You are in luck. Most urban girls have some wild demons in them. Look for a sexy and uppity one especially.

Yeah, just don't do it. Demons and such aren't fucking cute anime girls, they're ancient creatures who want, and will, absolutely fuck up your whole life.

There's many spells to attract a girlfriend or just a girl to hook up with, tho.

>>21460
Hookups fundamentally don't work. Mostly because of how the female sexuality functions.

>>21457
Demons are fallen angels, they don't have physical bodies. They can at times appear in forms humans can comprehend, they can torment you, tempt you, but you can't fuck them. That's not how it works, dumbass. Quit watching your weird harem animes or whatever.
get a fucing life

>>21641
How do you know demons can't be fucked, and why can't they?

>>21643
They're spirits. By definition, spirits possess no bodies. No body=no pussy. I literally said JUST they have no bodies in my last post. Do you have ADD or something?

File 175073367728.jpg - (150.02KB , 1024x1024 , 1717863133137216.jpg )

they are literally everywhere
the demon women archetype is the most common
you should not have problems finding one at all
problem is that probably she wants to be bounded and pounded by Chad not by you

Go to hell and be cool

>>21644
>They're spirits. By definition, spirits possess no bodies.
The term "spirit" has more than 1 definition.
And beings we call "spirits," normally, do have a body. A body created from and fully controlled by their own mind with its many subconscious tendencies. "Mind" here is the streams of energy that come from our consciousness and flow through our body, the streams that our consciousness uses to interact with the body and the world.
So, spirits take this energy and just form a body out of it. And of course, this body is physical. Their eyes need to interact with photons to see.

>>21929
This sounded good on first read, but after going through it I feel like you're probably just bullshitting.

>>21929
>>21641
Basically you're both wrong. So am I but...

The spirits I've "seen" to have a "visable body", have been very clearly not really there. I could stop, look, see that there was clearly nothing there, but then also know that there was a... being? A nonphysical existance.
That seems to mostly be a rarity. Most spiritual entities seem to exist all or mostly in the abstract. I have heard explanations of the "abstract body" that account for the use of bodily language for those spirits- things like the hands do the work, so the hands of an abstract are the part of it that effects things.
There are also biblical stories (lots of them) of angels or demons taking on a physical form, or taking possession of one that already exists. There are also biblical stories of physical beings taken wholly into the spiritual.

What I'm really saying here is that all of your rules are dumb and childish, and the idea that you can actually define any of this stuff implies a limitation that would soon be broken. Just ask the alchemists. As if any of them ever noticed..


Aaaand here's the part where I realize what thread I'm in.

Erm...
This
>>21458

But actually this
>>21460

>>21931
>I feel like you're probably just bullshitting
If using the simplest possible explanation that encompasses every fact and human experience I've encountered is bullshitting, then sure.

>>21932
>using the simplest possible explanation that encompasses every fact and human experience I've encountered is bullshitting
Yes. And same, same.

>>21933
But your bullshitting isn't quite alike?
Take a human...
There's a consciousness.
There's energy born from and connected to this consciousness.
There's a body through which this energy flows.
And this is enough to explain everything.
Here, we have a source of energy: this can be used to explain where all energy and matter in the universe came from and why only some of it is controllable.
And the algorithms consciousness naturally uses to interact with energy and matter and other consciousnesses...
There's no need to invent abstract non-matter and spiritual non-matter and non-physical non-matter... Everything we need is already present.

>>21934
I didn't invent it.

>>21934
Also no, it's not enough, mostly depending on the definition of consciousness, which I'm sure we won't be able to agree on. Is it awareness? Or thought? Is it something fundimental to the person, seperate from defined thought? And where do concepts like anger and greed come in? Don't even try to tell me that we're all just i/o machines because that (imo) is actually laughable.

Somebody should post the g.d. webster def for consciousness, maybe we can stop bs'ing and level up into discourse. Or at least research

>>21936
I researched consciousness for around 3 years now. It's not what you think. It's all mathematics. 1, 2, 0.3, 67 all of it all the way down and all the way up and there's no end. Welcome to platonic mathematical realism.

