Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_Personality

The natural, or unnatural occurance of 'another person' living inside the original person. Like polar opposites. Ex. Happiness, then downright anger towards the world.

Is this just a mind game, or can this 'Other person' actully manifest itself to become it's own being?

Well, its a personality disorder.

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the ol' Angel-on-one-shoulder / Devil-on-the-other scenario. As innocent as this may seem, it's probably the best colloquial way to illustrate that we are all "split personalities" to one degree or another (in the Angel/Devil scenario, the person in the middle is the mediator or "executive" function). The difference between us and the extreme cases has to do with the level of need; ie, your Average John / Jane Doe hasn't suffered a trauma severe enough to warrant a repression of the executive function and a more complete dissociation of the Angel and Devil parts.

the description is fairly vague. you cud be talking about a manic-depressive. or you could be talking about fuge or you could be talking about dissociative personality disorder. its quite possible in the psychologicla sense.

leo + mindship = ftw

There are lots of negative events that could cause a "split" personality, and as leo pointed out, a split personality could be an interpretation for any number of psychological disorders.

Personality as a subject of study is one of the places where psychology still almost entirely resembles philosophy. One of the main reasons for this, as with consciousness, is that, as our ability to study things has improved, we have found that all of the most basic groundwork assumptions we have made about personality are wrong. As Sam Harris likes to point out, Western science has totally missed this part of human experience, and for the most part, Eastern philosophy has a much more empircal understanding of these things.

What I mean by that is: Much Eastern philosophy talks about the illusion of the self. Our inner "self" does not exist. The "thing" we attribute our personality to does not exist, and thus, all of our speculation based on that simple fallacy is not only errorous, but totally incompatable with real data. Personality is not a static construct. People will act "split" all the time, and given certain cognitive functions, we are able to ignore those times, and affirm when we act how we think we should as the person we think we are.

Originally posted by inimalist
Our inner "self" does not exist.

There is no split personality;

yes there is;

who wrote that...

It depends how you define the "self". Eastern philosophy goes against the idea of a "soul", and instead Buddhist teaching claims that the self is composed of the Five Aggregates.


If someone took away my memories, all my prior experiences, etc. and manipulated the state of my mind to a clean slate, am I still the same person ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If someone took away my memories, all my prior experiences, etc. and manipulated the state of my mind to a clean slate, am I still the same person ?

Absolutely not. We will find this out when a human is successfully cloned. Even if a human is successfully cloned and every stimuli throughout that clones life is kept almost EXACTLY(Sub atomic interactions are impossible to control with this example) down to the millisecond (millions of other factors) of the original, I posit that the two will still not be same.

I thought it was a psychological disorder, not a paradox.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Absolutely not. We will find this out when a human is successfully cloned. Even if a human is successfully cloned and every stimuli throughout that clones life is kept almost EXACTLY(Sub atomic interactions are impossible to control with this example) down to the millisecond (millions of other factors) of the original, I posit that the two will still not be same.

I would disagree. Genetics give us the blueprint for how our brain will store and interpret various stimuli. While the clone and the individual person would be very different, personality characteristics like aggression, or possibly even the "big 5" personality characteristics, will be very similar, depending of course on how affected the "big 5" are by genes.

Further, you are assuming that very small changes in the way a person interacts with the world can have profound changes on their personality. I am not disagreeing, but let us posit, for someone who is genetically identical to an individual, assuming that the individual has lived a reletively normal life, it is very likely that there will be similar interactions experienced by the clone as the origonal. Let us then suppose that a person's genetic make up might have an affect on how people treat them. For instance, an attractive person will be treated more kindly, and will thus have similar memories.

I don't see human varibility to be as enormous as most people do. I have no trouble believing that genetically identical people will have very similar personalities. AFAIK twin studies support me.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I thought it was a psychological disorder, not a paradox.

The disorder is know as Dissassociative Interpersonal Disorder, the existance of which is highly arguable.

What is most likely, with the disorder not the paradox, is that there are numerous things that can happen to the brain which produce the appearance of split personalities, which DID is more of a shorthand for until we understand it better. Kinda like schizophrenia.

Originally posted by inimalist
I would disagree. Genetics give us the blueprint for how our brain will store and interpret various stimuli. While the clone and the individual person would be very different, personality characteristics like aggression, or possibly even the "big 5" personality characteristics, will be very similar, depending of course on how affected the "big 5" are by genes.

