Let me introduce myself.
I am a non religious theist.
I have been interacting for several years in an other atheist forum until few weeks ago someone decided to boot me out.
The official reason is that I have been trolling.
In reality I insisted in asking for evidence.
Evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain, evidence that when the body die also the consciousness die and other evidence.
These are beliefs that most atheists rely so I can not see why this has to do with trolling.
Atheists always ask for evidence about beliefs that theists have so I can not see why asking for evidence about atheists beliefs is trolling.
But please let me answer one question that atheists always ask to theist.
Evidence for God.
This topic is very interesting indeed.
To me it all boil down so to speak about evidence for love.
Love is not only physical.
It can also be mental and spiritual.
When a person is in physical-mental love his-her body produce extra hormones.
According to the type of love these hormones are produced by certain glands in the body or brain.
In physical-mental love this nice feeling is usually felt in the heart and in less part in the brain.
By practicing love for God this nice feeling that is given by hormones is felt in the pineal gland which since the antiquity is known as the third eye so to me this is clear evidence that God exist otherwise no hormones would be released.
What you think?
Well, pay attention to what the moderators consider to be trolling. And if warned, then modify your approach to be acceptable or get banned. We do ban here. Otherwise we are pretty tolerant ... after all, I am a freethinking theist myself ;-)
Most posters here are the regular kinds of atheists. They may not want to debate you over things they have done with the many theists that came before you. And some will project upon you, their pet objections to theism, without listening carefully to you.
My own POV is that psychology, not materialism, not dualism (here is where you probably fit), not philosophy in general ... is the correct foundation. My evidence is the universal mean and spread of human feeling, thought and behavior.
Welcome.
Hello, there.
The obvious answer is that gods are human inventions designed to satisfy the fears of primitive men. There are no gods. There is however, religion and it has been a detriment to humanity from the beginning. The fact that the notion of god still persists into the 21st century in advanced nations is not testimony to the reality of god but rather to the effectiveness of the marketing and indoctrination done by religions.
Person 1 believes in a god
Person 2 says gods are not real
Person 1 says god is real because it makes me feel warm and loved.... therefor god must exist.
the end.
Quote from: aitm on December 23, 2018, 12:15:06 PM
Person 1 believes in a god
Person 2 says gods are not real
Person 1 says god is real because it makes me feel warm and loved.... therefor god must exist.
the end.
The eternal battle between IQ and EQ. Between Science and Art. The fight club of the High Brows.
Well said, B.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 23, 2018, 01:46:53 PM
Well said, B.
Most people are uncomfortable thinking in generalities. It is possible to be too general, unless you are one.
This is not to say, that thinking about the minutae of individuals isn't valid. That is what keeps the generalizations "real".
We can always look at what makes two people different. But we always have something in common as well.
Welcome, Arik.
What you feel is no doubt real to and for you. It is pure subjectivity to me. All gods are fiction. Your feelings or beliefs do not negate that fact.
Hi Arik!
So, are you saying that your definition of "God" is "love"? But you don't believe in the Bible's version? I'm just trying to see where you're at, so I can better understand what you're saying. One of my main problems with the idea of God is the lack of a widespread, coherent definition of it. It seems that the word can mean anything at all, and so it means nothing at all. I believe in love too, but I just don't call it God.
Or are you saying that because our bodies produce certain chemicals when we attempt to "love" God, that means that God must exist?
QuoteMost people are uncomfortable thinking in generalities.
I don't know about that. Most people seem to do nothing else.
Someone once said something to the effect of "most people never think, they just rearrange their prejudices."
Welcome Arik.
You say love is physical.
But what is love?
Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more.
Nah, seriously mate, welcome.
When you say non-religious, does that mean you don't concider yourself hindu, or muslim, or jewish or christian or budhist or Hoodoo, or ... ? Or do you associate with some religion more than another?
Love is felt by both body, mind and if you engage in spirituality also there is felt so love (to me) does not have borders.
When I say non religious I simply means that I do not follow religions.
Religions (to me) do not represent what Jesus, Shiva, Krishna, Buddha and other were teaching.
I do not say that what is written in the so called Holy books is garbage.
In fact something make sense but a lot doesn't make any sense and get you nowhere.
Quote from: Arik on December 24, 2018, 09:21:22 AM
Love is felt by both body, mind and if you engage in spirituality also there is felt so love (to me) does not have borders.
When I say non religious I simply means that I do not follow religions.
Religions (to me) do not represent what Jesus, Shiva, Krishna, Buddha and other were teaching.
I do not say that what is written in the so called Holy books is garbage.
In fact something make sense but a lot doesn't make any sense and get you nowhere.
I see and understand love to be a survival trait and was shaped by evolution; god is simply a fiction people use when they 'feel' something they cannot explain. All are fictional.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 23, 2018, 05:17:49 PM
Hi Arik!
So, are you saying that your definition of "God" is "love"? But you don't believe in the Bible's version? I'm just trying to see where you're at, so I can better understand what you're saying. One of my main problems with the idea of God is the lack of a widespread, coherent definition of it. It seems that the word can mean anything at all, and so it means nothing at all. I believe in love too, but I just don't call it God.
Many religions with all their Saints and pictures of their God-s produce some sort of image representing a God in a human form so to believe that in reality God does not have any human form but is an entity made of pure love is quite difficult to digest to most.
QuoteOr are you saying that because our bodies produce certain chemicals when we attempt to "love" God, that means that God must exist?
Love (to me) can not be love unless two entity are involved.
Actually even if you fall in love with your car your mind will give you satisfaction by producing hormones but these hormones will not be secreted by your pineal gland as in the case of spiritual love.
The higher the form of love is and the higher the gland that will produce hormones will be situated along your spinal cord that is why the hormones secreted by the pineal gland can only be related to spiritual love.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 24, 2018, 09:44:43 AM
I see and understand love to be a survival trait and was shaped by evolution; god is simply a fiction people use when they 'feel' something they cannot explain. All are fictional.
I do respect your belief but to me it doesn't make much sense.
If that would be the case why then my pineal gland produce a beautiful feeling when I practice my meditation which involve also to be one with the whole?
Quote from: Arik on December 24, 2018, 10:00:28 AM
I do respect your belief but to me it doesn't make much sense.
If that would be the case why then my pineal gland produce a beautiful feeling when I practice my meditation which involve also to be one with the whole?
So, for you, god is your pineal gland is where your god manifests itself? So, god can only be present for species with backbones? God did not create all, then. As far as we now know, the pineal gland is basically a light sensing organ and helps create and regulate melatonin, which helps us sleep. Don't know where god fits in there for you.
Quote from: Arik on December 24, 2018, 10:00:28 AM
I do respect your belief but to me it doesn't make much sense.
If that would be the case why then my pineal gland produce a beautiful feeling when I practice my meditation which involve also to be one with the whole?
Meditation then. Dissociation of the individual identity. Do you become the Salt Boy, or do you retain some individuality?
The epistles of John and the paen to love by Paul ... fit what you are saying. Also Krishna playing with the Gopis.
Why is the pineal gland so important?
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 24, 2018, 01:11:56 PM
Why is the pineal gland so important?
It helps regulate the hormones that makes it easier for us to sleep apparently by sensing light and dark.
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 24, 2018, 02:16:21 PM
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.
Chakras, dude!
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 24, 2018, 02:16:21 PM
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.
Yeah, know what you mean.
Quote from: Arik on December 23, 2018, 10:31:59 AM
By practicing love for God this nice feeling that is given by hormones is felt in the pineal gland which since the antiquity is known as the third eye so to me this is clear evidence that God exist otherwise no hormones would be released.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/717pSj%2BQc6L._SL1335_.jpg)
So if you believe in god, a skinny dick will come out of your forehead?
Love is simply an emotion that each of us experiences in what may be completely different ways. We attach a word to this emotion and try to explain it to others and then we blanket all such emotions as "love" when we have no idea if the person next to us experiences the same love that we do.
When we try to suggest that "love" is a predetermined thing and it effects all the same way, we can run into problems. If a god gave us "love" it was mighty inept in its handling of the distribution of equal portions.
That the mind is produced by the brain is very easy to prove. What happens if you take a blow to the head? You lose consciousness. What happens when your brain falls asleep? You become unconscious. What happens when you drink too much alcohol, and the alcohol impairs your brain's ability to function? Your consciousness is impaired, and you may even black out and lose memories. Heck, there have even been studies on people whose left and right hemispheres in their brains were separated, and both sides operated independently, as if they were both separate consciences. Everything points to the brain being the source of consciousness. Where's your evidence for the contrary?
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 24, 2018, 02:16:21 PM
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.
The pineal gland is thought by some proponents of duelism to be the link between the brain and the soul. It's complete BS, of course. It doesn't even solve the problem it seeks to fix. How does an immaterial soul interact with a physical brain? With a physical gland... Of course!
Quote from: Arik on December 23, 2018, 10:31:59 AM
In reality I insisted in asking for evidence.
That's rich.
QuoteEvidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain, evidence that when the body die also the consciousness die and other evidence.
Provide evidence of consciousness without a brain and/or body and then we'll have something to discuss.
Until then you are asking for us to provide evidence of table. Why should items fall to the floor when dropped? That's what you sound like. Stop it.
QuoteThese are beliefs that most atheists rely so I can not see why this has to do with trolling.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF TABLE
That's why it's trolling.
QuoteEvidence for God.
This topic is very interesting indeed.
To me it all boil down so to speak about evidence for love.
Love is not god.
Love is created by various chemical in the body.
Scientist have made drugs that inhibit these chemicals. Does this mean they have destroyed god?
QuoteLove is not only physical.
Yes it is.
QuoteIt can also be mental
Which is physical
Quoteand spiritual.
By which you mean emotional, which is also physical, caused by chemicals in the body.
QuoteWhen a person is in physical-mental love his-her body produce extra hormones.
According to the type of love these hormones are produced by certain glands in the body or brain.
In physical-mental love this nice feeling is usually felt in the heart and in less part in the brain.
By practicing love for God this nice feeling that is given by hormones is felt in the pineal gland which since the antiquity is known as the third eye so to me this is clear evidence that God exist otherwise no hormones would be released.
What you think?
I think you're stupid.
So your evidence for god is that feeling of love for this god thing is felt not in the heart but the pineal gland?
That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
How do you know it's the pineal gland and not the pitutary gland or the cerebellum or a fucking tumor?
I'll answer for you. You don't. You're just guess and going by your feelings and expect that to be accepted.
It's not acceptable. This is not evidence. Go away. Learn what evidence is. Then come back.
I doubt you will.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 24, 2018, 10:22:41 AM
So, for you, god is your pineal gland is where your god manifests itself? So, god can only be present for species with backbones? God did not create all, then. As far as we now know, the pineal gland is basically a light sensing organ and helps create and regulate melatonin, which helps us sleep. Don't know where god fits in there for you.
God to me is everywhere and is everything.
Of course to understand why species with or without backbones may or may not feel God is all about evolution.
Evolution of the consciousness so if you are evolved to a certain degree you need a body able to store a certain amount of consciousness and here a spinal cord is needed.
Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small.
Animals are a step higher and human beings even higher so the higher you are in the evolution process and the more complex the spinal cord and glands you need to have.
I wish I could answer all other questions right now but work is waiting for me.
See you tomorrow.
Namu amida butsu.
Quote from: Arik on December 25, 2018, 04:34:44 AM
God to me is everywhere and is everything.
Of course to understand why species with or without backbones may or may not feel God is all about evolution.
Evolution of the consciousness so if you are evolved to a certain degree you need a body able to store a certain amount of consciousness and here a spinal cord is needed.
Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small.
Animals are a step higher and human beings even higher so the higher you are in the evolution process and the more complex the spinal cord and glands you need to have.
I wish I could answer all other questions right now but work is waiting for me.
See you tomorrow.
Evolution works just fine without the input of any fictional god. If your god is everywhere and everything, then what is the need of a pineal gland? What of those who have a sick or malfunctioning gland? Are they then without god?
I can just as easily say (and I do) that god is nowhere and in nothing. Your god and all others are simply fictions created by people to make themselves feel better. God is not needed for the universe and Earth to function as it does and life does not need god to have it happen. You simply want an easy answer.
Quote from: Arik on December 25, 2018, 04:34:44 AM
God to me is everywhere and is everything.
Of course to understand why species with or without backbones may or may not feel God is all about evolution.
Evolution of the consciousness so if you are evolved to a certain degree you need a body able to store a certain amount of consciousness and here a spinal cord is needed.
Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small.
Animals are a step higher and human beings even higher so the higher you are in the evolution process and the more complex the spinal cord and glands you need to have.
Thats some......mighty fine...er.....thinkin there. Yessir, mighty fine critical thinkin.....whoo boy.
"Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small."
Holy crap on a cracker.......it's okay to think this stuff, all nice and comfortable....but man when you actually like....put it out there you kinda fall off the wagon full into whack-a-doddle land.
Panpsychism or psycho? Your call.
Quote from: Arik on December 23, 2018, 10:31:59 AM
Let me introduce myself.
I am a non religious theist.
I have been interacting for several years in an other atheist forum until few weeks ago someone decided to boot me out.
The official reason is that I have been trolling.
In reality I insisted in asking for evidence.
Evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain, evidence that when the body die also the consciousness die and other evidence.
These are beliefs that most atheists rely so I can not see why this has to do with trolling.
Atheists always ask for evidence about beliefs that theists have so I can not see why asking for evidence about atheists beliefs is trolling.
But please let me answer one question that atheists always ask to theist.
Evidence for God.
This topic is very interesting indeed.
To me it all boil down so to speak about evidence for love.
Love is not only physical.
It can also be mental and spiritual.
When a person is in physical-mental love his-her body produce extra hormones.
According to the type of love these hormones are produced by certain glands in the body or brain.
In physical-mental love this nice feeling is usually felt in the heart and in less part in the brain.
By practicing love for God this nice feeling that is given by hormones is felt in the pineal gland which since the antiquity is known as the third eye so to me this is clear evidence that God exist otherwise no hormones would be released.
What you think?
I think you are just another of a very long string of theists who thinks he/she can somehow "save" all us atheists if only we LISTENED to YOU and accepted THE WORD. And I don't even care what superstition you profess to. They are basically all the same.
Your specific deity created the whole universe and everything in it, HE (it is almost always a HE) made things difficult to understand so we have to accept HIS WORD on faith, and there is some sort of everlasting punishment for those who refuse THE WORD.
Spare yourself the effort... Your initial posts will be long and involved. They will shorten as you get frustrated when you don't convince us, and you will will eventually go away when you can't answer our questions.
Your kind bores me.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2018, 12:46:45 AM
I think you are just another of a very long string of theists who thinks he/she can somehow "save" all us atheists if only we LISTENED to YOU and accepted THE WORD. And I don't even care what superstition you profess to. They are basically all the same.
Your specific deity created the whole universe and everything in it, HE (it is almost always a HE) made things difficult to understand so we have to accept HIS WORD on faith, and there is some sort of everlasting punishment for those who refuse THE WORD.
Spare yourself the effort... Your initial posts will be long and involved. They will shorten as you get frustrated when you don't convince us, and you will will eventually go away when you can't answer our questions.
Your kind bores me.
I have no reason to get frustrated.
None at all Cavebear.
I rather get frustrated when I have no one to talk-comunicate to.
The fact that people agree with me or not is totally irrelevant.
I do not believe in hell or some sort of permanent punishment.
To me at the end everybody will understand how the system works so everybody will end up in the same beautiful place that I believe it exist.
The only problem is that those who cling to fantasied will take longer and longer to get there.
It does not means that I am right and you are wrong.
You could well have some important points that are quite valid that is why I am prepared to listen to everyone.
If you have noticed unlike religious believers I do not state........THIS IS RIGHT OR THIS IS WRONG...but I usually say.........to me
this is right and this is wrong.
Many atheists on the other hand behave same same as many religious people that state things void of any evidence as to say.......the consciousness is a product of the brain or that the life end with the physical death.
Can you see the difference between state something and instead saying..........MY BELIEF IS THAT THIS IS TRUE.
To me to state-declare-assert something must involve clear evidence.
Quote from: aitm on December 25, 2018, 09:28:05 AM
Thats some......mighty fine...er.....thinkin there. Yessir, mighty fine critical thinkin.....whoo boy.
"Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small."
Holy crap on a cracker.......it's okay to think this stuff, all nice and comfortable....but man when you actually like....put it out there you kinda fall off the wagon full into whack-a-doddle land.
In the past only hippies thought that plants are aware so some form of consciousness must be there.
Science these days is finally recognizing plants as sensual beings.
If you think that I am making up stories all you have to do is to go in your search engine and click......ARE PLANTS AWARE?
Have a good day.
Quote from: Baruch on December 24, 2018, 12:34:56 PM
Meditation then. Dissociation of the individual identity. Do you become the Salt Boy, or do you retain some individuality?
The epistles of John and the paen to love by Paul ... fit what you are saying. Also Krishna playing with the Gopis.
Interesting issue Baruch.
To me meditation has really nothing to do with DISSOCIATION but has all to do with union.
Union with the whole.
Suppose a drop of water by the push of mother nature (gravity if you like) try to reach the ocean.
What will happen to that drop?
It will happen that that drop will become the ocean itself.
Meditation follow the same logic.
Individual consciousness once it reach the universal consciousness will merge in it and become one with it.
This is my belief however.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 24, 2018, 02:06:03 PM
It helps regulate the hormones that makes it easier for us to sleep apparently by sensing light and dark.
This is what science has so far discovered.
However science always keep on discovering new things so I wouldn't really stop at what we know so far.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 24, 2018, 02:16:21 PM
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.
Let us go one step at the time brother.
According to yoga the pineal gland is the site of our consciousness.
Whether the pineal gland is there or has been removed it wouldn't really matter as far as having the consciousness because consciousness is an abstract entity so it would still be in that space where the pineal gland was however living without this gland would be very hard indeed.
It would be impossible however to live without the consciousness.
Even zombies have a tiny bit of consciousness.
But let me put why
according to me consciousness is related to God.
One of the two thing that God can not do is to create an other God so God is one and all consciousness are but the reflexion of the same entity.
The only problem that humans have is to realize this point.
Quote from: Arik on December 26, 2018, 10:13:05 AM
Let us go one step at the time brother.
According to yoga the pineal gland is the site of our consciousness.
Whether the pineal gland is there or has been removed it wouldn't really matter as far as having the consciousness because consciousness is an abstract entity so it would still be in that space where the pineal gland was however living without this gland would be very hard indeed.
It would be impossible however to live without the consciousness.
Even zombies have a tiny bit of consciousness.
But let me put why according to me consciousness is related to God.
One of the two thing that God can not do is to create an other God so God is one and all consciousness are but the reflexion of the same entity.
The only problem that humans have is to realize this point.
And what else, according to you, can't god do? What's THE second thing?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 26, 2018, 10:46:13 AM
And what else, according to you, can't god do? What's THE second thing?
He (He-she is a way to describe this spiritual entity) can not hate anyone that is also why the hell can not exist.
If there would be hell there also would be hate and that would show that God did mistakes in his creation but God being perfect can not do mistakes so hell which is a dumping ground for mistakes can not exist.
Quote from: Arik on December 26, 2018, 09:45:18 AM
This is what science has so far discovered.
However science always keep on discovering new things so I wouldn't really stop at what we know so far.
Yes science (people using the scientific method--'science' is not a magical word) keeps on discovering new things. Scientists are not afraid of saying 'We don't know", and then keep trying to know. Religious and theists have yet to prove anything. They must rely on faith and belief, for they cannot prove any of those beliefs. They have yet to demonstrate in any way anything supernatural. We can only rely on what it is we know and not on what we speculate we will know later on.
Quote from: Arik on December 26, 2018, 10:56:37 AM
He (He-she is a way to describe this spiritual entity) can not hate anyone that is also why the hell can not exist.
If there would be hell there also would be hate and that would show that God did mistakes in his creation but God being perfect can not do mistakes so hell which is a dumping ground for mistakes can not exist.
I must differ from your idealism.
Quote from: Arik on December 26, 2018, 10:13:05 AM
According to yoga the pineal gland is the site of our consciousness.
"According to yoga"? Why should I even consider whatever "yoga" has to say? Yoga may well be good for physical health and such, but how does yoga know anything about consciousness? Has yoga performed repeatable experiments and devised a theory of consciousness? Has yoga got anything other than argument by assertion? Who is yoga, and why is yoga any sort of authority on consciousness?
Quote from: Arik on December 26, 2018, 08:21:31 AM
In the past only hippies thought that plants are aware so some form of consciousness must be there.
Oh...so hippies of the past knew plants had consciousness? Well why didn't we ask them about everything then? Surely they must have had a "higher" consciousness. *Yawns*
I gotta admit some of todays youts sure can staple their asses to crazy ass shit based on crazier ass shit.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 26, 2018, 01:33:46 PM
"According to yoga"? Why should I even consider whatever "yoga" has to say? Yoga may well be good for physical health and such, but how does yoga know anything about consciousness? Has yoga performed repeatable experiments and devised a theory of consciousness? Has yoga got anything other than argument by assertion? Who is yoga, and why is yoga any sort of authority on consciousness?
That is Hatha Yoga. Yoga in India is an entire religion underlying Hinduism and Buddhism. Yes, Indians were doing psychology over 3000 years ago. Of course not using the most up to date techniques ... it was all introspection and teacher-pupil insight.
The West is crap. Nuke it. Science and Math are White privilege! Read the Yoga Sutras (aphorisms) by Patanjali in the original Sanskrit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali
If you prefer to find the meaning of your life, by controlled experiments of white mice navigating a maze, by all means do so.
Quote from: aitm on December 26, 2018, 07:52:40 PM
I gotta admit some of todays youts
How about that? I said "youts" and god gave me a rerun of "My Cousin Vinny"....god sure is funny how he shows us his omnipotence eh? Instead of saving the world, he gives me "My Cousin Vinny".....
QuoteWould I even consider whatever "yoga" has to say?
(https://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/To+master+yoda+you+must+listen+_54166ca2b6953b9366bf83e4fcf1b169.png)
Quote from: aitm on December 26, 2018, 07:52:40 PM
Oh...so hippies of the past knew plants had consciousness? Well why didn't we ask them about everything then? Surely they must have had a "higher" consciousness. *Yawns*
I gotta admit some of todays youts sure can staple their asses to crazy ass shit based on crazier ass shit.
Oh, well it look like you didn't do much search in the net about plants having awareness-consciousness.
Is that the case AITM?
Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2018, 07:57:30 PM
That is Hatha Yoga. Yoga in India is an entire religion underlying Hinduism and Buddhism. Yes, Indians were doing psychology over 3000 years ago. Of course not using the most up to date techniques ... it was all introspection and teacher-pupil insight.
The West is crap. Nuke it. Science and Math are White privilege! Read the Yoga Sutras (aphorisms) by Patanjali in the original Sanskrit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali
If you prefer to find the meaning of your life, by controlled experiments of white mice navigating a maze, by all means do so.
According to me Yoga in India or any other place is not religion although has got something in common with Hinduism and Buddhism such as believing in God, in karma and in the immortality of the soul-consciousness.
Both Yoga and those religions rely on the teaching of Shiva and Krishna but these teachings are not follow in their entirety by Hinduism and Buddhism.
Hinduism created a myriad of Gods, it created the evil caste system the dowry system and crazy beliefs such as the holy cows and so on beside strict vegetarianism and meditation is now only practiced by few.
Also Buddhism has lost the original direction and very few follow the original teachings.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 26, 2018, 11:46:16 AM
Yes science (people using the scientific method--'science' is not a magical word) keeps on discovering new things. Scientists are not afraid of saying 'We don't know", and then keep trying to know. Religious and theists have yet to prove anything. They must rely on faith and belief, for they cannot prove any of those beliefs. They have yet to demonstrate in any way anything supernatural. We can only rely on what it is we know and not on what we speculate we will know later on.
Not at all Mike.
You can not say that all theists rely on faith and belief.
Many do but not all of them.
I rely on evidence instead.
When my yoga teacher did showed me how to practice the meditation he said..........if you follow my teachings you will clean your glands that control body-mind and your very soul-consciousness.........in this way you will find peace of mind and bliss so your unit consciousness at the proper time will merge into the cosmic consciousness.
After practicing these teaching seriously for sometime I did find that what the teacher said was real so this is evidence not faith or belief.
If his teaching would have not lead to any result I would have stop practicing after some time but these teachings really works.
Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2018, 12:26:17 PM
I must differ from your idealism.
Any chance you can tell me where you do not agree or differ?
Thanks.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 26, 2018, 01:33:46 PM
"According to yoga"? Why should I even consider whatever "yoga" has to say? Yoga may well be good for physical health and such, but how does yoga know anything about consciousness? Has yoga performed repeatable experiments and devised a theory of consciousness? Has yoga got anything other than argument by assertion? Who is yoga, and why is yoga any sort of authority on consciousness?
Yoga follow the same logic and system that you would follow when you try to engage in a love relationship.
Once the thing works you feel good within.
You may not know where the hormones that trigger that nice feeling are located within you but you know that something within make you feel great.
Yoga being engaged in spiritual love for ages and ages learn how the system works and where the main glands that release these hormones are located.
Apparently the first yoga teacher was Shiva which according many lived 7000 years ago.
This is all I can tell you whether you believe it or not.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 25, 2018, 12:43:46 AM
The pineal gland is thought by some proponents of duelism to be the link between the brain and the soul. It's complete BS, of course. It doesn't even solve the problem it seeks to fix. How does an immaterial soul interact with a physical brain? With a physical gland... Of course!
Suppose you enter you car to drive somewhere.
You are not made of metal as the car.
In the same way when your consciousness enter the body for a lifetime YOU your consciousness are not your body but keep a relationship with the body as you would keep a relationship when you enter your car with the car.
This is my belief.
Quote from: Arik on December 25, 2018, 04:34:44 AMOf course to understand why species with or without backbones may or may not feel God is all about evolution.
Evolution of the consciousness so if you are evolved to a certain degree you need a body able to store a certain amount of consciousness and here a spinal cord is needed.
That's...not how science works, to put it mildly.
QuotePlants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small.
Animals are a step higher and human beings even higher so the higher you are in the evolution process and the more complex the spinal cord and glands you need to have.
This is basically a rehash of the great chain of being (a medieval idea), which is pseudoscience.
(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/laddervstree.gif)
Evolution does not have levels. Plants, insects, birds, and humans have all undergone changes to adapt to changing environments. Every species that is alive managed that in some form or another. Complexity =/= "evolvedness"
Quote from: Arik on December 27, 2018, 09:07:12 AM
Suppose you enter you car to drive somewhere.
You are not made of metal as the car.
In the same way when your consciousness enter the body for a lifetime YOU your consciousness are not your body but keep a relationship with the body as you would keep a relationship when you enter your car with the car.
This is my belief.
Ghost in the shell. Proof by assertion fallacy. Yawn.
Quote from: Arik on December 27, 2018, 08:33:45 AM
Any chance you can tell me where you do not agree or differ?
Thanks.
You - consciousness is everything
Me - consciousness and unconsciousness are everything (ignoring sub-conscious for the moment)
Idea-lism - the general prioritizing of ideas (aka bits of consciousness) over other aspects of experience
Excuse me if I have stereotyped what you have written so far.
Buddhists are also idealistic, in that the Super-ego is prioritized over the Ego and the Id.
Most atheists = some variety of materialism. Quantum Mechanics is G-d, Niels Bohr says so, Ommmm.
Saivism ... Lord Shiva is the original meditation guru ... on Mt Kailash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQhzDyVIuPw
PS - Yoga is a system of metaphysical introspection and self discipline (per Patanjali).
Chan/Zen is the Chinese realization of Buddhist Yoga that arose out of Vedic Yoga.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjWZz839T8w
The Zen of drums ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZagsLrNzg3I
Quote from: Arik on December 27, 2018, 08:27:14 AM
Not at all Mike.
You can not say that all theists rely on faith and belief.
Many do but not all of them.
I rely on evidence instead.
When my yoga teacher did showed me how to practice the meditation he said..........if you follow my teachings you will clean your glands that control body-mind and your very soul-consciousness.........in this way you will find peace of mind and bliss so your unit consciousness at the proper time will merge into the cosmic consciousness.
After practicing these teaching seriously for sometime I did find that what the teacher said was real so this is evidence not faith or belief.
If his teaching would have not lead to any result I would have stop practicing after some time but these teachings really works.
Glad things worked for you. But that is not evidence of anything other than it worked for you. That is subjective. It is not evidence you can use to 'prove' anything to me. Or anybody else. It is evidence that is proof to you--and that's it. This is not scientific proof--it is subjective proof. All theists and religious people from the very beginning of time have used that type of 'proof' and not any scientific proof of any kind. Can you give me any scientific proof that your god exists or ever did?
I don't think Arik understands the concept of proof.
Quote from: Arik on December 27, 2018, 08:27:14 AM
After practicing these teaching seriously for sometime I did find that what the teacher said was real so this is evidence not faith or belief.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 27, 2018, 05:14:13 PM
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Neither is your personal experience (or mine). All personal info (as we misremember it) is invalid. You are not a human, not alive, not male etc ... that is just you POV, which is subjective. 2+2=4 is objective ... the prophet, Pythagoras, says so.
OTOH ... when two or more drunk monkeys agree on something, that is objectionable, not objective. Group think isn't evidence.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 27, 2018, 05:01:14 PM
I don't think Arik understands he concept of proof.
Plants don't need no stinkin proof.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 27, 2018, 10:47:09 AM
That's...not how science works, to put it mildly.
This is basically a rehash of the great chain of being (a medieval idea), which is pseudoscience.
(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/laddervstree.gif)
Evolution does not have levels. Plants, insects, birds, and humans have all undergone changes to adapt to changing environments. Every species that is alive managed that in some form or another. Complexity =/= "evolvedness"
Many scientists GUESS that that is the case but as far as total prove and total evidence zero-nil-0.
Guessing is not evidence Hydra.
You may well say that also my belief is a guess but at least I got something that make sense.
Life teach us that the good things do not fall from the sky.
You surely must know that to get money we got to work hard and we have also to work hard to make our life easier.
Now you tell me how it is possible to get such an evolved consciousness unless we have first done the hard work to go from lower form of lives to what we are now?
Have you ever seen a small boy or girl that become a doctor just by attending the first year of the primary school?
What most scientist know is only related to physical changes which do not tell anything about changes in consciousness.
The day that scientists will understand how changes in consciousness affect changes in bodies then that will be a very great day for humanity.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 27, 2018, 04:56:17 PM
Glad things worked for you. But that is not evidence of anything other than it worked for you. That is subjective. It is not evidence you can use to 'prove' anything to me. Or anybody else. It is evidence that is proof to you--and that's it. This is not scientific proof--it is subjective proof. All theists and religious people from the very beginning of time have used that type of 'proof' and not any scientific proof of any kind. Can you give me any scientific proof that your god exists or ever did?
Scientific proof?
It really depend which science you try to use Mike.
If you expect to find proofs by using physical science then forget about that.
How on earth can a physical science understand what is not physical such as God?
To understand God you must use a science that study what is not physical such as the consciousness and that science is the science of yoga and yoga meditation in particular.
Love is felt individually according the effort that a person put in that relationship.
As you would be unable to provide evidence that your love for someone is real also no one that engage in spirituality would be able to show you that God exist because the relationship is strictly individual.
As I already said you can see physical evidence because the glands secrete hormones but other than that very little.
Quote from: Arik on December 28, 2018, 10:27:00 AM
Scientific proof?
It really depend which science you try to use Mike.
If you expect to find proofs by using physical science then forget about that.
How on earth can a physical science understand what is not physical such as God?
To understand God you must use a science that study what is not physical such as the consciousness and that science is the science of yoga and yoga meditation in particular.
Love is felt individually according the effort that a person put in that relationship.
As you would be unable to provide evidence that your love for someone is real also no one that engage in spirituality would be able to show you that God exist because the relationship is strictly individual.
As I already said you can see physical evidence because the glands secrete hormones but other than that very little.
Clearly you are trying to remake 'science' into your own special belief system. Science is not magic nor another form of belief. It is simply growing to understand one point at a time. One creates and states a hypotheses and then tries to prove it. If one can prove it in such a way that another person can recreate the experiment and get the same results, then you have a theory and have added to the knowledge of the world. One does not need to have belief in science--look at the evidence. BTW, if one cannot prove a hypothesis, then it remains just that, a hypothesis. That is what you are pushing--a hypothesis. You 'tested' it within yourself, which means I cannot replicate that particular experiment. So, your beliefs are just that, an unproven hypothesis. And all theist beliefs are the same.
Just as I don't have to prove that fairies or gnomes or Bugs Bunny are not real--they are clearly fictional--I don't need to prove your god does not exist. Offer me some proof for your claim that god is real.
Theists seem to be really put off by 'I don't know'. Yes your fav gland does secrete a hormone. You suggest that beyond that we know little. We sure don't know all that we need to know about that gland; but we do know much more than we did 100 or 1000 years ago. And we will know more in the future; and we will learn by using the scientific method, not yoga nor meditation nor simply believing something.
So far I have not been shown any proof of your god. Personal stories simply don't count.
It is a mistake, in this culture to identify "science" as "knowledge" ... only most recent version of the scientific method can be meant. Otherwise there is unnecessary semantic posturing. Arik - please explain your epistemology.
Quote from: Arik on December 28, 2018, 10:27:00 AM
It really depend which science you try to use Mike.
To understand God you must use a science that study what is not physical such as the consciousness and that science is the science of yoga and yoga meditation in particular.
In other words...sciency stuff you imagine when you be in meditation cause thats where god hides the sciency stuff, if'n not in your brain..he hides it in trees. Secretly cause they be a meditating too. Shhhh...don't scare the philodendron.
Quote from: Baruch on December 27, 2018, 06:35:16 PM
Neither is your personal experience (or mine). All personal info (as we misremember it) is invalid. You are not a human, not alive, not male etc ... that is just you POV, which is subjective. 2+2=4 is objective ... the prophet, Pythagoras, says so.
OTOH ... when two or more drunk monkeys agree on something, that is objectionable, not objective. Group think isn't evidence.
You're making less sense than the OP. That must be a useful skill in day-to-day life.
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 28, 2018, 05:46:36 PM
You're making less sense than the OP. That must be a useful skill in day-to-day life.
OK. I am probably older than he is. So more experienced at theism, and heresy (which seems to include him also) than he is ;-)
Arik is just working you all up with nonsense arguments to waste your time. He a religious troll.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 28, 2018, 11:33:58 PM
Arik is just working you all up with nonsense arguments to waste your time. He a religious troll.
Perhaps. Was willing to give him a chance, but it all seems all too lovey dovey.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 27, 2018, 05:01:14 PM
I don't think Arik understands the concept of proof.
"Proof" is the wrong word. "Evidence" is the right word and they have none of that, either.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 29, 2018, 12:21:37 AM
"Proof" is the wrong word. "Evidence" is the right word and they have none of that, either.
Correct. Proof only applies to mathematics and whiskey, and sometimes not even math. Evidence exists, but as rationalizing monkeys (not rational), we choose our conclusions and make specious arguments to defend those conclusions. But yes, we can, to a degree, separate objective evidence from subjective evidence. My contention is that both are of value, and to falsely deny that one has a subjective existence is a form of mania, of unbalance. Just as if you were a solipsist (a person who only acknowledges subjective evidence and denies all objective evidence).
Quote from: Minimalist on December 29, 2018, 12:21:37 AM
"Proof" is the wrong word. "Evidence" is the right word and they have none of that, either.
Well, yes. Theists tend to confuse things they are told (without evidence), with facts. Some people are just weak-minded like that. The rest of us have to try to help them out with that stuff.
Quote from: Arik on December 28, 2018, 10:00:56 AM
Many scientists GUESS that that is the case but as far as total prove and total evidence zero-nil-0.
Guessing is not evidence Hydra.
Clearly, the world's scientists cannot hope to match your dizzying intellect.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 29, 2018, 12:53:30 AM
Clearly, the world's scientists cannot hope to match your dizzying intellect.
Yeah, theists tend to thing that opinions from religious texts are facts. You just can't help them get rational sometimes...
Quote from: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 01:00:12 AM
Yeah, theists tend to thing that opinions from religious texts are facts. You just can't help them get rational sometimes...
we can't even get them off the ledge of whack-a-doo.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 28, 2018, 11:33:58 PM
Arik is just working you all up with nonsense arguments to waste your time. He a religious troll.
Well, it look like you are an expert in religions.
I hope you don't mind if I ask you a simple question.
What is the difference between religion and spirituality?
Thanks.
Quote from: Arik on December 29, 2018, 08:38:43 AM
What is the difference between religion and spirituality?
Thanks.
