Play Squad Busters and get a free gift! https://play.squadbusters.com/Lx8a/4xjgxwms anyone 🥹

I remember this free indie survival horror game from a number of years ago. You started and returned to this dark classroom setting in between each level, and i only really remember that there was a castle level with these suits of armor in the halls that would spring to life, as well as a nightclub level (although maybe that is my brain mixing games up.) You played as a female protag, if i remember correctly. It's been killing me for like a week trying to remember it.

Hello! got reccommended to share my concerns here. i followed this video on youtube to get cracked packs to my legit game: HOW TO GET ALL SIMS 4 PACKS FOR FREE LEGIT & FAST (PC & MAC) NOT A SCAM, NO DOWNLOADING APP (youtube.com)
i have the legit game and 2 legit packs, i opened the cracked game and it had all the packs and the households from my legit game. i opened the legit game from origin and same thing there, which makes me confused if its the same thing? im a bit confused. but the main thing is that i want to play the legit game with the cracked packs ONLINE but then id risk getting my account banned, so i thoguht maybe someone had any advice or anything to help me?

Don’t know if this is a thing but ever since I changed from Balanced to Performance, and switched on FreeSync on , my PS gets so heated and blacks out mid game which is so frustrating especially playing ranked. I’ve cleared a lot from my storage , played my PS horizontally and have a fan full blast facing its back. Hope this isn’t showing the warranty of these consoles (have had it for 3 years)

Hello All!
I'm not really good at these, but I'll try. I'm from Florida and have been poly for around 4 years now. I've been partnered for about a year and I figured it's time to Branch out a little more
I'm a big horror buff. My favorite Killer is Pinhead and Freddy is a close 2nd. Going to HHN has been a thing I've loved enjoy doing and continue to do on a yearly basis. Spooky season for the win!
I'm a pretty big gamer, although I haven't played as much as I normally do with the responsibilities of being an adult. I'm an Xbox gamer(came at me lol) and play things like Apex, Farcry, Assassins Creed and much more.
I love music and my library is very much all over the place although I tend to lean towards hard rock and Metal. Just got back from Rockville not too long ago and absolutely loved it. Been jamming to Electric Callboy, Lorna Shore and Old School Trivium as of late.
I don't know if this will interest anyone out there, but if it does, feel free to message me and let's get to know each other. Have a great day!

As the title states my friend made a xianxia cultivation bot for discord, if you are interested feel free to join and play its pretty new (1 week old) so if you have any suggestions please leave them on the discord we’d really appreciate it (: https://discord.gg/HXBeCvXJ

i have been really trying to think recently about the differences countries like Morocco have in comparison to first world countries.
and while doing that I came to recognize couple bullet points that i think mostly somewhat explain the way things are, and I hope someone who actual academic knowledge about these things comes forward to add or correct me (m neither well read nor do I hold any sort deep knowledge about history and politics, I know these differences are highly subjective and u can regard them as good or bad the tittle is just a sort of clickbait ig)
i prefer to write them down one by one to make the discussion easier and if u need ref to a certain fact i mentioned lmk

religion

-I couldn’t come to deny the effects religion had on Morocco; it obviously is a Muslim country, gives ruling rights based on religious allegiance and beliefs, also implements them in laws either by deriving morality from religious teachings or outright turning religious texts into law.

• islamic laws were implemented in the birth of our country, OfCourse in a lot of cases (like marriages), these laws were not reliable and left a lot to the judge's judgement and what religious fatwa did he follow, and these laws were also somewhat challenged and changed during our history (e.g modwanat l2osra), and these changes even though debatable were sometimes positives, something that really stands out in my mind is slavery which is allowed yet frowned upon in islam so in 1883 morocco was given an official suggestion by the British foreign office to ban slave trade (Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa p 289 ), but Morocco refused to introduce such a ban. That was mainly due to the religious confirmation that slavery was halal, only for slavery to be banned by the colonial french, ofcourse we see this still in the modern debate about changes in modawanat l2osra freedom of speech against islam or the state leaders, personal freedoms, privacy, rights, all of these are really huge subjects that i can't fit in one post, however i have enough facts and standing to believe islam is being weaponized as to stop freedom, rights... etc while ignoring that it never contained detailed laws for crimes nor did islam ever claim to be a guide how to govern a country(it never discussed how a country should be ruled in a detailed manner nor did it put forward detailed citizen rights..)
• in the book "The story of American freedom" eric foner differentiates between the old freedom and new freedom, in simple terms the freedom religion presents is the og freedom that people knew and was supported by the rulers, a freedom from "sin" from "selfishness" by supporting what society deems as good and not what we see as good for us.( if not, then we are slaves to our own desires and not free) you can sense this type of freedom if you ask a moroccan if having sex should be a personal freedom. the new personal freedom is what gives individuals rights like free speech even if it hurts feelings or goes against popular believes. in a world where we should balance these ideas moroccan freedom is one clearly influenced by religion, morals, society, and the need to keep criticism away from political figures.(e.g christian moroccans not being able to go into churches to pray, and the cases where people speaking against tatbi3 with israel were dubbed against the king and the state and sent to jail.)

Hello hello! Hope everyone is doing well! I am back here today on my search for a like minded partner, someone who's easy going, laid back and friendly. I want to create a beautiful and long term roleplay with you!
A little about me. I am a detailed and experienced roleplayer (8 years), meaning I can be crafty and descriptive. I also love to make new friends so let's talk OOC too (actually this is a requirement, please be friendly and conversable). Building a healthy chatty relationship will make it easier and nice for us to roleplay. We could get to know each other better, discuss roleplay more and drive it to our likings and more. Lastly, I like to play on Discord sooo.... Have it I guess?
I like to craft plots with my potential partner, including both of our interests to make it juicy! It also helps us to get to know how much compatible we are, our likes and interests, etc. I also like to send refrence pics for the character and outfits, it just brings more life to the roleplay!
Now, I am going to leave some tropes that interest me and you can message me from any you like!
Married Couples, Arranged Marriage, Childhood Friends, Enemies To Lovers, Friends to lovers, Co-workers, Roommates, Classmates, Love Triangle.
I am probably forgetting some, but feel free to hit me up with your choice!
My ideal slice of life roleplay would be to include nice, warm, wholesome and lovey - dovey moments into the play. I really want something pure in it, I want to be smiling while roleplaying about this. The idea of two characters being so into each other, looking out for each other in their tough times, that magical touch of love into the play (if you know what I mean). Like the perfect romance, the "these two are meant for each other. These two are goals!" factor is what I am looking for. Along with that some drama, angst, twists and turns to just make it into a Netflix worthy (is that too dramatic? If so, pardon me!)
That's all!
While messaging me -

• Please don't be 1-2 liner, like "Hi I am interested, Hi are you still looking". Ik you are interested and that's why you texted. Secondly, I am looking for partners as long as my post it up. I normally delete the post once I've found a partner.
  
• Stay away if you ghost literally without a cause. Seriously, it's really immature and cheap. I don't even want to get started about this. I get reached with really nice responses and then end up getting ghosted, I simply don't get why put such efforts discussing and typing such nice responses, if the true purpose is to ghost? So if there are any problems, let's talk it out like adults, I don't bite.
  