>>21936
>Also no, it's not enough, mostly depending on the definition of consciousness, which I'm sure we won't be able to agree on.
When I say "consciousness," I mean the environment in which images, sounds, smells, tastes and ideas exist. As well as pain and pleasure.
Here. Now that you have my definition and can understand the meaning behind my words.
And if you believe that people should use some other definition for this term, that's fine, but irrelevant.
>Is it awareness? Or thought?
When you encounter some problem, when this problem appears inside your consciousness as an idea, and you wish to know the solution.
Something invisible, but measurable, starts flowing inside your brain. Then, after some time, the solution appears inside your consciousness. As an idea.
This invisible thing is what I mean when I talk about energy born from and bound to your consciousness.
After making a wish to know the solution, you can't see what this energy does; you can only wait and hope it succeeds.
When there is too much energy, it becomes stressful, and every sensation that forms inside your consciousness at the time becomes unpleasant.
>And where do concepts like anger and greed come in?
When you crave something, the amount of energy bound to your consciousness keeps growing and makes every sensation inside your consciousness less pleasant. Then, when, striving to escape the pain, you focus on achieving what you desire, all other desires get temporarily suppressed, and the pain lessens a little. And when you finally achieve the goal, all remaining energy dissipates, and you return to the initial pleasant state.
Pleasure is relative.
And so, you perceive that whatever you got is relatively pleasant and that striving to achieve it is relatively pleasant. And you foolishly make a wish. And this thing becomes desirable. Recreating the cycle again and again.

>Don't even try to tell me that we're all just i/o machines because that (imo) is actually laughable.
I'm agnostic in regard to randomness nowadays.
>Somebody should post the g.d. webster def for consciousness, maybe we can stop bs'ing and level up into discourse. Or at least research
It's not really a problem when each researcher can just provide their own definition of consciousness and be understood. Arguments about definitions are mostly used to suppress certain knowledge, I think... Is often done for religious reasons?

>>21937
Saying that consciousness is mathematics is like when materialists claim that consciousness doesn't exist? I'm experiencing consciousness right now, and I see that it isn't mathematics (even though it can contain mathematics in more than 1 way), and the same should be true for whomever else you meet? Unless they are already a member of your sect, well-trained to never notice certain aspects of reality, or desire to join your sect enough to willingly cripple their mind for some reason.

Unless you're using some rare definition of "consciousness" here, I guess...

>>21939
>Saying that consciousness is mathematics is like when materialists claim that consciousness doesn't exist?
Yep, it goes on to infinity, so ofc retardation is included too. Think BIG, son. Now think even bigger and maybe you'll start getting the picture.
>I'm experiencing consciousness right now, and I see that it isn't mathematics
Yeah, you're right, for your autistic ass it's probably trains and train stations all the way down. Or tranny porn or whatever you have been looping on for the past 7 days you shortsighted, narrow minded strawberried nigger.

>>21940
>>21937
lol
lmao even

>>21938
I have thoughts on this. Will check back in later

>>21938
>the environment in which images, sounds, smells, tastes and ideas exist. As well as pain and pleasure.
See I would have defined it as the part of the person which is aware of and considers (existance/creation). Which is similar to what you said but with subtle differences. Ideas, for me, do not denote conciousness. I have ideas when I sleep. I have ideas that don't come from observation. Pain and pleasure are sensations, and although they are percieved through the conscousness, I'd be hesatant to include that in my shitty little grouping mindset.

>Something invisible, but measurable, starts flowing inside your brain.
See, here's the rub. As a westerner, I'm apperently locked into this whole philosophy of seperating things into little groups to that I can name them and sort them and have them all in a neet row. I'm told to blame Plato. It's on my todo list...
So what you call an invisable energy, I would say something like all the influences. All the bullshit that I can see, and all the bullshit that I can't see, but can think about, and all the bullshit that is so utterly beyond me that when I sit down to count the billions of fuckups in this world I spend an eternity and never even reach them, and they all add up into a sea of shit that I...

You have a much more unified idea of the mind than I do. Which I find fascinating, if not particularly relevant. Nice to meet you.

>After making a wish to know the solution, you can't see what this energy does; you can only wait and hope it succeeds.
John 3:8 - The wind blows where it wills and you can hear the sound it make, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the spirit.

>Arguments about definitions are mostly used to suppress certain knowledge
My answer to this is the story of Babylon, and the bronze age collapse. Keeping a consistant understanding of concepts is important to keep society together. Those poor devel worshippers... not a single good king ever, just asshole after asshole.