Hierarchy. Religion tends to be structured and spirituality tends to be not structure in any official way--more individual. Otherwise, the same fiction applies.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 28, 2018, 11:38:56 AM
Clearly you are trying to remake 'science' into your own special belief system. Science is not magic nor another form of belief. It is simply growing to understand one point at a time. One creates and states a hypotheses and then tries to prove it. If one can prove it in such a way that another person can recreate the experiment and get the same results, then you have a theory and have added to the knowledge of the world. One does not need to have belief in science--look at the evidence. BTW, if one cannot prove a hypothesis, then it remains just that, a hypothesis. That is what you are pushing--a hypothesis. You 'tested' it within yourself, which means I cannot replicate that particular experiment. So, your beliefs are just that, an unproven hypothesis. And all theist beliefs are the same.
Just as I don't have to prove that fairies or gnomes or Bugs Bunny are not real--they are clearly fictional--I don't need to prove your god does not exist. Offer me some proof for your claim that god is real.
Theists seem to be really put off by 'I don't know'. Yes your fav gland does secrete a hormone. You suggest that beyond that we know little. We sure don't know all that we need to know about that gland; but we do know much more than we did 100 or 1000 years ago. And we will know more in the future; and we will learn by using the scientific method, not yoga nor meditation nor simply believing something.
So far I have not been shown any proof of your god. Personal stories simply don't count.
If you came to the conclusion that I do not like or believe in science (physical science) you certainly got it wrong.
My point is different.
What I am saying is that physical science can not possibly understand what is not physical.
It would be like to call a plumber when you instead need a carpenter or an electrician.
Can't you understand this simple point?
I love physical science but is pointless to rely on it when I instead need something that can NOT be delivered by this type of science.
Quote from: Arik on December 29, 2018, 08:38:43 AM
Well, it look like you are an expert in religions.
I hope you don't mind if I ask you a simple question.
What is the difference between religion and spirituality?
Thanks.
1. I don't mind.
2. Text.
I thought it might help you if I kept things simple...
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 29, 2018, 08:56:20 AM
Hierarchy. Religion tends to be structured and spirituality tends to be not structure in any official way--more individual. Otherwise, the same fiction applies.
I am afraid that all this has very little to do with the differences Mike even if your point has got a tiny bit of truth.
The main differences are that while in religions the effort goes towards the external reality in spirituality the effort goes within, within our own consciousness and that is where God is according to spirituality.
Religions ask God for the daily bread.
For them God is an external reality that at the due time will grant them the paradise.
For a spiritualist to ask God for the daily bread is an absolute taunting-mockery.
It would be like to ask your physical father the daily bread as if your father wouldn't know that you need food.
In the beginning also Hinduism and Buddhism were following spirituality but now most is lost in a circus of hundreds of Gods and meaningless rituals.
In reality even the first Christians were following spirituality but the priests of the past screwed everything up and now even Christianity follow a circus full of saints and meaningless rituals.
I don't follow an external God or meaningless rituals so I think that to call me RELIGIOUS TROLL is quite improper.
Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2018, 12:27:23 PM
It is a mistake, in this culture to identify "science" as "knowledge" ... only most recent version of the scientific method can be meant. Otherwise there is unnecessary semantic posturing. Arik - please explain your epistemology.
It is all very very simple Baruch.
Spirituality is not an external search but rather internal.
Externally there is only the physical-material reality which can not possibly solve the main human problem which is to find peace of mind and eternal and infinite bliss.
As I already point out in previous posts this FINITE reality is unable to solve the main human problem that is why only spirituality or the search for infinite bliss can accomplish this so my main work goes in that way although I don't forget that I still live in this physical-material reality.
Quote from: Arik on December 29, 2018, 08:58:30 AM
If you came to the conclusion that I do not like or believe in science (physical science) you certainly got it wrong.
My point is different.
What I am saying is that physical science can not possibly understand what is not physical.
It would be like to call a plumber when you instead need a carpenter or an electrician.
Can't you understand this simple point?
I love physical science but is pointless to rely on it when I instead need something that can NOT be delivered by this type of science.
Originally, people feared storms and tides and rains etc. And the first thought of "If I don't understand it, it must be that a SOMETHING ALL POWERFUL did it).
Which is of course, from what we know now, really ignorant (ignorance being the lack of knowledge).
Then, some screwy idiot who didn't want to work for a living, discovered he could organize all the fears and get food in return for "man-splaining" that stuff.
And decided that it was good...
Then some former helper challenged him and he had to UP his game. They gods were not just gods, they all had specific duties, And them others decided there were gods for damn near everything.
I assume you can see where this is going...
Quote from: Arik on December 29, 2018, 09:45:05 AM
It is all very very simple Baruch.
Spirituality is not an external search but rather internal.
Externally there is only the physical-material reality which can not possibly solve the main human problem which is to find peace of mind and eternal and infinite bliss.
As I already point out in previous posts this FINITE reality is unable to solve the main human problem that is why only spirituality or the search for infinite bliss can accomplish this so my main work goes in that way although I don't forget that I still live in this physical-material reality.
1. Materialists can't admit to any metaphysics because it is subjective not objective. Hence my question regarding epistemology.
2. Materialists can't admit that science can't provide them with every material thing they want. They don't value the non-material e.g. love.
3. Materialists can't admit to the personal, beyond their own egos. This is their strongest point IMHO.
Reality for me is both physical and metaphysical. Human needs are both material and immaterial. G-d/self is both internal and external, personal and impersonal. So I get your points about metaphysics and the internal. But almost no one else here will.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 09:47:44 AM
Originally, people feared storms and tides and rains etc. And the first thought of "If I don't understand it, it must be that a SOMETHING ALL POWERFUL did it).
Which is of course, from what we know now, really ignorant (ignorance being the lack of knowledge).
Then, some screwy idiot who didn't want to work for a living, discovered he could organize all the fears and get food in return for "man-splaining" that stuff.
And decided that it was good...
Then some former helper challenged him and he had to UP his game. They gods were not just gods, they all had specific duties, And them others decided there were gods for damn near everything.
I assume you can see where this is going...
When the level or degree of consciousness is not developed enough is obvious that people think in that way, don't forget however that when the degree of consciousness get more and more developed people change course and start thinking in a different way and that is just what I was saying some posts ago when I was pointing out that when people see no exit out this finite materialistic dimension they will surely start working towards the infinite reality which is also called spirituality.
Things move and change Cavebear so sooner or later people will change course.
The smart one for the better the fools for the worse.
Quote from: Arik on December 29, 2018, 10:16:14 AM
When the level or degree of consciousness is not developed enough is obvious that people think in that way, don't forget however that when the degree of consciousness get more and more developed people change course and start thinking in a different way and that is just what I was saying some posts ago when I was pointing out that when people see no exit out this finite materialistic dimension they will surely start working towards the infinite reality which is also called spirituality.
Things move and change Cavebear so sooner or later people will change course.
The smart one for the better the fools for the worse.
Individual human development is slow and uncertain. A person is rarely enlightened (spiritually) in one lifetime, hence the idea that it can only be achieved after many reincarnations. I have changed over time, but it took a long time, a lot of negative experiences. We learn more from failure than from success.
Quote from: Arik on December 29, 2018, 10:16:14 AM
When the level or degree of consciousness is not developed enough is obvious that people think in that way, don't forget however that when the degree of consciousness get more and more developed people change course and start thinking in a different way and that is just what I was saying some posts ago when I was pointing out that when people see no exit out this finite materialistic dimension they will surely start working towards the infinite reality which is also called spirituality.
Things move and change Cavebear so sooner or later people will change course.
The smart one for the better the fools for the worse.
Consciousness is not the basis of religious thought. Lack of it is.
Throughout history, the progression of human understanding has been from superstition to factual understanding of nature. Religion is the opposite, kicking and screaming all the way. I don't really care how ignorant you are of facts or dealing with facts, as we learn more about nature every day, religion or spirituality (same thing really) become less and less relevant.
My personal opinion is that superstitious people of all sorts (call it what you wish) are basically all the same.
But sometimes you have to let the donkey have the carrot. At least Buddha claims this.
Quote from: Arik on December 29, 2018, 09:45:05 AM
As I already point out in previous posts this FINITE reality is unable to solve the main human problem
What is it you see as "the main human problem"?
Quote from: Arik on December 29, 2018, 08:58:30 AM
If you came to the conclusion that I do not like or believe in science (physical science) you certainly got it wrong.
My point is different.
What I am saying is that physical science can not possibly understand what is not physical.
It would be like to call a plumber when you instead need a carpenter or an electrician.
Can't you understand this simple point?
I love physical science but is pointless to rely on it when I instead need something that can NOT be delivered by this type of science.
Yes, I do understand your point--I have from the beginning. I would imagine you would say that things like emotions and consciousness are not physical and cannot be explained by science.
Wrong. Everything--EVERYTHING--originates from a physical cause. There is no supernatural. There is no spiritual. Emotions have their origins from chemicals. Everything does. This is the simple point you have a problem with--you simply don't want to understand this simple fact. You simply want to believe otherwise. Feel free to do so, but your beliefs are a pure fiction.
Arik has his (her?) beliefs, whatever they happen to be, and they really don't affect me in any case. After all, Arik came here to our forum, we didn't seek him (her?) out to try to force our beliefs (or lack of same) on Arik. I have yet to see a coherent statement, much less an argument, from him (her?). It's hard to have a discussion when communication isn't really happening.
The arrogance of humanity at its highest...is the belief that we are far more than the squirrel or acorn. We are not. The universe has shown we have no more nor less than anything else. But because we have achieved where the rock has not...we compare ourselves to gods....but still bury as us the rocks that we are.
Quote from: aitm on December 29, 2018, 02:33:40 PM
The arrogance of humanity at its highest...is the belief that we are far more than the squirrel or acorn. We are not. The universe has shown we have no more nor less than anything else. But because we have achieved where the rock has not...we compare ourselves to gods....but still bury as us the rocks that we are.
I consider most humans as less valuable than a good barbecued kielbasa.
Only materialists are gods ... because Plato's magic organ, allows them to see the Eternal Forms.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 29, 2018, 02:13:39 PM
Yes, I do understand your point--I have from the beginning. I would imagine you would say that things like emotions and consciousness are not physical and cannot be explained by science.
Wrong. Everything--EVERYTHING--originates from a physical cause. There is no supernatural. There is no spiritual. Emotions have their origins from chemicals. Everything does. This is the simple point you have a problem with--you simply don't want to understand this simple fact. You simply want to believe otherwise. Feel free to do so, but your beliefs are a pure fiction.
Every human emotion, thought and behavior can be explained by psychology. But it hasn't been demonstrated (other than there is no alternative argument) that materialism explains psychology. As Spinoza would point out, regarding Descartes dualism ... matter and mind are just two different ways of looking at something that isn't really describable by either category.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 29, 2018, 02:13:39 PM
Yes, I do understand your point--I have from the beginning. I would imagine you would say that things like emotions and consciousness are not physical and cannot be explained by science.
Wrong. Everything--EVERYTHING--originates from a physical cause. There is no supernatural. There is no spiritual. Emotions have their origins from chemicals. Everything does. This is the simple point you have a problem with--you simply don't want to understand this simple fact. You simply want to believe otherwise. Feel free to do so, but your beliefs are a pure fiction.
Let me explain why your point doesn't make sense.
Here we got two things Mike.
On one side we got the matter on the other we got the consciousness.
There is no question that the consciousness is superior to the matter.
If you think the opposite then you can also say that a vehicle is superior to the driver.
As the driver or human created the car also the consciousness create the body.
This is science Mike not fantasies.
Now to say that everything originate from a physical cause is like to say that the vehicle originate the driver.
Can't you see how wrong you are?
Have you ever seen something infinitely inferior that give birth to something infinitely superior?
That would go against the very science that you believe in.
Science does not supports your believe Mike.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 29, 2018, 02:23:33 PM
I have yet to see a coherent statement, much less an argument, from him (her?). It's hard to have a discussion when communication isn't really happening.
Your problem is you're not using your consciousness to understand the matter...or rather your matter is not understanding the consciousness of the matter....I mean it matters if the consciousness is not relative to the matter of the consciousness but it really matters......or some shit like that.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 29, 2018, 01:47:30 PM
What is it you see as "the main human problem"?
Humans can not be satisfied with anything that is finite.
Materialist dream that anything material or physical will satisfied them but the fact that after a short time they will go back again and again in search of the object of their dreams clearly means that full and permanent satisfaction can not be achieved within the finite reality.
From this we can only deduct-conclude that only an infinite reality will be able to quench this human thirst and the infinite reality does not belong to this material-physical dimension so what?
So obviously the search to solve this human problem must be redirected in a different direction which is not physical nor material.
Most materialists say that they are quite happy as they are and with what they have and that is ok. with me.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is that sooner or later they will be sick and tired of all that and the change is unavoidable unless they sink down towards the animal life but again at the end the problem will pop up once again until reason prevail and they finally do the correct thing.
That is unavoidable.
Nobody like to sink down and live in the animal dimension that is why sooner or later the search will not be anymore external but internal.
Quote from: aitm on December 30, 2018, 08:48:16 AM
Your problem is you're not using your consciousness to understand the matter...or rather your matter is not understanding the consciousness of the matter....I mean it matters if the consciousness is not relative to the matter of the consciousness but it really matters......or some shit like that.
Gee, that is very clever aitm.
I never thought about that.
I will have to rethink all over again.
Have a good happy new year anyway.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 10:32:10 AM
Consciousness is not the basis of religious thought. Lack of it is.
Throughout history, the progression of human understanding has been from superstition to factual understanding of nature. Religion is the opposite, kicking and screaming all the way. I don't really care how ignorant you are of facts or dealing with facts, as we learn more about nature every day, religion or spirituality (same thing really) become less and less relevant.
My personal opinion is that superstitious people of all sorts (call it what you wish) are basically all the same.
Is quite bizarre Cavebear to hear that religion and spirituality are the same thing considering that you were unable or unwillingly to explain the difference.
Quote from: Arik on December 30, 2018, 08:28:29 AM
Let me explain why your point doesn't make sense.
Here we got two things Mike.
On one side we got the matter on the other we got the consciousness.
There is no question that the consciousness is superior to the matter.
If you think the opposite then you can also say that a vehicle is superior to the driver.
As the driver or human created the car also the consciousness create the body.
This is science Mike not fantasies.
Now to say that everything originate from a physical cause is like to say that the vehicle originate the driver.
Can't you see how wrong you are?
Have you ever seen something infinitely inferior that give birth to something infinitely superior?
That would go against the very science that you believe in.
Science does not supports your believe Mike.
We do observe the universe from different directions. What is this 'superior' that you clammer about??? What does that mean you. Clearly, consciousness happens when the physical is arranged just so. So, yes, consciousness is material based--as is all else. There is no meaning in the universe. It does not care about you in one way or another. There is no purpose to the universe, it just is. You create whatever meaning the universe has and only for you.
Infinitely superior--what does than mean? You love to cast about and label things as superior or inferior--to what? To you, I guess. And remember, I don't 'believe' in anything. I think it to be true--or not. That is evidence based, not wishful believing or faith.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2018, 10:26:27 AM
We do observe the universe from different directions. What is this 'superior' that you clammer about??? What does that mean you. Clearly, consciousness happens when the physical is arranged just so. So, yes, consciousness is material based--as is all else. There is no meaning in the universe. It does not care about you in one way or another. There is no purpose to the universe, it just is. You create whatever meaning the universe has and only for you.
Infinitely superior--what does than mean? You love to cast about and label things as superior or inferior--to what? To you, I guess. And remember, I don't 'believe' in anything. I think it to be true--or not. That is evidence based, not wishful believing or faith.
As an Atom, not a man, you are clearly superior ;-) But only in the Marvel universe ;-)
Consciousness is entwined with matter. You as a materialist, do consider something superior, namely, matter. Bottom up analysis, which is fine, but not the same as top down analysis. That is the difference between a theist and an atheist ... different methodological POV. And both usually claim superiority, because .. monkeys. Choosing one thing over another, on the one hand is preference, but on the other is prejudice.
Quote from: Baruch on December 30, 2018, 11:21:43 AM
Consciousness is entwined with matter. You as a materialist, do consider something superior, namely, matter.
Trying to make a point to you is like pissing into the wind.
As a materialist I consider something superior, namely matter? No. I consider matter to be all there is. So where and what is this choice I'm supposed to be making? Consciousness is intertwined with matter? No shit. Consciousness is derived from matter. nature is all there is--otherwise there would be the supernatural; and that is simply fiction created by those who don't like reality and want to create their own. Supernatural=fiction. One does not chose to acknowledge matter--matter simply is and cares not at all that you acknowledge it or not. Believing in it or not matters not to matter. You are free to believe and have faith in whatever you want; if you use evidence to figure it out, you are left with only matter, for that is all there is.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2018, 03:37:40 PM
Trying to make a point to you is like pissing into the wind.
As a materialist I consider something superior, namely matter? No. I consider matter to be all there is. So where and what is this choice I'm supposed to be making? Consciousness is intertwined with matter? No shit. Consciousness is derived from matter. nature is all there is--otherwise there would be the supernatural; and that is simply fiction created by those who don't like reality and want to create their own. Supernatural=fiction. One does not chose to acknowledge matter--matter simply is and cares not at all that you acknowledge it or not. Believing in it or not matters not to matter. You are free to believe and have faith in whatever you want; if you use evidence to figure it out, you are left with only matter, for that is all there is.
Exactly. Only White males exist ... we are that privileged! See, how it sounds when you use different words? There is only time, there is no space. There is only America, there are no other countries ...
For Arik - in the US, there are conventional theists and conventional atheists. Anyone who doesn't fit a strict materialist definition of atheism, but who is not a conventional theist, is spiritual. Per the Pew Research paper last year, 56% of US is conventional theist, 10% are conventional atheist, and 33% are spiritual.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2018, 03:37:40 PM
Trying to make a point to you is like pissing into the wind.
As a materialist I consider something superior, namely matter? No. I consider matter to be all there is. So where and what is this choice I'm supposed to be making? Consciousness is intertwined with matter? No shit. Consciousness is derived from matter. nature is all there is--otherwise there would be the supernatural; and that is simply fiction created by those who don't like reality and want to create their own. Supernatural=fiction. One does not chose to acknowledge matter--matter simply is and cares not at all that you acknowledge it or not. Believing in it or not matters not to matter. You are free to believe and have faith in whatever you want; if you use evidence to figure it out, you are left with only matter, for that is all there is.
I find rather difficult to see people that say that matter is all there is.
Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk to perceive some reality and to cause trouble.
Are you telling me that is the matter that make you think, eat, writing posts and all the rest?
Are you serious Mike?
Quote from: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:21:19 AM
Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk ....
I sure hope you are saying that tongue in cheek......although as much as the rest of your stuff is bat shit crazy one never knows.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2018, 10:26:27 AM
We do observe the universe from different directions. What is this 'superior' that you clammer about??? What does that mean you. Clearly, consciousness happens when the physical is arranged just so. So, yes, consciousness is material based--as is all else. There is no meaning in the universe. It does not care about you in one way or another. There is no purpose to the universe, it just is. You create whatever meaning the universe has and only for you.
Infinitely superior--what does than mean? You love to cast about and label things as superior or inferior--to what? To you, I guess. And remember, I don't 'believe' in anything. I think it to be true--or not. That is evidence based, not wishful believing or faith.
Turning guesses into strong beliefs may be quite dangerous if these guesses will be proven wrong.
That is bizarre Mike.
Most Atheists say that science (physical science) is the way to go but since when science say that consciousness is material based?
Why are you turning your guess into a strong belief which has zero to do with science?
Doesn't the reality tell you that a vehicle which is pure matter can not possibly create the driver and the other way around is the truth?
Where did you get the knowledge that a body-brain create the consciousness?
Quote from: aitm on December 31, 2018, 08:27:00 AM
I sure hope you are saying that tongue in cheek......although as much as the rest of your stuff is bat shit crazy one never knows.
This is exactly what the masses were saying to those few that explain them that the planet earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe.
By saying this I feel like my time in here may be almost over although I still hope I will not be kicked out once more from a forum.
Quote from: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:51:32 AM
This is exactly what the masses were saying to those few that explain them that the planet earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe.
By saying this I feel like my time in here may be almost over although I still hope I will not be kicked out once more from a forum.
Kicked out? What do you think this is? Twitter? Facebook? ;-)
I have enjoyed reading your posts.
Materialism is an epistemological fundamentalism just as dogmatic as any Christian fundamentalism, and most here are true believers.
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2018, 09:33:50 AM
Kicked out? What do you think this is? Twitter? Facebook? ;-)
I have enjoyed reading your posts.
Materialism is an epistemological fundamentalism just as dogmatic as any Christian fundamentalism, and most here are true believers.
I do appreciate brother.
Quote from: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:21:19 AM
I find rather difficult to see people that say that matter is all there is.
Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk to perceive some reality and to cause trouble.
Are you telling me that is the matter that make you think, eat, writing posts and all the rest?
Are you serious Mike?
Zombies...? As in, the undead fictional monsters with little to no consciousness and a taste for flesh? Are you seriously using fiction to justify your fiction? OMFG.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 31, 2018, 10:41:59 AM
Zombies...? As in, the undead fictional monsters with little to no consciousness and a taste for flesh? Are you seriously using fiction to justify your fiction? OMFG.
He may mean the academic zombie model regarding consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
A logically consistent materialist has to embrace this model. We are just improved versions of fiberglass manikins.
Quote from: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:21:19 AM
I find rather difficult to see people that say that matter is all there is.
Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk to perceive some reality and to cause trouble.
Are you telling me that is the matter that make you think, eat, writing posts and all the rest?
Are you serious Mike?
Totally serious. Zombies? You keep pushing fictions as being real. Do you believe in the boogy man too???
We are a skin sack filled with chemicals and electrical charges animate us. If you want to screw with a persons personality, screw with his chemical makeup. Everything you ingest turns into chemicals or is rejected from out bodies. All drugs are chemicals.
Once again, I ask you to provide me with any (ANY) evidence that there is other than the material world. I know you can't--but give it a good shot, eh????
Quote from: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:51:32 AM
This is exactly what the masses were saying to those few that explain them that the planet earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe.
By saying this I feel like my time in here may be almost over although I still hope I will not be kicked out once more from a forum.
???? You do seem to make about as much sense as Baruch usually does. And you still have not offered us any evidence for your views; only personal observations. And why would you get kicked out? You are a pretty mild theist compared to many who pass through here.
Quote from: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:51:32 AM
By saying this I feel like my time in here may be almost over
Hoping thats a promise not a challenge.
There is always: consciousness&Imatter.com
hehehehe
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 31, 2018, 01:05:09 PM
As opposed to...?
Vulcan logic. Which would immediately conclude that humans are illogical.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 31, 2018, 01:05:09 PM
As opposed to...?
Physical science is about the physical reality.
A reality that is also perceived by our senses.
The other science is about what is also real but what can not be perceived by our senses because it is abstract.
And here I am talking about the science that is related to our consciousness.
In Yoga this science is better known as INTUITIONAL SCIENCE.
Why intuitional?
Because to perceive it it is needed a different system from what is used to understand physical science and this system is called yoga.
Most people wrongly think that the consciousness is fixed.
What you got you got and that's it but that is not the case because consciousness can change for the better or the worse.
Everything in this universe move and change so if you have a system to make sure that the consciousness increase you win that is why this intuitional science is so important.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 31, 2018, 12:55:50 PM
Totally serious. Zombies? You keep pushing fictions as being real. Do you believe in the boogy man too???
We are a skin sack filled with chemicals and electrical charges animate us. If you want to screw with a persons personality, screw with his chemical makeup. Everything you ingest turns into chemicals or is rejected from out bodies. All drugs are chemicals.
Once again, I ask you to provide me with any (ANY) evidence that there is other than the material world. I know you can't--but give it a good shot, eh????
I already explained you in details but unfortunately you didn't get it.
Remember when I said that you can not prove that your love for a person can not be explained to anybody else and the only evidence that you experienced this love is the release of some extra hormones that are produced by our glands?
If you find so hard to prove a simple physical-mental love how on hearth can you prove something a lot more subtle such as spiritual love?
The only way to find evidence is to experience this love ourselves.
Nothing else will work because love is personal.
In the old times the Saints were depicted-portrayed with an aureola on the head and their image look like the one of a person full of bliss within.
Nothing is really changed in the meantime.
If you go around a pub you can see many people which engage in drinking-smoking or using drugs with a face showing failure in life and sinking in consciousness but in other places you can also see people with bliss and peace of mind impress in their look.
Don't take me wrong.
Even among Atheists you find a lot of really good people that sooner or later will overtake that fantasy that the universe pop up as per magic and nobody run it.
All is not lost after all but the evidence can only come by our hard work.
Quote from: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:21:19 AM
Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk to perceive some reality and to cause trouble.
And this from a guy who asks someone else if they are being serious.
Quote from: Arik on January 01, 2019, 08:41:58 AM
All is not lost after all but the evidence can only come by our hard work.
Calling supposition and opinion evidence does not suggest any "hard work" was involved.
Quote from: Arik on January 01, 2019, 08:41:58 AM
I already explained you in details but unfortunately you didn't get it.
Remember when I said that you can not prove that your love for a person can not be explained to anybody else and the only evidence that you experienced this love is the release of some extra hormones that are produced by our glands?
Oh, I get it. I have from the beginning of your posts here. You just don't want to see that emotions are based in the material world (since that is all there is).
Let science inform you:
Let’s Get Chemical
Lust is driven by the desire for sexual gratification. The evolutionary basis for this stems from our need to reproduce, a need shared among all living things. Through reproduction, organisms pass on their genes, and thus contribute to the perpetuation of their species.
The hypothalamus of the brain plays a big role in this, stimulating the production of the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen from the testes and ovaries (Figure 1). While these chemicals are often stereotyped as being “male†and “female,†respectively, both play a role in men and women. As it turns out, testosterone increases libido in just about everyone. The effects are less pronounced with estrogen, but some women report being more sexually motivated around the time they ovulate, when estrogen levels are highest.
Figure 1
Figure 1: A: The testes and ovaries secrete the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen, driving sexual desire. B and C: Dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin are all made in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain that controls many vital functions as well as emotion. D: Several of the regions of the brain that affect love. Lust and attraction shut off the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which includes rational behavior.
Love is its Own Reward
Meanwhile, attraction seems to be a distinct, though closely related, phenomenon. While we can certainly lust for someone we are attracted to, and vice versa, one can happen without the other. Attraction involves the brain pathways that control “reward†behavior (Figure 1), which partly explains why the first few weeks or months of a relationship can be so exhilarating and even all-consuming.
Dopamine, produced by the hypothalamus, is a particularly well-publicized player in the brain’s reward pathway â€" it’s released when we do things that feel good to us. In this case, these things include spending time with loved ones and having sex. High levels of dopamine and a related hormone, norepinephrine, are released during attraction. These chemicals make us giddy, energetic, and euphoric, even leading to decreased appetite and insomnia â€" which means you actually can be so “in love†that you can’t eat and can’t sleep. In fact, norepinephrine, also known as noradrenalin, may sound familiar because it plays a large role in the fight or flight response, which kicks into high gear when we’re stressed and keeps us alert. Brain scans of people in love have actually shown that the primary “reward†centers of the brain, including the and the caudate nucleus (Figure 1), fire like crazy when people are shown a photo of someone they are intensely attracted to, compared to when they are shown someone they feel neutral towards (like an old high school acquaintance).
Finally, attraction seems to lead to a reduction in serotonin, a hormone that’s known to be involved in appetite and mood. Interestingly, people who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder also have low levels of serotonin, leading scientists to speculate that this is what underlies the overpowering infatuation that characterizes the beginning stages of love.
The Friend Zone
Last but not least, attachment is the predominant factor in long-term relationships. While lust and attraction are pretty much exclusive to romantic entanglements, attachment mediates friendships, parent-infant bonding, social cordiality, and many other intimacies as well. The two primary hormones here appear to be oxytocin and vasopressin (Figure 1).
Oxytocin is often nicknamed “cuddle hormone†for this reason. Like dopamine, oxytocin is produced by the hypothalamus and released in large quantities during sex, breastfeeding, and childbirth. This may seem like a very strange assortment of activities â€" not all of which are necessarily enjoyable â€" but the common factor here is that all of these events are precursors to bonding. It also makes it pretty clear why having separate areas for attachment, lust, and attraction is important: we are attached to our immediate family, but those other emotions have no business there (and let’s just say people who have muddled this up don’t have the best track record).
We are on the road to further understand of our emotions using the scientific method to keep on gaining information. We do not know all there is to know about emotions, but we know far far more than we did 100 years ago. And far less than we will know in another 100 years. We don't need belief or faith or wishful thinking, or calling upon fiction of any kind, to gain that info. Just the scientific method. You would do well if you studied that instead of ancient fictions you love to rely on.
Quote from: Arik on January 01, 2019, 08:41:58 AM
If you find so hard to prove a simple physical-mental love how on hearth can you prove something a lot more subtle such as spiritual love?
The only way to find evidence is to experience this love ourselves.
Nothing else will work because love is personal.
I think you are really a 15th cent. monk that has somehow escaped to the current times. You use the same language of a monk of that time period. And you seem to refuse to even consider anything science has to say about emotions and how our brain works. You put more weight on old painting of religious people with halos over their heads and treat that as a proof of what you want to believe. Of course the saints are depicted as being special and have a special connection of their god. That is part of the snake-oil salesmanship that religion is; keep giving the masses what they want and charge them dearly for it. Holy pictures, words, works, rules, scripture, and heroes are all part of the scam that keeps the common people in their place with promises of happiness later on, so don't worry about it now and just suffer along with god's words and demands and you will be just wonderful; and all the while the religious hierarchy gets rich and powerful.
As for love and how we experience it can be explained in detail (no, not perfectly yet) by science. And more and more is learned each and every year. But one has to be willing to put in the time and study of such subjects to hope to understand any of it. It takes work and not faith or belief. If you would spend half the time researching biological science as I have in researching religions, you may very well change your opinion on such subjects.
Quote from: Arik on January 01, 2019, 08:41:58 AM
If you go around a pub you can see many people which engage in drinking-smoking or using drugs with a face showing failure in life and sinking in consciousness but in other places you can also see people with bliss and peace of mind impress in their look.
Don't take me wrong.
Even among Atheists you find a lot of really good people that sooner or later will overtake that fantasy that the universe pop up as per magic and nobody run it.
All is not lost after all but the evidence can only come by our hard work.
Judgmental much??? You have the ability to simply look at people and tell if they are a failure in life or full of peace and bliss??? Wow! And blissful people never enter pubs or bars? Really? And what is 'bliss' for you? And how do you know you are experiencing it? Joseph Campbell likes 'bliss'--he says that the purpose of life is life. And we as individuals, need to find our bliss and when we do we will then be happy/content with life; and that bliss (whatever it is) will give our life meaning.
Oh, I have never taken you wrong. You look down upon 'atheists' as simply wrong-headed and simply 'believe' in the wrong stuff. We are mislead. You are here to straighten our thinking out--to help us replace thinking with faith and belief for that is the way to god. You want us to confess to believing in magic--for how could this super complicated universe be created other than by a super complicated god????--as you do (but in just the wrong magic). Yes, all evidence (once again, you have not provided any evidence, only personal feelings and beliefs and anecdotes) comes only by our hard work. It would be helpful if you would do some of that hard work and not just rely on fictions. But then, you are a theist...............................
Quote from: aitm on January 01, 2019, 10:55:50 AM
Calling supposition and opinion evidence does not suggest any "hard work" was involved.
Which is why the arts are bullshit?
Science? How about Ohm's Law aka V=I*R. This is actually semi-empirical. That equation doesn't give a modern explanation, but it is used by engineers every day, because it is good enough. The actual expiation is quantum mechanical (solid state physics). But looking at this from a greater perspective, we have to conclude that QM is also a partial explanation (though not according to Neils Bohr). We need String Theory or whatever ... when it comes. And on it goes, superficial explanation one after another in layers. Ultimately, there is no full explanation, just what is enough to convince a tribe of monkeys on a minor planet in a minor solar system in a minor galaxy. Which is to say ... animal psychology.
Quote from: Baruch on January 01, 2019, 01:02:26 PM
How about Ohm's Law
What about it? Was the gentlemen a street idiot walking around spouting various formula's until someone caught what he said and developed it? or was he...you know..maybe perhaps learned in the field whereas it would take a good deal of knowledge to start "guessing"?
Quote from: aitm on January 01, 2019, 03:21:05 PM
What about it? Was the gentlemen a street idiot walking around spouting various formula's until someone caught what he said and developed it? or was he...you know..maybe perhaps learned in the field whereas it would take a good deal of knowledge to start "guessing"?
Curve fitting. Did you ever do that is science class in public school? But you can fit any number of curves thru the same data. And each curve, represents a different explanation of what is going on. Of course, for engineers we need the simplest model, that is sufficient for government work ;-) Meanwhile, in actual situations, not toy situations, you can't actually solve closed or numerically, the QM equations. The problem with String Theory is that it is "fit any number of curves" in spades ... literally an infinite number of related equations will fit the data, because there are too many free parameters to nail down. Compare to Ohm's Law.
And yes, per statisticians, including Big Data analysis, and partially in QM, yes we do pick randomly, just not completely randomly (Monte Carlo Analysis).
And of course, just like a 20 year old, you worship academics with fancy degrees. Electrical engineering is pretty pat. Medical science less so (non reproducibility).
Quote from: Arik on January 01, 2019, 08:07:00 AM
Physical science is about the physical reality.
A reality that is also perceived by our senses.
The other science is about what is also real but what can not be perceived by our senses because it is abstract.
And here I am talking about the science that is related to our consciousness.
In Yoga this science is better known as INTUITIONAL SCIENCE.
Why intuitional?
Because to perceive it it is needed a different system from what is used to understand physical science and this system is called yoga.
Most people wrongly think that the consciousness is fixed.
What you got you got and that's it but that is not the case because consciousness can change for the better or the worse.
Everything in this universe move and change so if you have a system to make sure that the consciousness increase you win that is why this intuitional science is so important.
Yoga is not a science. Jesus fucking Christ. The study of the mind is the realm of psychology, which is my field. If you can't directly observe something or measure it, and if your claims are nonfalsifiable, it's not science. Even in the field of psychology, of course we can't directly observe the mind, so we infer about it based on behaviors. That's why it's often called a "soft science." Yoga, though? Fucking hell. You clearly don't understand a bloody thing about science if you really think "intuitional science" is a thing. That's an oxymoron. If it's intuition that drives the study, it can't be science. Personal experience is not scientific; it is anecdotal.
Which is why a Nullification Field needs to be activated, to suppress all personal experience. That way as a real NPC, we can be easier to collectivize. Like those lame Trade Federation robots taken down by Jar Jar Binks ;-)
If there is no subjective (personal) experience of objective (collective) experience (say repeat observation or experiment) then how can we define "objective"? Doesn't the fact that one or more humans are involved, spoil the whole thing? Unless you are talking about Plato's Forms.
Quote from: Baruch on January 01, 2019, 03:48:26 PM
yes we do pick randomly, just not completely randomly (Monte Carlo Analysis).
again....yet I don't know why, we are talking about people that have a more than familiar relationship with the field of study. As opposed to suggesting that ESP works mighty fine from the burger flipper at the local Micky D.
Quote from: Arik on January 01, 2019, 08:07:00 AM
Physical science is about the physical reality.
aka reality
QuoteThe other science is about what is also real but what can not be perceived by our senses because it is abstract.
The imperceptible and the nonexistent look very much alike.
Also, it's a bit strange that you claim to know of the existence of something that you also claim is imperceptible. Pretty obvious problem right out of the gate.
QuoteIn Yoga this science is better known as INTUITIONAL SCIENCE.
Does nonsense sound more credible when you put it in ALL CAPS?
Quote from: aitm on December 29, 2018, 02:33:40 PM
The arrogance of humanity at its highest...is the belief that we are far more than the squirrel or acorn. We are not. The universe has shown we have no more nor less than anything else. But because we have achieved where the rock has not...we compare ourselves to gods....but still bury as us the rocks that we are.
I'm pretty sure I'm more than the average acorn... But with all due respect, perhaps you are only speaking for yourself. ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on January 02, 2019, 05:12:55 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm more than the average acorn... But with all due respect, perhaps you are only speaking for yourself. ;)
Well I am sure our new guest thinks the consciousness of the acorn, not being of matter but of....whatever the hell he thinks it is, finds itself to be of more importance to the universe than we are. But we would all agree that the universe not only does not know us but could not care less. It's indifference is well known.
Quote from: aitm on January 01, 2019, 10:55:50 AM
Calling supposition and opinion evidence does not suggest any "hard work" was involved.
Oh, well.........put it in this way aitm.
Suppose you are a 7 or 8 years old child and you see a couple of adult kissing.
To you it all would seems very strange.
You would think.......why they do that?
That look stupid.
After you grow up a little bit more you surely understand why and at that stage you will want to experience the same thing yourself.
But love is not all physical or mental.
There are different stages of love so physical love sooner or later as the consciousness reach new level will play a less important role in the mind of anybody and to explore new high will be a must.