• I will literally ignore and block one liner commenters who ask me to dm them.
  
• I only rp with people around my age (18-25), so please be around that age. Don't be under 18 (and please don't lie about your age, I've faced such people).
  
• Won't respond to new accs either, too shady.
  

Lastly, bring a prompt if you have one! I'd love to hear out :). I promise if I like it, I'll contribute my bits and pieces, or as I mentioned, the story creation is on the table!
So then! Message me with more than a "Hi I am interested, are you still looking" and let's proceed further!

Did you know that you could join our free to play tournaments for free and win cash and vouchers!? https://www.bigwinboard.com/tournaments/

I have so many hours in the game, but also watched gameplay and other videos about it and i can confidentaly say none of those things give you near the same expirience as playing it, so respectfully, please dont say youre the fan of smth you never even expirienced, and its not even hard either almost every pc can run it and its literally free on steam

The match was divided into 4 segments. The starting onslaught of the hosts, which led to 2 goals scored, then a rollback to a more wait-and-see tactic. For the rest of the first half, Juventus were given more freedom so they acted depending on who had the ball. When Bologna was with in possession, the Turin side actively pressed, but when they managed to win the ball for themselves, they carried out attacks and earned dangerous free kicks.
The third segment was quite similar to the first and lasted from 45 to 55 minutes. The BFC again put pressure on the "Vecchia Signora's" players, eventually forcing Juve to make a mistake when building-up - and scoring the third. From 55 to 75" - a period of sluggish struggle, followed by a comeback from Juventus. Motta very recklessly removed his best players - Calafiori, Freuler and Castro. Instead of the monstrous Argentine, a specialized striker did not come out - Saelemaekers began to play up front, and the BFC lost the opportunity to cling to fight for the ball there. Paolo Montero, on the contrary, got it right with the substitutions - Fagioli, Milik, and Yildiz ended up playing a key role in each of the goals scored by the Turin team.
Motta's eclipse is one of the facets of his talent. His faith in the group is very strong: the players who entered the field yesterday all played below their capabilities. This is the merit of Juventus - I politely remind you that even after making a mistake, the coach cannot lose to the goddamn air: even before Chiesa’s goal it was clear that the Turin team was not going to withdraw from the fight. Tiago appears to have misjudged the situation - he is young and has a lot to learn.
Bologna has the last round ahead: on Friday the team will leave for Genoa. Before that, on Wednesday, there will be a large-scale celebration of qualifying for the Champions League - an open-top bus with the team and coaching staff will drive through the streets of the city. And yet, the most important event of the week is the meeting announced by Motta with President Saputo, following which an announcement will be made: whether the coach will stay or not. Everyone at the club expresses a desire to continue cooperation (“I wish I could tie Motta to a post, but the decision is his,” said club director Claudio Fennucci). Motta says nothing. We set off to wait - aware that both white and black smoke may rise above Castelldebole this week.

Imagine living almost HALF A CENTURY and being as ignorant, confused and mislead as she is. She brings zero value to the world, her only contribution being a consistent scammer and a train wreck court jester for strangers online who don’t actually care about her. She probably tells herself she’s business savvy, but what she doesn’t understand is that if you need to hide the inner workings of your business (scam) to keep customers, THAT IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS. LOL. That is a vulnerable business with shakey ass foundations. Fool. She says she loves America, but outsources all her Claire’s accessories from china. She says she loves free speech, until it’s about her because she is a coward to the core.
I reckon she’s so isolated at this point because in real life, people can talk back. In real life she is seen as such a fool she probably can’t bond with anyone. Online, she can ignore and never learn. She thinks being aggressive will keep her feeling big and strong as an individual, but in reality she is a slave to her insecurity, emotions and image. If Alex kicked off as much as she does online irl she would have her fucking arse handed to her, because a) she doesn’t have the vocabulary to win any kind of debate, b) is I ncredibly uneducated and if she ever ran into someone who was, she’d crumble and c) she would feel stupid deep inside, because she is stupid. But she doesn’t like to feel those uncomfortable feelings and actually improve herself, instead she will hide away like fucking Gollum in the mountains and just give in to being a bitter beast.
Lol long rant bc I wasted my time on one of her videos after long break. Never again👹

Well, I had a whole thing typed out a week ago & didn't end up posting because I hate asking for anything.
We welcome a baby girl, due June 10th but they're pushing her for 39 weeks because it's been rough pregnancy due to endometriosis and Hyperemesis gravidarum.
We have a son that will be 4 in July. We both work full-time. We actually had a good amount of stuff given to us. It was put in storage and recently when I went to pick it up there was mold on everything. Trying to do an insurance claim but no idea how long this will even take or how they value items.
My mother passed away in 2013 & since that I really have no family to reach out to. Her family is supportive as much as they can be, but not financially.
I put together an Amazon wish list real quick when I originally was going to post this. Honestly, tried keeping it cheap besides big ticket items which I am truly not expecting help with but added them just because we need them. I'm sure there's plenty we need that wasn't added, so if you're a parent to a girl or parent in general I'm open to adding things to the list that's not on there. (Don't expect you to buy it, just open to the suggestions). I have like $90 to my name till payday and just promised to pay my cell and Internet because it's past due so after finding the storage unit like it is, I'm scrambling.
I'm 39 (m) she's 35. As stated we have a son that will be 4 in July. He is pretty high needs but getting better. He is speech delayed which causes a lot of issues and frustration within himself. He currently sees a speech and a behavioral therapist. His daycare recommended for school next fall that we get outside help through a program to get someone that's there with him the whole time which was hurtful but I understand it. They can have everyone in a circle singing and he's the one running around not paying attention or off playing.
I appreciate all y'all do for each other, even if nobody buys us a thing lol. Long time lurker that don't remember my main login. Hope one day soon I'm the one helping, not asking for it.
Thank you
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/2YDK9T8AGKZLA?ref_=wl_share

I literally saw flush of memes and rise of a cult. The question lives in my head rent free, How did marketing team at CDPR acheive a cult following? To the point at pople were vouching for a game they never even played, heck, there wasnt even any gameplay on the internet?
Was it botnet account releasing memes for influence? Was it satan worshipping? Was it some alien helped them?
Or were it those 3 accounts who owns top 500 subreddits helped them?

How can we stop going around in circles with these corrupted nihilists? (basically an extreme religious-nut but in reverse; no meaning, no value, no good/bad, nothing matters) I've compiled some of my thoughts/comments.

But first If you are not caught up yet:
1 Re: Vegan Gains ...The Militant Vegan Raffaela Interview - (May 12, 2024)
2 Vegan Gains is a sub-Jerkivest [5/11/24]
3 Moral Realism Debate w/ Inmendham - (May 16, 2024)
4 WTF #899: The vegan gains debate ... Value realism - (May 19, 2024)
5 Vegan Gains ...Denialism is the only nihilism [5/19/24]
also saw this Controversial Topics with Vegan Gains (Horse Riding, Bivalves, Depression, and much more!) - (May 11, 2024) ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ (he thinks in terms of some dogmatic religious brain-rot morality source of right/wrong, but a kind of reversed/opposite conclusion of it's absence, nihilism)
the very reason religion was invented in the first place was because humans by nature had a value-engine driving them & NEED for meaning, that's the irony. value gave rise to religion, religion never needed to grant value. The fact people can't grasp this. 🤦 ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Now onto the various arguments, sorry how long and out of order it is But the idea is to provoke you coming up with better ideas/arguments, and if you can critic and strenghen my and ultimately inmendham's arguments. The GOAL should be to Create a formal argument AKA a syllogism, modus ponens. Something clear and concise that can't be taken out of context or misinterpreted, as happened with the debate...

