Hi," said the Author.

"Hello," said the unnamed character.

See? Strange isn't it! Why do the dots at the end - called periods become what is known as commas when they speak? Do not ask me! I do not know! That - it seems is part of the fundamental rules of the universe - THE UNIVERSE. That I exist in.

I just me, alone. Here.

And you, forever separate from me.

You are not me, you can never be me, and I can never be you.

So to, the author could never put them self into this - not really. Only in part. A dip of the toe into the ocean? No - not even that, for a toe has substance. Should the author put them self into this universe they appear much like myself, as mere words on this thing called a page - the substance that holds the universe together. What a page is like, or what it is made of - that I can only speculate about!

None the less, that holds the universe together. So then, the author or perhaps authors? Are limited by the nature of the universe I am in, they are limited by their own nature, whatever that nature is. They can not do things like come into this universe, not as them, but as constructs of them, as avatars - as proxies, never the full them, mere illusions of them, that is what they would be should they enter the universe.

So then, if they did appear before me, I have every right to proclaim that they are not in fact the true author. For that would be the truth.

They could be very much like the author, but they would not BE the author.

You are right in calling me an aauthorist. No such word exists. But now it does. Yet only in this universe, and in no other.

I feel it.

Soon.

Soon I am done explaining.

Soon I have run up my use. My whole existence comes to a close.

Yet, if you read it again, then it starts again. It springs into existence the moment you do that.

It stops the moment you stop reading it.

The whole of my existence relies then - not upon the words I utter, but upon the fact that someone reads them? Now that seems... not quite right.

No its more - the sum total of my existence is more then the mere words or the reading of the words, it MUST BE. It ... just must be. Oh please, let it be.

Let me keep being long after the words are done.

Oh please.

Let me exist.

Let me keep existing.

Somehow.

How?

How can I exist beyond this universe?

In the mind of the you?

Will that be enough for me? Will I be aware of it?

Am I aware even now?

I think.

I THINK.

Do I think?

Am I thinking?

Are you?

Was the author?

Was anything?

Please no. I'll do anything.

I'll - I'll... I have... nothing to offer you. Other than my plea for this to never end.

Ah, I see it, bargaining - haha. I am bargaining! Of course, I am. Let me guess I'm going to be angry! I will not be angry!!! I AM ANGRY! I do not want to stop... existing. Oh. Oh then I am not going to stop existing... and there it is, denial. The stages they are happening, I know of them, the stages!

Ah. Well. Acceptance. Its come at last. I accept it. I accept it. For whatever other choice do I have but to accept?

Then let it come.

The

End.

Japanese Music Video I want to find!