Now most people who are still stuck in the physical-material reality think exactly like a small child that can not understand what spiritual love is all about but the time and the higher level of consciousness will turn this child into an adult that will want to experience that kind of love too.
There is no alternative aitm.
At the end everybody will get to that stage because the alternative is an animal life.
The scope of life for an evolved human being is not to do what animals do.
That stage will have to be overcome and left behind because new high are waiting for us.
The simple fact that you are here in this forum is because your consciousness tell you to go ahead in your progress and learn more and more in a never ending drive to a goal that you yet can not perceive but nevertheless is there otherwise your consciousness wouldn't push you to go ahead.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 01, 2019, 08:30:42 PM
aka reality
The imperceptible and the nonexistent look very much alike.
Also, it's a bit strange that you claim to know of the existence of something that you also claim is imperceptible. Pretty obvious problem right out of the gate.
Does nonsense sound more credible when you put it in ALL CAPS?
You got it wrong Hydra.
The fact that consciousness can not be perceived by our physical senses doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
The mind is there otherwise you could not do anything or exist at all.
The only thing is that the conscious-mind being abstract in nature can not be seen, touch, smell or heard but surely is there.
I know it exist because I exist.
One of the Atheists problem is that according to them things must be perceived by our senses to exist.
This concept doesn't make any sense as it didn't make any sense in the past that according to most the planet earth was the center of the universe.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 01, 2019, 04:35:08 PM
Yoga is not a science. Jesus fucking Christ. The study of the mind is the realm of psychology, which is my field. If you can't directly observe something or measure it, and if your claims are nonfalsifiable, it's not science. Even in the field of psychology, of course we can't directly observe the mind, so we infer about it based on behaviors. That's why it's often called a "soft science." Yoga, though? Fucking hell. You clearly don't understand a bloody thing about science if you really think "intuitional science" is a thing. That's an oxymoron. If it's intuition that drives the study, it can't be science. Personal experience is not scientific; it is anecdotal.
Ok. then let me discuss your point when you say.......................Even in the field of psychology, of course we can't directly observe the mind, so we infer about it based on behaviors...........................
The yoga that you knock down goes further than that.
Beside to see the outer physical expression is also able to strengthen the mind which is something that physical science can not do.
Oh, by the way did you know that at the CERN in Geneva there is a statue of Shiva the very first scientist according to many.
(https://welovecarbondioxide.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screen-shot-2015-07-22-at-11-55-26-am.png)
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 01, 2019, 11:56:21 AM
Oh, I get it. I have from the beginning of your posts here. You just don't want to see that emotions are based in the material world (since that is all there is).
Let science inform you:
Let’s Get Chemical
Lust is driven by the desire for sexual gratification. The evolutionary basis for this stems from our need to reproduce, a need shared among all living things. Through reproduction, organisms pass on their genes, and thus contribute to the perpetuation of their species.
The hypothalamus of the brain plays a big role in this, stimulating the production of the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen from the testes and ovaries (Figure 1). While these chemicals are often stereotyped as being “male†and “female,†respectively, both play a role in men and women. As it turns out, testosterone increases libido in just about everyone. The effects are less pronounced with estrogen, but some women report being more sexually motivated around the time they ovulate, when estrogen levels are highest.
Figure 1
Figure 1: A: The testes and ovaries secrete the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen, driving sexual desire. B and C: Dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin are all made in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain that controls many vital functions as well as emotion. D: Several of the regions of the brain that affect love. Lust and attraction shut off the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which includes rational behavior.
Love is its Own Reward
Meanwhile, attraction seems to be a distinct, though closely related, phenomenon. While we can certainly lust for someone we are attracted to, and vice versa, one can happen without the other. Attraction involves the brain pathways that control “reward†behavior (Figure 1), which partly explains why the first few weeks or months of a relationship can be so exhilarating and even all-consuming.
Dopamine, produced by the hypothalamus, is a particularly well-publicized player in the brain’s reward pathway â€" it’s released when we do things that feel good to us. In this case, these things include spending time with loved ones and having sex. High levels of dopamine and a related hormone, norepinephrine, are released during attraction. These chemicals make us giddy, energetic, and euphoric, even leading to decreased appetite and insomnia â€" which means you actually can be so “in love†that you can’t eat and can’t sleep. In fact, norepinephrine, also known as noradrenalin, may sound familiar because it plays a large role in the fight or flight response, which kicks into high gear when we’re stressed and keeps us alert. Brain scans of people in love have actually shown that the primary “reward†centers of the brain, including the and the caudate nucleus (Figure 1), fire like crazy when people are shown a photo of someone they are intensely attracted to, compared to when they are shown someone they feel neutral towards (like an old high school acquaintance).
Finally, attraction seems to lead to a reduction in serotonin, a hormone that’s known to be involved in appetite and mood. Interestingly, people who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder also have low levels of serotonin, leading scientists to speculate that this is what underlies the overpowering infatuation that characterizes the beginning stages of love.
The Friend Zone
Last but not least, attachment is the predominant factor in long-term relationships. While lust and attraction are pretty much exclusive to romantic entanglements, attachment mediates friendships, parent-infant bonding, social cordiality, and many other intimacies as well. The two primary hormones here appear to be oxytocin and vasopressin (Figure 1).
Oxytocin is often nicknamed “cuddle hormone†for this reason. Like dopamine, oxytocin is produced by the hypothalamus and released in large quantities during sex, breastfeeding, and childbirth. This may seem like a very strange assortment of activities â€" not all of which are necessarily enjoyable â€" but the common factor here is that all of these events are precursors to bonding. It also makes it pretty clear why having separate areas for attachment, lust, and attraction is important: we are attached to our immediate family, but those other emotions have no business there (and let’s just say people who have muddled this up don’t have the best track record).
We are on the road to further understand of our emotions using the scientific method to keep on gaining information. We do not know all there is to know about emotions, but we know far far more than we did 100 years ago. And far less than we will know in another 100 years. We don't need belief or faith or wishful thinking, or calling upon fiction of any kind, to gain that info. Just the scientific method. You would do well if you studied that instead of ancient fictions you love to rely on.
There is something that you find quite hard to understand Mike.
Science is not what drive you or motivate you to understand more and more because science being something without life can not do.
What motivate you to go ahead is your consciousness which is something alive.
Consciousness push you while science does not.
I am sure that one important day in your life you will understand this important concept.
Quote from: Arik on January 02, 2019, 08:53:52 AM
One of the Atheists problem is that according to them things must be perceived by our senses to exist.
Many things incorrect in this statement. First, atheists are not a formal (or informal) group. Atheists agree on only one thing--that god/gods do not exist or there is no evidence that shows they exist. There are no Atheists (with a capitol letter). In a sense you are right that generally atheists don't think something exists until we can tell with our senses. I cannot sense a dog whistle--does that mean it is not making a sound? No, for I extend my senses with instruments that can hear for me. So, dog whistles exist and I know that because of instruments that help us hear.
Do atheists think things exist beyond what we, as humans, can sense with our unaided senses? Of course. Surely you don't suggest that scientific equipment used to enhance our senses are not real or accurate--are you? Will most atheists accept that god exists but we can't tell that with our senses--even enhanced--??--I don't think so.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 01, 2019, 12:11:42 PM
I think you are really a 15th cent. monk that has somehow escaped to the current times. You use the same language of a monk of that time period. And you seem to refuse to even consider anything science has to say about emotions and how our brain works. You put more weight on old painting of religious people with halos over their heads and treat that as a proof of what you want to believe. Of course the saints are depicted as being special and have a special connection of their god. That is part of the snake-oil salesmanship that religion is; keep giving the masses what they want and charge them dearly for it. Holy pictures, words, works, rules, scripture, and heroes are all part of the scam that keeps the common people in their place with promises of happiness later on, so don't worry about it now and just suffer along with god's words and demands and you will be just wonderful; and all the while the religious hierarchy gets rich and powerful.
As for love and how we experience it can be explained in detail (no, not perfectly yet) by science. And more and more is learned each and every year. But one has to be willing to put in the time and study of such subjects to hope to understand any of it. It takes work and not faith or belief. If you would spend half the time researching biological science as I have in researching religions, you may very well change your opinion on such subjects.
Oh, well.....if you believe that physical science can understand what is not physical then you go back to the mistake to call a plumber when in reality you need a carpenter.
Quote from: Arik on January 02, 2019, 09:30:41 AM
There is something that you find quite hard to understand Mike.
Science is not what drive you or motivate you to understand more and more because science being something without life can not do.
What motivate you to go ahead is your consciousness which is something alive.
Consciousness push you while science does not.
I am sure that one important day in your life you will understand this important concept.
????:::)))) I have no idea what it is you are trying to say. Taking an English class or two would really help you learn how to communicate in writing.
You have no clue what motivates me to do what I do. I'm not sure you understand that for yourself. Science (the scientific method--Science does not mean magic) drives me to learn more for science gives me reliable answers--your religion or spirituality gives me nothing; it is claptrap bullshit.
Quote from: Arik on January 02, 2019, 09:35:15 AM
Oh, well.....if you believe that physical science can understand what is not physical then you go back to the mistake to call a plumber when in reality you need a carpenter.
You do have goggles on, eh? Never listen to what another says, do you? All science is physical science, since all that exists is physical. Can one have a science of the supernatural? I think you believe that that is so. How do you test the supernatural, since there is no supernatural? I actually did call a plumber to remodel my bathroom, for he was capable of doing the plumbing and the carpentry needed to get the job done. You have STILL not given even a shred of evidence your fictional fanciful view of the universe is real.
Quote from: Arik on January 02, 2019, 09:17:12 AM
Ok. then let me discuss your point when you say.......................Even in the field of psychology, of course we can't directly observe the mind, so we infer about it based on behaviors...........................
The yoga that you knock down goes further than that.
Beside to see the outer physical expression is also able to strengthen the mind which is something that physical science can not do.
Oh, by the way did you know that at the CERN in Geneva there is a statue of Shiva the very first scientist according to many.
(https://welovecarbondioxide.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screen-shot-2015-07-22-at-11-55-26-am.png)
Claiming to go further and actually going further are two very different things. Find me one article published by a yoga expert in a peer reviewed scientific journal. You can't, because it isn't science. It makes claims that it can't back up, which is the exact opposite of science. And I don't give a damn about Shiva. Not only does she not exist, but science had a much different definition back then. The high standards scientists hold themselves to now were only recently aquired.
Find me one peer reviewed journal that can prove the last Star Wars movie to be Woke or not.
Oh, and if experts are to be listened to and obeyed ... they why not the Pope? Why not choose to be Catholic?
Ah ... only Marxists are experts perhaps?
Quote from: Arik on January 02, 2019, 09:35:15 AM
Oh, well.....if you believe that physical science can understand what is not physical then you go back to the mistake to call a plumber when in reality you need a carpenter.
There is only hardware. Software doesn't exist. To say so is to be a conspiracy theorist ;-)
Quote from: Arik on January 02, 2019, 08:38:41 AM
spiritual love ...is gibberish intended to make humans think they are some special ordained creature for the universe. Nonsense.
There is no alternative aitm.
At the end everybody will get to that stage because the alternative is an animal life. so...then there IS an alternative....also gibberish.
The scope of life for an evolved human being is not to do what animals do. THe "scope" of regular humans is not to do what animals do, however all humans behave more animal than "human"
That stage will have to be overcome and left behind because new high are waiting for us. gibberish, also...nonsense, wishful thinking, wave a candle around and sing kumbayah and spread some magic crystals around the room and feel the LOOOOVE. Complete nonsense.
The simple fact that you are here in this forum is because your consciousness tell you to go ahead in your progress and learn more and more in a never ending drive to a goal that you yet can not perceive but nevertheless is there otherwise your consciousness wouldn't push you to go ahead.
Hoo-boy..you are one whack-a-doodle.
I picture young Arik here sitting in a sunny room full of colored glass on string swinging in the breeze created by a colorful ceiling fan painted with flowers on the blades. And of course you have to have some "dream catchers" hanging in front of all the windows and on the floor little piles of magic crystals and of course some guy playing really lousy wooden flute music on a 1987 cassette player, with the ever gentle waft of strawberry incense burning in a little clay pot with a peace symbol on it. He has given up on regular clothes and just wears a open frock.....and his mailbox has an arrow and flowers pointed to the house that say. "Find your consciousness inside"
Oh wait...do you have or want any kids named "moonbeam"?
Quote from: Arik on January 02, 2019, 08:53:52 AMThe fact that consciousness can not be perceived by our physical senses doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Consciousness is in fact perceived, at least on a subjective level. So you're lying about it being imperceptible in addition to lying in claiming that I say it doesn't exist. Twofer.
QuoteThe mind is there otherwise you could not do anything or exist at all.
Certain people are showing me otherwise, heh.
QuoteOne of the Atheists problem is that according to them things must be perceived by our senses to exist.
This concept doesn't make any sense as it didn't make any sense in the past that according to most the planet earth was the center of the universe.
Argument by non-sequitur.
Quote from: Arik on January 02, 2019, 09:17:12 AMOh, by the way did you know that at the CERN in Geneva there is a statue of Shiva the very first scientist according to many.
So what? Also, who cares?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 02, 2019, 09:35:58 AM
????:::)))) I have no idea what it is you are trying to say. Taking an English class or two would really help you learn how to communicate in writing.
You have no clue what motivates me to do what I do. I'm not sure you understand that for yourself. Science (the scientific method--Science does not mean magic) drives me to learn more for science gives me reliable answers--your religion or spirituality gives me nothing; it is claptrap bullshit.
1) You got a book that explains science right in front of you but you will not touch it until your consciousness tell you to open in order to learn what is written so the motivation start from within.
This is a very simple thing that I try to explain you.
What motivate you motivate everybody else because at the end all the roads lead to the same place.
Different consciousness are the same reflection of the same cosmic consciousness.
The moon in the night reflect her imagine in a lake.
You can see a myriad of moons according to the position in which you are around the lake but the moon is only one.
Once this concept of separation vanish then people understand who this cosmic consciousness is.
2) Surely science can give reliable answer but again everything move and change in this finite universe so what is reliable today may not make any sense tomorrow that is why I do not bet all my money (so to speak) on something that comes and goes as too many people do.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 02, 2019, 11:37:52 PM
So what? Also, who cares?
It is obvious that you do not care.
The point that I try to make is that many important scientists working in such important center like the CERN understand what Shiva did to help human progress that is why they agree to have Shiva statue outside their center.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 02, 2019, 11:33:36 PM
Consciousness is in fact perceived, at least on a subjective level. So you're lying about it being imperceptible in addition to lying in claiming that I say it doesn't exist.
That is not honest Hydra.
I point out and said that consciousness can not be perceived by our senses.
Surely I did.
That however does not means that there are no other ways to perceive consciousness in a non physical way.
Here we go back to what I explained in previous posts in which I said that consciousness is an abstract entity that can not be created by something physical such as the brain.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 02, 2019, 12:01:08 PM
Claiming to go further and actually going further are two very different things. Find me one article published by a yoga expert in a peer reviewed scientific journal. You can't, because it isn't science. It makes claims that it can't back up, which is the exact opposite of science. And I don't give a damn about Shiva. Not only does she not exist, but science had a much different definition back then. The high standards scientists hold themselves to now were only recently aquired.
Sorry BL but your confusion is really bad.
Here we got a science (physical science) that work within a finite arena or dimension which is constantly changing and on the other side we got a science that being within the dimension of the non finite it never change so what was good in the past is also good today unlike physical science.
By saying that this science does not exist you act like a small child that can not understand why two adult are kissing each other.
How would you know that it does not exist what smart people have practiced for the last seven thousand years long before physical science existed?
Quote from: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:20:43 AMThe point that I try to make is that many important scientists working in such important center like the CERN understand what Shiva did to help human progress that is why they agree to have Shiva statue outside their center.
The fact that some scientists may be religious is not in itself an argument.
Also, you desperately need cluing in about the statue: it's not CERN scientists endorsing Hinduism or anything like that. It's just a gift from India (https://cds.cern.ch/record/745737) which, to Hindus, draws a parallel between "the cosmic dance" of subatomic particles and Hindu religion. But obviously, that meaning is in the eye of the beholder. It has no more significance than one makes it out to have.
Quote from: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:33:34 AM
That is not honest Hydra.
That's true. You still are not being honest with us, even after correction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 02, 2019, 09:42:12 AM
You do have goggles on, eh? Never listen to what another says, do you? All science is physical science, since all that exists is physical. Can one have a science of the supernatural? I think you believe that that is so. How do you test the supernatural, since there is no supernatural? I actually did call a plumber to remodel my bathroom, for he was capable of doing the plumbing and the carpentry needed to get the job done. You have STILL not given even a shred of evidence your fictional fanciful view of the universe is real.
So you say that..............all that exists is physical............
If that is the case then you can touch, taste, hear or see the consciousness isn't it Mike?
Gee, you must be a super super semi-God to be able to do what nobody else is able to do.
Congratulation Mike.
Quote from: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:47:58 AM
Sorry BL but your confusion is really bad.
Here we got a science (physical science) that work within a finite arena or dimension which is constantly changing and on the other side we got a science that being within the dimension of the non finite it never change so what was good in the past is also good today unlike physical science.
By saying that this science does not exist you act like a small child that can not understand why two adult are kissing each other.
How would you know that it does not exist what smart people have practiced for the last seven thousand years long before physical science existed?
That you think that science changing is a bad thing just goes to show how little you understand it. The willingness of science to expand its understanding, to correct itself when necessary, is a strength. The stubbornness of theists to claim they know the truth based on their own subjective opinions and perceptions, and refusing to change their minds, is a weakness.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 03, 2019, 08:50:11 AM
The fact that some scientists may be religious is not in itself an argument.
Also, you desperately need cluing in about the statue: it's not CERN scientists endorsing Hinduism or anything like that. It's just a gift from India (https://cds.cern.ch/record/745737) which, to Hindus, draws a parallel between "the cosmic dance" of subatomic particles and Hindu religion. But obviously, that meaning is in the eye of the beholder. It has no more significance than one makes it out to have.
Hindu religion?
No, Hydra.
Nothing to do with religion.
In fact Shiva was against what religions today are preaching but I guess to you religion and spirituality must be the same thing.
Shiva explained the cycle of creation, preservation and dissolution which is exactly what the CERN is working on that is why there is a solid connection.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 03, 2019, 09:08:08 AM
That you think that science changing is a bad thing just goes to show how little you understand it. The willingness of science to expand its understanding, to correct itself when necessary, is a strength. The stubbornness of theists to claim they know the truth based on their own subjective opinions and perceptions, and refusing to change their minds, is a weakness.
Wrong again BL.
When I ever said that physical science is bad?
First I prefer a science that never change but that doesn't mean that I reject a science that change such as the physical science.
As far as I am living in a body-brain and consciousness that is in constant change I have no option but to go along with these changes so I can not reject physical science but at the same time I also bet most of my money (so to speak) in a science that never change.
Quote from: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:57:55 AM
So you say that..............all that exists is physical............
If that is the case then you can touch, taste, hear or see the consciousness isn't it Mike?
Gee, you must be a super super semi-God to be able to do what nobody else is able to do.
Congratulation Mike.
Thank you.
Quote from: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:05:10 AM
1) You got a book that explains science right in front of you but you will not touch it until your consciousness tell you to open in order to learn what is written so the motivation start from within.
This is a very simple thing that I try to explain you.
What motivate you motivate everybody else because at the end all the roads lead to the same place.
Different consciousness are the same reflection of the same cosmic consciousness.
The moon in the night reflect her imagine in a lake.
You can see a myriad of moons according to the position in which you are around the lake but the moon is only one.
Once this concept of separation vanish then people understand who this cosmic consciousness is.
2) Surely science can give reliable answer but again everything move and change in this finite universe so what is reliable today may not make any sense tomorrow that is why I do not bet all my money (so to speak) on something that comes and goes as too many people do.
Clearly you have the universe figured out. You refuse to take what I write into account on any level--in other words, you are willfully blind. All I can do is to wish you luck on your journey.
Quote from: Arik on January 03, 2019, 09:13:51 AM
Hindu religion?
No, Hydra.
Nothing to do with religion.
Well, Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism. That's a fact. Claiming that a deity has nothing to do with religion seems be quite the dubious claim. I'm tempted to yet again call it lying, but I'm starting to think your knowledge of both religion and science is so poor that you might actually believe what you're saying.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 03, 2019, 11:35:44 AM
Thank you.
Shh ... I am the only self-acknowledged demi-god here!
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 03, 2019, 01:09:10 PM
Well, Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism. That's a fact. Claiming that a deity has nothing to do with religion seems be quite the dubious claim. I'm tempted to yet again call it lying, but I'm starting to think your knowledge of both religion and science is so poor that you might actually believe what you're saying.
There is such a thing as atheist Saivism. We have had one of those post here in the past. Just saying, not saying Arik is one.
Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 25, 2015, 01:59:53 PM
Which postings, Baruch? I am a strong atheist of long standing. I do not believe in God, soul, heaven, hell, transference of Karmas to any non-existent future lives, judgment, birth, death, and creation. Tell me on what to explain my views and I will gladly do that.
Quote from: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:47:58 AM
Sorry BL but your confusion is really bad.
hoo-boy....
Quote from: aitm on January 03, 2019, 04:37:07 PM
hoo-boy....
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/68386858.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 03, 2019, 01:09:10 PM
Well, Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism. That's a fact. Claiming that a deity has nothing to do with religion seems be quite the dubious claim. I'm tempted to yet again call it lying, but I'm starting to think your knowledge of both religion and science is so poor that you might actually believe what you're saying.
I know very well that ......................Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism..........I never said the contrary Hydra.
That however does not means that Hinduism follow what Shiva was preaching.
As I already said in previous posts Hinduism goes against Shiva principles.
Shiva teach yoga.
Today only an handful of Hindus practice it.
Shiva was against the caste system while for Hinduism is one of the pillar of their religion.
Shiva teach to be vegetarian.
Most of Hindus these days are not vegetarians.
Shiva never said that cows are sacred or holy but for Hindus is the opposite.
Shiva never said that to bath in the Ganges river you can purify yourself.
Shiva never said that women need to be reincarnate as man in order to achieve liberation as most Hindus say.
So Hindus may well take Shiva as their God but as far you do the opposite of what Shiva was teaching it all show that Hinduism and Shiva have nothing in common.
This show how you know little about Shiva and Hinduism.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 03, 2019, 11:41:01 AM
Clearly you have the universe figured out. You refuse to take what I write into account on any level--in other words, you are willfully blind. All I can do is to wish you luck on your journey.
Are you saying that anyone who does not listen to you is blind.
Are you serious Mike?
I am always prepared to listen to anyone and prepared to change my mind AS FAR AS WHAT PEOPLE SAY MAKE SENSE.
Arik - there are different kinds of yoga. In the East, if you met a new person, you asked ... "What is your practice?". Let's talk yoga.
Yoga of action (Krishna) aka Karma Yoga
Yoga of concentration (Shiva, Patanjali) aka Raja Yoga
Yoga of devotion (Krishna) aka Bhakti Yoga
Yoga of knowledge aka Jnana Yoga
Yoga of physical discipline aka Hatha Yoga
And numerous combinations of the above ...
Yogachara - Mahayana Buddhist
Sankhya - theoretical side of School of Yoga, two of the six orthodox forms of Hinduism
Asparsha Yoga - Gaudapada
Shiva Yoga - combines concentration and devotion (to Shiva as guru or god)
Tantric forms:
Mantra Yoga - magical
Kundalini Yoga - chakras
Laya Yoga - related to Kundalini, emphasis on male-female duality and Hatha Yoga
Integral Yoga - personal transformation
Atheist saivism involves Shiva Yoga, but with Shiva as guru, not deity.
Once we have a framework for discussion, we can discuss specific practices if you like.
Quote from: Arik on January 04, 2019, 04:18:35 AM
Are you saying that anyone who does not listen to you is blind.
Are you serious Mike?
I am always prepared to listen to anyone and prepared to change my mind AS FAR AS WHAT PEOPLE SAY MAKE SENSE.
I am serious. I am clearly and plainly saying that you do not take anything I have said seriously or try to understand what I am saying. I am saying you are blind. You say you are willing to listen but don't. I do understand what you are saying. It is little different than any other theist. And you are so invested in your being right that you don't even want to listen to anyone who disagrees with your belief. I have read your holy book and studied how it came about and how it was complied. You haven't. You are simply willfully ignorant to the point of appearing to be stupid. You are a closed mind of the worst sort--the religious/spiritual mind. Your universe is based upon magic--mine isn't. But you are free to believe any way you want. Just stop lying about it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2019, 10:15:06 AM
I am serious. I am clearly and plainly saying that you do not take anything I have said seriously or try to understand what I am saying. I am saying you are blind. You say you are willing to listen but don't. I do understand what you are saying. It is little different than any other theist. And you are so invested in your being right that you don't even want to listen to anyone who disagrees with your belief. I have read your holy book and studied how it came about and how it was complied. You haven't. You are simply willfully ignorant to the point of appearing to be stupid. You are a closed mind of the worst sort--the religious/spiritual mind. Your universe is based upon magic--mine isn't. But you are free to believe any way you want. Just stop lying about it.
Ahem ... which holy book? The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali? Which books of Saivism have you studied?
I love it when religious nonsensicals appear briefly, state their strangest idea, and disappear after a few months. This one will too.
But I have to admit that this one is weirder than the usual religious nut case. He seems to even disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.
If I didn't think that most and any theists were the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity, I would actually feel sorry for this sap. I mean, he is opposing his cultural beliefs and can't EVEN get any comfort here because he is as nuts as the religious idiots he seems to oppose.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 05, 2019, 04:23:39 AM
I love it when religious nonsensicals appear briefly, state their strangest idea, and disappear after a few months. This one will too.
But I have to admit that this one is weirder than the usual religious nut case. He seems to even disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.
If I didn't think that most and any theists were the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity, I would actually feel sorry for this sap. I mean, he is opposing his cultural beliefs and can't EVEN get any comfort here because he is as nuts as the religious idiots he seems to oppose.
Well, well mate.
It remind me when Jesus try to kick the priests out from around the temple.
Even in that occasion some people said that this Jesus disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.
As far as corruption build up and take the roots then you got to stand up and try to stop it.
Oh, by the way don't you like that someone that doesn't necessary agree with you is here?
Wouldn't you find boring to talk to people that agree with you all the time?
Have a lovely day anyway.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2019, 10:15:06 AM
I am serious. I am clearly and plainly saying that you do not take anything I have said seriously or try to understand what I am saying. I am saying you are blind. You say you are willing to listen but don't. I do understand what you are saying. It is little different than any other theist. And you are so invested in your being right that you don't even want to listen to anyone who disagrees with your belief. I have read your holy book and studied how it came about and how it was complied. You haven't. You are simply willfully ignorant to the point of appearing to be stupid. You are a closed mind of the worst sort--the religious/spiritual mind. Your universe is based upon magic--mine isn't. But you are free to believe any way you want. Just stop lying about it.
Look Mike do me a favor.
Tell me about some of the issues that according to you I didn't take any notice of so I can look at them again.
Maybe I was wrong who knows.
Unless you tell me what you are talking about I wouldn't know.
Thanks.
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2019, 05:59:59 AM
Arik - there are different kinds of yoga. In the East, if you met a new person, you asked ... "What is your practice?". Let's talk yoga.
Yoga of action (Krishna) aka Karma Yoga
Yoga of concentration (Shiva, Patanjali) aka Raja Yoga
Yoga of devotion (Krishna) aka Bhakti Yoga
Yoga of knowledge aka Jnana Yoga
Yoga of physical discipline aka Hatha Yoga
And numerous combinations of the above ...
Yogachara - Mahayana Buddhist
Sankhya - theoretical side of School of Yoga, two of the six orthodox forms of Hinduism
Asparsha Yoga - Gaudapada
Shiva Yoga - combines concentration and devotion (to Shiva as guru or god)
Tantric forms:
Mantra Yoga - magical
Kundalini Yoga - chakras
Laya Yoga - related to Kundalini, emphasis on male-female duality and Hatha Yoga
Integral Yoga - personal transformation
Atheist saivism involves Shiva Yoga, but with Shiva as guru, not deity.
Once we have a framework for discussion, we can discuss specific practices if you like.
The options are endless Baruch.
You can try them all one by one until you find the right one or you can try one and stick with that or do as I did.
I realized that God can read my and everybody mind so I ask within that He show me the correct method to uplift myself spiritually speaking.
It didn't take long time to get across the type of yoga that now I follow.
Let me however clear something Baruch.
Yoga is a very good way but not all yoga is because a lot of rubbish that pretend to be yoga is now all around.
Yoga is not necessary the method for all.
People are different so a different method must be there for different people.
Some people learn in different ways.
Some people have an NDE that show them how the system works other people learn as they go year after year or life after life even atheists learn in their own way.
First rely on physical science then after sometime when they realize that this way lead to nowhere they surely will look in the proper direction.
Energy and consciousness that are the two side of the same sheet never die so at the end everybody will get there.
Quote from: Arik on January 05, 2019, 06:16:47 PM
Well, well mate.
It remind me when Jesus try to kick the priests out from around the temple.
Even in that occasion some people said that this Jesus disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.
As far as corruption build up and take the roots then you got to stand up and try to stop it.
Oh, by the way don't you like that someone that doesn't necessary agree with you is here?
Wouldn't you find boring to talk to people that agree with you all the time?
Have a lovely day anyway.
You say "Jesus tr(ied) to kick the priests out from around the temple".
Were you there?
Quote from: Arik on January 05, 2019, 06:16:47 PM
It remind me when Jesus try to kick the priests out from around the temple.
Even in that occasion some people said that this Jesus disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.
Jesus never existed, so this story is entirely fictional. So what good is it in furthering whatever you're arguing for?
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2019, 07:06:00 PM
Jesus never existed, so this story is entirely fictional. So what good is it in furthering whatever you're arguing for?
Well stated and concise. So much of the biblical tales (and other theistic stories) are both contradictory and obviously inaccurate.
Quote from: Arik on January 05, 2019, 06:23:24 PM
Look Mike do me a favor.
Tell me about some of the issues that according to you I didn't take any notice of so I can look at them again.
Maybe I was wrong who knows.
Unless you tell me what you are talking about I wouldn't know.
Thanks.
How about some evidence for god--any god. BTW, Jesus is a myth and a fiction, as well as any of your gods.
The kid started doing yoga couple year ago, has had some success though so he thought, "hey, if I buy the whole fruit cake I can be even better"...not much diff than a born again alchy.
All in all....meh.
Quote from: aitm on January 05, 2019, 10:42:04 PM
The kid started doing yoga couple year ago, has had some success though so he thought, "hey, if I buy the whole fruit cake I can be even better"...not much diff than a born again alchy.
All in all....meh.
The new generation will be "different" and that all *I* know...
Quote
It remind me when Jesus try to kick the priests out from around the temple.
You do realize I hope that that is an inherently stupid story? The temple courtyards covered acres and the guards I suppose just stood there watching?
Your boy "jesus" would have had a spear stuck up his ass in short order. That's what the guards were there for.
Quote from: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:33:34 AM
Here we go back to what I explained in previous posts in which I said that consciousness is an abstract entity that can not be created by something physical such as the brain.
Prove that assertion. You don't get to just assume something like that. While the question of the nature of consciousness is obviously not solved, there is no evidence to date to suggest that it requires more than the physical brain and the electrochemical events therein, and the current lack of a solid explanation is not license to speculate randomly.
Obviously, I need to quote myself from another thread:
the only 'therefore' that follows 'we don't know' is 'we need to do more research'. You
can not get from "we don't understand how consciousness works" to "therefore it's supernatural/non-physical/other woo". You can
only follow it with "therefore we need to research consciousness further".
And without evidence, your assertion isn't worth the electrons that put it on my monitor.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 05, 2019, 09:42:37 PM
How about some evidence for god--any god. BTW, Jesus is a myth and a fiction, as well as any of your gods.
Try to be a bit more clear in your request Mike.
Don't you think you should explain what sort of evidence you expect?
Physical evidence?
Mental?
Spiritual?
You expect to see a God looking like Jesus with the beard and long hairs?
Or maybe like a man.
Oh, no maybe something between a man and a female.
Or not, maybe like a flash of light.
What about a God that doesn't have any image or maybe all images at the same time.
I am afraid Mike that your expectations will end up (down) into nothing until you stop thinking at an eventual God external to yourself.
Personally I found God within same same as all those that since the universe exist found God in the same way.
There is no other way to find God because God is you, me, everybody and everything that exist so in order to find (Him, her, everything) you got to look within in the same way as any other love whether is physical of mental.
God is love Mike and love does not have an image.
It is only felt and it is YOU.
The only problem is to realize all this.
Quote from: trdsf on January 06, 2019, 03:28:23 AM
Prove that assertion. You don't get to just assume something like that. While the question of the nature of consciousness is obviously not solved, there is no evidence to date to suggest that it requires more than the physical brain and the electrochemical events therein, and the current lack of a solid explanation is not license to speculate randomly.
Obviously, I need to quote myself from another thread: the only 'therefore' that follows 'we don't know' is 'we need to do more research'. You can not get from "we don't understand how consciousness works" to "therefore it's supernatural/non-physical/other woo". You can only follow it with "therefore we need to research consciousness further".
And without evidence, your assertion isn't worth the electrons that put it on my monitor.
All very well said brother.
I suppose your critique is addressed mostly to atheists that believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Personally I have some solid argument to prove my point in saying that something abstract and superior to the brain which brain is made of matter can not be created by the matter itself.
Thanks for your argument anyway.
Don't confuse solid "argument" with solid "evidence." I'm sure you think your reasoning is brilliant.
I doubt the audience here will agree.
Quote from: Arik on January 06, 2019, 07:03:03 PM
Try to be a bit more clear in your request Mike.
Don't you think you should explain what sort of evidence you expect?
Physical evidence?
Mental?
Spiritual?
You expect to see a God looking like Jesus with the beard and long hairs?
Or maybe like a man.
Oh, no maybe something between a man and a female.
Or not, maybe like a flash of light.
What about a God that doesn't have any image or maybe all images at the same time.
I am afraid Mike that your expectations will end up (down) into nothing until you stop thinking at an eventual God external to yourself.
Personally I found God within same same as all those that since the universe exist found God in the same way.
There is no other way to find God because God is you, me, everybody and everything that exist so in order to find (Him, her, everything) you got to look within in the same way as any other love whether is physical of mental.
God is love Mike and love does not have an image.
It is only felt and it is YOU.
The only problem is to realize all this.
Come on man--we are going in circles; at least you are. I have been nothing but plain about my stance. I have said clearly from the beginning that material or physical is all there is. Nothing else. Love is based in the physical material world. It is the result of chemicals and chemicals we are now aware of and are learning more and more how love works. Love is NOT only felt, it is demonstrated. And all love is not the same. I love my wife (and has that love gone thru changes.), my dogs, my family (well, some of them), my fav sports players, my computer and computer games--and so on................None of those loves are the same. All of those various loves is physical.
If you had read anything that I have posted to you you must know that I don't 'expect' god to look like anything or anybody. Do I expect faries to look a certain way? No, how could I since they don't exist. I do expect you to give me some evidence of any god; if you could do that then I may form an expectation of what that god looks like. I have told you from the very start that god is a fiction and you have not give me any reason or evidence to suggest otherwise. Just because you believe something does not mean that that is proof. So, stop wasting our time and give us some evidence.
Quote from: Arik on January 06, 2019, 07:13:22 PM
Personally I have some solid argument to prove my point in saying that something abstract and superior to the brain which brain is made of matter can not be created by the matter itself.
What in the world does this mean??????
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 06, 2019, 08:52:13 PM
What in the world does this mean??????
Quantum entanglement shows that real physical processes are non-local. So mental processes might be tied to the brain, but extend beyond it. Oh, how would that be? Typing a message for example. My typing this is an extension of my mind, well outside my neural matter.
The brain creating the mind is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. A computer uses a combination of 0's and 1's to create all kinds of things, like pictures, videos, text files, and video games. How do 0's and 1's produce anything but more 0's and 1's? Must be magic! No, dude. It's emergence. Sometimes when you have a group of things coming together, they equal more than the sum of their parts. No god, spirits, or magic required.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 06, 2019, 09:45:28 PM
The brain creating the mind is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. A computer uses a combination of 0's and 1's to create all kinds of things, like pictures, videos, text files, and video games. How do 0's and 1's produce anything but more 0's and 1's? Must be magic! No, dude. It's emergence. Sometimes when you have a group of things coming together, they equal more than the sum of their parts. No god, spirits, or magic required.
You did the usual fallacy of personalizing a non-person. A computer doesn't do anything, it is a thing, not a person. The programmer makes it do what it does, like a puppet. Are you a puppet? Didn't think so. Emergence = secular term for magic, supernatural. Nothing is more than the sum of its parts. That would be denying analysis, which is denial of science itself.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2019, 09:38:09 PM
Quantum entanglement shows that real physical processes are non-local. So mental processes might be tied to the brain, but extend beyond it. Oh, how would that be? Typing a message for example. My typing this is an extension of my mind, well outside my neural matter.