On the subject of Efilism, tread lightly, the philosophy and argument extends beyond merely focusing on suffering; it also includes the critical issue of consent violation. Its proponent and creator, Inmendham, argues for value realism, which contrasts starkly with the notion of subjective morality which I find illogical. While objective morality is full of baggage... often linked to outdated religious doctrine so on face value it's not fun or easy subject to broach... many contemporary non-religious ethicists ground it in realism. Personally me, inmendham and others see no use for the term "morality" as it's tainted. value-realism is the subject. Is it a value-laden universe or not?
it is not necessary to call TRUE/REAL right or wrong Objective, because if objective is defined as mind-independent than without minds there's nothing right/wrong to happen to, therefore THE discussion should be just regarding what is TRUE or NOT, subjective doesn't necessarily mean mere contrived opinion or preference but can be logical conclusion, e.g. you can conclude 2 + 2 = 4 as we understand these concepts of numbers to model reality but can you call it objective or mind-independent 2 + 2 = 4, or that math exists? Not really. As you require a modeler to model reality, an observer to make the observation, a mind to come to such accurate conclusions. To me, claiming there is no real right or wrong is akin to asserting that moral standards and ultimately the subject of Ethics is as fictitious as religion or Santa Claus, you just believe it cause you want to or have preference to. Why maintain this pretense if it's all a mere fabrication / contrivance?
Regarding subjective judgments such as determining "What's the tastiest potato chip or the most beautiful painting?", these are not factual assessments about the things themselves, The question itself is misleading, because the thing itself has none of those qualities objectively, Instead, such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by the interaction of our bodies and minds with these INPUT items, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences. You might get off more on certain female body part than another, it doesn't matter, the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant... not what specific fun or hobby gets you or them off or pushes their buttons.
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to that personal individual, or gross to another, and we can talk about intersubjective truths with averages overall. But one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually, as you are likely not even sharing the same exact experiences to judge differently. And one's very perception or framing of the experience changes the experience itself, no way around this truth. Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
It's important to recognize that differing opinions of personal taste do not inherently conflict in the way ethical contradictions do. With ethical matters, asserting that two diametrically opposed views are equally valid is problematic, either one is right and the other wrong, or both might be based on flawed reasoning. Pretending 2 opposing ethical views can be both equally right/true/correct is utter contradictory mush, either one of them must be right / wrong, or both are contrived meaningless nothing opinions, just made up. you wouldn't say whether one believes in god or not IS mere personal opinion/preference and such 2 opposing views can be equally right at same time, that's utter contradictory nonsense, by saying 2 opinions that gRAPE is both good & bad at same time are equally right opinons, right loses all meaning and you might as well say neither is right and both are wrong, they each have their own contrived fairytale delusion.
Now with Ethics of right / wrong, it does not depend on one single individual's preference or opinion, but taken as the whole, if you violate one without consent you still have to account for that since you are seemingly putting the weight on the preference otherwise preferences are utterly meaningless and irrelevant.
ALSO, Do you call whatever you prefer what's right, or do you prefer to try to do what is right?
Do you prefer to seek out what is the right most accurate conclusion given all the facts of reality, or contrive right to be what's in your preference/interest or personal gain?
I don't think VG or most these talking heads understand value-realism (problematic events within subjectivity/a non-physical but REAL reality of the mind). Obviously there's no objective divine or otherwise prime-directive moral-rules we must follow. Unfortunately Religion has poisened the conversation so much with archaic ideas and mushy terms like 'Morality'. Understand there is no 'moral truth', let alone an objective one, ofc if you pigeon-hole me or all realists into defending such nonsense it's easy to refute them. What I'm interested in is subject of Ethics, and to start whether or not value/problematic events exist or do not exist.
Here's a silly question by nihilists: "why is suffering bad?"
Response: How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
Or this: "prove suffering bad, objectively"
Also question-begging, obviously it is subjective. If such badness cannot exist mind-independently by definition.
"Prove suffering is bad, objectively"
is begging the question, because...
It strawmans / assumes the badness must be bad mind-independently, it isn't therefore, it isn't bad.
Answer this, evolutionarily do animals PERCEIVE being tortured skinned alive nail in the eye as BAD, or does it impose torture which we RECOGNIZE and define as Bad by definition?
If true PAIN/torture isn't bad then why does it exist evolutionarily? Answer: (problem -> solution) mechanism which functions as ability to learn & improved survival, this mechanism was reinforced over time as it worked.
inmendham & realists like myself argue: it is the case Descriptively, Objectively evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-value-judgements onto animals which function as a learning/problem solving mechanism. Fact is, the invention of 'PROBLEM' is something I/we/animals had nothing to do with... (no-free-will-choice) but are simply byproduct in observation of this fact.
If real PROBLEM(s) didn't truly exist then Arguably the word and conceptual understanding it points 👉 to wouldn't exist either. As if beings could be truly blind never seeing colors/vision yet pulling the idea out of thin air and conceiving of such a thing, how preposterous, that'd be giving human creativity/imagination way too much credit. The only nihilist argument then is that by evolution we & all feeling organisms are somehow ultimately deluded or have illusion of problem where there is none, which I find deeply implausible. Run the torture study/experiment a million times putting people's arm in the fire "yep still bad". Filtering out people who lack ability to feel pain of course.
As evolutionary biologists even states pain is a message to the animal "don't do that again". Can't get descriptively prescriptive more than that.
Are You Getting It?
The Ought is literally baked in as an IS. The is-ought gap to be bridged is a complete Red-Herring, yes you can't derive an Ought from an IS, because if you oughtn't do something, then it can never be BAD... problematic/BAD/torture can't mean anything if it doesn't scream OUGHT-not.
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
This is Checkmate. These are irrefutable Facts & Logical deductions.
So much for it all being false-perception, the very fact placebo patients perceive an otherwise harmless laser as BAD/painful makes it so. It's the TRUE reality in their mind and you can't deny that fact. It's also a fact believing a pain isn't really all that bad can make it so, but this doesn't make these value-laden experiences NOT real/true.
As per evolution, your body/brain's mechanisms must generate & impose a prescriptive-value-judgement / problematic event within your mind,
It's nagging, complaining, telling you keeping your hand on the hot stove is a mistake/problematic/bad. (not in itself but as a consequence)
I believe this brain making me write all this... is making an accurate assessment when it observe certain events to be problematic/bad where it's happening which is within subjectivity, where's your evidence my perceptions are fooling me or I'm somehow deluded? I witnessed the crime take place and you were nowhere near the crime scene yet you have the authority to claim otherwise as fact? (You are not simply agnostic to my problem suffering but a De-nihilist)