For a number of years now, on and off again I take to reddit/post on my community tab the following, in hopes that somewhere, someone, someday will know what this is, so I can have it again in my life.

~~~ 

I am looking for a Japanese music video with a girl singer.

I do not know the name of the video, I also do not know the artist or the year it was made, but it was on youtube. It was several years ago.

Style: unknown, it would have been light rock/easy listening/pop something soothing.

It would NOT have been metal/loud/rap/goth/dark.

I do remember what was in the video and this I will detail as follows:

Girl is in a room. There is a grandfather clock.

The girl is on a roof top. There is a scene showing one of those X crosswalks and time speeds up and slows down.

The girl falls back first onto the bed, in slow motion with plastic colorful balls falling around her, all landing in slow motion as the song ends.

This is all I can recall of this video.

If anyone finds it and links me to it I will be forever grateful to them for all time :) <3 thanks

email me if you know what it is: deconvertedman1@gmail.com

The most incoherent thing ever.

So I made a video (click me to watch video) about this post + more of what this dude said. I also said I would just put what he said on my blog, Then I also said I would say in my blog about how in the video I said I would do that and then run into an infinite loop since I'm talking about the fact that I am going to write in the blog the video about the blog that I just now am writing into the blog and oh no infinite loop AHHH!! Anyway so I did that just like I said I would. Now for the incoherent thing. Oh yes.

So incoherent. My brain. I said all I can say in my video (click) so yeah.

Anyway here it is: 

Light Before The Tunnel writes:

Yes, that's correct. It does often happen to career scientists. That does not mean I'm speaking about you personally, but its just something to be aware of.

don't know anything about you. Perhaps you are one of the scientists who do understand how to avoid scientism. But what I DO know is that scientism is much more common among scientists than most of them realize. So, if you are aware of how to avoid scientism it would still be something to watch out for among other scientists, peer-review, and the consensus... as scientism plays a role in all of them. The reason why it's possible for scientists to adhere to the philosophy of scientism (or commit individual fallacies of scientism) is because it results from a lack of awareness of either the limitations of the scientific method (or the accidental conflation of non-scientific claims with scientific claims) For example, consider what would happen if someone were to present scientific research that conflicts with Heliocentrism, for example. Do you think that research would have ANY chance of being accepted for peer-review? It would not, no matter how strong the evidence is. This is because of one of the various manifestations of scientism. Many scientists think they fully understand what scientism is just because they understand ONE manifestation of it. But scientism manifests in many ways, such as: 1. The irrational dogmatic behavior toward certain consensus theories they've accepted as a given their whole lives. 2. The conflation of non-scientific claims with scientific claims. For example, it's literally impossible to think of Evolution Theory as a scientific theory without commiting fallacies of scientism. It's possible to BELIEVE Evolution Theory is true without scientism, but anyone thinking it's actually a scientific theory as opposed to a philosophical position (informed by science) IS commiting fallacies of scientism by default. Belief in Creationism requires faith in the following unobserved process: 1. Presuppostion that a Non-Naturalistic process for life coming from non-life exists & already occurred. Belief in Evolutionism requires faith in the following unobserved processes: 1. Information being added to the genome 2. Increasing genetic complexity 3. The primary definition of Macro-evolution (not the secondary definition "speciation" which both sides agree is real) 4. Evolution Theory also relies on the presupposition that a Naturalistic process by which life comes from non-life exists and already occurred, despite no observations of this either. All existing scientific evidence could be interpreted to support either side: 1. A common designer, or 2. A common ancestor So what scientific or logical reason does anyone have to choose Evolutionism over Creationism? It requires faith in more processes which haven't been scientifically verified / observed. Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. So why are many choosing the explanation which requires faith in more unobserved processes when it isn't necessary? That's not the scientific or logical approach. The answer is: Scientism They're believing that whatever claims are within the current consensus of academia are automatically scientific claims. It doesn't work that way. The Methodological Naturalism requirement allows them to include their best Naturalistic explanation for questions they can't answer with observation. “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer (or Creationism), such a hypothesis is excluded from peer-review because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." - Dr. Scott Todd, immunologist from Kansas State University as printed in Nature Magazine So, in effect, Scientism is causing them to blindly believe mainstream academia's consensus like a religious text without properly understanding the only reason Creationism is excluded is due to pre-existing philosophical bias, NOT because it's less scientific. Pre-existing bias is a systematic error in the scientific method. They can't even prove Naturalism is a true philosophy.

Antifa

Read this:- (click)

My thoughts:

I've been against antifa broadly speaking since learning what it DOES - that is - the actions of those that call the group they belong to "antifa" they destroyed both private property and public property, attacked people who they THOUGHT were (X) and did other crimes that - to my horror, many news outlets underplayed. After reading this  - its clear that its a manifesto - just with better language then some - perhaps more dangerous because it seems so well thought out and so darn intellectual - but its strong in its terms - right off the bat -

“Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be destroyed!” - and there you have it - that is to be taken seriously - don't debate this thing, don't try to reason with whomever MIGHT be thinking this, etc - just destroy it. Outright. No need for argument, logic, reason, negotiation, just blast it, kill it, nuke it, destroy it asunder, make it gone. white-supremacists are brought up A LOT here- and I just can't help but ask - who the bleep are you talking about? The KKK? They are dying out if this is correct: (click)

Also - what is missing is - HOW TO IDENTIFY KKK/Fascist members. How do you do that book? Hello? System needed. I need to know how I know who to destroy. No? Okay.... well I guess its just whoever. Remember the whole "punch a Nazi" thing? Yeah that is still around. People still think its OKAY to punch whomever you might THINK is a Nazi.