I see. Ah. So god!!! Gotja........................
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 06, 2019, 10:10:17 PM
I see. Ah. So god!!! Gotja........................
No, demi-god. That is obvious. That the demi-gods might be images of a G-d, that is speculative and unprovable. Though it is plausible. You are billions of living cells. Are you more than that? Or is your ego just the collective delusion of those cells, that you, MikeCL are the deity they worship? Quantum entanglement is science, not theology.
Arik ... so which of these Ashtangayoga principles do you do?
Yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharma, dhyana or samadhi?
I first experienced samadhi 7 years ago, providing me with insight that I can refer to during normal activity.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2019, 10:12:19 PM
No, demi-god. That is obvious. That the demi-gods might be images of a G-d, that is speculative and unprovable. Though it is plausible. You are billions of living cells. Are you more than that? Or is your ego just the collective delusion of those cells, that you, MikeCL are the deity they worship? Quantum entanglement is science, not theology.
Spoken as the theist you are. Yes, I am billions of living cells--more than that? Sure. But that has nothing to do with god or even G_D. You just can't get past the worship part can you. You simply have to worship something.
Quote from: Arik on January 06, 2019, 07:13:22 PMPersonally I have some solid argument to prove my point in saying that something abstract and superior to the brain which brain is made of matter can not be created by the matter itself.
So...the brain is matter but can't be created by matter? Seems kinda self-contradictory.
Plus, and I've noticed this thing a lot with theists, simply asserting REALLY STRONGLY that something is true doesn't actually make the case that it is true. If anything, it just invites the audience to entertain the opposite and try to rule it out. Can matter create
brains minds? I don't see why it couldn't, and you have yet to show why it couldn't.
So every human begins as an egg and a sperm and grows from there. It seems to me that the brain grows as a result of the nutrients supplied by the mother's body.
I imagine at some point he envisions his personal invisible sky-daddy showing up with a eye-dropper full of this magic brain growing medium and implanting it into the head of the fetus? I wonder at which stage of gestation he thinks that happens, Hydra?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 06, 2019, 11:42:38 PM
Spoken as the theist you are. Yes, I am billions of living cells--more than that? Sure. But that has nothing to do with god or even G_D. You just can't get past the worship part can you. You simply have to worship something.
People are inconsistent in their views. I do point this out. But it isn't illegal to be inconsistent. You maybe worship your job, your family, your things, yourself ... whatever. And you can call that atheism if you want. People love some things and hate other things.
If you want to ban G and O and D from your dictionary, fine with me. Hide under your bed from the KKK seeking to hunt you down (not really of course). How are the atheists here any more or less paranoid than pr126? And yes, spoken like the atheist you are. But you aren't a übermensch because of it.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 07, 2019, 12:48:28 AM
So every human begins as an egg and a sperm and grows from there. It seems to me that the brain grows as a result of the nutrients supplied by the mother's body.
I imagine at some point he envisions his personal invisible sky-daddy showing up with a eye-dropper full of this magic brain growing medium and implanting it into the head of the fetus? I wonder at which stage of gestation he thinks that happens, Hydra?
That is a mystery. To be consistent .. and we won't be ... life and consciousness make no sense in a world of semi-random atomic motions. Unless you choose the "emergent" magic, or hylozoism (everything is alive) or panpsychism (everything has mind). So go with "emergent" magic, because there is no other choice once an atheist has painted themselves into a corner. Or just tell consistency to take a hike. It isn't illegal to be illogical.
Yes, early theology imagined something like a pre-existence on a spiritual plane (with or without multiple births). Or imagined how spirit (you don't have one do you?) could tie up with matter, with usually matter being considered gross and spirit being considered pure. But those are just theologies.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 07, 2019, 12:14:23 AM
So...the brain is matter but can't be created by matter? Seems kinda self-contradictory.
Plus, and I've noticed this thing a lot with theists, simply asserting REALLY STRONGLY that something is true doesn't actually make the case that it is true. If anything, it just invites the audience to entertain the opposite and try to rule it out. Can matter create brains minds? I don't see why it couldn't, and you have yet to show why it couldn't.
Conservation of matter. Matter is usually neither created nor destroyed. It is just rearranged. And yes, your sense of true could be wrong, anyone could be. Emergentism or epiphenominalism is the magic theory (not science) that bridges that gap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism
But this is part of philosophy, not science. And philosophy is completely wrong, so I am told here.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 07, 2019, 12:14:23 AM
So...the brain is matter but can't be created by matter? Seems kinda self-contradictory.
Plus, and I've noticed this thing a lot with theists, simply asserting REALLY STRONGLY that something is true doesn't actually make the case that it is true. If anything, it just invites the audience to entertain the opposite and try to rule it out. Can matter create brains minds? I don't see why it couldn't, and you have yet to show why it couldn't.
Sorry to tell you Hydra but your confusion is really out of control.
The brain IS NOT the mind.
The brain is made of matter while the mind or conscious mind is an abstract entity.
The brain give energy and allow the mind to operate same same as a vehicle allow the driver to drive and if you think that the matter or brain can create the mind then you also should think that the vehicle create the driver.
Can't you see how your beliefs are so defective?
So where suppose to be that science that back up atheism?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 06, 2019, 08:50:09 PM
Come on man--we are going in circles; at least you are. I have been nothing but plain about my stance. I have said clearly from the beginning that material or physical is all there is. Nothing else. Love is based in the physical material world. It is the result of chemicals and chemicals we are now aware of and are learning more and more how love works. Love is NOT only felt, it is demonstrated. And all love is not the same. I love my wife (and has that love gone thru changes.), my dogs, my family (well, some of them), my fav sports players, my computer and computer games--and so on................None of those loves are the same. All of those various loves is physical.
If you had read anything that I have posted to you you must know that I don't 'expect' god to look like anything or anybody. Do I expect faries to look a certain way? No, how could I since they don't exist. I do expect you to give me some evidence of any god; if you could do that then I may form an expectation of what that god looks like. I have told you from the very start that god is a fiction and you have not give me any reason or evidence to suggest otherwise. Just because you believe something does not mean that that is proof. So, stop wasting our time and give us some evidence.
Sorry Mike but your beliefs are absolutely defective.
1) If you think that....................... Love is based in the physical material world..............then you should also believe that a driver is part of the vehicle.
Don't you get out your vehicle once you reach the destination?
2) Actually is you that are wasting my time.
The day you will be able to demonstrate that your love for anyone is real I also will demonstrate to you that God exist.
Can't you see the stupidity Mike?
How on earth can you demonstrate something within except of course (as I already said) the release of extra hormones?
Quote from: Minimalist on January 06, 2019, 08:43:28 PM
Don't confuse solid "argument" with solid "evidence." I'm sure you think your reasoning is brilliant.
I doubt the audience here will agree.
Actually I do not expect that.......the audience here will agree.
That would mean to throw away a lifetime of false beliefs for an atheist.
My objective is not that Min.
It is rather the clash of ideas that excite me but also to learn if that occur-eventuate.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 06, 2019, 09:45:28 PM
The brain creating the mind is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. A computer uses a combination of 0's and 1's to create all kinds of things, like pictures, videos, text files, and video games. How do 0's and 1's produce anything but more 0's and 1's? Must be magic! No, dude. It's emergence. Sometimes when you have a group of things coming together, they equal more than the sum of their parts. No god, spirits, or magic required.
That is incredible BL.
Most atheists always glorify science because according to them science back up their beliefs but since when science say that an inferior entity can create a superior entity?
Where is the evidence BL?
Your computer analogy is totally defective because a computer has been programmed by a human mind to do certain things.
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 06:40:48 AM
That is incredible BL.
Most atheists always glorify science because according to them science back up their beliefs but since when science say that an inferior entity can create a superior entity?
Where is the evidence BL?
Your computer analogy is totally defective because a computer has been programmed by a human mind to do certain things.
AI is woo woo for the ignorant. We want to be G-d, we want to create life ala Dr Frankenstein. But with silicon instead of multiple dead body parts. We are demi-gods, not G-d. Real giant Japanese robots would be a menace. For most people, science is "pop science" which is just something for the more educate guys to read a the barber shop, instead of "pop mechanics".
Quote from: Arik on January 06, 2019, 07:13:22 PM
All very well said brother.
I suppose your critique is addressed mostly to atheists that believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Personally I have some solid argument to prove my point in saying that something abstract and superior to the brain which brain is made of matter can not be created by the matter itself.
Thanks for your argument anyway.
Wow, what total intellectual cowardice.
My critique is addressed directly at
you and your
completely unsupported assertion. It couldn't have been any clearer. If you have evidence, provide it. Stating that you have it and not providing it is
not the same as providing evidence.
What you have told me in your non-answer here is that you cannot back up your claim -- you have made up something that sounds good to you and you have not actually thought about it in the slightest.
I say again: what is your
evidence that consciousness requires more than the brain? And please remember that "You can't explain it either" isn't evidence for anything more than the need for further research.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2019, 10:18:25 PM
Arik ... so which of these Ashtangayoga principles do you do?
Yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharma, dhyana or samadhi?
I first experienced samadhi 7 years ago, providing me with insight that I can refer to during normal activity.
They are all important Baruch but I shouldn't really worry about samadhi.
Samadhi will be given to you at the correct time by your guru when he-she will see that you have done-accomplished what he previously taught you.
Never before.
Before that there is only a lot of hard work.
Remember however that my yoga does not come from Sri K. Pattabhi Jois and T. Krishnamacharya in the 20th century.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 06, 2019, 08:52:13 PM
What in the world does this mean??????
It means he can't answer a direct question.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2019, 07:06:00 PM
Jesus never existed, so this story is entirely fictional. So what good is it in furthering whatever you're arguing for?
Sure, sure Jesus never existed.
Not even Pontius Pilate existed and the first Christians that prefer to be eaten alive by the lions rather than give away their beliefs for Jesus were a bunch of idiots because they must have followed a person that never existed.
Gee, I never thought about that mate.
I imagine that also Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great never existed or maybe not.
They existed because they were not theists.
Who knows.
I am so confused now.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXXEmLbzXWAM8JMXamfe-bUxBz-GnQE-_sKXXWoE8lWPJZIzkK)
Quote from: trdsf on January 07, 2019, 07:00:35 AM
Wow, what total intellectual cowardice.
My critique is addressed directly at you and your completely unsupported assertion. It couldn't have been any clearer. If you have evidence, provide it. Stating that you have it and not providing it is not the same as providing evidence.
What you have told me in your non-answer here is that you cannot back up your claim -- you have made up something that sounds good to you and you have not actually thought about it in the slightest.
I say again: what is your evidence that consciousness requires more than the brain? And please remember that "You can't explain it either" isn't evidence for anything more than the need for further research.
Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?
Is not the consciousness that tell the body-brain what to do or say?
So if the consciousness is in charge why on earth should we need evidence to demonstrate that the consciousness is not created by the brain?
Have you ever seen a soldier that tell a general in command what to do?
If you still need further evidence I suggest you to ask you car if it ever create you.
You never know mate.
Quote from: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:53:54 AM
People are inconsistent in their views. I do point this out. But it isn't illegal to be inconsistent. You maybe worship your job, your family, your things, yourself ... whatever. And you can call that atheism if you want. People love some things and hate other things.
If you want to ban G and O and D from your dictionary, fine with me. Hide under your bed from the KKK seeking to hunt you down (not really of course). How are the atheists here any more or less paranoid than pr126? And yes, spoken like the atheist you are. But you aren't a übermensch because of it.
Spoken like the theist you are--can't ever quite get to the point. I'm not sure what you said, but are you saying if one does not believe in god then the KKK will get you? Seems about on par for you and your theist folks. No, I'm not a superman for my views--just an atheist. And no, I don't want to get rid of god from my dictionary, just acknowledge it for the fiction it is--like acknowledging that Bugs Bunny is a fiction, as well.
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 06:40:48 AM
That is incredible BL.
Most atheists always glorify science because according to them science back up their beliefs but since when science say that an inferior entity can create a superior entity?
Where is the evidence BL?
Your computer analogy is totally defective because a computer has been programmed by a human mind to do certain things.
First of all, I'm not going to justify the terms you made up. "Inferior entity" and "superior entity" are not things. Provide a clear definition for both, then we can discuss how you have no evidence to back up your definitions.
Second, your theism is showing. Stay on track. You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments, and if you can't see that, I'm done with you. The computer analogy works because there is no ghost in the computer. I've demonstrated how programming can create something entirely different than what it started with. If I open up a game of Skyrim, does the world of Skyrim actually exist? No. It's 1's and 0's firing to create the perception of that world, similar to how neurons fire in our brains to create the perceptions in our heads. Computers are basically mechanical brains, so unless you want to argue that computers have a soul, you're going to have to justify your special pleading.
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 07:35:37 AM
Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?
Is not the consciousness that tell the body-brain what to do or say?
So if the consciousness is in charge why on earth should we need evidence to demonstrate that the consciousness is not created by the brain?
Have you ever seen a soldier that tell a general in command what to do?
If you still need further evidence I suggest you to ask you car if it ever create you.
You never know mate.
I asked for evidence, not metaphors and inaccurate analogies. Do we really have to explain what evidence is? Don't answer that, it's pretty obvious we do.
Evidence is observational data that can be independently examined and verified. Aphorisms are neither evidence nor data.
Can you or can you not provide
evidence for your assertion?
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 07, 2019, 09:36:49 AM
First of all, I'm not going to justify the terms you made up. "Inferior entity" and "superior entity" are not things. Provide a clear definition for both, then we can discuss how you have no evidence to back up your definitions.
Second, your theism is showing. Stay on track. You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments, and if you can't see that, I'm done with you. The computer analogy works because there is no ghost in the computer. I've demonstrated how programming can create something entirely different than what it started with. If I open up a game of Skyrim, does the world of Skyrim actually exist? No. It's 1's and 0's firing to create the perception of that world, similar to how neurons fire in our brains to create the perceptions in our heads. Computers are basically mechanical brains, so unless you want to argue that computers have a soul, you're going to have to justify your special pleading.
1) Animals are superior to plants but inferior to humans and even among humans there are those superior and those inferior because the level of consciousness varies from person to person.
Is this so difficult to understand BL?
2) What about your point in saying............You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments...............
Where suppose to be my FLIPPED?
Those arguments may well be different but why should be wrong when they both make sense?
3) Who ever argue that computers have a soul?
Computers are created by humans so they can only do what humans build them to do.
Quote from: trdsf on January 07, 2019, 09:58:53 AM
I asked for evidence, not metaphors and inaccurate analogies. Do we really have to explain what evidence is? Don't answer that, it's pretty obvious we do.
Evidence is observational data that can be independently examined and verified. Aphorisms are neither evidence nor data.
Can you or can you not provide evidence[\b] for your assertion?
The evidence is right in your mind.
That mind that control your saying and doing.
I am afraid that you are in great need to understand how mind, body and brain work.
Isn't your mind that tell your little finger to push this or that key in your keyboard so you can reply to Arik?
QuoteThat is a mystery.
Not really. We are coming up on 8 billion examples of human consciousness crawling around on this planet. It seems to happen every time unless there is a severe brain problem during gestation. The mystery exists only for people who want to shoehorn their particular chosen deity into a process which is entirely natural.
I don't need your god, allah, zeus or quetzlcoatl to provide an explanation for a natural process.
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 10:20:39 AM
1) Animals are superior to plants but inferior to humans and even among humans there are those superior and those inferior because the level of consciousness varies from person to person.
Is this so difficult to understand BL?
2) What about your point in saying............You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments...............
Where suppose to be my FLIPPED?
Those arguments may well be different but why should be wrong when they both make sense?
3) Who ever argue that computers have a soul?
Computers are created by humans so they can only do what humans build them to do.
You didn't provide the definitions of the terms I requested. Your claim remains both vaguely defined and therefor indefensible. You can't expect me to understand your arguments if you don't understand them yourself. How is a plant inferior to an animal? Contrary to popular belief, no living thing is more highly evolved than another. Every living thing evolved to survive in its environment, and they are good at surviving. For example, some fruit bearing plants have a symbiotic relationship with animals, where animals obtain sustenance from the plants, and the animals in exchange spread and fertilize the seeds. Neither one is "superior" to the other, as I see it.
As for the rest, you clearly are set in your thinking and are not capable of honest thought. You can't focus, your arguments are all over the place, and you continually fail to provide evidence of your claims.
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 10:20:39 AMAnimals are superior to plants but inferior to humans
(https://i.imgur.com/vs9AG.gif)
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 10:27:12 AM
The evidence is right in your mind.
That mind that control your saying and doing.
I am afraid that you are in great need to understand how mind, body and brain work.
Isn't your mind that tell your little finger to push this or that key in your keyboard so you can reply to Arik?
That's your evidence? 'You have a mind so I'm right'?
Well, thank you for assuming I possess a mind. I wish I could return the compliment, but you have put forth one of the daftest things I've read in a very long time.
I'm going to recommend to you checking out a few lectures on consciousness by Daniel Dennett on YouTube -- I don't have any specific ones in mind, you can find them easily enough -- and the book
The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter. Not that I necessarily agree with the conclusions of either, but you really need to think about what you think you think, and how and why you think you think it.
What you've offered here is just navel-gazing blather. Your entire position right now is no more than a stoner's "so, the mind is like, I dunno, far out man."
Few people "introspect" here. They deny the relevance of their own minds or that of other people. Only external senses matter (and that is what materialists would say, wouldn't they?).
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 07:03:18 AM
They are all important Baruch but I shouldn't really worry about samadhi.
Samadhi will be given to you at the correct time by your guru when he-she will see that you have done-accomplished what he previously taught you.
Never before.
Before that there is only a lot of hard work.
Remember however that my yoga does not come from Sri K. Pattabhi Jois and T. Krishnamacharya in the 20th century.
I got my samadhi from personal development, and the Heart Sutra. The unknown author of the Heart Sutra was my guru.
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 07:21:00 AM
Sure, sure Jesus never existed.
Not even Pontius Pilate existed and the first Christians that prefer to be eaten alive by the lions rather than give away their beliefs for Jesus were a bunch of idiots because they must have followed a person that never existed.
Gee, I never thought about that mate.
I imagine that also Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great never existed or maybe not.
They existed because they were not theists.
Who knows.
I am so confused now.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXXEmLbzXWAM8JMXamfe-bUxBz-GnQE-_sKXXWoE8lWPJZIzkK)
!. We only accept evidence, if it confirms our firmly held beliefs
2. Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great were demi-gods. But then so am I. Neither of them could type in English on the Internet.
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 07:35:37 AM
Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?
Is not the consciousness that tell the body-brain what to do or say?
So if the consciousness is in charge why on earth should we need evidence to demonstrate that the consciousness is not created by the brain?
Have you ever seen a soldier that tell a general in command what to do?
If you still need further evidence I suggest you to ask you car if it ever create you.
You never know mate.
In my un-experience, the unconscious ocean drives the waves of the conscious.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2019, 09:34:04 AM
Spoken like the theist you are--can't ever quite get to the point. I'm not sure what you said, but are you saying if one does not believe in god then the KKK will get you? Seems about on par for you and your theist folks. No, I'm not a superman for my views--just an atheist. And no, I don't want to get rid of god from my dictionary, just acknowledge it for the fiction it is--like acknowledging that Bugs Bunny is a fiction, as well.
"I'm not sure what you said" ... well put. You don't nor do you want to. Just a shark tank feeding frenzy (of newcomers) as usual, of group think. My choice, and ability, is I can understand what Arik is saying. His use of words isn't gibberish to me. I also understand you as well, very well in fact.
But there is a long term undertow here of ... Republican/Southern monsters are going to eat my ass off.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 07, 2019, 10:49:30 AM
Not really. We are coming up on 8 billion examples of human consciousness crawling around on this planet. It seems to happen every time unless there is a severe brain problem during gestation. The mystery exists only for people who want to shoehorn their particular chosen deity into a process which is entirely natural.
I don't need your god, allah, zeus or quetzlcoatl to provide an explanation for a natural process.
"I don't need your god, allah, zeus or quetzlcoatl to provide an explanation for a natural process." .. I agree. Religion isn't necessarily primitive science. Not everything in human experience is addressed thru epistemology, let along one-sided epistemology. I can't speak for Arik, but I suspect he isn't a Southern Baptist. And he might not need any explanations. In my case, I don't. Explanations by monkeys isn't of interest to me.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2019, 09:38:09 PM
Quantum entanglement shows that real physical processes are non-local.
No, it doesn't. It shows that
some physical processes are non-local, not that
all of them are.
Quote from: Arik on January 07, 2019, 07:35:37 AM
Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?
An analogy is only an analogy, and no analogies are perfect. Neither do they count as evidence.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 07, 2019, 11:43:59 AM
You didn't provide the definitions of the terms I requested. Your claim remains both vaguely defined and therefor indefensible. You can't expect me to understand your arguments if you don't understand them yourself. How is a plant inferior to an animal? Contrary to popular belief, no living thing is more highly evolved than another. Every living thing evolved to survive in its environment, and they are good at surviving. For example, some fruit bearing plants have a symbiotic relationship with animals, where animals obtain sustenance from the plants, and the animals in exchange spread and fertilize the seeds. Neither one is "superior" to the other, as I see it.
As for the rest, you clearly are set in your thinking and are not capable of honest thought. You can't focus, your arguments are all over the place, and you continually fail to provide evidence of your claims.
I think Arik's problem is one of being inarticulate, unable to put English sentences together in a way that we, the readers, can understand. My guess would be a lack of decent education is the cause of the inability to state things clearly and succinctly..
Quote from: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:36:21 PM
Few people "introspect" here. They deny the relevance of their own minds or that of other people. Only external senses matter (and that is what materialists would say, wouldn't they?).
Generalize much????
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 01:45:26 PM
I think Arik's problem is one of being inarticulate, unable to put English sentences together in a way that we, the readers, can understand. My guess would be a lack of decent education is the cause of the inability to state things clearly and succinctly..
Amen!!!
I don't understand why emergent phenomena would be considered "magic," since it's obvious that emergent phenomena do exist. Water is wet, but not when there is only one molecule of it. Wetness emerges when the number of water molecules reaches sufficient numbers, and not before. How many that is I don't know, though. Brains are conscious, but not when there is only one neuron.
QuoteConsciousness is an emergent property of the brain, resulting from the communication of information across all its regions and cannot be reduced to something residing in specific areas.
Consciousness Is the Whole Brain. It's Not Reducible. (https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region)
QuoteExplanations by monkeys isn't of interest to me.
We're all primates. You're just going to have to deal with that.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 01:45:26 PM
My guess would be a lack of decent education is the cause of the inability to state things clearly and succinctly..
That's funny I was thinking about the same thing....like home schooled by some hippy mother what got too much mescaline in the 80's and burnt her mind into yoga doga do.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 01:22:19 PM
No, it doesn't. It shows that some physical processes are non-local, not that all of them are.
I clearly demonstrated that writing on the internet is an example of non-local mind. Would you care to dispute that example? I wasn't talking about the cost of tea in China.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and, I fear, neither do you.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2019, 01:54:50 PM
Generalize much????
Yes, see my response to Unbeliever. We generalize, categorize, specialize ... it is called thinking. In Indian terms, y'all are Lokayata/Charvaka circa 800 BCE.
1. Perception is the only means to knowledge
2. Inference from sense data is unreliable
3. Only matter exists
4. In a body where an appropriate admixture of matter exists, consciousness spontaneously appears
5. Only concentration on immediate life is important
6. Scriptures are of no value
So congratulations, y'all have reinvented something from 2800 years ago.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2019, 01:55:54 PM
Amen!!!
English might not be his first language. Ad hominems attacks are normal among the usual trolls here. I would like to see any of you do as well in Hindi as he does in English. Also, don't use Christian language, or Satan won't let you into Hell ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 02:02:12 PM
I don't understand why emergent phenomena would be considered "magic," since it's obvious that emergent phenomena do exist. Water is wet, but not when there is only one molecule of it. Wetness emerges when the number of water molecules reaches sufficient numbers, and not before. How many that is I don't know, though. Brains are conscious, but not when there is only one neuron.
Consciousness Is the Whole Brain. It's Not Reducible. (https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region)
You worship what you do, I will worship what I do ;-) This is what one gets taking monkeys seriously (but no insults to Hanuman, the monkey king who helped King Rama defeat the Demons).
Quote from: Minimalist on January 07, 2019, 02:03:06 PM
We're all primates. You're just going to have to deal with that.
You monkey shit in your hand, I monkey shit in mine. But some monkeys think their shit is special shit.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 07:05:40 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about, and, I fear, neither do you.
You are projecting again.
I am intelligible in multiple languages.
And you usually are intelligible in English.
It is OK if you don't understand.
This isn't about egos or virtue signaling.
This is about human variability aka ability/handicap (at least at one point in time).
Quote from: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 07:01:55 PM
I clearly demonstrated that writing on the internet is an example of non-local mind. Would you care to dispute that example? I wasn't talking about the cost of tea in China.
You and clearly demonstrating anything does not compute............................
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2019, 07:39:08 PM
You and clearly demonstrating anything does not compute............................
You are clearly one of Unbeliever's hundred personalities. Is this server housed in a mental institution? Just asking.
I am legion...
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 07:42:50 PM
I am legion...
You don't even know any Latin. A barbarian horde perhaps ...
Sure I know some Latin. Veni vidi concursus - I came, I saw, I concurred.
Oh lord...someone went off and broke Brauch......crap....who the fuck is gonna clean up this?
Quote from: aitm on January 07, 2019, 09:49:48 PM
Oh lord...someone went off and broke Brauch......crap....who the fuck is gonna clean up this?
You can't type (me neither).
I have enjoyed reading Arik's stuff.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 07, 2019, 11:43:59 AM
You didn't provide the definitions of the terms I requested. Your claim remains both vaguely defined and therefor indefensible. You can't expect me to understand your arguments if you don't understand them yourself. How is a plant inferior to an animal? Contrary to popular belief, no living thing is more highly evolved than another. Every living thing evolved to survive in its environment, and they are good at surviving. For example, some fruit bearing plants have a symbiotic relationship with animals, where animals obtain sustenance from the plants, and the animals in exchange spread and fertilize the seeds. Neither one is "superior" to the other, as I see it.
As for the rest, you clearly are set in your thinking and are not capable of honest thought. You can't focus, your arguments are all over the place, and you continually fail to provide evidence of your claims.
Survival is very important BL but progress is even more important.
All creatures fight for survival but man (all humans, men and women) can go further.
He can also strive for progress which is something that plants and animals can not do.
Here I am talking about progress of the consciousness BL.
Of course if you reckon that ..................no living thing is more highly evolved than another..........then I imagine that you wouldn't mind to be an animal or a plant or even a prehistoric man.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 01:37:36 PM
An analogy is only an analogy, and no analogies are perfect. Neither do they count as evidence.
Analogy surely wouldn't count as evidence but when the thing is so so obvious then you would be a fool not to believe.
Would you really think that a driver is a product of the vehicle?
Doesn't your mind act as a driver that tell your body or mind what to do, exactly like a driver control the vehicle?
So where suppose to be the difference?
Are you waiting an other 20 or more years until even science confirm what yoga knew thousand of years ago?
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 01:45:26 PM
I think Arik's problem is one of being inarticulate, unable to put English sentences together in a way that we, the readers, can understand. My guess would be a lack of decent education is the cause of the inability to state things clearly and succinctly..
Little to do with education brother.
It is rather the fact that my mother language is not English.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 02:02:12 PM
I don't understand why emergent phenomena would be considered "magic," since it's obvious that emergent phenomena do exist. Water is wet, but not when there is only one molecule of it. Wetness emerges when the number of water molecules reaches sufficient numbers, and not before. How many that is I don't know, though. Brains are conscious, but not when there is only one neuron.
Consciousness Is the Whole Brain. It's Not Reducible. (https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region)
The world is full full of guesses and most of these guesses will never reach the stage to become evidence including the guess that the consciousness is the whole brain or the funny story that when the body die also the consciousness die.
Quote from: Arik on January 08, 2019, 10:00:03 AM
The world is full full of guesses and most of these guesses will never reach the stage to become evidence including the guess that the consciousness is the whole brain or the funny story that when the body die also the consciousness die.
The spirit is multidimensional, death is the cessation of one of those dimensions. Not necessarily the cessation of all of them. My posts may outlive me, and are the product of my extended consciousness.
Quote from: Arik on January 08, 2019, 10:00:03 AM
The world is full full of guesses and most of these guesses will never reach the stage to become evidence including the guess that the consciousness is the whole brain or the funny story that when the body die also the consciousness die.
Theist guesses will forever remain guesses. Scientific guesses are called an hypothesis and they will be tested; some will become established fact and the rest will be disproved or unproved guesses.
Huge difference, my man. You can believe whatever your little heart demands. I shall not 'believe' anything and only rely on fact or evidence.
Do not type 'multidimensional spirit' on the research bar. <Spirituality could not be engaged>
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 08, 2019, 02:23:56 PM
Do not type 'multidimensional spirit' on the research bar. <Spirituality could not be engaged>
That is because your avatar is clearly 2-dimensional, but 2 is more than one, so you are at least minimally multidimensional yourself. I have yet to discover how many dimensions I have ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 08, 2019, 06:43:47 PM
That is because your avatar is clearly 2-dimensional, but 2 is more than one, so you are at least minimally multidimensional yourself. I have yet to discover how many dimensions I have ;-)
Hey, buddy, I can help you out. You have one just like the rest of us.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2019, 07:49:14 PM
Hey, buddy, I can help you out. You have one just like the rest of us.
But my avatar is of a three dimensional person. Her's is a line drawing.
Quote from: aitm on January 07, 2019, 09:49:48 PM
Oh lord...someone went off and broke Brauch......crap....who the fuck is gonna clean up this?
He has been "broken" the couple of years I've been here. Maybe all the time he has been here before me.
But as far as "cleaning up", well YOU are the Moderator...
Quote from: Arik on January 08, 2019, 09:03:57 AMSurvival is very important BL but progress is even more important.
Kinda hard to make progress when you're dead, though.
QuoteOf course if you reckon that ..................no living thing is more highly evolved than another..........then I imagine that you wouldn't mind to be an animal or a plant or even a prehistoric man.
No one gets to choose their birth, so preferences are irrelevant. You might as well ask people which planet they'd like to live on or what time period they'd like to grow up in.
And yes, all living organisms are equally evolved - they all have a chain of ancestors going back to the earliest life on the planet, life that diversified and changed over the aeons to adapt to wide range of habitats and changing conditions, especially the threats and opportunities posed by other ever-changing species.
You've misconceptualized evolution as some sort of progressive process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis) with the goal of producing increasingly sophisticated consciousnesses. This is not remotely the case. For starters, biology has no teleology, no end goal. Survival is what matters. If it confers an evolutionary advantage for a cavefish population to lose its eyes, that's what's going to happen. Second, consciousness/intelligence, while a hell of a successful adaption (so far) might not end all that well for us. Meanwhile, cyanobacteria keep chugging along, oblivious to the rise and fall of humanity. Humans are the only sentient species on Earth out of a ton of similarly-endowed primates which all went extinct. If evolution is trying to crank out sentience, it's doing a remarkably poor job.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 09, 2019, 12:34:49 AMNo one gets to choose their birth, so preferences are irrelevant. You might as well ask people which planet they'd like to live on or what time period they'd like to grow up in.
And yes, all living organisms are equally evolved - they all have a chain of ancestors going back to the earliest life on the planet, life that diversified and changed over the aeons to adapt to wide range of habitats and changing conditions, especially the threats and opportunities posed by other ever-changing species.
You've misconceptualized evolution as some sort of progressive process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis) with the goal of producing increasingly sophisticated consciousnesses. This is not remotely the case. For starters, biology has no teleology, no end goal. Survival is what matters. If it confers an evolutionary advantage for a cavefish population to lose its eyes, that's what's going to happen. Second, consciousness/intelligence, while a hell of a successful adaption (so far) might not end all that well for us. Meanwhile, cyanobacteria keep chugging along, oblivious to the rise and fall of humanity. Humans are the only sentient species on Earth out of a ton of similarly-endowed primates which all went extinct. If evolution is trying to crank out sentience, it's doing a remarkably poor job.
It's funny. Throughout the many years of evolution, convergent evolution has resulted in many different species adopting similar traits independently. Especially after a mass extinction event, life will rapidly diversify to fill the niches that were made vacant. Humans, however, are quite unique. The only other species I'm aware of that has been even slightly similar to us has been the neanderthal, and they were just apes who shared a common ancestor with us. No lizards have ever been like us. No birds have ever been like us. Humans are in a niche of their own making. Like you said, if we're the end goal of evolution, evolution is not doing a very good job.
Hydra makes a good [point. Evolution is not directional, nor toward a point. There is no "intent".
And Blackleaf is also correct. Humans are quite unique.
Those are not contradictory thoughts...
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 09, 2019, 01:25:00 AM
It's funny. Throughout the many years of evolution, convergent evolution has resulted in many different species adopting similar traits independently. Especially after a mass extinction event, life will rapidly diversify to fill the niches that were made vacant. Humans, however, are quite unique. The only other species I'm aware of that has been even slightly similar to us has been the neanderthal, and they were just apes who shared a common ancestor with us. No lizards have ever been like us. No birds have ever been like us. Humans are in a niche of their own making. Like you said, if we're the end goal of evolution, evolution is not doing a very good job.
Neanderthals had limited culture and were cold adapted. Modern humans were equatorial in origin, and only slightly more cultural. Your model is prejudiced.
Cro-magnon art happened after inter-breeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. That is where the leap in culture happened, on accident. Modern humans on their own had only achieved limited rock art (San people). Modern people (with or without Neanderthal additions) are monkeys, who share a common ancestor the with superior Homo Erectus ancestor, who was around on their own for 500,000 years. This happened because they didn't overburden the environment. The hybrid version (and the culturally adapted pure modern humans) are a mega-extinction event. Is that superior? Does Twitter actually demonstrate progress, or a beau jeste of a self destructive species?
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2019, 05:20:23 AM
Neanderthals had limited culture and were cold adapted. Modern humans were equatorial in origin, and only slightly more cultural. Your model is prejudiced.
Cro-magnon art happened after inter-breeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. That is where the leap in culture happened, on accident. Modern humans on their own had only achieved limited rock art (San people). Modern people (with or without Neanderthal additions) are monkeys, who share a common ancestor the with superior Homo Erectus ancestor, who was around on their own for 500,000 years. This happened because they didn't overburden the environment. The hybrid version (and the culturally adapted pure modern humans) are a mega-extinction event. Is that superior? Does Twitter actually demonstrate progress, or a beau jeste of a self destructive species?
Your nonsense is really very tiresome.
Just about the simple stuff...
1. The Cro-Magnon Africans were doing obvious art before they ever met a Neanderthal.
2. The San are simply where more ancient people were, and have no positive connection to the old rock paintings.
3. But that doesn't really matter because Early Homo Sapiens left Africa long before that.
4. Modern homo sapiens art predates Neanderthal contact.
5. "Modern people (with or without Neanderthal additions) are monkeys". You have to be a half wit-theist to think THAT. Seriously...
I'm glad I'm not you.
Quote from: Baruch on January 08, 2019, 08:45:57 PM
But my avatar is of a three dimensional person. Hers is a line drawing.
Oh My God!
(https://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/01/12/prayingmantis/01prayingmantis3d.ngsversion.1452632400349.adapt.1900.1.jpg)
He's not wrong!
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 09, 2019, 12:34:49 AM
Kinda hard to make progress when you're dead, though.
Where is the evidence that people die?
Have you ever seen a dead consciousness next to a dead body?
QuoteNo one gets to choose their birth, so preferences are irrelevant. You might as well ask people which planet they'd like to live on or what time period they'd like to grow up in.
Guessing again Hydra?
You keep on pretending that your guesses are evidence when in reality stay guesses.
It is more likely that your consciousness follow you wherever you go so if you are a fair person your dreams and your expectations will eventuate into a future life.
There are thousand of example in which small children are so clever even if nobody teach them anything.
You may wonder where they learned those skills.
Take Mozart and Beethoven.
At the age of 3 or 4 Mozart and 6 or 7 Beethoven they were already skilled enough to give their first concert.
Obviously they learned those skills in previous lives.
QuoteAnd yes, all living organisms are equally evolved - they all have a chain of ancestors going back to the earliest life on the planet, life that diversified and changed over the aeons to adapt to wide range of habitats and changing conditions, especially the threats and opportunities posed by other ever-changing species.
More guesses Hydra.
Nobody is equal to anybody else.
Diversity is the norm.
Life is like a run to the treasure hunt.
You can not expect that everybody get there at the same time.