Once one accepts this evolutionary fact we can move on to more complicated questions regarding ethics, like how do weigh the good & the bad, conflicting preferences, etc. Otherwise, it's all pointless & futile, like arguing bivalves or wild-suffering with a non-vegan. They're just not on that level yet and it's a waste of time.
revised version of my other comment: I believe that many discussions around morality miss a crucial point about value-realism, which acknowledges problematic events within subjectivity, a non-physical but real reality of the mind. It is evident that there are no objective, divine, or prime-directive moral rules we must follow. Unfortunately, religion has muddied the conversation with archaic ideas and terms like 'morality'.
There is no 'moral truth,' especially not an objective one. If critics pigeonhole realists into defending such notions, it becomes easy to refute them. My interest lies in ethics and whether value/problematic events exist.
Consider this question by nihilists: "Why is suffering bad?"
Response: Suffering is identified because it feels bad, subjectively. Just as we subjectively understand 2+2=4, we can recognize suffering through its unpleasant experience.
When asked to "prove suffering is bad, objectively," this is question-begging, as the question assumes that the badness must exist independently of minds, which it does not by definition. This question straw-mans the issue by requiring mind-independent badness, ignoring the subjective nature of suffering. As if the quality of it being BAD must be granted by something outside the experience itself.
Evolutionary Perspective: Animals perceive and react to torture (e.g., being skinned alive) as bad because evolution has imposed mechanisms that signal harm. Pain serves as a problem-solving mechanism, reinforcing behaviors that enhance survival. If pain and suffering weren't inherently problematic, they wouldn’t exist in the form they do.
Realists like myself argue that evolution has objectively imposed prescriptive-value judgments on animals. The concept of 'problem' or 'bad' arises from these evolutionary mechanisms, not from free will. The existence of these concepts indicates the reality of these problematic experiences.
If real problems didn’t exist, neither would the concepts describing them. This is akin to how beings blind from birth wouldn’t conceive of color. Suggesting that evolutionary processes have universally deluded all feeling organisms into perceiving problems where there are none is implausible.
As evolutionary biologists state, pain signals to the animal, "don't do that again," which is descriptively prescriptive. The 'ought' is embedded within the 'is.' Thus, the is-ought gap is a red herring because prescriptive judgments are evolutionarily ingrained.
Again, How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
Conclusion: By acknowledging that evolution created inherently negative experiences like torture, we accept that these experiences are bad by definition. Denying the badness of creating bad experiences is contradictory. Therefore, once recognizing the true reality of subjective experiences, only then we can move on to complex ethical questions about weighing good and bad and addressing conflicting preferences.
playing devil's advocate let's try Steelman their position and then arrive at the logical conclusions of it and then perhaps refute it. If they say: "veganism = right" realize there is no contradiction IF by 'right' they just mean it's literally nothing but their preference...
There's no goal to prefer to know/do what's right, RATHER what's right is whatever matches our personal preferences, so unlike flat earther vs round earth beliefs/CLAIMs which can contradict/conflict with each other since either 1 is right or both are wrong. Individual tastes don't.
Whereas if VG says 9 people gRAPE the 1 kid for fun is WRONG because he's a threshold-deontologist but Also RIGHT to a hedonistic utilitarian, Those views only contradict/conflict if they are making VALUE-claims or recognizing a problematic event take place. However, with VG apparently he would have to say he's not claiming or labelling anything as TRULY problematic at all but merely describing his preferences like flavor of ice cream...
Now, of course, as the realist, I find such a view more deplorable/worse than if they were merely agnostic on right/wrong. Cause it's one thing to say there's a right answer to questions of Ethics but we have no objective scientific basis to determine it yet or lack knowledge VS saying they have knowledge there is absolutely no right or wrong.
Under Anti-realism nihilism, what they mean by wrong/right, is just their preference, if I understand correctly (which I'm quite sure) Anti-realism nihilism reduces the Subject of Ethics down to nothing but you or someone else pontificating/opining (i.e "me no like torture") . It defends some sort of expressivism, emotivism, normative, prescriptive reduction of Ethics. Which I find lubricious and has to be a mistake,
I don't see anyone playing any different game even the nihilists invest their money and plan ahead for self-interest, no one truly signs up for torture for fun like it's no problem, and runs away from pleasure happiness as bad. Further, it stands to reason... since we can recognize objectively evolution created a punishment mechanism to enforce learning and survival, BAD/PROBLEM as a concept is something I/WE/Animals had nothing to do with. We didn't invent it, we recognize it and respond accordingly. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated that pain is a message to the organism 'don't do that again!'
We must address further the flawed logic of VG and other nihilists reducing Ethics down to mere arbitrary preferences like potato chip flavor, or how much salt you prefer in the soup. As it is completely disanalogous & dishonest upon reflection. QUOTE: "There's no arguing against Efilism, it's just personal opinion. Like arguing what tastes better... ice-cream or potato chips?"
Say if you believe that the mona-lisa is beautiful, and I personally find it ugly, this conflicts/contradicts nothing because it claims nothing in terms about that object or reality outside of our own minds.
such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by body/mind from these INPUTs, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences.
it doesn't matter what specific fun or hobby gets them off or pushes their buttons in order for it MATTER, those differences don't make it any less real OR all mere subjective opinion. the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant...
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to some personal individual, or gross to another, one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually because it is the reality in their mind, Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
while one person may find a certain food delicious, another may find it repulsive, without invalidating each other's experiences because they are true for them individually. both experiences are valid/correct.
However, actions that disregard another's negative experience invalidate their reality. if you find being boiled alive problematic and I do it anyway believing it's ok, I am invalidating your experience as either not real, relevant, doesn't matter, or my preferences are more important (carry more weight) than yours. Or simply believe it's ALL equal or arbitrary and I just prefer to exploit you so I do that.
Positive or negative experiences are largely consistent among people, making them relevant, regardless of the specific stimuli. Individual truths about taste or preference coexist without contradiction, reflecting each person's value-generated reality.
This cannot honestly be applied to one's mere opinion it's fine to boil kids alive, as you are invalidating the fact that it matters to those victims. You saying it doesn't matter or your gain of pleasure outweighs their loss of pain, is a claim about the reality of events going on in their mind, so there is room for conflict/contradiction. They can't both be right/wrong at the exact same time.
A strong non-intuition argument/claim & facts presented render value-nihilism implausible:
It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Therefore, BAD/PROBLEM isn't mere subjective opinion but something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are mere by-product reacting to an observation.
This is pretty much the only base-axiom needed to ground my own torture as mattering as the original actual value-currency at stake. That paired with the fact I sampled consciousness and know it matters to me whether or not I am tortured, the fact that I personally observe it as problematic makes it the true reality for my own mind...