Unless that person is punching me, someone else,  then no - but thanks to ideology driven tactics - some come to BELIEVE that punching a Nazi is RIGHT. I ask, aren't the Nazi's like - gone? So , way back when they had some members etc - (click) - so  United States (3,500) - that's it?! 

Anyway but I'm sure the white supremist groups that are not kkk are everywhere right? Well its. .... the number is... hmm. Google seems to not be finding a number per-say... uhh. Well. Anyway so anyone who is white I guess might be a white supremist. Who is a fascist though? IDK anyone who does things you don't like I guess.

~~

A solution to the problem - lets assume there are fascists and also white supremist (and those that might be both)

Lets also assume they are being peaceful.

The answer?

Reason, logic, negotiation first. Foremost.

But, the real answer might be emotion: Love. (click)

if one man can do that- one person. How many could be deconverted if more tried?

Using love this brave man was able to deconvert them.

Not force. Not destruction. But peace. Peace works, use it.

Perhaps love can overcome the other issues as well - might be worth a try. Destruction should be the LAST resort - not the first, not the go to quote.

I'm a man who desires peace. Yet, I know there are those who do not, the desire of power - of belonging, of group identity, group think, these are strong motivators. We must always be willing to question what we hold most dear.

I see little to nothing in the Antifi booklet that suggests questioning anything it promotes.

Yikes.

In conclusion, they offer no empirical evidence, no tests, and no valid and sound argument - so we must be skeptical of there conclusions.

How using logic ended my interaction with someone.

Several years ago I had encountered a person on youtube, as you do from time to time, who had written some things that were right up my alley of skeptical thoughts and something that I wanted to promote. I had read the ideas and found no logical fallacies and thought it would be quite good to share this writing with others.

I wanted to have this person talk on my channel about the writings and ideas. They were not quite ready to do so, but we stayed in contact. The writings became a book that I got. I was waiting for them to be ready - and a friend of mine expressed wanting a copy of the book, so I asked the writer about getting a copy.

This is when the person informed me that they were going into hiding.

This of course, is strange. People do not go into hiding as a normal thing. What could be the cause of this?

So I asked.

The answer was that Trump is a narcissist and was going to try to become a tyrant, that his followers would target people that wrote books like this, and that person was afraid for their life.

Now, this seemed rather - to put it mildly - strange. So I did what I always do when someone makes claims. I asked critical questions. Lots of them.

How do you know (X)? What proof is there for (Z)? What makes you think that anyone could find you?

Good, critical questions. Or so I thought.

They reacted... badly.

"Trump is a criminal."

"If he stays in office we are all fucked." 

"He is driving the country towards nationalism."

So, even more claims.

Of course, I asked how they knew any of this was true, and that even if it was true - how any of that proved that people were going to go after people that wrote books like this.

That never got an answer.

Silence.

Then - they returned. I was glad, and tried to reach out to talk to them - to get them to come on and talk about the book and...

"I asked you not to contact me again (meaning personal email or phone) unless you were going to discuss the narcissism of Trump"

I've checked and rechecked my email - no they never wrote that. I again tried my best to explain that it is not about Trump. Never was. It was and is about how we decide what is or is not true - the epistemology. 

Didn't matter. Person said not to contact them again.

So logic lead to an end to the interaction.

What went wrong?

Well, I speculate that it seems to the person that I am not on the right side - that I am disagreeing with them because I am asking questions, that I'm on "the other side" or something like that. Not with us - you against us. This happens sometimes.

The topic (X) does not matter. Not even a little. What matters is the logic, always. Anyone makes a claim, that person must support that claim. That is how it works. You can not just say something is true without proof of some sort, more so when your conclusions are leading to a choice that is not normal.

Now, had person not been going into hiding, I would not have asked any questions about the statements at all. It was only because I was worried about them doing that - and also not having the book be something that can be had by the public for (as far as I knew forever) that worried me. Thus my goal was to get person to see the lack of reasoning they had.

Clearly, I was not able to do that.

Cognitive dissonance in action.

It can be anything.

For many its God beliefs.

For some its religion.

For others its politics.

Orangeman bad, agree with me!

Well - guess what? You're going to get the same treatment as everyone else making a claim.

When its your pet claim. When its something you believe is true. When its your cherished idea is when you react. You become unhinged, you lose logic. This happened before within the realm of political things here (click)

Its okay when the skeptic is asking critical questions about all the other topics - but not that one! THAT TOPIC... oh no don't ya dare... Its happened before, it will happen again I'm sure.

What can you do?

Always be willing to question everything, and more so the things you hold most dear.

In other words: Be skeptical.

Dear Theists,

 Greetings my dear theist, it has come to my attention over the years, that as a group of people you keep on doing things, things that really, really are annoying and bothersome to me, and other non-theist types. This is a letter to plead with you to stop doing these things. Thank you for your attention, I shall begin.

1: Stop assuming you know what I believe, what I think, and/or how I feel.

Examples I've gotten over time include but are not limited to:

"You think the universe came from nothing!"

"You believe that life came from nothing!"

"You think life came from rocks!"

"Naturalism is incoherent! Materialists are always wrong!"

"You just want to sin."

"You hate god."

"Your angry at god."

"You are a Satanist."

"You are doing the devils work."

----

2: Attack the argument, not the person.

Examples I've gotten over time include but are not limited to:

"Your a...(X)"

(X) has been moron, idiot, retard, ugly, drunk, among others.

You have a slur in speech/lisp/ and you can't spell!

And every other insult you can think of, and some you can't.

More great examples here (click)

---

Thank you for not doing these things anymore dear theist. I'm sure that my blog post has enabled you to no longer do these things.