It's more complex.

Original Thread. Yeah, I mentioned your subs because of envy. Not because it's documented how you traded your dignity, if you had any, for attention and subs, which was also the most likely reason to do your BS tutorials. My bad for overrating the little common sense I thought you had. It's not like I knew much about you before this, besides your lies, nonsense and whore level of desperation for attention. But you are definitely much, much dumber than what I considered. 1) You didn't find the bullshit/retarded  flying guard  (you can use the term guard flying/guard fly if you want, other players and I will use the terms that we want; some say guard flying, others flying guard..., because it's a nominalization from a gerund + "guard" that makes perfect sense). This  alone is an "issue" if you write with your moronic pretentiousness in the description "I have found a new way to guard fly in DMC5", and use the same term in

This small experiment isn't interesting per se. What should interest you is the general principle behind it: the automatization of learned processes , and how it can be extrapolated to areas that may have little to do with psychomotricity. When you think, when you express yourself, when you love someone or just enjoy your hobbies... Automatizations of all kinds take place. You may feel free when reacting to a mere tweet, when your thoughts flow, when you "hear" them and "voice" them, but there are actually a bunch of processes being executed in the background under the same principle like riding a bike. There is pretty much an endless complexity behind the simple question: why do I really think what I think? This is why in most cases interactions and introspection are mostly cyclical, and societies change/fluctuate very slowly (even if there is a boost from technology nowadays, wich enhances the amount of interactions per unit of time). When you bui

Uninteresting theory that is not even consistent with itself, as the unity and core (the brain/a brain/multiple brains) is an organ conceptualized in the same (supposedly) imaginary or simulated universe. But in this same universe we (or I, if the rest doesn't exist and I am just simulating this preceived reality) know a brain can't recreate with such precision and consistency our (or my) universe. There are way too many variables, elements and interactions between them that happen in a consistent way, without fails. Understanding fails not as a mere optical effect, illusion, lapsus, etc., which are explained in consistent way in this universe anyway, but systematical incongruent phenomenons that would break any attempt to build knowledge progressively (development), designing an epistemology and consequently a scientific method (you would be able to create and use such tools in a simulated or imagined universe too). Pretty much like in dreams, which are full with illogical