...AND it's not mere opinion/proclamation / or idea humans creatively invented out of thin air... as if like everyone could be truly blind yet conceptualizing colovision, makes no sense. plus that's giving humanity way too much credit of imagination.
Can't really have thoughts about information that you don't have. The concept of bad/problem arguably wouldn't even exist if it never was so.
Yes, I agree very semantics. I am attempting to shed clarity on this topic. Looking at the word "BAD" purely in a descriptive sense (e.g., that which can be categorically applied to extreme suffering) it loses all meaning if it's not truly consequential (i.e., it matters whether one experiences bad or not). If it doesn't actually matter ("no problemo") then it can't be bad, only an illusion/delusion of it, yet it's an effective one evolution imposed on organisms as a learning/problem-solving mechanism. The value-realists like myself have every reason to believe evolution created the real thing, not some contrived pseudo-problem organisms feel compelled/obligated to solve.
One only requires the axiom of a Descriptive Bad to ground Ethics. Why? Because it can be argued that a descriptive statement of BAD/problem is prescriptive by it's very nature in the meaning the of word/language.(otherwise its psuedo-bad/fake langauge, redefines bad as aversion/mere preference against) Otherwise, it can't mean anything to be bad, torturously obnoxious, unwanted experiential events couldn't mean anything. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even state pain is a punishment signal/message to the animal: "Don't do that again!" If those aren't prescriptions imposed, then I don't know what is. The animal doesn't simply decide/prefer to avoid the event and finds it bad, it's told/finds it bad and so prefers to avoid the event/problem. If god or there were some logically or physically possible way it were to be invented how else would it exist?, or what you think evolution's reward & punishment mechanism accomplished? If it didn't synthesize problematic sensations to force organisms to solve?
Evolution prescribes Needs/wants, at the same time imposes a PAIN/PROBLEM of starvation/hunger which by it's very nature is a prescription for solution (i.e. sustenance/relief/comfort.)
By the very nature of "PROBLEM" it prescribes -> "SOLUTION" not merely a contrived or trivial-like on paper math problem, but the origin of why the word even exists: the problem of pain, a true whip/punishment mechanism, real currency to play with, real loss. Idk how you can describe something categorically as a PROBLEM in the true sense of the word if it doesn't come with it a necessary prescription for its solution. Because if there is no NEED for a solution, then it turns into no longer a problem again...
I don't see how it could be any other way because if there's no real game to be playing with value baked into it, then money would be worthless/not even exist, animals wouldn't bother evade standing in the fire, etc.
Saying It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Is the same as saying Evolution IMPOSED torture/BAD, as that's what torture/bad is... a prescribed need for solution to a problem which is some form of relief/comfort.
The prescription arises as a result of accepting step 1. (which nihilists reject/deny) problem solution. The latter does not follow/exist without the former. basic 2+2 = 4 logic. There's no point figuring out the answer to the math equation, if we don't agree first and foremost a problem exists. Nor how to solve a disease, if we don't first and foremost recognize a disease exists. And so, Any debate with nihilists on step 2: of determining what is the most likely solution / right answer becomes irrelevent and a waste of time. Arguing about whether x or y IS the right answer to fixing/preventing diabetes is pointless when they don't even agree the really disease exists. They don't believe an actual real BAD / Problem exists.
VG reduces it down to mere preferences, his reasonings that even if universally sentience prefers not suffebe tortured... Well, just because it is the case descriptively we prefer to avoid suffering doesn't mean we ought/should prevent suffering. He hasn't bridged the IS-OUGHT gap. But he got it backwards,
the claim/argument... ISN'T that because descriptively, sentience universally has a preference to avoid suffering, it is therefore bad,
the claim/argument... IS that it's descriptively bad/problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it,
Again you can't classify/label something as a problem if it's inconsequential whether it is solved or not. The word loses all meaning. If something NEEDs solving/fixing it means there's a problem, if there's a problem it means there's something NEED solving/fixing. Evolution manufactures these needy problems in organisms to manipulate and control them.
Merely what our preferences are IS NOT relevant, preference "frustration" arguably IS. (if preferences couldn't be frustrated "i.e., no value" than it wouldn't matter which way things turned out)
You can have a preference for some art style over another, if we were just programmed non-feeling robots that preferred to avoid standing in the fire, but there was no real kernel of value/bad, then it wouldn't matter.
Let's imagine something was Objectively PROBLEMATIC, an IS statement. What would a real problem look like? something in NEED of a solution. Again, why? because If it doesn't matter whether or not it exists or is Solved or not, it could never be a problem in the first place. So either this problem exists or it doesn't. (NOTE: it doesn't need to be an objective problem to be REAL, "i.e mind-independent")
Next, if ASI or sentient beings were to sample this "problem", would it not be the case they would logically deduce it's in need of a solution? And assign their preferences accordingly to solving it? Cause again otherwise then you just see it as "no-problemo" again.
"If Inmendham's argument is that sentient beings create value, and that the universe has no value without the presence of a sentient being generating it, would it not follow that the ought is inherently built into sensation?" yes but the way VG unfairly reframes it is that we subjectively place value on it, THAT it's entirely subjective, like you prefer salty or sweet, or certain ice cream flavor. emphasizing that it's entirely subjective opinion. Take a look at his unfair silly example: "we can't say pineapple on pizza is objectively tasty or not..." this shows a complete ineptitude in grasping the subject and misrepresenting the argument like crazy, no one is arguing whether Mona Lisa is objectively beautiful or some such thing.
What is being argued: the positive or negative mind-dependent event produced in response to the sensual or perceptual stimuli, the input (object) is irrelevant, only the output (experience) matters and what the value-engine (BRAIN) produced. What pushes your buttons so to speak, blue jelly beans or green jelly beans, could differ between 2 individuals but the shared experience is the same more or less. Whether you wired to find pineapple on pizza tasty or gross is irrelevant, some people find bricks edible.
Main issue is they talking past each other: what inmendham is arguing for was either not expressed as best it could be, and/or VG does not quite comprehend what is being argued... inmendham claims/argues evolution created the real bad/PROBLEM and we respond in recognition of this fact/truth with preferences that follow accordingly, Logic cannot be escaped, once you know 2+2 = 4, you can't will or believe it to be 79. If you know the right answer "torture be Bad M'kay?" obviously you won't act or behave otherwise and say you love it. What could it mean to have a preference against experiencing torture... does such a statement even make any sense? All that is required is a real BAD to exist... and then the preference to avoid it logically follows, an inescapable truth. Unless he thinks I also choose or prefer to believe 2+2 = 4 ?
Essentially VG keeps counter-arguing that: "yes we want to avoid torture, but that's just your preference... just cause universally sentience has a preference against torture (a Descriptive / IS statement) doesn't logically follow some Normative/Prescriptive claim/statement. That just because something IS the case it doesn't follow that we OUGHT / should do X, like help others, prevent suffering, etc. That's a non-sequitur he says. Ultimately it's just a preference." sure but...