Further, you are assuming that very small changes in the way a person interacts with the world can have profound changes on their personality. I am not disagreeing, but let us posit, for someone who is genetically identical to an individual, assuming that the individual has lived a reletively normal life, it is very likely that there will be similar interactions experienced by the clone as the origonal. Let us then suppose that a person's genetic make up might have an affect on how people treat them. For instance, an attractive person will be treated more kindly, and will thus have similar memories.

I don't see human varibility to be as enormous as most people do. I have no trouble believing that genetically identical people will have very similar personalities. AFAIK twin studies support me.

I love those same exact studies about twins. It amazes me that they know each other so well that they can do things that border on paranormal.

Anyway,

Are there substantial studies done on twins that were raised apart? Being raised together plays a large role in their similarities...not just because they are exposed to the same stimuli, but also because of the social aspect of humans. (They become conditioned to be like each other because of what other humans do and say.)

I am saying that if we COULD clone and raise these two people apart with the same exact stimuli (As close as possible.) there will be differences. (By this, I mean they will not answer questions the same, they will react differently to specific situations..etc.etc..)

True that there may be many similarities based on biological influence (temperament due to matching hormone levels...etc.), but I do not, IMO, think that they will be the same "down to a T" like one would expect there should be.

If there are mistakes in the above post, it's because I typed it so abruptly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I love those same exact studies about twins. It amazes me that they know each other so well that they can do things that border on paranormal.

Anyway,

Are there substantial studies done on twins that were raised apart? Being raised together plays a large role in their similarities...not just because they are exposed to the same stimuli, but also because of the social aspect of humans. (They become conditioned to be like each other because of what other humans do and say.)

I am saying that if we COULD clone and raise these two people apart with the same exact stimuli (As close as possible.) there will be differences. (By this, I mean they will not answer questions the same, they will react differently to specific situations..etc.etc..)

True that there may be many similarities based on biological influence (temperament due to matching hormone levels...etc.), but I do not, IMO, think that they will be the same "down to a T" like one would expect there should be.

If there are mistakes in the above post, it's because I typed it so abruptly.

This goes a little outside of my area of knowledge, but if you want I can look deeper into it (I have a midterm in 1h )

There are studies of twins raised apart. There are also VERY many similarities, many anecdotal, but I'm sure there are personality tests or whatever that have been given to them. There are many strong genetic (presumed) components to various axis of personality, but I'm not the one to say what they are.

I think we don't really disagree about the clone issue though. Taste, style, that kind of thing, you probably cannot delibratly recreate, but more basic things like aggression or IQ may be similar. Anecdoteally, we could probably say that they would have similar preferances, but I don't like anecdotally.

Originally posted by inimalist
This goes a little outside of my area of knowledge, but if you want I can look deeper into it (I have a midterm in 1h )

There are studies of twins raised apart. There are also VERY many similarities, many anecdotal, but I'm sure there are personality tests or whatever that have been given to them. There are many strong genetic (presumed) components to various axis of personality, but I'm not the one to say what they are.

I think we don't really disagree about the clone issue though. Taste, style, that kind of thing, you probably cannot delibratly recreate, but more basic things like aggression or IQ may be similar. Anecdoteally, we could probably say that they would have similar preferances, but I don't like anecdotally.

HURRY UP WITH YOUR DAMNED COLLEGE!


But seriously, yes, we agree that there will be differences. The similarities would be genetic markers...in other words, unavoidable.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It depends how you define the "self". Eastern philosophy goes against the idea of a "soul", and instead Buddhist teaching claims that the self is composed of the Five Aggregates.


If someone took away my memories, all my prior experiences, etc. and manipulated the state of my mind to a clean slate, am I still the same person ?

NO. your memories, coupled with your qualia are the most important things that give rise to YOU. the person you are is the psychological/spiritual {whichever you like} that gives rise to your conciousness. a clone isnt the same person just like an identical twin isnt the same person.

now if you were sumhow able to create a clone AND implant the memories of the original in him than for all practical purposes he would be the original person. but.... the original person wont be the clone{given that there is some sort of time difference in between what the clone can remember and what the original can remember}.

its like that arnold movie{cant remember the name}, the clone WILL be the original, but due to the fact that the original remembers a WEE BIT MORE in the time that the memories were being implanted into the clone. it means that the original ISNT the clone. {me will be my original, but my original wont be me}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
NO. your memories, coupled with your qualia

define "memory" and "qualia"