>>21942
>John 3
In John 3, Jesus explains that to see the Kingdom of God, you must be born again, of water and spirit.
Any person born of spirit is considered a spirit.
And "water" is the term Jews use for what God utilized to create the world, and we know that matter is created with energy.
So, you must be born again, of energy and spirit, in a body that moves like the wind.
Jesus claims he witnessed this happening and that he is speaking truthfully and not metaphorically and that he expected this knowledge to be more common.
The interesting part is that this isn't the only such description, and whoever wrote the Bible seems to have had a solid understanding of the rebirth mechanism. While his followers don't know a single thing about it (I know many early Christians knew, but they all got killed pretty early). Makes you wander...
Still. I don't see what you're trying to say with this.

>>21943
Yes, I saw the rebirth mechanic
and having just learned what a "Mystery Cult" is, the concept makes a lot of sense to me.
I read much of John chapter 3 as a statement on... supernature? and having previously read (most) of The Tao I also couldn't help noticing the parellels. Where the eastern philosophy talks a lot about flowing water, John uses more wind analogy, which makes sense especially from a mystical "sign" or "omen" sense- they lived in the desert. Unless I've been misinformed the Hebrew God circa 3000ish bc was actually seen as a "Storm God". A God of the wind.
But in an abstract sense it also strikes me as a statement about mystery, and the nature of spirit as something that is both seen and unseen. The spiritual world works in mysterious ways- literally a mystery; if not randomness than creation beyond what we have so far... (learned/experienced/created)
It's hard to explain. I'm still working on it. Thinking that ((literally this)) helps.

>And "water" is the term Jews use for what God utilized to create the world
My understanding was that if you go back far enough, where it says "waters" in Genesis, it actually is trying to say something closer to "chaos" or "uncreation". idk, I don't speak Hebrew.

>>21944
>the nature of spirit as something that is both seen and unseen
A body created with extra small amounts of energy not being perceived by crude biological eyes is perfectly natural.
And then, similar to how some people during terminal lucidity can ignore the state of their biological brain and act as if they had a perfectly healthy invisible brain hidden somewhere... Getting a pair of invisible and extra accurate hidden eyes might also be possible.
You can check the experience of those who had an OBE during an NDE or who remember existing as a spirit between 2 human incarnations if you want to better understand how it feels from the other side.
>The spiritual world works in mysterious ways- literally a mystery;
Our actions decide our experience, our experience decides our desires, our desires decide our actions... Not that hard to understand.
We learn to underestimate the potential of our desires since our persistent self-perception as a human severely restricts the properties of the energy they can produce. But if you're observant enough, this illusion can be broken.

>>21945
The body is constructed with small invisible tentacles of energy called dendrites. This energy is the same as spiritual energy, there are small vortices at the ends of it and it's a direct connection between matter and spirit, this is why our total possible energy is effectively limitless.

>>21945
>lol

>>21946
>lmao even

>>21947
>lol
What part do you find questionable?
Do you doubt that human eyes have a limit to what they can perceive?
That OBE during NDE happens and is often veridical? Do you doubt the existence of terminal lucidity?
Do you not think that beings using the organs they have is the simplest possible explanation for how they achieve the effect expected from using said organs?
Do you doubt that your expectations influence the way your mind goes about realizing your desires?
That expectations can be changed? That changing them is hard and requires experience?

>>21947
>lmao even
And the dendrite vortex tentacle guy might have had a good explanation for why he believes what he believes and could have shared it with us, but now that you made him cry the opportunity is lost forever... Do you hate truth or something?

File 176686760262.gif - (1.32MB , 320x234 , theydoexist.gif )

>>21946
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrite

File 176686869657.jpg - (138.67KB , 1366x768 , TheseArentTentacles.jpg )

>>21949
I don't hate truth. I'd hardly even call myself a skeptic.
oi vey..

>>21945
>A body created with extra small amounts of energy
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to define energy to make sense of this. If you're thinking that spiritual and electromagnetic energy are analogous, then not only are you wrong but you're using Einstien's equation backwards. If you're the same guy I was talking to, then that's a pretty big slip up right off the bat.

>You can ... OBE ... NDE ...
None of that's new and none of it confirms or disputes... really anything at all (other than the complexity of the human person)

>Our actions decide our experience, our experience decides our desires, our desires decide our actions
This is a fallicious absolute. Even I'm not this insular. If this were true than God might not even know we exist, and we sure wouldn't know him, since apperently his actions don't effect us even though we live in them?
Thankfully you moved the goalposts here:
>Do you doubt that your expectations <b>influence</b> the way your mind goes about realizing your desires?
So I guess you were serious after all.

>Dendrites
Now that's comedy.