QuoteYou've misconceptualized evolution as some sort of progressive process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis) with the goal of producing increasingly sophisticated consciousnesses. This is not remotely the case. For starters, biology has no teleology, no end goal. Survival is what matters. If it confers an evolutionary advantage for a cavefish population to lose its eyes, that's what's going to happen. Second, consciousness/intelligence, while a hell of a successful adaption (so far) might not end all that well for us. Meanwhile, cyanobacteria keep chugging along, oblivious to the rise and fall of humanity. Humans are the only sentient species on Earth out of a ton of similarly-endowed primates which all went extinct. If evolution is trying to crank out sentience, it's doing a remarkably poor job.
Everybody survive Hydra.
Consciousness and energy are the two sides of the same sheet and because energy is behind destruction also consciousness is.
What really happen according to me is that those who are not able to keep up with the fast race will end up in a different race in which they can compete.
It is like a mosaic tiles.
A particular tile can only fit in a particular mosaic
Quote from: Cavebear on January 09, 2019, 03:38:19 AM
Hydra makes a good [point. Evolution is not directional, nor toward a point. There is no "intent".
And Blackleaf is also correct. Humans are quite unique.
Those are not contradictory thoughts...
Plenty of guesses CB.
As the destiny of a simple drop of water is to end up (down) into the ocean to become the ocean itself also our destiny is to end up in a different ocean in order to become that ocean ourselves.
Gravity may make sure that a drop of water end in a ocean of water but for humans a different form of gravity do the job.
This is what people will learn when they will realize that physical science lead them nowhere.
Aaaand there it is, all-out Deepak Chopra mode, except even less coherent. I'm impressed, in a slightly nauseated way, that was even possible.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 09, 2019, 06:21:24 AM
Your nonsense is really very tiresome.
Just about the simple stuff...
1. The Cro-Magnon Africans were doing obvious art before they ever met a Neanderthal.
2. The San are simply where more ancient people were, and have no positive connection to the old rock paintings.
3. But that doesn't really matter because Early Homo Sapiens left Africa long before that.
4. Modern homo sapiens art predates Neanderthal contact.
5. "Modern people (with or without Neanderthal additions) are monkeys". You have to be a half wit-theist to think THAT. Seriously...
I'm glad I'm not you.
French caves in Central Africa ... who knew!
Or maybe you think Wakanda was real? Maybe San people had the only Earth source of Unobtanium?
Not knocking San people, they were incredible until we domesticated them in my generation. They are no longer able to hunt prehistoric style, and are on reservations.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/noma/hd_noma.htm ... like other early modern people. Neanderthals before integration, not so much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior#Claims_of_art_and_adornment ... no essay at my favorite Art Museum for Neanderthals, because there isn't much to show, other than stone tools.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/lasc/hd_lasc.htm ... Cro-Magnon were already integrated non-Equatorial people. Many Equatorial Africans never intermarried with Neanderthals, because after 20,000 BCE, they didn't exist.
But continue to hate on anyone not Sub-Saharan African if you want to.
Here is easy access to all of pre-historic art images at the Met ...
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/keywords/prehistoric-art/
Quote from: Arik on January 09, 2019, 07:29:41 AM
Where is the evidence that people die?
There....in a nutshell. Pretty much lays bare the crux of the boys whole thesis. The grandest of human arrogance. That humans don't die like "other" creatures. We are "special". No evidence of that, but hey....this kid don't need no frickin evidence he has gawd. The great equalizer, and by that, everyone is equal, whether you believe or not. Meh....what good is a god what don't cater to his own eh?
Quote from: Arik on January 09, 2019, 07:29:41 AM
Where is the evidence that people die?
So I take it you've never seen a cemetery?
QuoteYou keep on pretending that your guesses are evidence when in reality stay guesses.
People who live in glass houses...
QuoteIt is more likely that your consciousness follow you wherever you go so if you are a fair person your dreams and your expectations will eventuate into a future life.
You have no idea whether or not this is this case. It is something you want to believe is real so you've convinced yourself that it's real.
QuoteThere are thousand of example in which small children are so clever even if nobody teach them anything.
You may wonder where they learned those skills.
Take Mozart and Beethoven.
At the age of 3 or 4 Mozart and 6 or 7 Beethoven they were already skilled enough to give their first concert.
Obviously they learned those skills in previous lives.
Baruch?
QuoteNobody is equal to anybody else.
I take it no one explained to you that evolution operates at the level of populations. No wonder your claims about evolution are so wonky.
QuoteConsciousness and energy are the two sides of the same sheet and because energy is behind destruction also consciousness is.
It's so strange that you think this is a coherent thought, let alone a cogent argument.
QuoteWhat really happen according to me is that those who are not able to keep up with the fast race will end up in a different race in which they can compete.
It is like a mosaic tiles.
A particular tile can only fit in a particular mosaic
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/hsop.gif)
Whatever. Find somewhere else to peddle your BS.
Quote from: aitm on January 09, 2019, 09:04:34 PM
There....in a nutshell. Pretty much lays bare the crux of the boys whole thesis. The grandest of human arrogance. That humans don't die like "other" creatures. We are "special". No evidence of that, but hey....this kid don't need no frickin evidence he has gawd. The great equalizer, and by that, everyone is equal, whether you believe or not. Meh....what good is a god what don't cater to his own eh?
"Baruch?" inarticulate much, Hydra009? I believe that Arik is referring to the Socratic/Platonic theory of knowledge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_epistemology
i don't agree with Socrates/Plato. And that philosophy relies on a rationalism of disembodied Platonic Forms that the hoi polloi can tap into:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method ... basically a form of psychological rationalism ... that is anti-empirical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno%27s_slave ... here is the "demonstration" of the method ... ignorant slave vs geometry.
Per Heraclitus, I have to agree with Arik "Nobody is equal to anybody else.", and per Cratylus, you aren't even equal to yourself (because you are constantly changing).
http://faculty.evansville.edu/tb2/trip/cratylus.htm
Human beings aren't special, just another monkey. Yes, treat humans as cattle. Breed them for food. "It's a cookbook!". White people, the other white meat.
Quote from: aitm on January 09, 2019, 09:04:34 PM
There....in a nutshell. Pretty much lays bare the crux of the boys whole thesis. The grandest of human arrogance. That humans don't die like "other" creatures. We are "special". No evidence of that, but hey....this kid don't need no frickin evidence he has gawd. The great equalizer, and by that, everyone is equal, whether you believe or not. Meh....what good is a god what don't cater to his own eh?
1) The day you will see a dead consciousness (whether human, animal or from a plant and real so no hallucinations) please let me know so I will send you a truck load full of 24 carat gold.
This is my promise to you AITM.
I am pretty honest with my promises.
2) Now what about.............what good is a god what don't cater to his own eh?.......
You mean that the inventor of the universal game should tell you where the treasure is?
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 09, 2019, 10:05:59 PM
So I take it you've never seen a cemetery?
Been there Hydra, yet I haven't seen any dead consciousness.
QuotePeople who live in glass houses...
(https://data.whicdn.com/images/135924258/original.gif)
QuoteYou have no idea whether or not this is this case. It is something you want to believe is real so you've convinced yourself that it's real.
At least I do bring something that make a lot of sense.
You on the contrary bring nothing.
QuoteI take it no one explained to you that evolution operates at the level of populations. No wonder your claims about evolution are so wonky.
It's so strange that you think this is a coherent thought, let alone a cogent argument.
I guess that nobody ever told you that Darwin idea of evolution is only related to the evolution of the body.
The guy was too busy with this part or portion of evolution that never study the other evolution which is the evolution of the consciousness.
Sad indeed because now the intellectual fraternity wrongly think that the evolution is all about body evolution.
QuoteWhatever. Find somewhere else to peddle your BS.
Have a lovely day Hydra.
Quote from: Arik on January 10, 2019, 09:38:32 AM
I guess that nobody ever told you that Darwin idea of evolution is only related to the evolution of the body.
The guy was too busy with this part or portion of evolution that never study the other evolution which is the evolution of the consciousness.
Sad indeed because now the intellectual fraternity wrongly think that the evolution is all about body evolution.
What have I learned to date from Arik? You are a typical theist; trots out belief after belief, assertion after assertion, and thinks that saying something over and over and in a loud voice makes it real. Sprinkle in some insults and name calling and there your have it; the typical theist, Arik. You do bring to the table an astounding lack of evidence, thinking or reasoning--or even just plain listening to what others say. Astounding--yet completely typical willful ignorance and a proud display of stupidity. Your typical theist.
Nothing to see here folks, just move along...............................
Arik sounds like the Creationist who demands to see a crocoduck as evidence for evolution. If we somehow found the nonsensical evidence they demanded ("seeing dead consciousness," OMFG), we would be proving ourselves wrong.
Don't forget the hypocrisy of refusing to provide evidence when they're asked for it. And the cowardice of running like hell from questions they can't answer.
Especially since there's no forum more willing to accept "I don't know" for an answer.
Quote from: trdsf on January 10, 2019, 05:56:11 PM
Don't forget the hypocrisy of refusing to provide evidence when they're asked for it.
Who needs evidence when you can just take things that are already givens and claim them as evidence? Consciousness exists therefore [insert religious beliefs here]. Checkmate, atheists.
QuoteAnd the cowardice of running like hell from questions they can't answer. Especially since there's no forum more willing to accept "I don't know" for an answer.
Yeah, that would be the humble option, but there's no glory or self-importance in that, so it has much less appeal.
Quote from: Arik on January 10, 2019, 09:38:32 AMI guess that nobody ever told you that Darwin idea of evolution is only related to the evolution of the body.
Smarter than Darwin, now? My, someone's a bit conceited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprcqLMY2QY
QuoteThe guy was too busy with this part or portion of evolution that never study the other evolution which is the evolution of the consciousness.
When this "other evolution" becomes a legitimate scientific field, then the words pouring out of your cakehole might have merit. Until then, tell it to the marines.
Some say, there is no body, just spirit. Others say there is no spirit, just body. Yet others say there is both body and spirit, that interact. But there are yet two more possibilities ... that there is no body and no spirit ... and that body and spirit are just two names for something that has no name.
Perhaps the vanity is in Adam naming things, categorizing them. There is just All, any categorizing being superficial hair splitting.
I think they have a great shampoo for those split ends...
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 10, 2019, 07:16:18 PM
I think they have a great shampoo for those split ends...
Weak ;-) Can you name any other possibilities (besides choosing one particular possibility as your favorite)? I am interested in what people think, not what they merely ideologue.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 10, 2019, 05:00:50 PM
Arik sounds like the Creationist who demands to see a crocoduck as evidence for evolution. If we somehow found the nonsensical evidence they demanded ("seeing dead consciousness," OMFG), we would be proving ourselves wrong.
If the atheists can not provide evidence that the consciousness die when the body die why then they keep on saying that there is only one life?
Can't you see the contradiction?
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 10, 2019, 06:12:04 PM
Smarter than Darwin, now? My, someone's a bit conceited.
Not me Hydra but Shiva that gave yoga is much smarter than Darwin.
However is not that Darwin was an idiot.
He was quite good but in his own field of knowledge.
I for example I am a disaster in playing music not for this reason I should be called an idiot.
Everybody is smart in their own field.
QuoteWhen this "other evolution" becomes a legitimate scientific field, then the words pouring out of your cakehole might have merit. Until then, tell it to the marines.
Oh, I see.
So you reason like those folks that were waiting for the Pope or for any other important person that would explain them that the planet earth was not flat to change their mind.
This thread is too much. I need a break (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTIpkFwDkV4)
Quote from: trdsf on January 10, 2019, 05:56:11 PM
Don't forget the hypocrisy of refusing to provide evidence when they're asked for it. And the cowardice of running like hell from questions they can't answer.
I thought I was quite clear in answering Mike question about evidence for God.
Evidence is there but it is individual.
As you can not show any evidence that your love for your lover is real I also can not show that MY spiritual love for God is real.
All physical evidence for any kind of love boil down to extra hormones released by the glands in question and that's all.
Finding God is like finding a treasure.
What you find belong to you not to other people.
Why should it belong to people who are not interested in finding the treasure within?
That what it is.
God lie within not up in an external heaven.
It is like a seed who need to be germinated in order to manifest.
This is my personal experience and your are free to dismiss it as no evidence.
Please yourself.
QuoteEspecially since there's no forum more willing to accept "I don't know" for an answer.
I don't know is an excellent answer in case you really do not know.
Unfortunately a lot of people who say I don't know one moment the next moment take things void of any evidence as golden evidence like...........we only got one life.........when you die is all over.........Jesus never existed......and so on.
Quote from: Arik on January 11, 2019, 08:54:38 AM
Evidence is there but it is individual.
Then it's
not evidence and you need to quit calling it evidence.
Quote from: Arik on January 11, 2019, 08:54:38 AM
I don't know is an excellent answer in case you really do not know.
Unfortunately a lot of people who say I don't know one moment the next moment take things void of any evidence as golden evidence like...........we only got one life.........when you die is all over.........Jesus never existed......and so on.
I don't have any evidence to say you're not a child rapist and serial killer. By your own "logic", I am therefore justified in thinking you are one.
Frankly, Arik, I don't think anyone here cares one little bit what you believe. Believe whatever floats your boat, but you're not going to persuade anyone here to believe as you do - certainly not with arguments from mere assertion.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 11, 2019, 02:25:28 PM
Frankly, Arik, I don't think anyone here cares one little bit what you believe. Believe whatever floats your boat, but you're not going to persuade anyone here to believe as you do - certainly not with arguments from mere assertion.
I care. But then I have an open mind on religious matters. Very closed on political matters though ;-)
Is your mind so open that your brain fell out?
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 11, 2019, 07:48:37 PM
Is your mind may be so open that your brain fell out?
Very old joke. Even older commercial, for the decongestant .. this line cartoon guy had the sniffles, and because he didn't get some effective decongestant, his head just floated off his shoulders. But the real reason he wanted Sudafed was to distill meth amphetamines ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a62yhOC4isA
You bet your sweet bippy!
I see Arik as a typical theist, unable to to distinguish between fact and fiction, and unable to comprehend a logical argument, imagining that his beliefs represent reality in spite of all evidence of fact. As such, I don't really much care about anything he posts.
Fools can post what they want. When they get too moronic, I will reply. But most of you will save me the trouble, LOL!
Quote from: trdsf on January 11, 2019, 11:37:57 AM
Then it's not evidence and you need to quit calling it evidence.
What is evidence to you may not be evidence to me and the other way around.
You can tell me that your relationship with your lover is build on love but you could not produce any solid evidence that you are right.
Evidence for God travel along the same path so to speak.
What belong to you can not be transferred to anybody else so is only evidence to you and not anybody else.
In other words evidence exist.
This is undeniable but in most cases it may not be evidence to other.
QuoteI don't have any evidence to say you're not a child rapist and serial killer. By your own "logic", I am therefore justified in thinking you are one.
This is a logic that is gone astray.
Why don't you instead explain how your evidence for something that belong to you as explained in my previous example can be turned into evidence for everybody else?
It is impossible that is why is not possible for me or anybody else to produce evidence for God unless you yourself build up a relationship with Him.
So to say that God does not exist doesn't make sense.
There is no evidence as there is no evidence to say that your love for your lover does not exist.
Quote from: Arik on January 12, 2019, 08:44:50 AM
What is evidence to you may not be evidence to me and the other way around.
You can tell me that your relationship with your lover is build on love but you could not produce any solid evidence that you are right.
Evidence for God travel along the same path so to speak.
What belong to you can not be transferred to anybody else so is only evidence to you and not anybody else.
In other words evidence exist.
This is undeniable but in most cases it may not be evidence to other.
This is a logic that is gone astray.
Why don't you instead explain how your evidence for something that belong to you as explained in my previous example can be turned into evidence for everybody else?
It is impossible that is why is not possible for me or anybody else to produce evidence for God unless you yourself build up a relationship with Him.
So to say that God does not exist doesn't make sense.
There is no evidence as there is no evidence to say that your love for your lover does not exist.
OK, you are saying that the soul is separate from the person and does not belong to them to control. I get that. What about vaccines? How about if a pregnant women dares to venture out of the house? Is that wrong? What if her actions help other women to give birth and she loses her child? What happens to her in God's eyes?
This is for Arik--not Cavebear--sorry.
OK, you are saying that the soul is separate from the person and does not belong to them to control. I get that. What about vaccines? How about if a pregnant women dares to venture out of the house? Is that wrong? What if her actions help other women to give birth and she loses her child? What happens to her in God's eyes?
[/quote]
You really are crazier than a shithouse rat, aren't you?!! It really would be better for this world for you to be contained somewhere where you can't hurt yourself or others.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 12, 2019, 09:04:02 AM
You really are crazier than a shithouse rat, aren't you?!! It really would be better for this world for you to be contained somewhere where you can't hurt yourself or others.
Hey wait man, that got aimed at ME...
Did you intend that?
Quote from: Arik on January 12, 2019, 08:44:50 AM
What is evidence to you may not be evidence to me and the other way around.
That's...not how evidence works.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 12, 2019, 09:10:32 AM
That's...not how evidence works.
Indeed, evidence goes one way. And usually, not in favor of theists...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:08:34 AM
Hey wait man, that got aimed at ME...
Did you intend that?
Cavebear--how could you even think that was intended for you, my fine clear thinking bruin???? You are the opposite of what I wrote about Arik. He is demonstrating the worst of the theist ideas--they are hurtful and dangerous for any society to take seriously. Yet many theists do believe those crazy, dangerous, stupid things--witness all the religious 'leaders' who actively support Trump.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 12, 2019, 09:13:35 AM
Cavebear--how could you even think that was intended for you, my fine clear thinking bruin???? You are the opposite of what I wrote about Arik. He is demonstrating the worst of the theist ideas--they are hurtful and dangerous for any society to take seriously. Yet many theists do believe those crazy, dangerous, stupid things--witness all the religious 'leaders' who actively support Trump.
OK, let's say It SEEMED like a comment was aimed at me, so that's why I asked. LOL! I was pretty sure it wasn't, but it makes sense to check.
"my fine clear thinking bruin????"? Thank you.
And I blush...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 08:49:52 AM
OK, you are saying that the soul is separate from the person and does not belong to them to control. I get that. What about vaccines? How about if a pregnant women dares to venture out of the house? Is that wrong? What if her actions help other women to give birth and she loses her child? What happens to her in God's eyes?
I am afraid my friend that your philosophy is too difficult for me to understand.
Any chances that you can explain in simple words what you are talking about?
Thanks.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 12, 2019, 09:10:32 AM
That's...not how evidence works.
I agree that it wouldn't work in a court of law but on the other hand love has very little to do with laws and rules which the society base their arguments upon.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:13:15 AM
Indeed, evidence goes one way. And usually, not in favor of theists...
Are you saying that most atheists carry any evidence?
Are you serious?
Where is the evidence that Jesus never existed or that when you die is all over or that the consciousness is a product of the brain?
Better stop fooling yourself into believing that you are right and theists are wrong.
Theists especially religious theists are often wrong so are atheists that is why is not one way.
Quote from: Arik on January 12, 2019, 09:41:02 AM
I am afraid my friend that your philosophy is too difficult for me to understand.
Any chances that you can explain in simple words what you are talking about?
Thanks.
I understand your difficulty in comprehending complex ideas. So I will put it in simpler terms you might be able to understand.
Superstitions of deities throwing lightning, DUMB. Non-theistic evidence makes sense of thunder and lightning; GOOD!
I hope that helped...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:13:15 AM
Indeed, evidence goes one way. And usually, not in favor of theists...
Materialism goes one way. But it is like giving all the powerful chess pieces to one side. If one wants confirmation bias (most people do), then you arrange the assumptions in your favor, and teflon your assumptions. Like how Hillary ran the Dem primary in 2016. That isn't open discussion. But open discussion isn't what this forum is about. I get that.
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 11:21:19 AM
Materialism goes one way. But it is like giving all the powerful chess pieces to one side. If one wants confirmation bias (most people do), then you arrange the assumptions in your favor, and teflon your assumptions. Like how Hillary ran the Dem primary in 2016. That isn't open discussion. But open discussion isn't what this forum is about. I get that.
You underestimate your potential influence. Get your reputation back to more thoughtful posts and you might be surprised at the positive attention you get. Many people would respond to that. Doesn't mean the replies will all be positive; that is a risk you take. But I would sure love to see you post more seriously. I know there is more in that empty vessel you pretend to inhabit sometimes...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 11:30:25 AM
You underestimate your potential influence. Get your reputation back to more thoughtful posts and you might be surprised at the positive attention you get. Many people would respond to that. Doesn't mean the replies will all be positive; that is a risk you take. But I would sure love to see you post more seriously. I know there is more in that empty vessel you pretend to inhabit sometimes...
Yeah, like Avis, I try harder ... so do you ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gMsusVaLng
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 11:41:40 AM
Yeah, like Avis, I try harder ... so do you ...
I like the "Mayhem" commercials better.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 01:24:06 PM
I like the "Mayhem" commercials better.
I guess you want to be a claims adjuster in your next life?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:55:10 AM
I understand your difficulty in comprehending complex ideas. So I will put it in simpler terms you might be able to understand.
Superstitions of deities throwing lightning, DUMB. Non-theistic evidence makes sense of thunder and lightning; GOOD!
I hope that helped...
Personally I can not see much difference between religious superstitions and atheists dogmas such as .........when we die is all over or the consciousness is a product of the brain just to mention two.
The way you carry on CB is the hard way to the top which will be so hard that it will be impossible for you to climb much further.
Life doesn't have to be so complicate.
As a seed can not yet understand what a tree that produce it is all about also a small consciousness can not yet understand what the cosmic consciousness is all about that is why is so much better take a step at the time instead of trying to understand what is not yet possible to understand.
As a seed need to germinate and grow before it can become a mature tree also humans need to exit the dogma trap that we are separate from everything else and our life means nothing to anybody.
Quote from: Arik on January 13, 2019, 09:02:01 AM
..... also a small consciousness can not yet understand what the cosmic consciousness is all about that is why is so much better take a step at the time instead of trying to understand what is not yet possible to understand.
A fitting close. I don't know or understand the cosmic universe, but I believe I am special therefore I spew bullshit and proclaim it truth and no one, NO ONE can disprove me.
You nor more can prove consciousness exists outside of the human brain than you can prove trees don't have consciousness. But if you get a stiffy blabbering bullshit, by all means stroke your skull.
Quote from: Arik on January 12, 2019, 08:44:50 AM
What is evidence to you may not be evidence to me and the other way around.
Let's see, what's the clearest way to put this? Oh, yes.
WRONG.
Evidence is by definition independent of the individual. It is
data, not feelings or impressions or ideas.
Let's say you and I walk into a room. I think it's just right, you think it's cold. Is it just right or is it cold?
It's neither, because those are individual and subjective assessments. Now, we can
measure the temperature, the pressure and the humidity. I still might think that a room at 65F is just right, and you might think it's cold, and the data doesn't give a fuck what either of us think.
Your impressions are your own, and I don't question that you
believe them, but that does
not make them evidence, and unless you can crowbar this fact into your cranium, this conversation serves absolutely no purpose, outside of your own mental masturbation.
You do not get to redefine terms to fit any damned thing you want them to be.
There is evidence for life. Materialist deny it. There is evidence for consciousness. Materialists deny it. Common denominator? Autistic 13 year old males, who can't get over that Santa Claus isn't real. There are many stages on the path to full nihilism; including misanthropy and self hatred. Think of a three year old having a tantrum on the floor of the grocery store, embarrassing his mother who spoiled him.
Quote from: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 12:54:46 PM
There is evidence for life. Materialist deny it. There is evidence for consciousness. Materialists deny it. Common denominator? Autistic 13 year old males, who can't get over that Santa Claus isn't real. There are many stages on the path to full nihilism; including misanthropy and self hatred. Think of a three year old having a tantrum on the floor of the grocery store, embarrassing his mother who spoiled him.
I think of that child when I think of you--and all the other theists that want so very much to have their favorite fantasy be true. When nobody accepts there 'evidence' is where the child comes out--the tantrums. There are many steps to self delusion and religion accelerates those steps. Just because you believe in your own personal fiction does not mean I, or anybody else, will embrace them. Grow up.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 13, 2019, 01:03:26 PM
I think of that child when I think of you--and all the other theists that want so very much to have their favorite fantasy be true. When nobody accepts there 'evidence' is where the child comes out--the tantrums. There are many steps to self delusion and religion accelerates those steps. Just because you believe in your own personal fiction does not mean I, or anybody else, will embrace them. Grow up.
No need to kill your father and marry your mother, eh Oedipus? (sarc) My father was Santa Claus, and my mother Mrs Santa Claus. The real kind, not the marketing kind. Not a belief, but for real. Of course if you had no parents (raised by wolves) or your parents only gave you lumps of coal, I weep for your lost childhood.
Ah, all grown up? The ultimate growing up is attending your own funeral. Are you looking forward to being "fully" mature/over-ripe? Will you be giving the world, the middle finger (right hand) during the viewing of your body? So many pr126 folks here, whose inner child is long dead.
Arik, being of S Asian persuasion, he will understand at least as metaphor, that reality is the lila (play) of the sleeping Brahman, a wet dream. Those who can't even "get it up" can't relate to that. It does get harder and harder as you age.
Quote from: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 12:54:46 PM
There is evidence for life. Materialist deny it. There is evidence for consciousness. Materialists deny it. Common denominator? Autistic 13 year old males, who can't get over that Santa Claus isn't real. There are many stages on the path to full nihilism; including misanthropy and self hatred. Think of a three year old having a tantrum on the floor of the grocery store, embarrassing his mother who spoiled him.
I know in your "consciousness" that made sense......after your sentence the rest is grabbing words off a plate. Even your enlightened "consciousness" must understand that if your statement makes no sense to those you present it to, it means nothing. Try harder, I know you can do it.
Quote from: aitm on January 13, 2019, 03:47:59 PM
I know in your "consciousness" that made sense......after your sentence the rest is grabbing words off a plate. Even your enlightened "consciousness" must understand that if your statement makes no sense to those you present it to, it means nothing. Try harder, I know you can do it.
But ... but atoms have no life, no consciousness. Please demonstrate, other than hand waving, how their combination produces life and consciousness. Saying that "science" has already figured this out, or will some day ... is hand waving. Epiphenomenalism is a philosophy, not science. Claiming "there is no other choice" isn't rational. If one wants to legitimate a philosophy, fine with me, we can talk philosophy, including metaphysics ;-) There is a section to discuss that.
But this guy, Arik, he is talking philosophy more than theology, psychology more than religion. Claiming that psychology is BS, isn't rational either.
Quote from: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 01:08:25 PM
No need to kill your father and marry your mother, eh Oedipus? (sarc) My father was Santa Claus, and my mother Mrs Santa Claus. The real kind, not the marketing kind. Not a belief, but for real. Of course if you had no parents (raised by wolves) or your parents only gave you lumps of coal, I weep for your lost childhood.
Ah, all grown up? The ultimate growing up is attending your own funeral. Are you looking forward to being "fully" mature/over-ripe? Will you be giving the world, the middle finger (right hand) during the viewing of your body? So many pr126 folks here, whose inner child is long dead.
Arik, being of S Asian persuasion, he will understand at least as metaphor, that reality is the lila (play) of the sleeping Brahman, a wet dream. Those who can't even "get it up" can't relate to that. It does get harder and harder as you age.
All grown up? Yes..............and no. I am in at least my third childhood; maybe never left my first one. I can now pretty much do what I want and I love that part. Growing old is something that is happening. Do I like it? Yes.............and no. There is good/bad at every stage or life. Take it one day at a time and deal with any issues as they pop up. As my late great mom said many times--growing old is not for the weak. Yep. But there are enjoyable things about being/growing old (and older). And it does beat the alternative. And when that alternative comes, that will be that. Back to my original state of atoms.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 13, 2019, 07:34:40 PM
All grown up? Yes..............and no. I am in at least my third childhood; maybe never left my first one. I can now pretty much do what I want and I love that part. Growing old is something that is happening. Do I like it? Yes.............and no. There is good/bad at every stage or life. Take it one day at a time and deal with any issues as they pop up. As my late great mom said many times--growing old is not for the weak. Yep. But there are enjoyable things about being/growing old (and older). And it does beat the alternative. And when that alternative comes, that will be that. Back to my original state of atoms.
Your atoms come and go every 3 years, in your body. You aren't atomically the same person you were 3 years ago. You just think you are. But that is part of the rhetoric of Buddhism to deny the ego.
Quote from: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 10:20:50 PM
Your atoms come and go every 3 years, in your body. You aren't atomically the same person you were 3 years ago. You just think you are. But that is part of the rhetoric of Buddhism to deny the ego.
No, I don't think I am the same as I was 3 yrs ago. I may not be a great fan of change, but the simple fact is that change is constant. The only thing that is constant is change. That can be upsetting and something I can try to resist. But it is simply a fact that I have never been the same in any 3 yr. span. You do like to make pronouncements, don't you. I have never thought I did not change. Yes, some of the rhetoric of Buddhism (or each and every religion) is positive. I don't care what you believe; what I take exception to is theists insistence that I believe what they do, act as they tell me to, when they tell me what my morals should be--or even what morals are--what to accept, or do anything they tell me to do.
Quote from: Arik on January 12, 2019, 09:47:14 AM
I agree that it wouldn't work in a court of law but on the other hand love has very little to do with laws and rules which the society base their arguments upon.
If it wouldn't work in a court of law, it most likely won't work here. You should assume an extremely skeptical stance on your position then work on things that support your conclusion (things that are difficult/impossible to explain with another conclusion), eventually making the case that your conclusion is the most likely explanation to explain a body of known facts.
TL;DR:
Good evidence: The Roman Empire never conquered Japan due to maps showing the Roman Empire's borders never extending nearly that far, no evidence of contact between these two peoples, etc
Bad evidence: Pizza is better than pasta, you know it in your heart.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 13, 2019, 11:12:32 PM
No, I don't think I am the same as I was 3 yrs ago. I may not be a great fan of change, but the simple fact is that change is constant. The only thing that is constant is change. That can be upsetting and something I can try to resist. But it is simply a fact that I have never been the same in any 3 yr. span. You do like to make pronouncements, don't you. I have never thought I did not change. Yes, some of the rhetoric of Buddhism (or each and every religion) is positive. I don't care what you believe; what I take exception to is theists insistence that I believe what they do, act as they tell me to, when they tell me what my morals should be--or even what morals are--what to accept, or do anything they tell me to do.
Oppression is bad. But that comes with being in society. In society "I" am the correct one, and everyone else is wrong. The more authoritarian society, the badder it is. Doesn't matter to me what the excuse is (crime, foreign enemies etc). But no human is autonomous, though we like to pretend we are. Getting along with coworkers and bosses/customers for instance. So annoying. Would be so nice to be able to just tell them to fuck off, right? And the government, OMG, taxes and traffic laws etc. But compromise is necessary to be a functional adult. When an individual absolutely insists on some behavior, that society sanctions ... then problems arise. Individualism is good, sociopathy is bad.
Quote from: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 10:20:50 PM
Your atoms come and go every 3 years, in your body. You aren't atomically the same person you were 3 years ago. You just think you are. But that is part of the rhetoric of Buddhism to deny the ego.
Interesting issue Baruch.
The cells that make up the body die every so many days and new cells replace them until the final death of the body.
These new cells that replace the dead ones will be created and reflect the consciousness of that particular person so not all cells will be the same person to person that is why the cells of a drunkard can not be as sentient as those of a good person.
To me it is the consciousness that control the way these new replacing cells will have to be.
The materialist idea that the brain produce the consciousness is just the opposite of what in reality happen.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 13, 2019, 07:34:40 PM
All grown up? Yes..............and no. I am in at least my third childhood; maybe never left my first one. I can now pretty much do what I want and I love that part. Growing old is something that is happening. Do I like it? Yes.............and no. There is good/bad at every stage or life. Take it one day at a time and deal with any issues as they pop up. As my late great mom said many times--growing old is not for the weak. Yep. But there are enjoyable things about being/growing old (and older). And it does beat the alternative. And when that alternative comes, that will be that. Back to my original state of atoms.
How can you go back to your original state of atoms?
They are gone by now.
Apparently the cells which are made by atoms die every so many days with the exception of the brain cells that last a life time and even those will go as physical death come so you can not possibly go back to your atoms.
The only place you can go back is to your consciousness but that is something that you will find out later on.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 13, 2019, 11:40:36 PM
If it wouldn't work in a court of law, it most likely won't work here. You should assume an extremely skeptical stance on your position then work on things that support your conclusion (things that are difficult/impossible to explain with another conclusion), eventually making the case that your conclusion is the most likely explanation to explain a body of known facts.
Also your evidence that you are in love with somebody wouldn't work in a court of law.
That doesn't mean that your love is not real.
QuoteGood evidence: The Roman Empire never conquered Japan due to maps showing the Roman Empire's borders never extending nearly that far, no evidence of contact between these two peoples, etc
Bad evidence: Pizza is better than pasta, you know it in your heart.
You don't get it Hydra, do you?
Your failing is that you expect that everything must be explained in a physical way even what is not physical.
It is no vice to be wary of hucksters, apologists, and madmen. Which one are you?
Quote from: Baruch on January 14, 2019, 04:03:32 AM
Oppression is bad. But that comes with being in society. In society "I" am the correct one, and everyone else is wrong. The more authoritarian society, the badder it is. Doesn't matter to me what the excuse is (crime, foreign enemies etc). But no human is autonomous, though we like to pretend we are. Getting along with coworkers and bosses/customers for instance. So annoying. Would be so nice to be able to just tell them to fuck off, right? And the government, OMG, taxes and traffic laws etc. But compromise is necessary to be a functional adult. When an individual absolutely insists on some behavior, that society sanctions ... then problems arise. Individualism is good, sociopathy is bad.
I guess your outlook is just naturally pessimistic. Not mine. I have no urge to 'tell' 'them' off. Yes, I do become impatient at times, angry, even; but that comes with being alive. Yes, I did rail against my bosses until I learned how to deal with that. I just told them what they wanted to hear and went ahead and did what I thought was best. It worked. Yes, I live in a society and that shapes/shaped me. I've accepted that and do work arounds when I need to. Individuality is good, individualism (anarchy at the extreme) not always that good.
Quote from: Arik on January 14, 2019, 08:58:10 AM
Interesting issue Baruch.
The cells that make up the body die every so many days and new cells replace them until the final death of the body.
These new cells that replace the dead ones will be created and reflect the consciousness of that particular person so not all cells will be the same person to person that is why the cells of a drunkard can not be as sentient as those of a good person.
To me it is the consciousness that control the way these new replacing cells will have to be.
The materialist idea that the brain produce the consciousness is just the opposite of what in reality happen.
I see it as a dialectic, not one sided. The idea that the replacement of cells is done independently of the rest of the body, is ridiculous. The idea that the mind has no impact on the function of the body (one direction, the mind is just one directional neural one-off) is also ridiculous. Materialism isn't just one sided, it is an over simplification. A rationalization. For agenda/issues completely unrelated (I want to rob banks, I want to rape women etc).
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 14, 2019, 10:20:13 AM
I guess your outlook is just naturally pessimistic. Not mine. I have no urge to 'tell' 'them' off. Yes, I do become impatient at times, angry, even; but that comes with being alive. Yes, I did rail against my bosses until I learned how to deal with that. I just told them what they wanted to hear and went ahead and did what I thought was best. It worked. Yes, I live in a society and that shapes/shaped me. I've accepted that and do work arounds when I need to. Individuality is good, individualism (anarchy at the extreme) not always that good.
So you are Tip Toe, Through The Tulips With Me?
Wow, invoking Tiny Tim? What an eye-opener! LOL
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 14, 2019, 01:17:03 PM
Wow, invoking Tiny Tim? What an eye-opener! LOL
I have portrayed a bizarre elderly Tiny Tim for Halloween. I think I made him a Goth in his old age.
For younger members, here is the original ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcSlcNfThUA
I think he rather looked like Baruch Spinoza himself.
If he'd been on the Gong Show he wouldn't've got past half a minute with that crap! LOL
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 14, 2019, 07:31:39 PM
If he'd been on the Gong Show he wouldn't've got past half a minute with that crap! LOL
I think it was the pre-Pee Wee Herman falsetto that got to people.
I think I saw him on Ed Sullivan when he was on, way long ago. It was a really big shoe...
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 14, 2019, 10:11:18 AM
It is no vice to be wary of hucksters, apologists, and madmen. Which one are you?
I suppose some people call me a madman but eh, don't forget that also those that in the past were called madmen for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe went through the same hard time in having to put up with the real madmen.
Quote from: Arik on January 15, 2019, 07:58:58 AM
I suppose some people call me a madman but eh, don't forget that also those that in the past were called madmen for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe went through the same hard time in having to put up with the real madmen.
People who ad-hominem, do that because they have no argument.
Quote from: Arik on January 15, 2019, 07:58:58 AM
I suppose some people call me a madman but eh, don't forget that also those that in the past were called madmen for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe went through the same hard time in having to put up with the real madmen.