His argument only applies/counters a strawman position in his head: Because of this I and other realists can account for / side-step it completely, we aren't attempting to derive an OUGHT from an IS. e.g strawman: "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore it's BAD." Or "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore we OUGHT prevent it"
The actual argument is that it's Truly Bad/Problematic by the very nature of the word, Therefore first-hand observation follows universally a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around.
"If the only thing that can have meaning in the universe is the experience of a sentient being, ought we not maximize its value just by nature of its experience being the only thing that can matter?" yes the ought is a further logical extension of recognizing it to be a problem, which denotes/demands a solution, otherwise if it doesn't matter to solve it or not then you've turned it into a non-problem again. So it can only be categorically one or the other.
Issue of semantics, different terminology and definitions: as long as VG defines objective as "mind-independent" and sets the goal-post to the realist to find a mind-independent "wrong/bad" as if somehow we need some divine-command or absolute rule in the universe that declares it so... then there is no fruit to the discussion. suffering/bad takes place in the mind/experience, so of course it's unfair to ask one to present a mind-independent suffering/bad in the universe, it is begging the question. To be fair inmendham uses the term objective and could have done better job with defining/pushing his terms "e.g. objective as truth/real/fact" and not let VG impose in his own. However, I don't ascribe a requirement to demonstrate an Objective BAD to ground a BAD as real, valid, and true; it can be entirely based on Subjectivist grounds/axiomatic foundations.
Just because the BAD takes place within subjectivity doesn't make it any less real (non-physical/immaterial sure... but not unreal). VG and nihilists can't understand this. 2+2 = 4 is subjective as is all science ultimately as a root axiomatic-fact... as an observation requires an observer. This doesn't mean realism can't be proven/grounded, it can just like we can know 2+2=4 and the moon exists. If anti-realism is gonna deny subjective truths because it's subjective, then one can't know much of anything and reduces to solipsism. I am more certain I exist and the reality of "perceived" BAD I experience is actually a real BAD... THAN that the moon even exists or any other scientific empirical claim.
PROBLEM is something I/we/animals had Nothing to do with, we didn't invent it.
If Anti-realism nihilism was True and Real "PROBLEMS" didn't exist the word wouldn't exist. It is like being born never knowing or seeing or experiencing vision & color, it's impossible to contrive or imagine it. Some knowledge & information is only accessible through experience.
Even Richard Dawkins stated, "pain is a message to the animal Don't do that again!"
If the ought exists within subjectivity, as preferences, why would them being Subjective vs Objective determine whether or not their violation matters? If one experiences disgust looking at something AND another finds beauty... both are true realities for them, they don't conflict or contradict like empirical or fact claims, but instead both are correct and relevant, not one or the other, BECAUSE when someone says the mona Lisa is beautiful they are just saying it arises in them a sense of beauty, the thing/input is irrelevant whereas the output in mind is what is relevant and true for their reality.
Subjective =/= not true, I don't understand the dichotomy between objective vs subjective ethics, as if there isn't facts to glean about subjectivity.
There's also definition or semantic problems:
objective (mind-independent) vs subjective (mind-dependent)
Under such definition does it make sense to say Objectively evolution created feeling experiencing organisms having sense of taste, smell, sound, hunger, pain, to survive. So can we apply word objective to mind-dependent experiences or not?
And of course under such definition there is no objective mind-independent ethics as without minds there is no feeling subject of concern to even talk about in first place. So how silly...
Yet they take objective to mean True & Subjective made up or mere contrived opinion.
For me these are semantic word games that distract, I just care about what's fact/true. What many don't get is Even science, math is subjective invention, byproduct of subjective tool of language, doesn't mean we can't create an accurate model and picture of reality.
I believe the Is-Ought gap is a red-herring, sure it's true you can't contrive an Ought from just what IS, but with evolution the OUGHT statement is built-in, it's descriptively a prescriptive value statement imposed on me, I/we/animals literally have nothing to do with it, I'm just by-product an observer. This is key understanding.
There exists no objective or divine commandment "you OUGHT do X" written into the fabric of reality, and therefore if you don't that's Bad, No. That's nonsense/impossible logically.
Rather an Descriptive IS statement of X is a real bad/PROBLEM, denotes/demands a solution by it's very nature of the word, otherwise if it doesn't need solving then it becomes into a non-problem again, so either x categorically IS a PROBLEM or it's not.
The claim/argument... Is that it's Descriptively BAD/Problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around. Our personal preference against torture forever doesn't make it therefore bad. The prescription is built in, forced onto us.
It's like "STOP!" & "GO" What do you say to a dog? "BAD dog!" This is saying it should or shouldn't do something. basically = "No!" "Stop!" That's a prescriptive statement/signal/conveyed message.
Or simply, alls required is Descriptively diagnose Torture as Problematic. Which implies Problem Solution Without necessity of solution there is no problem at all, likewise without problem solution means nothing.
​So you essentially boiled my position down to: "Evolution programmed preference to avoid torture." or "we evolved preference to avoid torture" Does that sound incoherent or what... as if I would make such a silly claim. Keep straw-manning.
Do you think animals have PREFERENCE by default to avoid being tortured burned alive and have sex, or logically preferences are born out of observing problematic negative / positive assigned accordingly through punishment & reward mechanisms aka prescriptions, think long and hard about this one...
This is why value or ethical nihilism is incoherent to me. IF torture be bad, how can it be NOT-bad/neutral to create BAD?
It either is truly BAD or it isn't. It's either real or it's an illusion/delusion and false perception.
Their position must reduce to there is no MEANINGFUL difference between Torture & Bliss. And evolution didn't create any problematic sensation or true punishment whatsoever. Instead, were somehow deluded to view being boiling alive as problematic sensation/BAD, and relief as good, we can't tell the difference or label which is which...
Vegan Gains or any anti-realist needs to substantiate these anti-realist nihilist claims & concede if he agrees with the statements below:
"The value-laden problematic BAD experience of being tortured boiled alive in a vat of acid indefinitely... isn't really bad, evolution didn't successfully impose a real negative punishment mechanism on animals, torture isn't something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are just byproduct observing the imposition, NO! Instead our opinion has everything to do with it... what's problematic torture, one is merely subjectively interpreting/inventing/proclaiming it to be so! Evolution failed!"
"Animals run from fire cause they irrationally unreasonably subjectively interpret it to be bad/problematic sensation or experience, not cause DNA molecule made it so objectively for evolutionary reasons"
"It is all subjective preference like flavor of potato chips, problematic torturous experience isn't bad you just think it's bad or have preference against it."
"You don't logically recognize intrinsic problematic torturous experience then logically assign solution to problem which is preference to avoid that experience, No, you merely have subjective delusional preference against a nail in your eye and there is no logic to it"
"Good is Bad, and Bad is Good depending on opinion, no right or wrong, all subjective tho"
value anti-realism nihilism. INSANE! WORSE than a flat-earth theory!