>>21946
So after skimming the introduction to the wikipedia article what I'm getting is that dendrites are similar to semiconductors for brain function. They regulate the electrochemical input and output of the neuron they're attached to.
What this seems to come down to, imo, is the eternal question of what is hardwired and what is software. Emotion passes through these physical structions, and emotion, or empathy, (imo) is a spiritual... thing. We can say with some amount of surity, that dendrites regulate what we can and do feel; or at least to a degree.
Saying they are anything beyond that seems like a stretch. I'm not even going to try to argue for emergant qualities, I'd rather shrug and say ehhh~~ they aren't, like irrelivant, I guess~~

>>21951
>define energy
Energy is the ability to perform certain work. Whatever is necessary to perform it, in that context, is energy.
>but how can ability flow?
For any phenomenon to happen, certain conditions must be met. Whatever is used to create and maintain these conditions is energy, and some of it can "flow."

>>You can ... OBE ... NDE ...
>None of that's new and none of it confirms or disputes... really anything at all (other than the complexity of the human person)
OBE during NDE shows that when our body is lost, a new body can be formed. And this new body can interact with the physical world and is formed with organs and functions as if it were using them.
Not just a body, clothes can be formed too. And whatever can be used to create clothes can be used to create a building. Or a location.
And since we have a mechanism capable of producing energy in a smart way, the mechanism necessary to create such a body is already here.
Add to this that this body looks as if it was based on our mental tendencies... And that it sometimes obeys our mind even if we wish for something unusual, but only sometimes. Well.

>>Our actions decide our experience, our experience decides our desires, our desires decide our actions
>This is a fallicious absolute.
It is an absolute, but I don't believe it's fallacious.
When taken to the extent that even interacting with your physical body is considered an action. And this action leads to you being affected by whatever interacts with said body.
>If this were true than God might not even know we exist,
Constant omniscience is a late idea and is incompatible with goodness.
If God wishes to know something, he can know it. But he isn't constantly knowing everything that can be known at the same time.

>>21952
For an average human, the state of our body reflects the state of our mind, and the state of our mind reflects the state of our body. The mind and body are like 2 sides of the same coin: when one changes, the other follows... Unless you forcefully disconnect the mind from the body, of course.
Everything we experience is reflected in our body. When we experience a pleasant idea, the body also becomes pleasant. And when our body is changed in a way that resembles the effect of a pleasant idea, our mind also becomes pleasant.
All our mental activity is reflected in the physical world. And by messing with this reflection, our experience can be changed as well.

>>21950
>>21951
>>21952
here's a better link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrite_%28disambiguation%29

>>21956
>>21954
>>21953
Ya, that's pretty cool dude. You're probably right.
Hey, do you know anything about DNS redirects on a lighttpd server? My 10-ssl.conf is an absolute mess.. I was talking to chatGPT about it, but I'm pretty sure it's more full of shit than both of us put together.

>>21958
>anything
Even if I do know something, I have almost no experience managing a server and can only guess you're using a config file with a wrong name? You'd probably have much better luck in an appropriate board on some less dead site.

>>21953
>And whatever can be used to create clothes can be used to create a building. Or a location.
So like the stuff of imagination or more like fabric, cotton, wool etc?

Sorry OP for having strayed from original query.
When I said dendrites I meant more in general as large tree structure type of multitudinous/multidimensional connections or just connection in general, but with a bit of a fractalization kind of aspect to it. Don't get hung up on words and try to understand what I'm saying. I'm describing to you the nature/structure of experience.

>>21961
To imagine something, you need to create an observable physical structure inside your brain. This is what our consciousness does naturally when there is a desire to imagine something.
And when the brain is lost, whatever physical structures our consciousness needs to achieve its goals have to be created somewhere else.
I think after death some spirits form a pseudo brain hidden somewhere and get stuck in their mental world, while others form a full body and keep observing and interacting with the real world. It probably depends on whether they spent life training their mind to seek other people or to avoid them.

>>21962
>It probably depends on whether they spent life training their mind to seek other people or to avoid them.
Hahahaha

>>21959
Gave up on DNS and regen'd the certs. That broke everything because I'm behind seven firewalls..

>>21961
Strikes me as very temporal. A bit like contact tracing but at an existential level. I have a math equation that's similar, albiet more materialist. Seems like you're suggesting a more essoteric interpretation of that one thing I found myself talking about as the fog receded several lifetimes ago.

>the nature/structure of experience
That makes sense.
Keep going if The Tau is with you, but don't over extend yourself. There's not much worse than a strained Dendrite, except for a broken Vibe.