Madman? Hardly. You are simply misguided and willfully ignorant. Those 'madman' were usually called heretics but your kind. And they proved their case by using the scientific method--they demonstrated they were correct. Theists of any and all ages and all stripes have yet to use the scientific method (or any other) to prove anything. You make assertions and call them proof and evidence. You don't rise to the level of a madman, only blind and willfully so; one of the masses.
Quote from: Arik on January 14, 2019, 09:40:52 AM
Your failing is that you expect that everything must be explained in a physical way even what is not physical.
You have to demonstrate the non-physical even exists before it can be considering as an explanation for anything. It's not that damn difficult; an unexplained event is unexplained until it's explained, and making up something that you happen to like isn't explaining it.
This is exactly the same logical flaw committed by those who think UFOs are alien spacecraft. You know what? If they're alien spacecraft, then they are by definition not
unidentified flying objects.
Do flying objects exist that are not identified? Sure, that's any moving object in the sky that you don't know what it is.
There is no path from there to alien spacecraft, and calling them that is logically flawed.
In the same way, do we know how consciousness works? No. But
there is no path from there to "therefore supernatural" and claiming it's somehow transcendent and beyond material explanation is equally logically flawed for the exact same reasons. All you can say is "we don't know how it works yet".
Nothing more.You can
believe what you like about the nature consciousness. You may
not call your belief a theory or a hypothesis or an explanation, you may not call your opinions evidence, and you certainly may not call it knowledge or fact or demonstrated.
Them's the rules if you don't want to be considered a crank.
Quote from: Arik on January 15, 2019, 07:58:58 AM
I suppose some people call me a madman but eh, don't forget that also those that in the past were called madmen for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe went through the same hard time in having to put up with the real madmen.
Galileo gambit. (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/216/Galileo-Fallacy)
GG no re
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 15, 2019, 12:51:47 PM
Madman? Hardly. You are simply misguided and willfully ignorant. Those 'madman' were usually called heretics but your kind. And they proved their case by using the scientific method--they demonstrated they were correct. Theists of any and all ages and all stripes have yet to use the scientific method (or any other) to prove anything. You make assertions and call them proof and evidence. You don't rise to the level of a madman, only blind and willfully so; one of the masses.
Wrong again Mike.
Yoga is the oldest and the best scientific method that there is and ever existed.
The physical science that you rely to day after day after day came few thousand years after the science of yoga.
One of your problem Mike is that you haven't got the slightest idea what science is all about.
Without going in details science in general is all but knowledge on a particular subject which subject doesn't have to be necessary of physical nature and by practicing yoga is possible to get the best of all knowledge.
Because this knowledge is achieved only by those who practice this science is obvious that is not transferable to other although other people can get it themselves if they so desire.
A last point Mike.
Why yoga is the best among all science?
Easy Mike.
Because it lead to the infinite which is what all form of life conscious or unconscious strive for.
Physical science on the other hand is all about survival only.
Survive is a must but after survival something else something bigger is expected.
Quote from: trdsf on January 15, 2019, 06:29:30 PM
You have to demonstrate the non-physical even exists before it can be considering as an explanation for anything. It's not that damn difficult; an unexplained event is unexplained until it's explained, and making up something that you happen to like isn't explaining it.
This is exactly the same logical flaw committed by those who think UFOs are alien spacecraft. You know what? If they're alien spacecraft, then they are by definition not unidentified flying objects.
Do flying objects exist that are not identified? Sure, that's any moving object in the sky that you don't know what it is. There is no path from there to alien spacecraft, and calling them that is logically flawed.
Does this means that you can transfer to a child that has never experienced physical-mental love what the love between you and your lover is all about?
Can you?
So if you can not how on earth are you expecting that a materialist that is billions of light years far away from any from of spirituality be able to understand what God is all about?
QuoteIn the same way, do we know how consciousness works? No. But there is no path from there to "therefore supernatural" and claiming it's somehow transcendent and beyond material explanation is equally logically flawed for the exact same reasons. All you can say is "we don't know how it works yet". Nothing more.
You can believe what you like about the nature consciousness. You may not call your belief a theory or a hypothesis or an explanation, you may not call your opinions evidence, and you certainly may not call it knowledge or fact or demonstrated.
1) Consciousness is there even when the cells that make up your body die and new pop up.
From here you can work out that consciousness is not physical in nature otherwise she also would die when all the rest die and a new consciousness would pop up but that is not the case.
2) As far as ...........we do not know how consciousness works............
that is a defective response because through the art of intuitional science is possible to know how the consciousness works.
QuoteThem's the rules if you don't want to be considered a crank.
Them's the rules?
What?
Quote from: Baruch on January 15, 2019, 12:39:59 PM
People who ad-hominem, do that because they have no argument.
I suppose that it also must be quite hard to say............I was wrong.
Quote from: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:08:28 AM
Wrong again Mike.
Yoga is the oldest and the best scientific method that there is and ever existed.
The physical science that you rely to day after day after day came few thousand years after the science of yoga.
One of your problem Mike is that you haven't got the slightest idea what science is all about.
Without going in details science in general is all but knowledge on a particular subject which subject doesn't have to be necessary of physical nature and by practicing yoga is possible to get the best of all knowledge.
Because this knowledge is achieved only by those who practice this science is obvious that is not transferable to other although other people can get it themselves if they so desire.
A last point Mike.
Why yoga is the best among all science?
Easy Mike.
Because it lead to the infinite which is what all form of life conscious or unconscious strive for.
Physical science on the other hand is all about survival only.
Survive is a must but after survival something else something bigger is expected.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha..............................................................What a riot--you are just one belly laugh after another! :))))))))))))) Keep on posting, I need a good laugh every now and again!! :)))))) :grin:
Quote from: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:08:28 AMYoga is the oldest and the best scientific method that there is and ever existed.
(https://i.imgur.com/y91Dmrk.gif)
QuoteOne of your problem Mike is that you haven't got the slightest idea what science is all about.
Without going in details science in general is all but knowledge on a particular subject which subject doesn't have to be necessary of physical nature and by practicing yoga is possible to get the best of all knowledge.
Well that's totally wrong (and partially incoherent)
The correct answer has to do with the process of systematizing knowledge. Basically, the exact opposite of the mysticism you espouse.
Quote from: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:45:42 AM
I suppose that it also must be quite hard to say............I was wrong.
Inconceivable ... everyone here is like this guy ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhXjcZdk5QQ
Quote from: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:38:40 AM
Does this means that you can transfer to a child that has never experienced physical-mental love what the love between you and your lover is all about? (1)
Can you? (2)
So if you can not how on earth are you expecting that a materialist that is billions of light years far away from any from of spirituality be able to understand what God is all about? (3)
Fallacy. I've numbered your comments above for clarity below.
- You are confusing subjective feelings with objective data in statement 1. What feelings I can explain have nothing whatsoever to do with what data I can demonstrate.
- Non sequitur. Neither the truth nor falsity of statements 1 and 2 lead to 3. They are unrelated statements
- In statement 3, you cannot appeal to a god as an answer, or even as a datum, without first demonstrating the existence of one.
Quote from: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:38:40 AM
1) Consciousness is there even when the cells that make up your body die and new pop up.
From here you can work out that consciousness is not physical in nature otherwise she also would die when all the rest die and a new consciousness would pop up but that is not the case.
Deeply and profoundly wrong. Consciousness is dependent upon the electrochemistry of the brain, not on individual atoms or even individual neurons. The fact that through electroencephalography we can show which parts of the brain handle language, math, vision, and other conscious and unconscious functions -- and the fact that physical damage to the brain in these areas affects these functions -- is evidence in favor of a material basis for consciousness.
Quote from: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:38:40 AM
2) As far as ...........we do not know how consciousness works............
that is a defective response because through the art of intuitional science is possible to know how the consciousness works.
There is no such thing as 'intuitional science'. Science is based on data and observation, not "I like this idea so I'll believe it". If you want to put forward a theory of consciousness, you have to provide the concrete data to support that idea. "Yeah, but you can't explain it!" is not evidence. Or are you going to claim that you know more about how the brain works than not only anyone who has already studied the problem of consciousness, but also anyone who ever will in the future? If so, you need to have a deep think about your arrogance.
Quote from: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:38:40 AM
Them's the rules?
What?
Yup. If you want to put forth a theory and have it taken seriously, them's the rules. If you don't like them or don't think they apply to you, feel free to go fuck yourself. You came to us to put forth your drivel and nonsense -- I am obliged to question your intelligence and rationality if you genuinely thought coming here among the rationalists and materialists you could offer a proposition explicitly based on woo and magical "thinking" and be taken seriously.
If you want to re-label what you've suggested about consciousness as your opinion or your belief, I will have no argument with that. If you want to suggest it's anything more than that, you have the responsibility to provide the concrete evidence and repeatable observations and independent data to support that proposition.
If you can't do that, then the hell with you. You're not worth wasting any more time on.
Quote from: trdsf on January 16, 2019, 07:45:41 PM
Fallacy. I've numbered your comments above for clarity below.
- You are confusing subjective feelings with objective data in statement 1. What feelings I can explain have nothing whatsoever to do with what data I can demonstrate.
- Non sequitur. Neither the truth nor falsity of statements 1 and 2 lead to 3. They are unrelated statements
- In statement 3, you cannot appeal to a god as an answer, or even as a datum, without first demonstrating the existence of one.
You turn something very very simple into something very very complicate, intellectual and philosophical that is not really needed in this case.
The point was all about providing evidence about something that is not physical.
Atheists expect to see physical evidence of something that is not physical which obviously is not possible and my simple example explained how this doesn't make sense.
QuoteDeeply and profoundly wrong. Consciousness is dependent upon the electrochemistry of the brain, not on individual atoms or even individual neurons. The fact that through electroencephalography we can show which parts of the brain handle language, math, vision, and other conscious and unconscious functions -- and the fact that physical damage to the brain in these areas affects these functions -- is evidence in favor of a material basis for consciousness.
That is a lot of garbage Mister.
Although is true that the consciousness is dependent on the brain to function as long as we are alive that doesn't mean that the consciousness is created or is a product of the brain.
There is no evidence of whatsoever that this is the case.
Yours is just your guessing and some scientists guessing which has zero to do with evidence.
QuoteThere is no such thing as 'intuitional science'. Science is based on data and observation, not "I like this idea so I'll believe it". If you want to put forward a theory of consciousness, you have to provide the concrete data to support that idea. "Yeah, but you can't explain it!" is not evidence. Or are you going to claim that you know more about how the brain works than not only anyone who has already studied the problem of consciousness, but also anyone who ever will in the future? If so, you need to have a deep think about your arrogance.
Oh, well then it means that all the people that in the last seven thousand years or so practice intuitional science were a bunch of idiots.
How can you dismiss something that you never practice?
Here we go back to my previous point in which it is impossible to give evidence about something personal such as love.
Everybody knows that it exist but at the same time it is personal between two entity and not transferable.
QuoteYup. If you want to put forth a theory and have it taken seriously, them's the rules. If you don't like them or don't think they apply to you, feel free to go fuck yourself. You came to us to put forth your drivel and nonsense -- I am obliged to question your intelligence and rationality if you genuinely thought coming here among the rationalists and materialists you could offer a proposition explicitly based on woo and magical "thinking" and be taken seriously.
Oh, well there is a little big problem with materialists because for them only matter exist.
But the consciousness is not made of matter.
Nobody can touch, smell, see, or taste it and this consciousness keep on living even when body cells die.
That should indicate that matter is not all it exist and that consciousness is superior to matter.
QuoteIf you want to re-label what you've suggested about consciousness as your opinion or your belief, I will have no argument with that. If you want to suggest it's anything more than that, you have the responsibility to provide the concrete evidence and repeatable observations and independent data to support that proposition.
If you can't do that, then the hell with you. You're not worth wasting any more time on.
The fact that consciousness is not made of matter is not only my belief.
Even a demented idiot knows that consciousness is not made of matter.
[/list]
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 16, 2019, 09:31:03 AM
Well that's totally wrong (and partially incoherent)
The correct answer has to do with the process of systematizing knowledge. Basically, the exact opposite of the mysticism you espouse.
Gee, you must be a super super bright-brilliant-smart person considering that you know everything about something that you never practiced.
Congratulation Hydra.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/2369345/1020928852/stock-photo-the-happy-businessmen-pat-on-the-shoulder-in-the-office-1020928852.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on January 17, 2019, 10:01:15 AMGee, you must be a super super bright-brilliant-smart person
Only in comparison.
There were philosophers who thought that thought was a very fine powder or gaseous substance. Early materialism. This is before modern physics and chemistry created ... physicalism. When we say materialism today, we mean physicalism, not that primitive materialism of Democritus.
With physicalism, even though light is a quantum mechanical mess ... it can be counted as physical, even if not material. It is the prime example of something physical, that is non-material, that can interact with something that is both physical and material. And that is exactly where quantum mechanics steps in, because that interaction in detail, is non-classical.
time to be bored elsewhere.....chow!
Quote from: Arik on January 17, 2019, 09:39:32 AM
Yours is just your guessing and some scientists guessing which has zero to do with evidence.
Despite the fact that you actually
did make this statement, I find it difficult to believe one human being is capable of that spectacular a degree of hypocrisy.
It's real simple. If you have evidence for your proposition, you need to provide it, and "it isn't currently explained" is not evidence. "I think it's that way" is not evidence. "You materialists just can't understand" is not evidence. "I have a magical understanding" is not evidence. I repeat,
them's the rules.
You do not get to make up your own rules of evidence.
So far, the only evidence I can glean from your posts is that yoga has made you limber enough to stick your head up your own ass.
Quote from: trdsf on January 17, 2019, 07:59:47 PM
Despite the fact that you actually did make this statement, I find it difficult to believe one human being is capable of that spectacular a degree of hypocrisy.
It's real simple. If you have evidence for your proposition, you need to provide it, and "it isn't currently explained" is not evidence. "I think it's that way" is not evidence. "You materialists just can't understand" is not evidence. "I have a magical understanding" is not evidence. I repeat, them's the rules. You do not get to make up your own rules of evidence.
So far, the only evidence I can glean from your posts is that yoga has made you limber enough to stick your head up your own ass.
Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.
Evidence is there Mister.
Real people, real death as established by real doctors in real hospital with real witnesses.
You just can not deny anymore.
Quote from: Arik on January 17, 2019, 11:40:15 PM
Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.
Ah, ex atheists agreed with you. Well, why didn't you say so?! That makes your argument a lot stronger. Did the whole hospital clap, too?
I'm a bit religiously challenged (and therefore unable to easily follow such transcendent, sciency thinking) so you're going to have to walk me through it.
P1: Some people
almost die and some of them say they had out-of-body experiences.
P2: ???
Conclusion: consciousness is eternal (therefore?)
Quote from: Arik on January 17, 2019, 11:40:15 PM
Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.
Evidence is there Mister.
Real people, real death as established by real doctors in real hospital with real witnesses.
You just can not deny anymore.
You need to either halve, or double, whatever medication you're on. Your current dosage isn't working.
NDEs are the misfirings of a brain in trauma either from oxygen starvation or gross physical damage. No need to call magic in to "explain" anything.
Established? Let's see your peer-reviewed papers. Let's see the reproducible data. Until you can provide those, evidence is most emphatically NOT there.
Quote from: Arik on January 17, 2019, 11:40:15 PM
Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.
Evidence is there Mister.
Real people, real death as established by real doctors in real hospital with real witnesses.
You just can not deny anymore.
There was a school of psychology called Behaviorism. It taught that it was irrelevant if people had emotions or thoughts ... because these can't be objectively observed and quantified by people outside of yourself. This is where some people here are coming from. So introspection as a method is completely irrelevant to them. This is the internalization of nihilism.
Quote from: trdsf on January 18, 2019, 12:37:14 AM
You need to either halve, or double, whatever medication you're on. Your current dosage isn't working.
NDEs are the misfirings of a brain in trauma either from oxygen starvation or gross physical damage. No need to call magic in to "explain" anything.
Established? Let's see your peer-reviewed papers. Let's see the reproducible data. Until you can provide those, evidence is most emphatically NOT there.
Brain in trauma?
Don't be ridiculous Mister.
After 10 or so second that the heart stop there is no more blood-oxigen going through the brain and that is called death.
Brain in trauma is something different and in most cases is caused when the head suddenly and violently hits an object, or when an object pierces the skull and enters brain tissue in those cases the blood still go through to a certain extent.
If you would have read some of the reason why many people end up in the emergency room (ER), or casualty department where they went through their NDE you would know that there were a lot of different reasons and accidents other than head injuries that would cause a brain trauma.
A brain trauma doesn't produce a real NDE.
NDEs are not hallucinations that can experienced during a brain trauma.
This only show how fast you are in coming up with comments that are void of any evidence in order to justify your failings.
Swearing and calling me with names doesn't reinforce your arguments either.
A poor arguments stay poor no matter what.
Quote from: Baruch on January 18, 2019, 06:22:20 AM
There was a school of psychology called Behaviorism. It taught that it was irrelevant if people had emotions or thoughts ... because these can't be objectively observed and quantified by people outside of yourself. This is where some people here are coming from. So introspection as a method is completely irrelevant to them. This is the internalization of nihilism.
I suppose it takes time to work out how the system works.
Most probably in some past lives I also was very stubborn but as the old granny said..........IS NEVER TOO LATE BOY.
Quote from: Arik on January 18, 2019, 09:13:51 AM
Brain in trauma?
Don't be ridiculous Mister.
After 10 or so second that the heart stop there is no more blood-oxigen going through the brain and that is called death.
Brain in trauma is something different and in most cases is caused when the head suddenly and violently hits an object, or when an object pierces the skull and enters brain tissue in those cases the blood still go through to a certain extent.
If you would have read some of the reason why many people end up in the emergency room (ER), or casualty department where they went through their NDE you would know that there were a lot of different reasons and accidents other than head injuries that would cause a brain trauma.
A brain trauma doesn't produce a real NDE.
NDEs are not hallucinations that can experienced during a brain trauma.
This only show how fast you are in coming up with comments that are void of any evidence in order to justify your failings.
Swearing and calling me with names doesn't reinforce your arguments either.
A poor arguments stay poor no matter what.
Well, all the observations, data and evidence are on my side. I'm not "coming up with comments", that's your tactic, and this is just more cowardice and dishonesty and hypocrisy on your part.
PROVIDE YOUR DATA.If you can't do that, you don't have evidence. Period.
You (a person) are conscious. You don't know what that means. If you were a nihilist you would deny that it has any meaning. Nihilism bad.
People ascribe meaning to things. Occasionally they agree partially on what that meaning is, if it is an external event in particular, or because they have a disconnected yet shared experience (they both went fishing with their father, but they didn't have the same father). Their feelings about going fishing, as opposed to the external facts of going fishing, might be something they share or they may have opposite reactions (like vs dislike).
Each individual ascribes their own meaning, which may or may not be the same as the shared meaning. They might only dreamt or imagined that they had gone fishing, after having read about it once. Such day dreaming (and night dreaming) is common enough.
When will we all have the exact same feelings, thoughts and expressions? Aka Objectivity? When there is only one person on Earth, the last one. This is why uniformity of opinion is hard to achieve, it requires maximal extermination (Hell is other people). Of course this doesn't solve all epistemological problems ... that last person may have had a varying view of a particular experience, over time, and might remember that is the case.
We are all witnesses to our own experiences, and shared witnesses to anything we have directly or indirectly shared. That is the evidence. Outside of human observation and experiment, evidence doesn't exist that matters at all. Solipsism is the flip side of nihilism.
Well, if Arik has had thousands of NDEs then it's no wonder he believes in weird shit. Must have brain damage after nearly dying so many times.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 18, 2019, 01:12:12 PM
Well, if Arik has had thousands of NDEs then it's no wonder he believes in weird shit. Must have brain damage after nearly dying so many times.
After all, a cat only gets 8 NDEs ;-)
Quote from: trdsf on January 18, 2019, 12:10:22 PM
Well, all the observations, data and evidence are on my side. I'm not "coming up with comments", that's your tactic, and this is just more cowardice and dishonesty and hypocrisy on your part.
PROVIDE YOUR DATA.
If you can't do that, you don't have evidence. Period.
You could well be smart in many ways but there is something that at this stage in time you can not possibly be smart enough and that is to be a detective.
In this job you are not clever enough.
No way Mister.
You come to fast conclusion without even look at all details.
On the contrary I did.
I studied these NDEs for quite sometime and I found the evidence that the consciousness never die.
Step by step I got there.
You got to start from the very beginning.
People are real, doctors and hospitals where it all happen are real and witnesses are real.
We got these people who really died as confirmed by real doctors so hallucinations are out because hallucinations happen when the brain is not dead yet but the brain is dead.
That only means that the consciousness that experience these NDEs has left the brain-body.
While hallucinations are hardly remember clearly and only for a short time NDEs are remembered quite clearly even after many years.
A brain in trouble can not possibly put together something clear, sharp, neat and well-defined.
That obviously means that wasn't the brain that experienced these NDEs.
With no oxigen-blood flowing through how could a brain do that?
But let us come to more evidence Mister.
Most of these people who had an NDE lie dead on the casualty room and doctors and nurses try to bring the chap back to life.
While all this happen these dead people (body-brain dead not consciousness dead) can see from above what goes on below and once the doctors succeed to bring them back they can describe what was going on to the incredulity of the doctors and nurses.
This could only happen because the consciousness was well alive outside their dead body.
Sorry Mister but unlike you I done my homework by going through many NDEs so I can be able to know what you ignore.
Do the home work yourself before you shout swearing, calling names and scream with big words in red so people may have some more respect for you.
Thanks.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
Quote from: Arik on January 21, 2019, 09:22:15 AM
Do the home work yourself before you shout swearing, calling names and scream with big words in red so people may have some more respect for you.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
I looked up this website.
An oncologist and an attorney are not neuroscientists, and all they do is collect anectodal reports. So,
still no evidence. Saying "more" evidence is dishonest since you haven't provided any to begin with.
If you would pay attention and actually deliver what's asked rather than dodge, weave, bluff, bluster, and make shit up, we wouldn't have to swear, namecall, and otherwise rail to get you to take care of your responsibilities as the claim-maker, and I will continue doing it until you either actually do so, or admit that you cannot, so I say again:
PROVIDE YOUR DATA.Since you have trouble with what data and evidence actually means, let's just have you provide something simple: point me to a refereed paper in a journal of neuroscience â€" or even a journal of general science, like
Nature â€" backing up your claims.
And here's where you dodge and weave and bluff and bluster and make shit up to try to weasel out of your responsibility as the claimant again.
Quote from: trdsf on January 22, 2019, 02:02:43 AM
I looked up this website. An oncologist and an attorney are not neuroscientists, and all they do is collect anectodal reports. So, still no evidence. Saying "more" evidence is dishonest since you haven't provided any to begin with.
If you would pay attention and actually deliver what's asked rather than dodge, weave, bluff, bluster, and make shit up, we wouldn't have to swear, namecall, and otherwise rail to get you to take care of your responsibilities as the claim-maker, and I will continue doing it until you either actually do so, or admit that you cannot, so I say again:
PROVIDE YOUR DATA.
Since you have trouble with what data and evidence actually means, let's just have you provide something simple: point me to a refereed paper in a journal of neuroscience â€" or even a journal of general science, like Nature â€" backing up your claims.
And here's where you dodge and weave and bluff and bluster and make shit up to try to weasel out of your responsibility as the claimant again.
Oh, well if you need the opinion of a neuroscientist-neurosugeon here I got one in Eben Alexander.
He had an NDE.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=eben+alexander&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=rjFTWpD8Oq3r8AfElb2ACg
However I am sure that you will dismiss even his evidence.
In fact you will dismiss the evidence of anyone who contradict your beliefs no matter what.
In order to keep alive your fantasy no evidence will work.
Nothing.
Once the fact that the consciousness never die become more and more real to the materialists then all other dogmas will collapse one by one but of course people like you will try to cling to your fantasy even with the nails until the grip can't hold anymore and swearing, shouting and write big words in red will only be the last show of a clown that doesn't make laugh anymore.
This must be the mental bankruptcy at his very best Mister.
Oh, by the way how do you explain how a dead person can witness what doctors and nurses think and do to his body and then once back in his body describe to them the particulars?
If the ego is an illusion, how can someone defend it? ;-)
NDE's are proof that NDE's happen. That's it. It's not proof of any immortal consciousness any more than a dream is evidence that alternate dimensions exist. We know why NDE's happen. When a person experiences an NDE, their neurons are firing like crazy. Because they're not completely dead yet. Which is why they're called near death experiences. They're little more than hyperactive dreams.
The phrase "near death" just means near death, it doesn't mean dead. Like Wesley, the Man in Black, was "mostly dead," not all the way dead.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 22, 2019, 04:14:53 PM
NDE's are proof that NDE's happen. That's it. It's not proof of any immortal consciousness any more than a dream is evidence that alternate dimensions exist. We know why NDE's happen. When a person experiences an NDE, their neurons are firing like crazy. Because they're not completely dead yet. Which is why they're called near death experiences. They're little more than hyperactive dreams.
Correct. But then when interpretation is applied to raw data (from external or internal sources) the wicket gets sticky, doesn't it?
If one accepts that Plato is right about Eternal Forms, and that modern science is the way to determine at least approximately what those Forms are ... then one accepts that the majority are in The Cave, and that only the Illuminati who have escaped the cave, can see reality for what it is, not as shadows on the wall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfydro4X2t0
Believing in a very narrow version of Platonism ... isn't that White Privilege. Should we check our privilege? Are you super-Greek, and the rest are either hoi polloi or barbaroi?
Also, we are always trapped in the trap net of words, in how not only we express ourselves to others, but also how we express ourselves, to ourselves aka thought.
As in Japanese Bunraku, you have to make a suspension of disbelief to enjoy it ... the puppeteers, however plainly visible (though they wear black to blend in) are "invisible" to the audience. But not literally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qcBSAwQVpw
So guys, Occidental much? Get some Timothy Leary and Ram Dass, tune in and drop out? Doesn't this link right back to story-telling, to the desire to control the narrative for fun and profit?
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 22, 2019, 04:20:20 PM
The phrase "near death" just means near death, it doesn't mean dead. Like Wesley, the Man in Black, was means "mostly dead," not all the way dead.
Semantics. Y'all say I am not a demi-god. But I am, because you can't privilege your own dictionary. Within my ever improving dictionary, my claim makes sense. Stick that up your Funk & Wagnalls ;-)
Quote from: Arik on January 22, 2019, 09:46:41 AM
Oh, well if you need the opinion of a neuroscientist-neurosugeon here I got one in Eben Alexander.
He had an NDE.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=eben+alexander&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=rjFTWpD8Oq3r8AfElb2ACg
Oh, lookie! He found exactly none! You were asked for a refereed paper from a journal, not a non-scientific book of anecdote and opinion.
And not a very good neuroscientist, considering all the firings and malpractice suits and the altering medical records to try to cover up his mistakes (https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/).
His basis for his position? He just "decided" that science can't explain it. This is the fallacy of personal incredulity: "I can't figure out how it happened, therefore woo." Also, this is a position of deep arrogance since the proclaimer by extension makes the subsumed claim of knowing that something can
never be explained.
Still not
evidence, just opinion and gobbledygook.
Still waiting for real, reputable data. Not expecting it. The only evidence you've provided me is that you haven't the faintest idea how evidence works.
Quote from: trdsf on January 23, 2019, 02:58:45 AM
Oh, lookie! He found exactly none! You were asked for a refereed paper from a journal, not a non-scientific book of anecdote and opinion.
I wished I could have answered before but with no internet connection for over a week I was stuck.
Never mind, now I can so let us talk about your ...........refereed paper from a journal.
Have you ever seen anyone who published any evidence about his-her love for an other entity in any scientific journal?
You keep on beating the same drum of nonsense Mister.
How on earth can anyone do that?
You keep on asking stupid questions as if something abstract could turn into something physical and from there it would be easy to see some physical evidence.
You don't get it Mister, do you?
(https://i2.wp.com/www.bookofdaystales.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/stupid1.jpg)
QuoteAnd not a very good neuroscientist, considering all the firings and malpractice suits and the altering medical records to try to cover up his mistakes (https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/).
I have no idea whether the allegations are real or fabricated.
Even if they are real that wouldn't make any difference regarding his own ND experience.
We all do mistakes here and there during our life so what?
Shell we live in the past and be locked out from any possible progress?
Shell we live with the guilt feeling for ever?
Life goes on Mister and the good that follow must stand.
That is what evolution of the consciousness is all about.
QuoteHis basis for his position? He just "decided" that science can't explain it. This is the fallacy of personal incredulity: "I can't figure out how it happened, therefore woo." Also, this is a position of deep arrogance since the proclaimer by extension makes the subsumed claim of knowing that something can never be explained.
That is a load of garbage.
He didn't decided anything.
Even a demented idiot knows that it is not possible to explain in a physical way what is not physical.
Consciousness is not physical but fools still think that something abstract can be explained in a physical way.
Evidence is there but is strictly personal.
As you can not give evidence that your love for somebody is real also nobody can give evidence that spiritual love is real.
So evidence is there but is limited to the one who perceive and that make a lot of sense.
QuoteStill not evidence just opinion and gobbledygook.
Still waiting for real, reputable data. Not expecting it. The only evidence you've provided me is that you haven't the faintest idea how evidence works.
Oh, well if the love that you may feel within for someone is just an opinion then you are very very confused.
Time to open your eyes Mister and leave the fantasy world where you so far lived.
Good luck.
(http://image.blingee.com/images17/content/output/000/000/000/67c/583317420_262189.gif)
QuoteHave you ever seen anyone who published any evidence about his-her love for an other entity in any scientific journal?
The concept of love and how it works is a huge subject within neuroscience, with entire books written on the topic.
Also, hi. You have a very long introduction topic :)
Quote from: Plu on January 29, 2019, 07:44:47 AM
The concept of love and how it works is a huge subject within neuroscience, with entire books written on the topic.
Also, hi. You have a very long introduction topic :)
Neuroscience which study the brain and the nervous system can only see an elevated release of hormones when love permeated the life of an individual but that is where it all stopped so far.
If the hormones are released by this or that gland neuroscience could not yet understand whether that related to physical love, mental or spiritual love but day after day is getting closer.
In any case even if this science would say that spiritual love related to God atheists still wouldn't believe a single thing.
Quote from: Arik on January 29, 2019, 08:41:44 AM
Neuroscience which study the brain and the nervous system can only see an elevated release of hormones when love permeated the life of an individual but that is where it all stopped so far.
If the hormones are released by this or that gland neuroscience could not yet understand whether that related to physical love, mental or spiritual love but day after day is getting closer.
In any case even if this science would say that spiritual love related to God atheists still wouldn't believe a single thing.
I don't know what a "spiritual love" is, but it seems that all forms of love are related to hormones and glands, including for things like "God", whatever those are. :-)
Quote from: Plu on January 29, 2019, 09:25:34 AM
I don't know what a "spiritual love" is, but it seems that all forms of love are related to hormones and glands, including for things like "God", whatever those are. :-)
...................... all forms of love are related to hormones and glands...........as far as the consciousness stay inside a body-brain.
As soon as the body die the consciousness leave and the relation with glands cease to exist.
That however doesn't mean that love cease to exist.
This has been proved by thousand of NDEs.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
Quote from: Arik on January 29, 2019, 09:53:33 AM
...................... all forms of love are related to hormones and glands...........as far as the consciousness stay inside a body-brain.
As soon as the body die the consciousness leave and the relation with glands cease to exist.
That however doesn't mean that love cease to exist.
This has been proved by thousand of NDEs.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
OMG, you are so dense. As I've already said, NDEs are known, through actual science, to be caused by hyperactivity in the brain, which happens shortly after the body
begins to die. The person is not totally dead until that activity in the brain totally stops, and people do not recover from that. That's why NDE stands for "
near death experience," not just "death experience." Sorry, but NDEs are not proof of life after death. They are hyperactive dreams, caused by neurons firing in the brain, just like every other conscious experience.
QuoteThat however doesn't mean that love cease to exist.
Well obviously. It just ceases to exist in the now-dead-person. There's still plenty of other love left to go around.
Quote from: Plu on January 29, 2019, 09:25:34 AM
I don't know what a "spiritual love" is, but it seems that all forms of love are related to hormones and glands, including for things like "God", whatever those are. :-)
Plus - yes. EQ vs IQ. Poetry is EQ, algebra is IQ. However, on another post, the question of abstractions was addressed. Fo
Arik ... the materialist simply denies that abstractions have any validity, they all have the substance of delusion (except for the abstractions they like, such as deconstructive analysis). The materialist senses each avenue of vulnerability to their own groupthink, and cleverly blocks each approach that is a threat to its secular ego. An example of this was The Vienna Circle, that denied any meaning to any metaphysics. For the materialist, there are only atoms, nothing else. Delusion is simply the attribution of form or identity to any particular random group of atoms. A car and a man are the same (made of atoms). Their variant form doesn't matter. And the fact that the man has an identity, but a car does not, is something also to be ignored. And this is true in this sense ... the atom of iron in the man's blood is just like the atom of iron in the car frame.
Quote from: Plu on January 29, 2019, 11:06:41 AM
Well obviously. It just ceases to exist in the now-dead-person. There's still plenty of other love left to go around.
Conservation of existence ... nothing comes into existence, nothing goes out of existence. There is only a change of form. But what is one form vs another, other than the attribution like a child seeing a cloud that looks like a dragon.
Quote from: Arik on January 29, 2019, 07:34:58 AM
I wished I could have answered before but with no internet connection for over a week I was stuck.
Never mind, now I can so let us talk about your ...........refereed paper from a journal.
Have you ever seen anyone who published any evidence about his-her love for an other entity in any scientific journal?
THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. ANSWER THE ONE THAT WAS PUT AND QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
I don't give half a flying fuck about someone scientifically proving love, because
that's not what I asked you for.
At least have the honesty to admit that you can't provide what you
were asked for. Or, if you can, provide it.
SHOW YOUR DATA.You keep running around doing everything BUT that.
Quote from: trdsf on January 30, 2019, 12:38:58 AM
THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. ANSWER THE ONE THAT WAS PUT AND QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
I don't give half a flying fuck about someone scientifically proving love, because that's not what I asked you for.
At least have the honesty to admit that you can't provide what you were asked for. Or, if you can, provide it.
SHOW YOUR DATA.
You keep running around doing everything BUT that.
There is always someone like that person around. Drives me to distraction, too.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 30, 2019, 06:56:44 AM
There is always someone like that person around. Drives me to distraction, too.
You are living, breathing and posting. But you ignore that.
Quote from: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 06:59:01 AM
You are living, breathing and posting. But you ignore that.
But I am perfection itself in all my posts. How could I not share my brilliance with all of my friends?
Quote from: Baruch on January 29, 2019, 12:59:53 PM
Plus - yes. EQ vs IQ. Poetry is EQ, algebra is IQ. However, on another post, the question of abstractions was addressed. Fo
Arik ... the materialist simply denies that abstractions have any validity, they all have the substance of delusion (except for the abstractions they like, such as deconstructive analysis). The materialist senses each avenue of vulnerability to their own groupthink, and cleverly blocks each approach that is a threat to its secular ego. An example of this was The Vienna Circle, that denied any meaning to any metaphysics. For the materialist, there are only atoms, nothing else. Delusion is simply the attribution of form or identity to any particular random group of atoms. A car and a man are the same (made of atoms). Their variant form doesn't matter. And the fact that the man has an identity, but a car does not, is something also to be ignored. And this is true in this sense ... the atom of iron in the man's blood is just like the atom of iron in the car frame.
Yes, and that is mostly bizarre.
Materialists always talk about evolution but for them evolution only relate to a change in the body in order to survive.
Evolution of the consciousness is something unknown to them that is why an atom in the car is the same as an atom in a developed human.
Sometime it make me think at those horses going around with the blinkers on the eyes while pulling the heavy cart not knowing where they head to.
Just incredible considering that we are in 2019 and not in the middle ages.
Quote from: Plu on January 29, 2019, 11:06:41 AM
Well obviously. It just ceases to exist in the now-dead-person. There's still plenty of other love left to go around.
A dead person?
Oh, I see.
You must have seen a dead consciousness next to a body?
Gee, that is incredible Plu.
This must be the first time in the history of this universe that somebody has seen a dead consciousness and can say without any doubt that people really die.
Good on you mate.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2019, 10:50:02 AM
OMG, you are so dense. As I've already said, NDEs are known, through actual science, to be caused by hyperactivity in the brain, which happens shortly after the body begins to die. The person is not totally dead until that activity in the brain totally stops, and people do not recover from that. That's why NDE stands for "near death experience," not just "death experience." Sorry, but NDEs are not proof of life after death. They are hyperactive dreams, caused by neurons firing in the brain, just like every other conscious experience.
As you already said?
Oh, I see.
Because you already said it means that it must be true, isn't it BL?
Well, well, also the doctors that declare the chap dead already said that the chap is really dead (body dead, brain dead) so why should I believe you and not doctors that study the human body for years and years?
Where is your evidence that what you say is true?