Originally posted by inimalist
define "memory" and "qualia"



oh, inimalist, you sly weasel you. {apu/indian accent}

memory=recollection of past incidences/expirience/emotions. basically all that you have built up based on past expiriences. which makes you an individual{ofcourse, genetic developmental variable/changes also account for a LITTLE of this }

qualia= subjective expirience of stimuli/conciousness. the way YOU feal/interpret the content of any stimulus or expirience. and the phenomenon of self awareness{i.e. awareness of your own "existance". n existance means ability to be aware of expiriences/outside stimuli/processing information.}

well that is the best i can do right now.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
oh, inimalist, you sly weasel you. {apu/indian accent}

memory=recollection of past incidences/expirience/emotions. basically all that you have built up based on past expiriences. which makes you an individual{ofcourse, genetic developmental variable/changes also account for a LITTLE of this }

what if it could be shown that the way you remember something is based on who you are as an individual?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
qualia= subjective expirience of stimuli/conciousness. the way YOU feal/interpret the content of any stimulus or expirience. and the phenomenon of self awareness{i.e. awareness of your own "existance". n existance means ability to be aware of expiriences/outside stimuli/processing information.}

well that is the best i can do right now.

lol

god I wish I could post articles

Originally posted by inimalist
what if it could be shown that the way you remember something is based on who you are as an individual?


Uhh....yeah....I thought that's the way it was and I didn't think it wasn't true.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uhh....yeah....I thought that's the way it was and I didn't think it wasn't true.

its a lot more interactive than I sort of put out there, but ya, generally memory and how you remember things is subbordinate to different goals or personality traits.

depending on how you want to define the terms I guess...

Originally posted by inimalist
what if it could be shown that the way you remember something is based on who you are as an individual?



lol

god I wish I could post articles

lol. that is why is said

i had exactly the above thing in mind when i said that. you are confusing, memory with "remembering". memory is a physical store of CONTENT. remembeRING is an active process where that content is seen through a perspective and a qualia about it is formed. i hae no problem beleiving the statements that different individuals remember differently, because rememberING involves qualia too.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol. that is why is said

i had exactly the above thing in mind when i said that. you are confusing, memory with "remembering". memory is a physical store of CONTENT. remembeRING is an active process where that content is seen through a perspective and a qualia about it is formed. i hae no problem beleiving the statements that different individuals remember differently, because rememberING involves qualia too.

hmmmmmmm

As a matter of tact, I don't think its worth disagreeing with you. Maybe I should point out that we aproach this problem from VASTLY different perspectives and thus, we will have different terms and explanations for very similar statements.

I don't like the word qualia. I just don't, I'll post something in a second that somewhat explains where I and other perceptual scientists (ooooh, look, I'm a big man now) approach the issue from. In that respect I pretty much have to disagree with what you are saying because of the wording. But I think the nature of what you are saying is pretty bang on... if a little more dualistic in its wording.

Of qualia:

Two philosophical objections

Two further matters should be addressed concerning what we can expect from a theory. First, a common philosophical complaint is that any neurobiological theory of consciousness will always leave something out – something crucial. It will always leave out the feeling itself — the feeling of what it is like to be aware, to see blue, smell mint, and so on (Nagel, 1974; Chalmers, 1996). These are so-called qualia — the experiences themselves — and these are what are important about consciousness. Pursuing this point further, the philosopher may go on to conclude that no science can ever really explain qualia because it cannot demonstrate what it is like to see blue if you have never seen blue; consciousness is forever beyond the reach of scientific understanding.

What is the merit in this objection? It is lacking merit, for if you look closely, you will find that it rests on a misunderstanding. The argument presumes that if a conscious phenomenon, say smelling mint, were genuinely explained by a scientific theory, then a person who understood that theory should be caused to have that experience; e.g., should be caused to smell mint. Surely, however, the expectation is unwarranted. Why should anyone expect that understanding the theory must result in the production of the phenomenon the theory addresses? Consider an analogy. If a student really understands the nature of pregnancy by learning all there is to know about the causal nature of pregnancy, no one would expect the student to become pregnant thereby. If a student learns and really understands Newton's laws, we should not expect the student, like Newton's fabled apple, to thereby fall down. To smell mint, a certain range of neuronal activities have to obtain, particularly, let us assume, in olfactory cortex. Understanding that the olfactory cortex must be activated in manner ? will not itself activate the olfactory cortex in manner ?. We are asking too much of a neuroscientific theory if we ask it not only to explain and predict, but also to cause its target phenomenon, namely the smell of mint, simply by virtue of understanding the theory.