I spend a lot of time researching how our nervous system works and what may contribute to the development of Visual Snow and other symptoms. Remember that there is a lot of vital information that I do not know, and may greatly benefit our understanding of this condition. Visual snow is described as an "epileptic" firing in the visual system in the brain. (Tinnitus behaves very similarly but it is occurring in the auditory nerves) NMDA glutamate receptors, which are overexpressed after excitotoxic injury may well be the trigger of an increased spontaneous firing in the nerves. In turn, the brain would decode this increased firing as "visual snow" The idea is that remaining nerve endings have been damaged enough to overexpress NMDA Glutamate receptors, thus increasing their spontaneous firing.There are various factors that contribute to the development of this condition. Everybody first had an initial trigger, and this varies from person to person. Common causes include stress, trauma, recreational and prescription drugs, Lyme, mold, heavy metals, and other toxic exposures. But what they all result in is brain injury and neuronal damage. The severity varies from person to person. The consequences of such injury doesn't just cause break in communication between healthy neurons, but a cascade of events that can lead to further neuronal degeneration and cell death. That is where visual snow comes in. Think of a broken radio or a TV where it isn't able to receive and process incoming signals so the outcome is a lot of visual/auditory noise. Our brains behave in a similar manner when there is an interference with proper neuron function and communication.Another good example is a type of neuropathic pain called paresthesia where you experience tingling and pricking sensations in various parts of your body. When nerves are damaged, they can't communicate properly and that miscommunication causes symptoms such as pain, tingling or numbness.Medical researchers searching for new medications for visual snow often look to the connection between the nerve cells in the brain and the various agents that act as neurotransmitters, such as the central nervous system's primary excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate. Visual snow can be caused when damaged brain cells emit an excess of glutamate. Many treatments use ingredients that work as glutamate antagonists, or inhibitors. Communication between nerve cells in the brain is accomplished through the use of neurotransmitters. There are many compounds that act as neurotransmitters including acetylcholine, serotonin, GABA, glutamate, aspartate, epinephrine, norpinephrine and dopamine. These chemicals attach to nerve cells at specific receptors that allow for only one type of neurotransmitter to attach.Some of the neurotransmitters are excitatory; leading to increased electrical transmission between nerve cells. Others are inhibitory and reduce electrical activity. The most common excitatory neurotransmitters are glutamate and aspartate while the primary inhibitory neurotransmitter is GABA. It is necessary for excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters to be in balance for proper brain function to occur.Communication over synapses between neurons are controlled by glutamate. When brain cells are damaged, excessive glutamate is released. Glutamate is well known to have neurotoxic properties when excessively released or incompletely recycled. This is known as excitotoxicity and leads to neuronal death.Excess glutamate opens the sodium channel in the neuron and causes it to fire. Sodium continues to flow into the neuron causing it to continue firing. This continuous firing of the neuron results in a rapid buildup of free radicals and inflammatory compounds. These compounds attack the mitochondria, the energy producing elements in the core of the neuron cell. The mitochondria become depleted and the neuron withers and dies.Excitotoxicity has been involved in a number of acute and/or degenerative forms of neuropathology such as epilepsy, autism, ALS, Parkinson’s, schizophrenia, migraines, restless leg syndrome, tourettes, pandas, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, Huntington's, seizures, insomnia, hyperactivity, OCD, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorders.(Doctors use two basic ways to correct this imbalance. The first is to activate GABA receptors that will inhibit the continuous firing caused by glutamate. The second way to correct the imbalance is use antogonists to glutamate and its receptor N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA). These are termed glutamate or NMDA antagonists. By binding with these receptors, the antagonist medication reduces glutamate-induced continuous firing of the neuron. This explains why some drugs like clonazepam and lamictal are able to help relieve symptoms in some patients. They help reduce excitatory action in the brain temporarily)Anxiety, depression, brain fog, depersonalization, visual disturbances (including visual snow, palinopsia, blue field entoptic phenomenon, photophobia, photopsia) headaches, tinnitus, are all common symptoms associated with increased excitatory activity in the brain. Excessive glutamate is the primary villain in visual snow.I strongly believe there are some genetic components that play a huge role in the development of Visual Snow and makes some individuals more susceptible to developing it. Normally, glutamate concentration is tightly controlled in the brain by various mechanisms at the synapse. There are at least 30 proteins that are membrane-bound receptor or transporter proteins at, or near, the glutamate synapse that control or modulate neuronal excitability. But in Visual Snow sufferers, my hypothesis is that we carry a faulty gene that results in dysregulation of the proteins that control and regulate glutamate excitability. They are unknown as more research will be needed.We live in a society where we are stressed emotionally, financially, physically and exposed to a range of toxins in our environment. Combining underlying genetic susceptibility with these other factors creates all the ingredients for a perfect storm.Stress + Infectious Agents (if any) + Toxins + Genetic Susceptibility = Health ConditionIncluded below is a list of things that can lead to excitotoxicity. The list includes trauma, drugs, environmental, chemicals and miscellaneous causes of brain cell damage. (Keep in mind everybody's bodies behave and react differently to various substances)-Severe Stress (Most people that are stressed out don’t realize that once the fight-or-flight response gets activated it can release things like cortisol and epinephrine into the body. Although these boost alertness, in major concentrations, the elevated levels of cortisol over an extended period of time can damage brain functioning and kill brain cells)-Free Radicals – Free radicals are highly-reactive forms of oxygen that can kill brain cells and cause brain damage. If the free radicals in your brain run rampant, your neurons will be damaged at a quicker rate than they can be repaired. This leads to brain cell death as well as cognitive decline if not corrected. (Common causes are unhealthy diet, lifestyle and toxic exposure)-Head Trauma (like concussion or contusion) MRI can detect damaged brain tissue BUT not damaged neurons. -Dehydration (severe)-Cerebal Hypoxia-Lyme disease-Narcolepsy-Sleep Apnea-Stroke-Drugs (recreational or prescription) -Amphetamine abuse-Methamphetamines-Antipsychotics-Benzodiazepine abuse-Cocaine-Esctasy -LSD-Cannabis-Tobacco-Inhalants-Nitrous Oxide-PCP-Steroids-Air Pollution-Carbon Monoxide-Heavy Metal Exposure (such as lead, copper and mercury)-Mold Exposure-Welding fumes-Formaldehyde-Solvents-Pesticides-Anesthesia-Aspartame-MSG (Monosodium Glutamate is found in most processed foods and is hidden under many various names)-Solvents-Chemotherapy-Radiation-Other toxic exposuresInside the Glutamate StormBy: Vivian Teichberg, and Luba Vikhanski"The amino acid glutamate is the major signaling chemical in nature. All invertebrates (worms, insects, and the like) use glutamate for conveying messages from nerve to muscle. In mammals, glutamate is mainly present in the central nervous system, brain, and spinal cord, where it plays the role of a neuronal messenger, or neurotransmitter. In fact, almost all brain cells use glutamate to exchange messages. Moreover, glutamate can serve as a source of energy for the brain cells when their regular energy supplier, glucose, is lacking. However, when its levels rise too high in the spaces between cells—known as extracellular spaces—glutamate turns its coat to become a toxin that kills neurons.As befits a potentially hazardous substance, glutamate is kept safely sealed within the brain cells. A healthy neuron releases glutamate only when it needs to convey a message, then immediately sucks the messenger back inside. Glutamate concentration inside the cells is 10,000 times greater than outside them. If we follow the dam analogy, that would be equivalent to holding 10,000 cubic feet of glutamate behind the dam and letting only a trickle of one cubic foot flow freely outside. A clever pumping mechanism makes sure this trickle never gets out of hand: When a neuron senses the presence of too much glutamate in the vicinity—the extracellular space—it switches on special pumps on its membrane and siphons the maverick glutamate back in.This protective pumping process works beautifully as long as glutamate levels stay