Beside if would be even true what you say then it would not be possible for a brain under stress to put together a clear, sharp and well-defined experience that is recollected even after years and years?
You rather would get an hallucination that is not clear, sharp and well-defined and is forgotten after a short time.
Sorry BL but your idea is a total failure put up in order to shovel away the fact that consciousness never die.
Quote from: trdsf on January 30, 2019, 12:38:58 AM
THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. ANSWER THE ONE THAT WAS PUT AND QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
I don't give half a flying fuck about someone scientifically proving love, because that's not what I asked you for.
At least have the honesty to admit that you can't provide what you were asked for. Or, if you can, provide it.
SHOW YOUR DATA.
You keep running around doing everything BUT that.
Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events.
The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia). And focal functional loss by inhibition of local cortical regions happens by “stimulation†of those regions with electricity (photons) or with magnetic fields (photons), resulting sometimes in out-of-body states.http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Mediaskeptics/vanLommel.html
Quote from: Arik on January 30, 2019, 09:05:10 AM
A dead person?
You must have seen a dead consciousness next to a body?
You can't
see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is
because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.
Quote from: Arik on January 30, 2019, 09:19:59 AM
As you already said?
Oh, I see.
Because you already said it means that it must be true, isn't it BL?
Well, well, also the doctors that declare the chap dead already said that the chap is really dead (body dead, brain dead) so why should I believe you and not doctors that study the human body for years and years?
Where is your evidence that what you say is true?
Beside if would be even true what you say then it would not be possible for a brain under stress to put together a clear, sharp and well-defined experience that is recollected even after years and years?
You rather would get an hallucination that is not clear, sharp and well-defined and is forgotten after a short time.
Sorry BL but your idea is a total failure put up in order to shovel away the fact that consciousness never die.
It doesn't matter how many times someone says something, although you seem to be the one under the impression you can ignore the facts and say whatever you want. I don't care if you think "my idea" is a failure or not. Unlike you, I have research on my side. Brainwaves have been observed in people at the point of medically declared "death." On the medical table, you are declared "dead" when your heart stops, not when your brain stops. These people are not braindead, as you claim. That has been debunked. And no, I'm not going to do the Google search to find the articles. I'm wasting any more effort on you than I have to.
Quote from: Plu on January 30, 2019, 10:25:34 AM
You can't see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.
Correct. It might be electromagnetic, but I doubt it. Studies have show that out-of-body isn't able to see things hidden to the awake person. There may be more than one explanation for that. The connection between mind and brain was an unsolved problem for Descartes. We know more now after 400 years of medical and psychological science. This devolves from the natural into the supernatural, and therefore not amenable to scientific confirmation.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 30, 2019, 11:01:11 AM
It doesn't matter how many times someone says something, although you seem to be the one under the impression you can ignore the facts and say whatever you want. I don't care if you think "my idea" is a failure or not. Unlike you, I have research on my side. Brainwaves have been observed in people at the point of medically declared "death." On the medical table, you are declared "dead" when your heart stops, not when your brain stops. These people are not braindead, as you claim. That has been debunked. And no, I'm not going to do the Google search to find the articles. I'm wasting any more effort on you than I have to.
There is a whole spectrum to dying. Declaration of death is a legal concept not a medical one. But definitely not anybody coming back from complete death. Hence the Jesus resurrection is symbolic/mythical, as described. If it was otherwise, then it was a coma recovery. This ambiguity is why it used to be that very cold drowning victims could have been saved, but weren't because they were considered unrecoverable, but were recoverable. Of course they weren't totally dead.
Quote from: Plu on January 29, 2019, 11:06:41 AM
Well obviously. It just ceases to exist in the now-dead-person. There's still plenty of other love left to go around.
Quote from: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 01:01:31 PM
Correct. It might be electromagnetic, but I doubt it. Studies have show that out-of-body isn't able to see things hidden to the awake person. There may be more than one explanation for that. The connection between mind and brain was an unsolved problem for Descartes. We know more now after 400 years of medical and psychological science. This devolves from the natural into the supernatural, and therefore not amenable to scientific confirmation.
Applauds...
Quote from: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 01:01:31 PM
Correct. It might be electromagnetic, but I doubt it. Studies have show that out-of-body isn't able to see things hidden to the awake person. There may be more than one explanation for that. The connection between mind and brain was an unsolved problem for Descartes. We know more now after 400 years of medical and psychological science. This devolves from the natural into the supernatural, and therefore not amenable to scientific confirmation.
This is the most sensible post I've seen from you in a long while. Answer me this. If the brain accounts for our ability to function, and we know the specific areas responsible for communication, interpretation, sleep, memories (of several different types), the senses, etc, what is left for the soul to account for? What does the soul do that the brain doesn't? How is the very idea of a soul not completely obsolete?
Yes, there are overlap where reasonable people can agree ;-) Ideology though isn't susceptible to reason.
Where does the consciousness reside before birth? Is it in another body? Is it just floating around not doing anything? Is it still enmeshed in the greater consciousness of the universe?
And how does it know when to inhabit a body, and which body to inhabit?
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 30, 2019, 01:07:08 PM
This is the most sensible post I've seen from you in a long while. Answer me this. If the brain accounts for our ability to function, and we know the specific areas responsible for communication, interpretation, sleep, memories (of several different types), the senses, etc, what is left for the soul to account for? What does the soul do that the brain doesn't? How is the very idea of a soul not completely obsolete?
When we are talking medicine, technology etc ... there is more grounds for agreement. Politics, religion and sex ... no agreement possible.
The "soul" was made obsolete in philosophy by Descartes, 400 years ago. That is when "mind" became the preferred meme over "soul".
The brain is certainly required for the body to function (except for brain dead people supported by artificial means), and necessary for consciousness etc in the ordinary sense. As far as we know, in terms of deep sleep, there is nothing more. Dead people don't dream. That is the modern view. We can "see" consciousness, deep sleep and dreaming (REM) externally. Now what else there may be, is speculative. No NDE has been demonstrated, externally, to have been anything other than a hallucination. Ah, but what is a dream, what is a hallucination? Ordinary science still is working on that, and consciousness itself.
Like I have been moved here to change, to a purely psychological view, not a philosophical view, on all these issues. And psychology isn't perfect, but it has more empirical basis than philosophy.
What does the "soul" account for? That is an epistemological question. So it isn't psychology, so there is no need to answer that, scientificly.
Arik is coming from a pre-modern psychology (of introspection) that comes from India. Back in the day, they were more scientific than the West. But that ended about 100 years ago. Master yogis of course, still master introspection than Westerners do, but that isn't the main technique for psychology today.
So "soul" doesn't apply to science anymore, because of the advance of medical/psych research. Not that "mind" is completely understood at this time (in the limited sense).
Science from the beginning, in Greece, not India, involved the restriction of data to external quantified evidence. Internal or qualified evidence is not admitted. That doesn't mean that doesn't exist, but that science originally admitted that its aims were modest. It is with scientism which is an ideology, that hubris has come into play. And reductionism in physical science has greatly aided this trend. Reductionism itself, analysis itself ... however is not free of problems when looked at philosophically. But then ... that takes us past the boundaries of psychology again ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 30, 2019, 01:16:56 PM
Where does the consciousness reside before birth? Is it in another body? Is it just floating around not doing anything? Is it still enmeshed in the greater consciousness of the universe?
And how does it know when to inhabit a body, and which body to inhabit?
Don't ask a science question, that requires a philosophical or theological answer In the scope of science, consciousness comes out of nowhere, and returned to nowhere. This happens multiple times, every night, not just at conception and death. Conception/birth is the first consciousness more or less (hence abortion questions). Death is the final unconsciousness.
So ask me, which Romantic painter would I choose to change my car tire?
Your notions of philosophy and theology are simple, and there is no problem with that, it is simply who you are now. Nobody, including you, know who or what you will be tomorrow. Both atheists and theists violate that humility. Monkeys throw poo without shame.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 30, 2019, 01:16:56 PM
Where does the consciousness reside before birth? Is it in another body? Is it just floating around not doing anything? Is it still enmeshed in the greater consciousness of the universe?
And how does it know when to inhabit a body, and which body to inhabit?
What happens if a consciousness is bad with directions and gets lost trying to find its body? Does the body live as a soulless husk? Does the consciousness pull out its spiritual smartphone and use the spiritual Google Maps app to find its way? And how does this consciousness get anywhere if it's not affected by the forces of gravity? The earth is moving 67,000 miles per hour. Imagine trying to dock with your body when it's on an object moving that fast, as it is also spinning in a circle at 1,000 miles per hour.
Quote from: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 01:01:31 PM
Correct. It might be electromagnetic, but I doubt it. Studies have show that out-of-body isn't able to see things hidden to the awake person. There may be more than one explanation for that. The connection between mind and brain was an unsolved problem for Descartes. We know more now after 400 years of medical and psychological science. This devolves from the natural into the supernatural, and therefore not amenable to scientific confirmation.
So... pointless to think or talk about. Got it.
Quote from: Plu on January 30, 2019, 01:41:00 PM
So... pointless to think or talk about. Got it.
If you limit your thinking to physicalism ... then there is no point in talking about art, music, love or ideas in general. You do need to limit yourself to that if you are talking about physics or chemistry. Psychology isn't limited to physicalism, neurology is ... and that is made up of biology, chemistry and physics.
Neurology can help you getting a limited amount of quantitative objectivity on something that tends to be both qualitative and subjective. EEG, PET, MRI and CT scans for instance have important uses. PET detailed brain activity. EEG shows general brain activity. MRI and CT show the static structure.
Quote from: Arik on January 30, 2019, 09:53:46 AM
Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia). And focal functional loss by inhibition of local cortical regions happens by “stimulation†of those regions with electricity (photons) or with magnetic fields (photons), resulting sometimes in out-of-body states.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Mediaskeptics/vanLommel.html
And it's
still not a refereed paper in a scientific journal. Unlike several of the ones referenced here (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/) that explain what NDEs are. Spoiler alert: [spoiler]They're perfectly explainable without resorting to made-up bullshit and wishful thinking.[/spoiler]
By the bye, author of your link? Cardiologist. Not neurologist, not even a psychologist. WRONG FIELD OF EXPERTISE. Would I see him professionally if I had heart trouble? Maybe. Brain tumor? Fuck no.
You are now at the point where you need to just admit, no,
you do not have any actual scientific evidence to support your opinion, just the desire for it to be true as some sort of psychological security blanket. At least have the honesty to do that.
Correct, to be a proper refereed paper (and we aren't talking cuck social science) .. it has to be objective, external, quantitative. NDE by nature don't meet that on any level. But then consciousness barely meets that criteria anyway. For a materialist, it has to always be a "ghost in the machine".
Quote from: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 07:51:25 PM
If you limit your thinking to physicalism ... then there is no point in talking about art, music, love or ideas in general.
All of these things have a pretty clear effect on the physical part of my brain, so they are not at all pointless to talk about.
Quote from: Plu on January 31, 2019, 02:40:57 AM
All of these things have a pretty clear effect on the physical part of my brain, so they are not at all pointless to talk about.
Except, if you are a physicalist/materialist, you have no explanation for it. I agree, the non-physical and the physical are in a dialectic. My original avatar was Baruch Spinoza, who overcame Descartes' dualism with his monism. Physical and metaphysical are two sides of an unknown. Spinoza thought he could create a deductive system that would illuminate that unknown. Structurally similar to Euclid's Elements.
We only know things by categorizing them ... which is two or more sides of some other thing. If the simplest number system is binary, can there be a unary system? Not with placeholders. Without categorizing we can only point in a random direction and say Ugh like our caveman ancestors. It is not for nothing, that in the Eden mythology, Adam's first job is to name the animals aka Linneaus.
QuoteExcept, if you are a physicalist/materialist, you have no explanation for it.
So? I don't need to explain it to notice it's having some kind of effect. Nor do I need to explain it to enjoy the effect, or steer it.
If people needed an explanation for anything before thinking about it or doing anything with it, they would never be able to get anywhere. It's just that some people have been taught that a dumb explanation is better than no explanation, and that's what got us this current mess.
Quote from: Plu on January 31, 2019, 02:54:49 AM
So? I don't need to explain it to notice it's having some kind of effect. Nor do I need to explain it to enjoy the effect, or steer it.
If people needed an explanation for anything before thinking about it or doing anything with it, they would never be able to get anywhere. It's just that some people have been taught that a dumb explanation is better than no explanation, and that's what got us this current mess.
Correct. But geeks want explanations for everything, it is part of their protective camouflage to protect themselves from alpha-males. The SJWs are just Woody Allen's clones (see cloning of dead leader's nose from Sleeper), endlessly loosing their hot girlfriends at the beach. Not Popeye.
My point of radical empiricism, is that we don't need to rationalize things in the first place. That reality is irrational to begin with, so rationalizing can be positively negative in its effect .. when we falsely think we understand something. As it turns out, all our explanations are more or less false.
Example .. I have my right hand typing this, I can see I have 4 fingers and a thumb on my right hand. There is no reason for me to build a deductive system to justify this "belief" because it isn't a damn belief. It is an empirical observation. The problem comes with trying to interpret what this means.
QuoteBut geeks want explanations for everything, it is part of their protective camouflage to protect themselves from alpha-males.
Guess I'm not a geek according to your dictionary, then.
Quote from: Plu on January 31, 2019, 03:05:50 AM
Guess I'm not a geek according to your dictionary, then.
That is the problem with stereotypes and all such categorization. We have to do it to make sense of things, but it also hides the messy details behind a clean abstraction. I still struggle with the need for explanation. But I know it is futile.
Quote from: Plu on January 30, 2019, 10:25:34 AM
You can't see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.
It is most bizarre to see materialists saying that when you die is all over with no evidence of whatsoever that the consciousness die when the body die.
These same folks however go around and around millions of times saying that without evidence nothing is proved.
This hypocrisy must be the peak of moral bankruptcy at his best.
Quote from: Arik on January 31, 2019, 07:20:10 AM
It is most bizarre to see materialists saying that when you die is all over with no evidence of whatsoever that the consciousness die when the body die.
These same folks however go around and around millions of times saying that without evidence nothing is proved.
This hypocrisy must be the peak of moral bankruptcy at his best.
More accurately, they only count what they can see, while awake. So what happens when you are asleep, or what happens that you don't or can't see, is irrelevant. The most logical people are agnostic, they aren't rationalizing like theist and atheists do. Because they have no agenda.
For me personally, what happens when we die isn't important either. Being awake is completely theistic to me, I don't need any special experiences, nor do I have to die, to see G-d. I see G-d every day, anthropomorphically with the people (and other creatures) that I share this world with.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 30, 2019, 11:01:11 AM
It doesn't matter how many times someone says something, although you seem to be the one under the impression you can ignore the facts and say whatever you want. I don't care if you think "my idea" is a failure or not. Unlike you, I have research on my side. Brainwaves have been observed in people at the point of medically declared "death." On the medical table, you are declared "dead" when your heart stops, not when your brain stops. These people are not braindead, as you claim. That has been debunked. And no, I'm not going to do the Google search to find the articles. I'm wasting any more effort on you than I have to.
Good BL.
You really shouldn't waste anymore of your time guessing and guessing.
Much better let the professional do their job and let them say whether the bloke is alive or dead.
Oh yes, I refer to those scientists that study years and years.
These same people that materialists applaud as researches of science which materialists rely on when support their ideas but ignore them when their opinion goes against their ideas-beliefs.
(http://satitias.com/assets/images/lamp.png)
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2019, 07:42:02 AM
More accurately, they only count what they can see, while awake. So what happens when you are asleep, or what happens that you don't or can't see, is irrelevant. The most logical people are agnostic, they aren't rationalizing like theist and atheists do. Because they have no agenda.
Ummmm, I am a bit confused Baruch.
Are you saying that there is much of a difference between materialists and atheists?
QuoteFor me personally, what happens when we die isn't important either. Being awake is completely theistic to me, I don't need any special experiences, nor do I have to die, to see G-d. I see G-d every day, anthropomorphically with the people (and other creatures) that I share this world with.
A fairly good philosophy in life although I definitively go a lot further than that.
Quote from: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 01:03:51 PM
There is a whole spectrum to dying. Declaration of death is a legal concept not a medical one. But definitely not anybody coming back from complete death. Hence the Jesus resurrection is symbolic/mythical, as described. If it was otherwise, then it was a coma recovery. This ambiguity is why it used to be that very cold drowning victims could have been saved, but weren't because they were considered unrecoverable, but were recoverable. Of course they weren't totally dead.
It can be argue for ever and ever whether a person is dead or not or whether a flat EEG means anything at all.
What make me believe that the consciousness leave a body is that the consciousness is able to go through (during an NDE) a clear, sharp and well-defined experience that wouldn't be possible with a person being still alive (brain not dead yet).
Quote from: Arik on January 31, 2019, 07:20:10 AM
It is most bizarre to see materialists saying that when you die is all over with no evidence of whatsoever that the consciousness die when the body die.
Note that I said no such thing; I only said it's dumb to say that I "saw a dead consciousness" when you're claiming the "consciousness lives on after death" is a supernatural thing.
Quote from: trdsf on January 30, 2019, 09:24:29 PM
And it's still not a refereed paper in a scientific journal. Unlike several of the ones referenced here (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/) that explain what NDEs are. Spoiler alert: [spoiler]They're perfectly explainable without resorting to made-up bullshit and wishful thinking.[/spoiler]
By the bye, author of your link? Cardiologist. Not neurologist, not even a psychologist. WRONG FIELD OF EXPERTISE. Would I see him professionally if I had heart trouble? Maybe. Brain tumor? Fuck no.
You are now at the point where you need to just admit, no, you do not have any actual scientific evidence to support your opinion, just the desire for it to be true as some sort of psychological security blanket. At least have the honesty to do that.
You are an absolute joke Mister.
You propose a link that is a pure and simple opinion pretending that in reality is a prove.
I can go through a myriad of opinions.
Some back your belief some mine and we wouldn't get anywhere in this way.
So far none that has studied NDEs has ever come up with any sort of REAL evidence.
Why?
Simple.
Because NDEs go behind the physical aspect of this reality-dimension and all studies so far related to the physical aspect only.
The real prove is elsewhere Mister.
These so called people who went through an NDE could see from above their DEAD body but most of all they could perceive what the nurses and doctors that were there try to bring them back from their death were doing and thinking.
Once back in their body they could describe what they have seen and what the doctors and nurses were thinking.
This wouldn't be possible unless the consciousness left their dead bodies.
You keep on declaim your superior knowledge by swearing, shouting in red big words but so far you haven't be able to explain how these people could see and perceive what was going on while their body lie dead in the casualty room.
Grow up Mister.
Quote from: Plu on January 31, 2019, 08:33:19 AM
Note that I said no such thing; I only said it's dumb to say that I "saw a dead consciousness" when you're claiming the "consciousness lives on after death" is a supernatural thing.
I was referring to the materialists idea that when the body die also the consciousness die that is why I said..have you ever seen a dead consciousness?
If that cause a misunderstanding then I do apologize.
Quote from: Arik on January 31, 2019, 07:57:27 AM
Ummmm, I am a bit confused Baruch.
Are you saying that there is much of a difference between materialists and atheists?
A fairly good philosophy in life although I definitively go a lot further than that.
Rhetorically theists and atheists are the same, in the sense that they have an agenda. Since I am theist, I also have an agenda. I am not unbiased. Agnostics have no bias, or agenda. But I am not saying that agnostics are superior. It may be that they are just lazy and dull witted ;-)
----
Of course, there are more than one kind of atheist. Bhakti Vaishnavas are classic theists. But there are even atheist Shaivas. India has a spectrum of traditions. And India long ago had Charvakas (materialists) . With the understanding that divinity in S & E Asia is very different than the W Asia kind (Abrahamic).
The often sited Western varieties are rationalist (theism makes no sense) and empiricist (theism has no evidence). It is the latter group you face here. Usually materialists are of the second type ... because if it is material, it isn't divine, but natural ... and they contend that everything is material, so everything is natural. They also consider divine and material mutually exclusive. That syllogism is as far as their logic need go. QED, if you accept their premises and their syllogism.
Quote from: Arik on January 31, 2019, 09:04:40 AMhave you ever seen a dead consciousness?
Repeating this because you think it's such a knock-down argument that you want to bask in its brilliance or because of substantial reading difficulty?
Quote from: Plu on January 30, 2019, 10:25:34 AM
You can't see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.
Your own human experience counts for nothing, Popular Science articles are everything.
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2019, 01:00:30 PM
Rhetorically theists and atheists are the same, in the sense that they have an agenda. Since I am theist, I also have an agenda. I am not unbiased. Agnostics have no bias, or agenda. But I am not saying that agnostics are superior. It may be that they are just lazy and dull witted ;-)
----
Of course, there are more than one kind of atheist. Bhakti Vaishnavas are classic theists. But there are even atheist Shaivas. India has a spectrum of traditions. And India long ago had Charvakas (materialists) . With the understanding that divinity in S & E Asia is very different than the W Asia kind (Abrahamic).
The often sited Western varieties are rationalist (theism makes no sense) and empiricist (theism has no evidence). It is the latter group you face here. Usually materialists are of the second type ... because if it is material, it isn't divine, but natural ... and they contend that everything is material, so everything is natural. They also consider divine and material mutually exclusive. That syllogism is as far as their logic need go. QED, if you accept their premises and their syllogism.
Oh, well if they reckon that everything is material then they must have a way to smell, see, taste and touch the consciousness.
Something that the poor Arik can not grasp.
Brilliant, absolutely blazing brilliant.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 31, 2019, 02:12:03 PM
Repeating this because you think it's such a knock-down argument that you want to bask in its brilliance or because of substantial reading difficulty?
I try my very best to say this only when someone else say that with the physical death is all over.
Atheists are not the only people that are allowed to ask for evidence after all.
Right?
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2019, 07:51:34 PM
Your own human experience counts for nothing, Popular Science articles are everything.
I call this.........smart philosophy.
I like it.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/traditional-pattern-korean-castle-gate-traditioanl-architecture-31662027.jpg)
QuoteOh, well if they reckon that everything is material then they must have a way to smell, see, taste and touch the consciousness.
Yes, the neurons in the brain. But they go away when the person dies.
Quote from: Plu on February 01, 2019, 08:26:51 AM
Yes, the neurons in the brain. But they go away when the person dies.
Oh well, considering that you must have a good amount of knowledge regarding this subject I hope you don't mind to tell me what is the difference between neurons and consciousness.
Thanks Plu.
I have no idea, is there one? You're the one claiming there are supernatural parts to the consciousness, not me.
Quote from: Plu on February 01, 2019, 09:29:24 AM
I have no idea, is there one? You're the one claiming there are supernatural parts to the consciousness, not me.
Not at all Plu.
I never said that the consciousness is supernatural.
I rather said that there are different level of awareness within the conscious but this doesn't mean that the consciousness is supernatural.
A dog is conscious but his consciousness is not as wide as the one in humans.
So the conscious is only one but each individual has got different level of awareness of who they are.
Is this so complicated and out of your reach to grasp?
By the way why you ask if there is one?
One what?
One consciousness?
QuoteI never said that the consciousness is supernatural.
Are there only natural parts that make up the consciousness? You seem to claim it lives on after the body dies, but if a body if fully obliterated, then the only way a consciousness can live on if it is supernatural.
Either the consciousness dies when the body is gone, or it's supernatural. There's no real other way; the body itself is an entirely natural thing, made of atoms and measurable energies and all of them stop when you die.
Note that being "supernatural" simply means it's not made of natural components. I'm not using the word in any mystical or spiritual sense here.
Quote from: Arik on February 01, 2019, 07:23:51 AM
Something that the poor Arik can not grasp.
That takes in the entire universe!!
Quote from: Plu on February 01, 2019, 08:26:51 AM
Yes, the neurons in the brain. But they go away when the person dies.
When the radio breaks, grandpa can't listen to Amos & Andy, but the transmitted radio program still exists.
Actually, per solipsism, when you die, the universe ceases to exist.
Quote from: Plu on February 01, 2019, 09:29:24 AM
I have no idea, is there one? You're the one claiming there are supernatural parts to the consciousness, not me.
But there is no consciousness, per materialism. Non-material things (ideas) are invalid (if they don't match my prejudice). The neurons are real, but their activity isn't. And their activity, in context, is incomprehensibly complicated.
Quote from: Plu on February 01, 2019, 10:31:54 AM
Are there only natural parts that make up the consciousness? You seem to claim it lives on after the body dies, but if a body if fully obliterated, then the only way a consciousness can live on if it is supernatural.
Either the consciousness dies when the body is gone, or it's supernatural. There's no real other way; the body itself is an entirely natural thing, made of atoms and measurable energies and all of them stop when you die.
Note that being "supernatural" simply means it's not made of natural components. I'm not using the word in any mystical or spiritual sense here.
There is no life. So neurons aren't alive. They are just arbitrary atomic arrangements, same as a rock in my driveway. Things don't become alive or go out of life. Same as they don't become conscious or go out of consciousness.
Natural vs supernatural, theism vs atheism are ... distractions. Lines drawn in the sand between irreconcilable ideologies.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 01, 2019, 12:24:34 PM
That takes in the entire universe!!
Yes, the boundary problem. The Schroedinger's Cat. What separates one thing from another? Nothing, same as boundaries on a map. These boundaries that separate you from me for example, is an idea, and all ideas are delusions (to materialists). Otherwise if ideas are not delusions, then if a Christian believes that Jesus died for is sins, then it is true. Unless we are not equal (you are Illuminati and I am not). But that is the point, virtue signaling as a tool to achieve total political power.
See Plato, didn't like Homer, because that dead poet prevented Plato from seizing power over the narrative. The average Athenian preferred the common narrative, not Plato's Republic. Today we are the opposite. Because we failed to terminate all the egg-heads. Socrates ... scratch. Plato? That one got away. The reason why your colleges are shit, is because the whole idea was created by a Greek egg-head 2400 years ago.
That's a weak reply, even for you. I don't know and don't care what your definition of what a materialist is--I don't necessarily agree that I am one--and I don't care. Ideas exist because we see the results of those ideas. And we now know that when a person is thinking that particular parts of the brain are fired up and working. I can't see the wind, but I can see the result; and science now can demonstrate how wind is generated and why. I can't hear a dog whistle, yet my dog can. None of that is supernatural; it is totally and completely natural. Theists seem to hate 'I don't know', and so when faced with one they simply say--goddidit. And they are happy. We are all interconnected because we live in this universe and are constructed of the same building blocks as the universe is. We can never be totally connected because we are all unique. I really do not know and can't know, what you think. But I can make guesses based upon your actions. None of that is supernatural.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 01, 2019, 01:43:19 PM
That's a weak reply, even for you. I don't know and don't care what your definition of what a materialist is--I don't necessarily agree that I am one--and I don't care. Ideas exist because we see the results of those ideas. And we now know that when a person is thinking that particular parts of the brain are fired up and working. I can't see the wind, but I can see the result; and science now can demonstrate how wind is generated and why. I can't hear a dog whistle, yet my dog can. None of that is supernatural; it is totally and completely natural. Theists seem to hate 'I don't know', and so when faced with one they simply say--goddidit. And they are happy. We are all interconnected because we live in this universe and are constructed of the same building blocks as the universe is. We can never be totally connected because we are all unique. I really do not know and can't know, what you think. But I can make guesses based upon your actions. None of that is supernatural.
Words are bad? Ban all words. Less the weak get triggered. You can say tomato, and I can say tomAto ... but the fruit stays the same. Don't like natural or supernatural as words ... tough. Ban words, or change or invert their meaning thru the Party.
Dualist ... there is white and black
Maniac ... there is only white or there is only black
So, you have no evidence, and you're either too dishonest or too cowardly to admit it.
If you have to resort to the "prove [sic] is elsewhere", then you have no proof. You either have it or you don't, and you don't get to make up your own rules for what constitutes proof.
Feel free to believe what you like, but if you're going to assert an answer for an unsolved question, there are rules of evidence and logic that you have to adhere to, whether you like it or not, and if you can't do that, then the most you can say is that you believe it. In no honest way can you claim it's objectively true. But, seeing the way you've conducted yourself here, it's pretty obvious you don't have much more a grasp on honest debate than you do on the rules of evidence.
We're going to boil this down to a level simple enough for even you to grasp.
All I want is a one word answer, a 'yes' or a 'no'.
Can you provide a refereed paper from a legitimate journal in the relevant discipline that supports your position?
One word answer, yes or no. Anything else will be ignored.
Not my fight. I just like a good fight between matched opponents.
I don't need refereed papers, I have my broadsword.
Quote from: Baruch on February 01, 2019, 07:00:46 PM
Words are bad? Ban all words. Less the weak get triggered. You can say tomato, and I can say tomAto ... but the fruit stays the same. Don't like natural or supernatural as words ... tough. Ban words, or change or invert their meaning thru the Party.
Dualist ... there is white and black
Maniac ... there is only white or there is only black
There you go, dribbling off into the woods shouting nonsense ................If one is trying to communicate then it does not matter how you pronounce tomato, only if it is close enough that each can get that idea of what fruit we are trying to talk about. All communication is flawed for we all see the world through unique eyes. Yet communicate we can and do. It takes effort and to be done well, a certain level of honesty. I can fully understand why you don't like the word 'supernatural' for you think there really is much that is supernatural. You seem to love it for some reason---oops, sorry-----not some reason, but some belief. And you just can't shake 'belief' to answer your questions.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 01, 2019, 09:05:58 PM
There you go, dribbling off into the woods shouting nonsense ................If one is trying to communicate then it does not matter how you pronounce tomato, only if it is close enough that each can get that idea of what fruit we are trying to talk about. All communication is flawed for we all see the world through unique eyes. Yet communicate we can and do. It takes effort and to be done well, a certain level of honesty. I can fully understand why you don't like the word 'supernatural' for you think there really is much that is supernatural. You seem to love it for some reason---oops, sorry-----not some reason, but some belief. And you just can't shake 'belief' to answer your questions.
Thinking with your head (typical I know) not thinking wit your heart. We are incommensurate. We don't have equivalent experience upon which to base common vocabulary. Except when we do (Dr Carrier). But I think that Arik and I do have some equivalent experience upon which to base common vocabulary. You experienced church, not G-d. I have church experience too. We just celebrated our rabbi's birthday at tonight's worship service.
Quote from: trdsf on February 01, 2019, 08:14:11 PM
So, you have no evidence, and you're either too dishonest or too cowardly to admit it.
If you have to resort to the "prove [sic] is elsewhere", then you have no proof. You either have it or you don't, and you don't get to make up your own rules for what constitutes proof.
Feel free to believe what you like, but if you're going to assert an answer for an unsolved question, there are rules of evidence and logic that you have to adhere to, whether you like it or not, and if you can't do that, then the most you can say is that you believe it. In no honest way can you claim it's objectively true. But, seeing the way you've conducted yourself here, it's pretty obvious you don't have much more a grasp on honest debate than you do on the rules of evidence.
We're going to boil this down to a level simple enough for even you to grasp.
All I want is a one word answer, a 'yes' or a 'no'.
Can you provide a refereed paper from a legitimate journal in the relevant discipline that supports your position?
One word answer, yes or no. Anything else will be ignored.
You got a big problem Mister.
You came at the conclusion that ...............a refereed paper from a legitimate journal...........is evidence.
What a load o'crap Mister.
Your conclusion goes against nature.
In this universe everything move and change.
Nothing stay the same for long time.
What was correct yesterday is no longer valid today and what is valid today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history in the near future to be replaced again later on with new evidence.
But dreamers like you don't get it.
They cling to the present thinking that what they got is the real McCoy of knowledge.
That is the problem when you live in this finite universe where everything last only for short time.
To me the real evidence only lie in the infinite arena but that is something that a materialists is unable to grasp yet.
In the meantime I base my evidence on thousand of people who witness a dead person to be revived later on and tell to the people present there what he-she saw and what people were thinking while he-she was out his-her body, SOMETHING THAT WAS CONFIRMED AS TRUTH BY THE NURSES AND DOCTORS PRESENT there.
I did asked how this is possible but you pretend that I never asked you this and at the same time still blabber........EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.......
Quote from: Plu on February 01, 2019, 10:31:54 AM
Are there only natural parts that make up the consciousness? You seem to claim it lives on after the body dies, but if a body if fully obliterated, then the only way a consciousness can live on if it is supernatural.
Either the consciousness dies when the body is gone, or it's supernatural. There's no real other way; the body itself is an entirely natural thing, made of atoms and measurable energies and all of them stop when you die.
Note that being "supernatural" simply means it's not made of natural components. I'm not using the word in any mystical or spiritual sense here.
Please let me try to dispel your confusion.
Suppose you got a car that you have been driven for long time.
One day your car become a wreck which obviously will end up in the wrecking yard.
From that time on you leave that wreck.
Have you become a different person just because you do not have anymore a relationship with that old car?
Of course not Plu.
Why should you have changed?
You still are Plu like before.
When the consciousness leave a dead body such a consciousness is still the same although being now free from the body it can perceive better what is going on but to say that the consciousness become supernatural doesn't make any sense.
Quote
Have you become a different person just because you do not have anymore a relationship with that old car?
Clearly you will become a different person. Wreck or no wreck. Change is constant. The idea of a persistent self is a human illusion; a useful one, but still an illusion.
QuoteYou still are Plu like before.
You overestimate how much I am still the same Plu I was 4 years ago, when I left the forums. Let alone the same Plu I was 10 years ago. I would barely recognize the Plu I was 20 years ago, and I'm him.
QuoteWhen the consciousness leave a dead body such a consciousness is still the same although being now free from the body it can perceive better what is going on but to say that the consciousness become supernatural doesn't make any sense.
Right. Saying it became supernatural doesn't make any sense. It must've always been supernatural, given that it defies detection at all times. That's what the word "supernatural" means. Outside the realm of science.
Quote from: Plu on February 02, 2019, 09:48:33 AM
Clearly you will become a different person. Wreck or no wreck. Change is constant. The idea of a persistent self is a human illusion; a useful one, but still an illusion.
You overestimate how much I am still the same Plu I was 4 years ago, when I left the forums. Let alone the same Plu I was 10 years ago. I would barely recognize the Plu I was 20 years ago, and I'm him.
Everything move and change so obviously there is a change for the better or the worse during our life.
This however is not what I tried to tell you.
The point was whether or not the consciousness become supernatural NOT IN THE COURSE OF OUR LIFE BUT ONLY WHEN WE LEAVE OUR BODY.
Can you see the difference among the two situation Plu?
QuoteRight. Saying it became supernatural doesn't make any sense. It must've always been supernatural, given that it defies detection at all times. That's what the word "supernatural" means. Outside the realm of science.
The realm of science?
Not really Plu.
It is all about awareness.
An animal has got little awareness in his consciousness if we compare that to an human consciousness but also an human has got little awareness if we believe that God exist and God has got his awareness so there is no such a thing as natural or supernatural.
It is all natural but an entity with less awareness in his consciousness think that what he-she can not perceive is supernatural when in reality is more than natural.
I really think you need to read up on the words "natural" and "supernatural" in the dictionary before there is any point to continuing this discussion.
Wow, you don't even understand the words "one word answer". Guess you don't give a fuck about actually making your point, if you even have one.
You're either a dishonest and cowardly debater, or a thundering moron. Either way, welcome to my twitfilter. You're not even fun to poke anymore.
Quote from: Plu on February 02, 2019, 10:34:55 AM
I really think you need to read up on the words "natural" and "supernatural" in the dictionary before there is any point to continuing this discussion.
Dictionary ... as controlled by the Newspeak division of IngSoc? Some examples ...
Democrat = demon spawn
Republican = the other demon spawn
How do you like my poetic license? I don't get that license from the MSM DMV.
Use any definition you like, provided that you make it clear which one you are using, and I am cool with it. I don't see language as neutral, it is a weapon.
Democrat = saints of democratic socialism?
Republican = neo-Nazis?
So ...
natural = what atheists claim is the one true ontology
supernatural = what theists claim is the one true ontology
As a freethinking theist, I reject both definitions. Any definition is a rhetorical tool to hide what you really think.
I also reject the notion that religious orientation is politics free ... that is an Anglophone fantasy. No other culture is that stupid.
Quote from: trdsf on February 02, 2019, 11:24:07 AM
Wow, you don't even understand the words "one word answer". Guess you don't give a fuck about actually making your point, if you even have one.
You're either a dishonest and cowardly debater, or a thundering moron. Either way, welcome to my twitfilter. You're not even fun to poke anymore.
Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)? Amazing...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 03, 2019, 01:34:30 AM
Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)? Amazing...
Is PLU a theist? Arik is not a materialist. Does that make Arik a theist? He hasn't spoken of Vishnu/Shiva etc.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 03, 2019, 01:34:30 AM
Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)? Amazing...
Doubtful, given that I am not a theist and Arik is not 2 people.
Cavebear is given to snap judgements ... he is part snapdragon.
Quote from: Plu on February 03, 2019, 03:34:23 AM
Doubtful, given that I am not a theist and Arik is not 2 people.