>>21963
>Hahahaha
I mean, doesn't our mind act in accordance with whatever desire is present in our consciousness? While what we desire is conditioned by our mental tendencies... Refined by years of accumulated experience...
So, if you spend these years fearing and hating other people, wouldn't getting locked in a dream be the most natural course of action? Is it not the easiest path to achieve what your mind has been trained to seek?
A dream can be pleasant or nightmarish... And since you don't have a fully functioning body that can be woken up by external circumstances, it can last for a long, long time.

>>21965
I have definatly had my mind act contrary to my desires. It sucks.
Nevertheless, what I would say to this is - yes and also no. I think what you're missing is how
...insubstantial...
things really are. And here we can tie back to op, because the line between a wife and a monster wife is not clearly marked, and likely in flux at any given time.

You want your desires to mean something, and they do. To you. Everything is already a dream. Always was and always will be.

>>21963
It's rude to laugh once you know they're being serious ;*)

>>21966
>I have definatly had my mind act contrary to my desires. It sucks.
Indeed. But you wouldn't deny that every wish you made did manage to influence your mind, even if only a little? That each of them caused a wholehearted attempt to change the course of your mind, organized in accordance with your understanding of how it works, an attempt that persisted for a time dependent on the strength of your wish?
The difference between a "wish" and a "desire," as I see it... A wish is when you manually form something pleasant inside your consciousness, and a new current forms within your mind, a current directed at that pleasant thing. While a desire is, basically, the same process, but it happens regardless of your will: something pleasant or unpleasant enters your consciousness - a new current forms within your mind, directed at or away from that thing.
So, the reason mental tendencies matter so much is that making a wish is like adding a new current to an ocean. Which, even if the whole ocean is wholly made of such currents, often isn't enough to substantially control it.

>I think what you're missing is how insubstantial things really are.
But calling them "insubstantial" doesn't make things easy to change or control? The mind needs to be understood. Consciousness needs to be understood. Is how I see the path to freedom.

>>21967
Carefull now, you're bordering on theistic Christianity. Consider the possibility that you're desires have a will of their own, externalize them and I think you'd be getting close.

>>21968
>Carefull now, you're bordering on theistic Christianity.
Why? Are you seriously afraid I'll jump from admitting desires aren't easy to control to believing that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God sacrificed himself to himself because he wanted to make himself torture humans a bit less since he loves them but on principle refuses to do anything without some ritualistic murder?
Well... At least my Christianity is still theistic. If it was atheistic Christianity, I might have got worried a little.
>Consider the possibility that you're desires have a will of their own, externalize them and I think you'd be getting close.
Externalize them in what way? Isn't a being just a collection of preferences attached to a certain consciousness? Take them away, and what is left?

>>21969
I prefer them young

>>21969
>Isn't a being just a collection of preferences attached to a certain consciousness?
Probably, kinda, mostly, and yes.

>Take them away, and what is left?
Well, exactly. We aren't all desire. Just mostly desire..
Kinda thought that's what we were talking about lol

>Why? Are you seriously afraid I'll jump from admitting desires aren't easy to control to believing that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God sacrificed himself to himself because he wanted to make himself torture humans a bit less since he loves them but on principle refuses to do anything without some ritualistic murder?
Afraid? No.
Will it? Totes malotes dawg.
Think about it. There is not a big jump from thinking of your (influences/desires/daemons/vibes/dendrites) as abstract beings that are fucking with you, to thinking that the big One is playing a long game to get us all to stop being assholes.
If you read all the LOTR books, you're going to learn a few things about Sauron.

>>21970
Sage'd and reported.

File 176746757896.jpg - (73.28KB , 610x327 , 17637476727730.jpg )

You can, but I doubt you'll like her.

>>21973
What kind of a monster wife is this, a dead sinner?
Dead humans, dead animals, various positive spirits... Demons without some local history seem to be either extremely rare or leave no survivors, so I don't even know how a proper demon should look.
To widen the selection, we could learn from the Christians and start applying the label to everyone not approved by the Pope.

>>21972
>reported
Reported for what? The more years she spends out there in the wild and not with me the less likely she is to have used those years productively. You think I want to spend the rest of my life with a fucking train wreck? You think the average person is not a fucking train wreck? What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>21975
I just want to save her from almost inevitable ruin. And no I don't mean feminism or whatever, she just needs a positively oriented male influence in her life and early, otherwise... Anyway, I don't trust her father and I don't trust her brothers, I've seen people out there, I would not leave her in their hands.