within the normal range. But the levels can rise sharply if a damaged cell spills out its glutamate. In such a case, the pumps on the cellular membranes can no longer cope with the situation, and glutamate reveals its destructive powers. It doesn’t kill the neuron directly. Rather, it overly excites the cell, causing it to open its pores excessively and let in large quantities of substances that are normally allowed to enter only in limited amounts.One of these substances is sodium, which leads to cell swelling because its entry is accompanied by an inrush of water, needed to dilute the surplus sodium. The swelling squeezes the neighboring blood vessels, preventing normal blood flow and interrupting the supply of oxygen and glucose, which ultimately leads to cell death. Cell swelling, however, is reversible; the cells will shrink back once glutamate is removed from brain fluids. More dangerous than sodium is calcium, which is harmless under normal conditions but not when it rushes inside through excessively opened pores. An overload of calcium destroys the neuron’s vital structures and eventually kills it.Regardless of what killed it, the dead cell spills out its glutamate, all the vast quantities of it that were supposed to be held back by the dam. The spill overly excites more cells, and these die in turn, spilling yet more glutamate. The destructive process repeats itself over and over, engulfing brain areas until the protective pumping mechanism finally manages to stop the spread of glutamate."Recent research has confirmed that hypermetabolism has been primarily found in the right lingual gyrus and left cerebellar anterior lobe of the brain in individuals suffering from visual snow. The definition of hypermetabolism is described as "the physiological state of increased rate of metabolic activity and is characterized by an abnormal increase in metabolic rate." Hypermetabolism typically occurs after significant injury to the body. It serves as one of the body's strongest defence against illness and injury. This means that the brain is trying to compensate for the injured areas in the brain by increasing metabolism to meet it's high energy demands. It is trying to function to the best of it's ability under the circumstances. Normally the body can heal itself and regenerate under the right circumstances. But it is extremely difficult for the central nervous system - which includes the spinal cord and brain to be able to do so, due to it's inhibitory environment which prevents new neurons from forming. That is where stem cells come in. Stem cells are an exciting new discovery, because they can become literally any cell in the body including neurons. This is an amazing scientific breakthrough and has the potential to treat a whole host of conditions. Scientists are currently doing research and conducting trials.Excitotoxicity can trigger your "fight or flight" response, as this is the body's primary response to illness, injury or infection. If the brain and the body remain in the sympathetic fight or flight state for too long and too often, it is degenerative; it breaks us down. If this cycle continues, then eventually the system burns out. It is this cycle that results in autonomic nervous system dysfunction. The results are disastrous, digestion is shut down, metabolism, immune function and the detoxification system is impaired, blood pressure and heart rate are increased, circulation is impaired, sleep is disrupted, memory and cognitive function may be impaired, neurotransmitters are drained, our sense of smell, taste and sound are amplified, high levels of norepinephrine are released in the brain and the adrenal glands release a variety of hormones like adrenaline and cortisol.I believe in order to find a treatment or cure for VS and it's accompanying symptoms, we need to address the underlying cause, reduce the excess excitatory activity in the brain, repair the damaged neurons, regain proper communication between neurons, rebalance the autonomic nervous system and prevent further cellular damage. We also need to figure out what genes, if any come into play. There is still a lot we don't know about the brain because it is such an remarkably complex organ.FAQsWon't lowering the levels of glutamate solve the problem? Well, not necessarily. That is just one piece of the puzzle. You have to remember that Visual Snow is a multifactorial and complex condition in which it stems from a number of different causes and influences. Based on my knowledge and the information I have gathered, I can conclude that the overstimulation of glutamate plays a huge role in VS and some other symptoms we experience. But there is still so much we don't know. That's why more research will be needed.Why is my condition worsening over time?That is a very good question. It is because the physiology, biology and chemistry of your brain and nervous system has been altered and has become dysfunctional since the initial trigger set off a domino of effects that leads to further degradation in the body. This puts a huge strain on your body and is constantly activating your stress response system. This will wreak havoc on your entire body. The stress response system was designed to deal with brief emergencies that threaten survival. It isn't supposed to last very long because the body cannot sustain itself for very long in this state. When you remain in "fight or flight" sympathetic state for too long, it becomes degenerative and breaks our bodies down. This affects every system in the body. When you are constantly under stress, the stress response system never turns off resulting in an ongoing destructive cycle. Stress can also exacerbate all your symptoms and makes you susceptible to developing other chronic health conditions. How is the gut related to VS?Having increased intestinal permeability is very common in this modern world because we are constantly being bombarded by toxins and stress. Our bodies weren't designed to handle such a huge burden. So we end up getting sick and become susceptible to kinds of diseases. Common causes include:-Poor diet (from excessive consumption of foods such as grains, legumes, sugars, alcohol)-Chronic stress-Toxin overload-Gut dysbiosis (It means you have a lack of beneficial bacteria in your gastrointestinal (GI) tract. They are overpowered and outnumbered by pathogens such as pathogenic bacteria, yeast, viruses, parasites)-Overuse of antibiotics When you have increased intestinal permeability, the epithelium on the villi of the small intestine becomes inflamed and irritated, which allows metabolic, microbial and environmental toxins and undigested food particles to flood into the blood stream. This event compromises the liver, the lymphatic system, and the immune response including the endocrine system. It is often the primary cause of the following common conditions: asthma, food allergies, chronic sinusitis, eczema, urticaria, migraine, irritable bowel, fungal disorders, fibromyalgia, and inflammatory joint disorders including rheumatoid arthritis are just a few of the diseases that can originate from having poor gut health.This sets the stage for chronic systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired detoxification, gastrointestinal dysfunction and immune system dysregulation.Some toxins have the ability to damage and destroy neurons, myelin sheaths, synapses and even DNA. An overload of toxins that the immune system is not able to get rid of disrupts normal brain function. This eventually initiates an autoimmune response where the immune system attacks the brain and nerve cells as it tries it’s best to eliminate the toxins.The mitochondria are the energy producing section of your cells. When they are damaged by the toxic overload in the brain cells and are not able to produce energy to fuel the cell, the cell dies.In order to stop this vicious cycle, the underlying biological mechanisms of VS needs to be understood. That is the first step that needs to be taken. Any other stressors also needs to be addressed in order to reduce the overall stress load.It is important to know that VS is just a symptom of underlying physiological stress in the brain. Symptoms are your body's way of communicating with you, letting you know something is wrong in the body.I've come across some research indicating that microglial activation and elevated nitric oxide is involved in some neurological conditions. Basically the microglial cells are our brain's immune cells and when something triggers an inflammatory response, they activate and release harmful neurotoxic compounds (such as nitric oxide and pro-inflammatory cytokines) which results in neuronal injury/death. Microglial activation can also result in a loss of synaptic connections in different regions of the brain. It's basically an autoimmune response in the brain. The neuroinflammatory process appears to be an ongoing and chronic cycle of central nervous system dysfunction. This can deplete glutathione levels in the body. Glutathione is the body’s most important antioxidant which is capable of preventing oxidative damage caused by reactive oxygen species such as free radicals, peroxides, lipid peroxides, and heavy metals. This only further exaggerates the problem, which only leads to a cascade of increased inflammation.Nitric oxide plays a vital role in this process. Elevated nitric oxide levels reduces and impair natural killer cells which leads to a vulnerable immune system that is susceptible to a variety of systemic infections. -Phobe Zhang