A second and related complaint raised by certain philosophers is that even if neuroscience were to discover with what brain states being aware of a burning pain on one's left ear is identical, we would still not understand why just those brain states are identical with precisely that sensation, as opposed, say, to feeling a desire to void. Neuroscience, it will be averred, will never be able to explain why conscious states Y = brain states X, rather than say, brain state Z. For those who are keen on qualia as metaphysical simples forever beyond the scope of science, the next step may be to infer that we cannot ever hope to understand that identity in neurobiological terms (Chalmers, 1996). Awareness, the claim goes, will always be ineffable and metaphysically basic. This means neuroscience cannot ever really explain consciousness.

This complaint too rests on a misunderstanding. What is an example where a science — any subfield of science — explains why X = Y? Not how we know or why we believe that X = Y, but why X is identical to Y, rather than to Z. Using the examples already at hand, the corresponding questions would be these: why is temperature mean molecular kinetic energy, rather than, say, caloric fluid or something else entirely? Why is visible light actually electromagnetic radiation rather than, say, something else entirely, say, “intrinsic photonicness”? By and large science does not offer explanations for fundamental identities. Rather, the discovery is that two descriptions refer to one and the same thing — or that two different measuring instruments are in fact measuring one and the same thing. Why is that thing, the thing it is? It just is. Science discovers fundamental identities, but the identities it discovers just are the way things are. There is no fundamental set of laws from which to derive that temperature is mean molecular kinetic energy or light is electromagnetic radiation.

Reflection shows this logical point to be acknowledged in an everyday setting. If someone discovers that The Morning Star (Venus) is identical to The Evening Star (Venus), he will explain why he believes this by citing his evidence. But if asked, “why is The Morning Star (Venus) identical to The Evening Star (Venus)”, no answer is appropriate; that is just the way the world is. The question itself is based on the false assumption that identities ought to follow from general laws. But they don’t. We may get an explanation of why people mistakenly thought what they saw in the dusk was not the same as the planet they saw in the dawn, and how they came to realize that what they saw in the dusk is identical to what they saw in the dawn. There is, however, no explanation of why Venus is Venus; of why the Morning Star is identical to the Evening Star. It just is. Or, to put it as the medieval philosophers sagely noted, everything is what it is, and not another thing. Correspondingly, assuming we discover that a certain pattern of activity Naj is identical to smelling mint, there will be no further explanation of why that pattern of activity is identical to smelling mint (why Naj = C).

Such merit as there is in the complaints probably comes merely to this: given the current state of neuroscience, it is very hard to predict what the explanation of conscious phenomena will look like — very hard. But so what? It is always hard to predict the course of a science, and especially hard to predict what an immature science will look like when it matures.

exerpt from:

Churchland, Patricia Smith. (2005) A neurophilosophical slant on consciousness research. Progress in Brain Research, 149, 285-293.

i read the above. but arent they actually incompatibility with the sceitific way of investigating, rather than objection to the "existance" of qualia?

in my oppinion, there is one very basic flaw/unexplained part to MY interpretation of qualia{which can be critiqued}. that is, IF qualia is non mystical in its nature, and is just concerned with SEEING, expiriences, and is DIFFERENT{even if dependant} on physical neurobiological processes, than HOW can it affect our "physical" brains in a way, as to make IT behaviourally, MAKE an argument for the existance of qualia{as my body is making right now through typing these words}.

for all intensive purposes, it would be a quiet non physical homunculus SEEING expiriences, but being seperate from the body, it would not be able to influence its actions. and yet my physical body/brain is here making the argument. which indicates that my qualia{if it exists} is actually, also giviing feedback to my PHYSICAL body.

the other MORE FUNDAMENTAL question that arises from this and the very concept of qualia is that, "WHY does qualia exist to begin with. i.e. WHY does the subjective expirience of stimuli and SELF awareness exist to begin with. if you look at machines, or other physical phenomenon, they have cause and affect relationships with other physical phenomenon. there is no reason to believe{nor evidence} to assume that a HIGHER, virtual, self defined construct is created as a RESULT of those phenomenon. but the same definition isnt enough for humans, because we OURSELVES are evidence{if to no1 but our own self} for the existance of the said phenomenon. so then why, why does qualia exist when there is no reason for its existance?

{ofcourse, the easy answer would be a mystical soul, but that is equal to forfeting the quest for an answer and attributing things partially illogically, to things which can never be understood or deefined by logic. but its a fact that the mystical explanation would give an explanation for how qualia can INFLUENCE the physical body{which it shudnt }, and a reason for the EXISTANCE of a virtual/higher conciousness, which i can not currently find adequate answers for in physics}

Lol, you really need to argue about qualia eh?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i read the above.

really? Both of your points below are a general rehashing of the two points that are addressed above...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but arent they actually incompatibility with the sceitific way of investigating, rather than objection to the "existance" of qualia?

They? you need to clarify this sentence. What I get is:

"As opposed to qualia being shown as incorrect by science, aren't they contrary to scientific investigation?"

And ya, you would be correct. It is comparable to things like the crystal spheres of the heavens or the body humors being responsible for health conditions. It is ancient philosophy that is useless when compared to the discoveries of modern science. Qualia fail Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in my oppinion, there is one very basic flaw/unexplained part to MY interpretation of qualia{which can be critiqued}.

oh, well, YOUR interpretation of qualia

Science already has addressed the other philosophers' qualia arguments, but ol leo, he has discovered an argument for qualia that will shake the foundations!!!!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
that is, IF qualia is non mystical in its nature,

This premise is incorrect. Qualia are not just non-mystical in nature, but entirely WRONG in describing the perceptual processes. While we do "experience" things, I would like you to show me what evidence you have that supports the idea that our "conscious perception" is composed of "qualia".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and is just concerned with SEEING, expiriences, and is DIFFERENT{even if dependant} on physical neurobiological processes,

This is a non-sequitur. I actually don't understand it. Is this a continuation of "if qualia is non mystical in its nature"?

Please provide some evidence that shows qualia are different from physical neurological mechanisms of perception?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
than HOW can it affect our "physical" brains in a way, as to make IT behaviourally, MAKE an argument for the existance of qualia{as my body is making right now through typing these words}.

I have no idea what this means.... I am assuming it is something like "How do our perceptual processes affect our behaviour".

Well, here is the textbook for the course I am a TA for: http://www.amazon.com/Sensation-Perception-Media-Bruce-Goldstein/dp/0534639917/ref=pd_sim_b_img_1/104-5025115-1400725

You are over complicating your argument. Qualia are not necessary for perception.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
for all intensive purposes, it would be a quiet non physical homunculus SEEING expiriences, but being seperate from the body, it would not be able to influence its actions. and yet my physical body/brain is here making the argument. which indicates that my qualia{if it exists} is actually, also giviing feedback to my PHYSICAL body.

that argument might have been acceptable in the 1400s, but is totally nonsense in light of modern science.

The perceptual "binding problem" does not require a homunculus.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the other MORE FUNDAMENTAL question that arises from this and the very concept of qualia is that, "WHY does qualia exist to begin with. i.e. WHY does the subjective expirience of stimuli and SELF awareness exist to begin with.

I think you should read what I copied from that article again. This is almost a verbatim regurgitation of the second argument that they show to be a complete misunderstanding of science.

You might as well ask why light exists to begin with. Those are not scientific questions.

Unless (which I know you aren't) you are asking for the bio-evolutionary process for consciousness and subjective experience.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
if you look at machines, or other physical phenomenon, they have cause and affect relationships with other physical phenomenon. there is no reason to believe{nor evidence} to assume that a HIGHER, virtual, self defined construct is created as a RESULT of those phenomenon.

1) sure there is. We live in a universe that follows physical principals. The burden would in fact be on you to show that a "Higher, virtual, self defined construct" cannot be created by physical phenomena.

2) Consciousness is certainly not a "Higher, virtual, self defined construct"

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but the same definition isnt enough for humans, because we OURSELVES are evidence{if to no1 but our own self} for the existance of the said phenomenon. so then why, why does qualia exist when there is no reason for its existance?

ummm, do you want to maybe back that up?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
{ofcourse, the easy answer would be a mystical soul, but that is equal to forfeting the quest for an answer and attributing things partially illogically, to things which can never be understood or deefined by logic.

as is saying that perception is composed of qualia

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but its a fact that the mystical explanation would give an explanation for how qualia can INFLUENCE the physical body{which it shudnt }, and a reason for the EXISTANCE of a virtual/higher conciousness, which i can not currently find adequate answers for in physics}

ya, no it wouldn't.

Look dude, if you want to believe crazy philosophical nonsense, far be it from me to bring you down with science. But really, if you want to talk about neurology or psychology, you should at least be moderately well read in the subject.

And sort of off topic... Where are you from, what is your native language?

Originally posted by inimalist
Lol, you really need to argue about qualia eh?



really? Both of your points below are a general rehashing of the two points that are addressed above...



They? you need to clarify this sentence. What I get is:

"As opposed to qualia being shown as incorrect by science, aren't they contrary to scientific investigation?"

And ya, you would be correct. It is comparable to things like the crystal spheres of the heavens or the body humors being responsible for health conditions. It is ancient philosophy that is useless when compared to the discoveries of modern science. Qualia fail Occam's Razor.



oh, well, YOUR interpretation of qualia

Science already has addressed the other philosophers' qualia arguments, but ol leo, he has discovered an argument for qualia that will shake the foundations!!!!



This premise is incorrect. Qualia are not just non-mystical in nature, but entirely WRONG in describing the perceptual processes. While we do "experience" things, I would like you to show me what evidence you have that supports the idea that our "conscious perception" is composed of "qualia".



This is a non-sequitur. I actually don't understand it. Is this a continuation of "if qualia is non mystical in its nature"?

Please provide some evidence that shows qualia are different from physical neurological mechanisms of perception?



I have no idea what this means.... I am assuming it is something like "How do our perceptual processes affect our behaviour".

Well, here is the textbook for the course I am a TA for: http://www.amazon.com/Sensation-Perception-Media-Bruce-Goldstein/dp/0534639917/ref=pd_sim_b_img_1/104-5025115-1400725

You are over complicating your argument. Qualia are not necessary for perception.



that argument might have been acceptable in the 1400s, but is totally nonsense in light of modern science.

The perceptual "binding problem" does not require a homunculus.



I think you should read what I copied from that article again. This is almost a verbatim regurgitation of the second argument that they show to be a complete misunderstanding of science.

You might as well ask why light exists to begin with. Those are not scientific questions.

Unless (which I know you aren't) you are asking for the bio-evolutionary process for consciousness and subjective experience.



1) sure there is. We live in a universe that follows physical principals. The burden would in fact be on you to show that a "Higher, virtual, self defined construct" cannot be created by physical phenomena.

2) Consciousness is certainly not a "Higher, virtual, self defined construct"



ummm, do you want to maybe back that up?



as is saying that perception is composed of qualia



ya, no it wouldn't.

Look dude, if you want to believe crazy philosophical nonsense, far be it from me to bring you down with science. But really, if you want to talk about neurology or psychology, you should at least be moderately well read in the subject.

And sort of off topic... Where are you from, what is your native language?

Holy shit balls. Where the hell did you find the time to type all of that out/

I bet there is something profound or ridiculously awesome in that post...however, I don't have the time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shit balls. Where the hell did you find the time to type all of that out/

I bet there is something profound or ridiculously awesome in that post...however, I don't have the time.

who is the person in your siggy smoking the huge thing? if you dont mind me asking? is it sum1 you know?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shit balls. Where the hell did you find the time to type all of that out/

I bet there is something profound or ridiculously awesome in that post...however, I don't have the time.

lol, I'd say it's probably longer than it is profound

Ya, and I have no life whatsoever

Originally posted by leonheartmm
who is the person in your siggy smoking the huge thing? if you dont mind me asking? is it sum1 you know?

I have no idea who that is but it looks like Alyssa Milano when she cut her hair short.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I'd say it's probably longer than it is profound

Ya, and I have no life whatsoever



dude! you pwned yourself!!! At least you have honest self esteem.

I will read it at work tomorrow and make a comment on it...I am too busy studying right now.

i dont think its alyssa milano. it looks like sum1 i knew.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont think its alyssa milano. it looks like sum1 i knew.

It is NOT Alissa Milano....it only looks like her. You think you've seen this lady before?.....did you see her smoke the that thing?

Originally posted by dadudemon
.....did you see her smoke the that thing?

no, but I've seen her smoke MY thing

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH

no, it just looks like sum1 i know/knew. ofcourse, it isnt her, her features are a bit different, but still, the resemblance is there. just asking really, if u knew her or not.

How is this a paradox?