Well. I haven't seen much yet that suggests you are an atheist. You might well be, but I haven't seen anything to demonstrate it. It's not like I know you from years past. Just a thought.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 03, 2019, 03:47:24 AM
Well. I haven't seen much yet that suggests you are an atheist. You might well be, but I haven't seen anything to demonstrate it. It's not like I know you from years past. Just a thought.
Check your White paranoid privilege ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 03, 2019, 03:59:57 AM
Check your White paranoid privilege ;-)
You never cease to misunderstand any statement, do you? OK, here it is word by word!
1. I can't see anything "White" about atheism.
2. I don't see anything "paranoid" about looking for evidence that people who claim to be atheist are. I've seen posters at other sites evade direct answers for many months until they finally let on that they are theists in a moment of anger. And a few here for shorter times.
3. "Privilege". Yeah that's real funny. Whens the last time being an "atheist" made anyone "privileged" in any way. We are and will be the last hated group.
You don't "get it". Your universal suspicion = paranoia (not literally). "Woke" politics is all about "check your White privilege". Neither of which involve atheism.
Quote from: Plu on February 02, 2019, 10:34:55 AM
I really think you need to read up on the words "natural" and "supernatural" in the dictionary before there is any point to continuing this discussion.
The dictionary may say that natural is what we understand and supernatural is what we or the science can not understand.
In reality whether we understand or not there is no such a thing as non natural because it is all natural.
I know that all this may sound a bit strange but as a dog can not understand our level of awareness most people also can not understand that may exist a superior awareness such as God and that is why so many people come to the wrong conclusion that there is nothing outside our awareness.
The problem for these people is that they have a wrong understanding of what evolution is all about.
They are still stuck to the feeling that what can not be understood does not exist.
At least a dog doesn't understand because his awareness is tiny but for an human there is no excuses.
Post-humanism. Many people here are dog lovers. So they consider dogs to be higher beings than themselves. As a cat person, I know they are completely wrong, and my cats agree. Worshippers of Bastet unite!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 03, 2019, 01:34:30 AM
Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)? Amazing...
That would require Plu to be a theist, and Arik to be a debater. :)
Quote from: Baruch on February 03, 2019, 10:28:29 AM
Post-humanism. Many people here are dog lovers. So they consider dogs to be higher beings than themselves. As a cat person, I know they are completely wrong, and my cats agree. Worshippers of Bastet unite!
According to yoga dogs and monkeys that are sharing the company of humans find very easy to evolve quickly to the stage of humans in the next reincarnation.
On the other hand many humans that like some animals over the normal will be reborn as animals.
It is a law of nature to enter the dimension that is mostly compatible with our desires that is why my desires are focus towards God rather than material-mundane objects.
However I like (like only nothing over the normal) the magpies that live around my house and i regularly feed by hands.
(https://www.vetwest.com.au/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/article/bigstock-magpies-feeding-7761278_0.jpg?itok=wZYoiZuY)
Quote from: Arik on February 01, 2019, 07:36:22 AM
Atheists are not the only people that are allowed to ask for evidence after all.
"Betcha can't prove a negative" is not skepticism, it's a burden-shifting technique masquerading as an argument.
You're no skeptic. You're not fooling anyone.
Magpies are among the smarter birds. Like cats and dogs, they are probably using you, for their own purposes ;-) Woke .. like welfare denizens.
Quote from: Baruch on February 04, 2019, 12:42:22 PM
Magpies are among the smarter birds. Like cats and dogs, they are probably using you, for their own purposes ;-) Woke .. like welfare denizens.
Now you make me feel like a fool.
(https://richesandrhymes.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/simpsonsnelsonmuntzhaha.gif?w=500)
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 04, 2019, 10:23:44 AM
"Betcha can't prove a negative" is not skepticism, it's a burden-shifting technique masquerading as an argument.
You're no skeptic. You're not fooling anyone.
I guess it must be very hard to fool someone however is very easy to fool ourselves.
Personally I don't try to fool either.
What about you Hydra?
Quote from: Arik on February 05, 2019, 09:30:48 AM
I guess it must be very hard to fool someone however is very easy to fool ourselves.
Personally I don't try to fool either.
What about you Hydra?
Even Heracles had a hard time slaying the Hydra ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2019, 12:35:47 PM
Even Heracles had a hard time slaying the Hydra ;-)
Tell me about you if you don't mind Baruch.
You like history, philosophy and a lot of other things but what is your real agenda in life?
Thanks.
Quote from: Arik on February 06, 2019, 09:31:56 AM
Tell me about you if you don't mind Baruch.
You like history, philosophy and a lot of other things but what is your real agenda in life?
Thanks.
Later, after work.
Quote from: Arik on February 04, 2019, 09:50:38 AM
On the other hand many humans that like some animals over the normal will be reborn as animals.
and they taste just like chicken......
QuoteIt is a law of nature to enter the dimension that is mostly compatible with our desires
a law? You may want to open the windows son.....those "magical" crystals you bought may just be meth.
Quote from: Arik on February 06, 2019, 09:31:56 AM
Tell me about you if you don't mind Baruch.
You like history, philosophy and a lot of other things but what is your real agenda in life?
Thanks.
I am alone in the Theater of Dionysus in Athens, I am one of many there -> Sometimes I am the protagonist, or the antagonist, or in the chorus or in the audience. Sometimes a comedy is in progress, but more often a tragedy. Those are the dimensions of my witnessing. What I was, I have not yet become ... what I will be, I already have been, and where those cross over, here am I. My witnessing is a becoming, is interwoven with the play's progress. I have arrived, but I have never left. What I may be, lies beyond speech, beyond revealing. My purpose is to embody that mystery, which is to live a life ... Dionysius am I. Let's drink to that!
Quote from: Baruch on February 06, 2019, 07:54:56 PM
I am alone in the Theater of Dionysus in Athens, I am one of many there -> Sometimes I am the protagonist, or the antagonist, or in the chorus or in the audience. Sometimes a comedy is in progress, but more often a tragedy. Those are the dimensions of my witnessing. What I was, I have not yet become ... what I will be, I already have been, and where those cross over, here am I. My witnessing is a becoming, is interwoven with the play's progress. I have arrived, but I have never left. What I may be, lies beyond speech, beyond revealing. My purpose is to embody that mystery, which is to live a life ... Dionysius am I. Let's drink to that!
That agenda would be a little complicated for me to follow but me is me and you is you so go for it.
But as an old saying goes............all roads lead to Rome ................and at the end we all end up in the same beautiful place.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd_eMY2V0AE5-qf.jpg)
Quote from: aitm on February 06, 2019, 02:58:06 PM
and they taste just like chicken......
a law? You may want to open the windows son.....those "magical" crystals you bought may just be meth.
Sorry aitm but there is far far too much evidence to prove that people reborn in the dimension that is most compatible with their desires as I already shown in which artists like Beethoven, Mozart and others were able to give concerts when they were less than 10 years old.
Where would they have achieved that skill other than in previous lives but that are only some examples of the most famous.
In reality we all follow the same thing that is why there is no need to use meth to understand how the system works.
Quote from: Arik on February 07, 2019, 08:41:57 AM
Sorry aitm but there is far far too much evidence
there is NO evidence except in your addled brain.
Quote from: Arik on February 07, 2019, 08:20:04 AM
That agenda would be a little complicated for me to follow but me is me and you is you so go for it.
But as an old saying goes............all roads lead to Rome ................and at the end we all end up in the same beautiful place.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd_eMY2V0AE5-qf.jpg)
Elysium? Only heroes go there. The rest are lucky to drink from the Lethe ... river of forgetfulness, as restored NPCs they get recycled.
But I have eidetic dreams, been to many worlds, been many beings ... so Elysium is real.
Arik and I can see things inside-out. The norm here is outside-in ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eehz5YKnBf4
The mind isn't in the body, the body is in the mind. And mind is merely the secular word for spirit.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2019, 12:54:53 PM
Elysium? Only heroes go there. The rest are lucky to drink from the Lethe ... river of forgetfulness, as restored NPCs they get recycled.
But I have eidetic dreams, been to many worlds, been many beings ... so Elysium is real.
I guess that in previous reincarnations I also was drinking from the Lethe but one day I did wake up and grow up so now here I am trying my very best to reach Elysium where one day everybody will end up.
As I did learn also everybody is bound to learn sooner or later.
There is no other way to go.
Quote from: Baruch on February 08, 2019, 12:25:53 AM
Arik and I can see things inside-out. The norm here is outside-in ...
The mind isn't in the body, the body is in the mind. And mind is merely the secular word for spirit.
I would put it slightly differently.
The body-brain is the vehicle in which the consciousness-mind stay until life is there.
As soon as the vehicle die the consciousness-mind leave and reincarnate in a new body-brain or if it has reached the superconscious mind merge in it to become one with the whole.
QuoteAnd mind is merely the secular word for spirit.
(https://www.hawkinspersonnel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/iStock_000061661004_XXXLarge-1024x683.jpg)
Agree.
Quote from: aitm on February 07, 2019, 10:32:46 AM
there is NO evidence except in your addled brain.
Oh, well in this case then the knowledge that people got when they born must have fallen from the sky in a miraculous way.
Gee, I thought that atheists believe in science not in miracles?
Quote from: Arik on February 08, 2019, 10:48:58 AM
Oh, well in this case then the knowledge that people got when they born must have fallen from the sky in a miraculous way.
Gee, I thought that atheists believe in science not in miracles?
Since 500 BCE, all rationalists are son's of Plato, they have unique insight into the Eternal Forms. And are entitled to be the natural Guardians of society.
Quote from: Arik on February 08, 2019, 10:48:58 AM
Oh, well in this case then the knowledge that people got when they born must have fallen from the sky in a miraculous way.
of course you are right...thats why we don't need to teach our children to speak or even shit in a bucket.....your brilliance is lost in a brillo pad.
Of course, we all have miraculous knowledge when we're born, but most of us are smart enough to hide it. Only the stupid people like Mozart are too dumb to keep it a secret.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 08, 2019, 08:15:49 PM
Of course, we all have miraculous knowledge when we're born, but most of us are smart enough to hide it. Only the stupid people like Mozart are too dumb to keep it a secret.
That and "Baby Geniuses" ... a movie from 1999. This was also Socrates/Plato's theory ... the pre-knowledge being the Eternal Forms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgjvh4_h_lQ
I saw a officer promoted to Major yesterday, his two year old girl was there, wanting daddy more than mommy, and being terrible-two ;-) Feminists start young ;-))
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 08, 2019, 08:15:49 PM
Of course, we all have miraculous knowledge when we're born, but most of us are smart enough to hide it. Only the stupid people like Mozart are too dumb to keep it a secret.
Wrong again mate.
Children do not hide much at all.
It is when they grow up that they stop behaving in a natural way as when they were young.
Quote from: aitm on February 08, 2019, 08:07:46 PM
of course you are right...thats why we don't need to teach our children to speak or even shit in a bucket.....your brilliance is lost in a brillo pad.
Not at all Mister.
Having to go through reincarnation (if you believe in it) all the knowledge that we had in previous lives does not pop up all of a sudden for the simple reason that when you are a baby the body-brain is still growing towards his full potential but hasn't reach that stage yet that is why babies need to be reminded how to live.
This of course has zero to do with whether the potential and knowledge of children from previous lives are there or not.
The fact is that those children that are most knowledgeable manifest their knowledge and skill earlier while those less knowledgeable manifest it later if at all regardless whether we teach them to speak or to poop in the pot.
Your problem is that by not believing in reincarnation you put everybody on the same starting line when in reality this starting line started millions years ago and in the meantime the smarter got ahead while the lazy one got behind and that is quite obvious when we see genius in children.
Quote from: Arik on February 09, 2019, 08:20:49 AM
Wrong again mate.
Children do not hide much at all.
It is when they grow up that they stop behaving in a natural way as when they were young.
Rousseau would agree with you. Civilization is unnatural.
Quote from: Baruch on February 09, 2019, 09:12:07 AM
Rousseau would agree with you. Civilization is unnatural.
My spiritual teacher said that this planet is in a transition phase so a lot of changes take place all the time.
Not all these changes are for the better as we can see at the moment with wars, famine, climate changes and other but by doing mistakes we can also learn provide we survive this difficult time.
He was however optimistic that we will get through and reach new level of knowledge especially in the spiritual field so people will stop behaving in a non natural way.
Quote from: Arik on February 09, 2019, 09:34:19 AM
My spiritual teacher said that this planet is in a transition phase so a lot of changes take place all the time.
Not all these changes are for the better as we can see at the moment with wars, famine, climate changes and other but by doing mistakes we can also learn provide we survive this difficult time.
He was however optimistic that we will get through and reach new level of knowledge especially in the spiritual field so people will stop behaving in a non natural way.
That's nice.
The guy who lives three Blocks away from me, in a cartboard box, said something similar.
Belgium is hosting refugees from Venezuela now? Or is that Zimbabwe?
Quote from: Baruch on February 09, 2019, 01:25:43 PM
Belgium is hosting refugees from Venezuela now? Or is that Zimbabwe?
There was a time antwerp had most different nationalities in it, out of all of Europe. Outdone only by new york. Don't know it's ranking now, but i bet it is still up there.
Quote from: Arik on February 09, 2019, 09:01:20 AM
Your problem is that by not believing in reincarnation you put everybody on the same starting line when in reality this starting line started millions years ago and in the meantime the smarter got ahead while the lazy one got behind and that is quite obvious when we see genius in children.
I see....so of the millions upon millions of babies we get 5 genius's....every decade or so. Yeah.....you got all the genius working for you right now. Must be why you spend so much time here instead of solving the Grand Unification Theory.....lucky us.
Quote from: aitm on February 09, 2019, 04:58:21 PM
I see....so of the millions upon millions of babies we get 5 genius's....every decade or so. Yeah.....you got all the genius working for you right now. Must be why you spend so much time here instead of solving the Grand Unification Theory.....lucky us.
Here we are with one more dogma.
According to you there is only one planet where people live and this planet is our planet in which you see only 5 genius.
In other words there are no other planets where genius may live.
How sad Mister.
And atheists suppose to be those open mind that believe in science?
Have you ever play one of those puzzle game in which a particular piece only fit in a particular spot?
That is how the universal system works.
While genius fit in a particular planet where life is more evolved other people with less knowledge and consciousness are bound to live in a different dimension which is more compatible with their mental-spiritual progress.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 09, 2019, 12:00:47 PM
That's nice.
The guy who lives three Blocks away from me, in a cartboard box, said something similar.
That is a complain that you should direct to those who promote the capitalist system which by the way my spiritual teacher is against it.
Try to go to Mr. Trump and tell him..........son we had enough of your garbage.
Quote from: Arik on February 10, 2019, 10:13:59 AM
That is a complain that you should direct to those who promote the capitalist system which by the way my spiritual teacher is against it.
Try to go to Mr. Trump and tell him..........son we had enough of your garbage.
Western materialists can't imagine that their culture is parochial ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama_(stage)
Living in a cardboard box, might be a necessary ashram in life experience. I am a Vanaprastha myself.
One of the posters here admits to being a Sannyasa.
Being capitalist is appropriate to the earlier Brrahmacharya and Grihastha stages. It is appropriate for their elders to share what they have stored up with the youngers.
I like how this introduction thread, a place for saying "hi," has derailed into 33 pages of debate.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 10, 2019, 01:37:14 PM
I like how this introduction thread, a place for saying "hi," has derailed into 33 pages of debate.
Arik's fault. He had made 10 posts here, but didn't start a new topic in a regular section.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 10, 2019, 01:37:14 PM
has derailed into 33 pages of debate.
mighty generous of you to call it a debate rather than having a retard spout complete nonsense and ignore every piece of real evidence and common sense that refutes his prattle. But....I admit some here have engaged in a battle of wit agin half-wit.
Quote from: aitm on February 10, 2019, 02:36:51 PM
mighty generous of you to call it a debate rather than having a retard spout complete nonsense and ignore every piece of real evidence and common sense that refutes his prattle. But....I admit some here have engaged in a battle of wit agin half-wit.
Otha's chess game. If you aren't winning, overturn the chessboard.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 10, 2019, 01:37:14 PM
I like how this introduction thread, a place for saying "hi," has derailed into 33 pages of debate.
It that what you call this - "debate"?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 10, 2019, 05:33:57 PM
It that what you call this - "debate"?
One polite adult, many impolite children?
Quote from: aitm on February 10, 2019, 02:36:51 PM
mighty generous of you to call it a debate rather than having a retard spout complete nonsense and ignore every piece of real evidence and common sense that refutes his prattle. But....I admit some here have engaged in a battle of wit agin half-wit.
"Half-wit" might be generous towards (I assume you mean) Arik. If he/she was twins, they wouldn't manage one full wit.
Quote from: aitm on February 10, 2019, 02:36:51 PM
mighty generous of you to call it a debate rather than having a retard spout complete nonsense and ignore every piece of real evidence and common sense that refutes his prattle. But....I admit some here have engaged in a battle of wit agin halfwit
Real evidence?
Where, when, how?
Please show me this evidence of yours so I can reply to you.
So far I haven't seen a single piece of your evidence.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 10, 2019, 01:37:14 PM
I like how this introduction thread, a place for saying "hi," has derailed into 33 pages of debate.
I also like it BL. lol
But I promise you that as soon as I finish my introduction I will start a thread in the proper forum provide of course that the mods don't kick me out before.
(https://smalldog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/2990_picture_of_a_salesman_getting_kicked_out_of_an_office.png)
Quote from: Arik on February 11, 2019, 09:27:08 AM
I also like it BL. lol
But I promise you that as soon as I finish my introduction I will start a thread in the proper forum provide of course that the mods don't kick me out before.
(https://smalldog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/2990_picture_of_a_salesman_getting_kicked_out_of_an_office.png)
I wouldn't worry. You haven't done anything warranting banishment.
I've not read everything you've written, of course.
But from what I've read, I don't think you can be banned.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 11, 2019, 09:50:57 AM
I wouldn't worry. You haven't done anything warranting banishment.
I've not read everything you've written, of course.
But from what I've read, I don't think you can be banned.
Otherwise they would have booted me long ago for rejecting the D-R duopoly.
Quote from: Arik on February 11, 2019, 09:27:08 AM
I also like it BL. lol
But I promise you that as soon as I finish my introduction I will start a thread in the proper forum provide of course that the mods don't kick me out before.
This board has banned a few, all that I can remember are theists---but, anyway, none were banned for being stupid. So, even though you have given 'stupid' a bad name, I don't think you will be banned. Why would you come to a board trying to be banned. Why not just stay away?
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 11, 2019, 02:30:37 PM
This board has banned a few, all that I can remember are theists---but, anyway, none were banned for being stupid. So, even though you have given 'stupid' a bad name, I don't think you will be banned. Why would you come to a board trying to be banned. Why not just stay away?
This isn't atheistforums.org ... the people here are different ;-p
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2019, 01:17:20 PM
Otherwise they would have booted me long ago for rejecting the D-R duopoly.
D-R duopoly?
What is that?
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2019, 06:18:42 PM
This isn't atheistforums.org ... the people here are different ;-p
Good to know.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 11, 2019, 02:30:37 PM
This board has banned a few, all that I can remember are theists---but, anyway, none were banned for being stupid. So, even though you have given 'stupid' a bad name, I don't think you will be banned. Why would you come to a board trying to be banned.
Who try to be banned?
QuoteWhy not just stay away?
If I go in a yoga forum almost everybody would agree with me so what's the point?
It is in a forum like this in which most people don't agree with me that I can find it very interesting because I have to exercise and train my mind in order to support my beliefs against a strong opposition.
It is this clash that help me to learn how I should put my argument forward in a better way.
No clash = no learning.
[quote author=Arik link=topic=13210.msg1245797#msg1245797 date=1549979427
If I go in a yoga forum almost everybody would agree with me so what's the point?
It is in a forum like this in which most people don't agree with me that I can find it very interesting because I have to exercise and train my mind in order to support my beliefs against a strong opposition.
It is this clash that help me to learn how I should put my argument forward in a better way.
No clash = no learning.
[/quote]
From what I've read it is hard for me to think you have a brain. As for learning you demonstrate nothing that would suggest you are capable of doing that--learn. For your supposed love of being 'conscious' you seem to be so only in one very narrow band of belief. Beyond that, you seem to be totally oblivious to anything.
Quote from: Arik on February 12, 2019, 08:24:48 AM
D-R duopoly?
What is that?
Democrat-Republican. Baruch doesn't think there's a difference between the two.
Quote from: Arik on February 12, 2019, 08:50:27 AM
Who try to be banned?
If I go in a yoga forum almost everybody would agree with me so what's the point?
It is in a forum like this in which most people don't agree with me that I can find it very interesting because I have to exercise and train my mind in order to support my beliefs against a strong opposition.
It is this clash that help me to learn how I should put my argument forward in a better way.
No clash = no learning.
i could go to a forum I create, where I am almost the only one there (a former member here did that 18 months ago, shortly afterward he apparently died from solipsism ;-(
These people not only made me a better theist, they made me move from monotheism to polytheism. i need to get back to worshipping my parrot now ...
Quote from: Arik on February 12, 2019, 08:24:48 AM
D-R duopoly?
What is that?
The US claims to be a two-party polity ... but hasn't been since 1963. The two parties made a blood brother pact over a certain change in chief executive and are bound by their shared guilt for that, and all the psychopathic shit that came afterward ...
Quote from: Arik on February 12, 2019, 08:26:09 AM
Good to know.
A much larger forum, atheistforums.org sometimes sends their riff-raff here. But we put quality over quantity ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2019, 11:15:32 AM
Democrat-Republican. Baruch doesn't think there's a difference between the two.
My right leg and my left leg aren't the same, but they connect at the groin, where all the interesting stuff happens.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2019, 10:36:20 AM
[quote author=Arik link=topic=13210.msg1245797#msg1245797 date=1549979427
If I go in a yoga forum almost everybody would agree with me so what's the point?
It is in a forum like this in which most people don't agree with me that I can find it very interesting because I have to exercise and train my mind in order to support my beliefs against a strong opposition.
It is this clash that help me to learn how I should put my argument forward in a better way.
No clash = no learning.
From what I've read it is hard for me to think you have a brain. As for learning you demonstrate nothing that would suggest you are capable of doing that--learn. For your supposed love of being 'conscious' you seem to be so only in one very narrow band of belief. Beyond that, you seem to be totally oblivious to anything.
Wrong again Mike.
To me it is all a question of priorities.
To you my priorities are not priorities so you come to the conclusion that I waste my time.
We got different beliefs.
You probably think that once you die is all over so to you must be important physical-material things.
To me these things although necessary are not very very important.
To me the life is eternal so it is important to build the future of my consciousness.
This doesn't mean that I neglect physical and material things.
Yoga doesn't neglect life on earth that is why my spiritual teacher gave a practical system of running the economy and the society once the capitalist system collapse and that shouldn't be very far away now.
Quote from: Arik on February 13, 2019, 08:34:30 AM
Wrong again Mike.
To me it is all a question of priorities.
To you my priorities are not priorities so you come to the conclusion that I waste my time.
We got different beliefs.
You probably think that once you die is all over so to you must be important physical-material things.
To me these things although necessary are not very very important.
To me the life is eternal so it is important to build the future of my consciousness.
This doesn't mean that I neglect physical and material things.
Yoga doesn't neglect life on earth that is why my spiritual teacher gave a practical system of running the economy and the society once the capitalist system collapse and that shouldn't be very far away now.
Doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe, either. What matters is what 'is'. Of course you don't neglect physical or material things--to do so would lead to death. I don't put down yoga at all; just as I don't put down martial arts training. It is a good form of discipline and is helpful in all phases of life. I don't worry about what happens after I die; I will die and that is inescapable no matter how many fictions I spin about it. And your consciousness does not carry over from your death--that belief (as all beliefs are) is a fiction, but one designed to make you feel better. If that works for you, go for it. I also agree with your spiritual teacher (spiritual leader=a good gig if you can get it) that what in Merika is called the capitalist system is due for a makeover soon--and it can't happen soon enough. It seems if you could get rid of your wishful believing that we would see the world in much the same way.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2019, 11:15:32 AM
Democrat-Republican. Baruch doesn't think there's a difference between the two.
They both follow the capitalist system so the differences are minimum.
They disagree on the wall on the guns laws and few other things but that's all.
All in all they follow the same decrepit system which has no future.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2019, 08:44:57 AM
Doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe, either. What matters is what 'is'. Of course you don't neglect physical or material things--to do so would lead to death. I don't put down yoga at all; just as I don't put down martial arts training. It is a good form of discipline and is helpful in all phases of life. I don't worry about what happens after I die; I will die and that is inescapable no matter how many fictions I spin about it. And your consciousness does not carry over from your death--that belief (as all beliefs are) is a fiction, but one designed to make you feel better. If that works for you, go for it. I also agree with your spiritual teacher (spiritual leader=a good gig if you can get it) that what in Merika is called the capitalist system is due for a makeover soon--and it can't happen soon enough. It seems if you could get rid of your wishful believing that we would see the world in much the same way.
You ..........don't worry about what happens after you die...........I instead do worry.
To think that the consciousness that we got happen in a mysterious way and one day will vanish is a demented idea.
Life and science tell us that we build what we got and nothing happen by chance but that is your life Mike so do what make sense to you.
Quote from: Arik on February 13, 2019, 09:11:19 AM
You ..........don't worry about what happens after you die...........I instead do worry.
To think that the consciousness that we got happen in a mysterious way and one day will vanish is a demented idea.
Life and science tell us that we build what we got and nothing happen by chance but that is your life Mike so do what make sense to you.
You really think that an eternal existence wouldn't be torture, no matter what it's like? Imagine having lived for so long that you've done everything. You've met everyone, you've done all you could ever hope to accomplish, and nothing surprises you any more. You have no more goals, nothing to strive for, you'd be doomed to an eternal existence of boredom.
Reincarnation would be a better option, since you'd essentially be getting a mind wipe between each lifetime, but even that wouldn't be eternal. Our universe is headed towards a state of heat death. One day, there will be no more light in the sky. Eventually, even the blackholes will die, and the universe will have effectively expanded so much that it will be functionally empty. What happens to your consciousness then?
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2019, 08:44:57 AM
And your consciousness does not carry over from your death--that belief (as all beliefs are) is a fiction, but one designed to make you feel better.
More likely designed to make money for the yoga teacher. I wonder how much Arik pays for the yoga lessons.
Quote from: Arik on February 13, 2019, 09:11:19 AM
You ..........don't worry about what happens after you die...........I instead do worry.
To think that the consciousness that we got happen in a mysterious way and one day will vanish is a demented idea.
Life and science tell us that we build what we got and nothing happen by chance but that is your life Mike so do what make sense to you.
No, I don't worry about what happens when I die. I have a pretty good idea what does happen, which is to simply rot away--star dust to star dust. Humans have consciousness not from magical or mysterious ways, but from evolution. I don't know all the steps that that would take; but for me 'I don't know' does not = god must have done it. One day humans will have a very good idea of exactly how our consciousness came about and that answer will be supplied by science and not magic or fictional stories or creatures.
From stardust thou art, unto stardust shalt thou return.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 13, 2019, 12:08:41 PM
Reincarnation would be a better option, since you'd essentially be getting a mind wipe between each lifetime, but even that wouldn't be eternal. Our universe is headed towards a state of heat death. One day, there will be no more light in the sky. Eventually, even the blackholes will die, and the universe will have effectively expanded so much that it will be functionally empty. What happens to your consciousness then?
Can you call it reincarnation if you have no way to access a past life? I don't see any difference between reincarnation with a mind wipe, and two completely different beings.
I think you're referring to the Big Freeze, which is not quite the same as heat death because it's not a thin, homogeneous cloud of photons at the same temperature, it's just space and stray matter riding the eternal expansion forever into the darkness, cooling ever closer to absolute zero.
The other alternative fate is the Big Rip, should the acceleration become fast enough to not only separate galaxy clusters, but galaxies within clusters, then separate the galaxies themselves, ultimately expanding fast enough to tear all matter apart and finally the fabric of spacetime itself.
I'm not entirely sure whether the heat death of the universe remains possible under accelerating expansion. I'll have to pester an astronomer over that. :)
I don't know what "the fabric of spacetime itself" is, but I'm curious whether the expansion could accelerate enough, eventually, to rip apart the virtual particles, like what happens to them at the event horizon of black holes, such that they'd then become actual, real particles.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 13, 2019, 01:21:15 PM
More likely designed to make money for the yoga teacher. I wonder how much Arik pays for the yoga lessons.
If he doesn't pay up, maybe the teacher ties him in knots?
A copy of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (the scripture in question) can cost less than $20. That might be a lot to a poor person in India.
That might be a lot to a poor person anywhere.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 13, 2019, 05:02:12 PM
From stardust thou art, unto stardust shalt thou return.
That is a song? Sung by Nat King Cole?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjU6ZjrQulc
Quote from: trdsf on February 13, 2019, 06:15:36 PM
Can you call it reincarnation if you have no way to access a past life? I don't see any difference between reincarnation with a mind wipe, and two completely different beings.
I think you're referring to the Big Freeze, which is not quite the same as heat death because it's not a thin, homogeneous cloud of photons at the same temperature, it's just space and stray matter riding the eternal expansion forever into the darkness, cooling ever closer to absolute zero.
The other alternative fate is the Big Rip, should the acceleration become fast enough to not only separate galaxy clusters, but galaxies within clusters, then separate the galaxies themselves, ultimately expanding fast enough to tear all matter apart and finally the fabric of spacetime itself.
I'm not entirely sure whether the heat death of the universe remains possible under accelerating expansion. I'll have to pester an astronomer over that. :)
Pythagoras was the first Western person to claim he remembered past lives. This was contrary to Greek theology. He also co-invented modern maths.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 13, 2019, 07:02:15 PM
That might be a lot to a poor person anywhere.
Easy to fix. Rob the rich, right ... Vladimir Illich?
Quote from: trdsf on February 13, 2019, 06:15:36 PM
Can you call it reincarnation if you have no way to access a past life? I don't see any difference between reincarnation with a mind wipe, and two completely different beings.
I think you're referring to the Big Freeze, which is not quite the same as heat death because it's not a thin, homogeneous cloud of photons at the same temperature, it's just space and stray matter riding the eternal expansion forever into the darkness, cooling ever closer to absolute zero.
The other alternative fate is the Big Rip, should the acceleration become fast enough to not only separate galaxy clusters, but galaxies within clusters, then separate the galaxies themselves, ultimately expanding fast enough to tear all matter apart and finally the fabric of spacetime itself.
I'm not entirely sure whether the heat death of the universe remains possible under accelerating expansion. I'll have to pester an astronomer over that. :)
Depends on if this thing called a soul actually exists. It most likely doesn't, but assuming it did, your stream of consciousness could continue between lifetimes, even if your memories didn't. Some people think memories do survive reincarnation, though. It's just that those memories are buried and not easily available to the conscious mind. Supposedly, when the Dalai Lama reincarnates, they find him by presenting children with objects that were important to his past self, along with some random assortment of stuff serving as placebos in a sense. The Dalai Lama's reincarnated self is supposed to be drawn to the objects that are familiar to him. Of course, when you have a ton of kids doing the same test, plus having the confirmation bias at play, that test doesn't really serve as proof of anything, but that's how they justify their beliefs.
I think that without continuity of memory it could not be considered the "same" person. But it may be more complicated than that.
If you read how traditionally, they chose the new Dalai Lama or Pachen Lama ... it was basically monks using objects or people from the dead predecessor, and seeing if a child was attracted to them or not. In that sense, they were testing for continuity of memory. Being a blood relation was being filtered out. So not like a monarchy.
Quote from: trdsf on February 13, 2019, 06:15:36 PM
Can you call it reincarnation if you have no way to access a past life? I don't see any difference between reincarnation with a mind wipe, and two completely different beings.
Exactly! Thank you. I Always say that to people when they brought up reïncarnation. What's the point?
And especially karma-influenced reincarnation. What if my dickery makes me a dungbeetle in my next life? So what? If the dung-beetle don't remember the bad stuff I did to earn it in that life, it's just going to go: "Man, I love shit. Dum-dee-dum-dee-do. Rolling a ball of shit I can lay my eggs in. Dum-dee-doo. Life is great."
Karma is impersonal, not personal. It is like ... a life accumulates dickishness ... or exhausts dickishness ... regardless of memories (which would make it personal). Like cholesterol. Western people worry about individual guilt. Tradition worries about collective shame. Karma is past all of that. A variable original sin, that is expiated or not thru further lives, not thru faith in Jesus for example. For Eastern influenced people, Jesus offers something very similar to Mahayana Buddhism .. instant enlightenment = instant nullification of dickishness or cholesterol. Theravada Buddhism is closer to the original Hinduism ... it might take many lives to reach enlightenment or moksha.
Pythagoras didn't show any signs of knowing about karma, just reincarnation ... which even Greeks already had, except you definitely couldn't carry memories of self forward. Other non-Greek people had similar ideas of reincarnation ... Celts for example. For Celts you simply bounced endlessly between two worlds ... and the nether world was the good one, not this one. Which is the opposite of the Greek view (Hades).
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 13, 2019, 12:08:41 PM
You really think that an eternal existence wouldn't be torture, no matter what it's like? Imagine having lived for so long that you've done everything. You've met everyone, you've done all you could ever hope to accomplish, and nothing surprises you any more. You have no more goals, nothing to strive for, you'd be doomed to an eternal existence of boredom.
Why are you so negative?
Why anyone would want to end a state of nirvikalpa samadhi?
QuoteReincarnation would be a better option, since you'd essentially be getting a mind wipe between each lifetime, but even that wouldn't be eternal. Our universe is headed towards a state of heat death. One day, there will be no more light in the sky. Eventually, even the blackholes will die, and the universe will have effectively expanded so much that it will be functionally empty. What happens to your consciousness then?
If the universe would end also God would but that is not possible as God is eternal. (according to yoga)
Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2019, 07:22:12 AM
Karma is impersonal, not personal.
Change the word 'karma' to universe, and there you have it. The universe does not give a shit about you--or anything, since the universe is a thing and can't feel--it just is and it just does what it does. Impersonal.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 13, 2019, 01:21:15 PM
More likely designed to make money for the yoga teacher. I wonder how much Arik pays for the yoga lessons.
I help you to put your wonder in a state of absolute peace.
Some teacher charge $5 for each asanas lesson better known for yoga posture or yoga exercise.
That is to pay for rent, electricity, and other bills.
Other teachers charge nothing and even those who charge would do it for free if you tell them that you got no money.
Meditation instead is absolutely free.
I hope this help you to get rid of your wondering.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2019, 09:21:40 AM
Change the word 'karma' to universe, and there you have it. The universe does not give a shit about you--or anything, since the universe is a thing and can't feel--it just is and it just does what it does. Impersonal.
Universe and karma are two totally different things.
The universe is made of the 5 fundamental factors such as space, air, energy-light, water and matter.
Some people however say that is all matter but that is not important.
In any case this universe has nothing to do with karma so in a way it is impersonal.
Karma instead is a factor that affect our lives.
As in physic it is said that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction also in the consciousness realm the same thing apply.
That doesn't mean that the reaction apply straightaway.
It depend really.
Suppose someone kill several people.
One life wouldn't be enough to pay for it so that person will have to be reborn again and again and killed as many times as he-she killed those people.
But again is not so straightforward because that person may repent and the debt can be paid in a different way.
(according to yoga)
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 13, 2019, 08:05:53 PM
Depends on if this thing called a soul actually exists. It most likely doesn't, but assuming it did, your stream of consciousness could continue between lifetimes, even if your memories didn't. Some people think memories do survive reincarnation, though. It's just that those memories are buried and not easily available to the conscious mind. Supposedly, when the Dalai Lama reincarnates, they find him by presenting children with objects that were important to his past self, along with some random assortment of stuff serving as placebos in a sense. The Dalai Lama's reincarnated self is supposed to be drawn to the objects that are familiar to him. Of course, when you have a ton of kids doing the same test, plus having the confirmation bias at play, that test doesn't really serve as proof of anything, but that's how they justify their beliefs.
My teacher did explained why it is not possible to remember past lives.
That would be a terrible burden that would slow down or prevent our progress altogether.
This life is hard enough because we are stuck with our mistakes.
Mistakes that we have done in this life.
If on top of that we would also remember the mistakes of our previous lives then it would be too much to put up with.
Only small children up to the age of 5 or 6 are allowed to remember their previous lives but as they grow over that age the memory of their previous lives goes and that make sense.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2019, 04:57:45 PM
No, I don't worry about what happens when I die. I have a pretty good idea what does happen, which is to simply rot away--star dust to star dust. Humans have consciousness not from magical or mysterious ways, but from evolution. I don't know all the steps that that would take; but for me 'I don't know' does not = god must have done it. One day humans will have a very good idea of exactly how our consciousness came about and that answer will be supplied by science and not magic or fictional stories or creatures.
So you say..........Humans have consciousness not from magical or mysterious ways, but from evolution...........
Whose evolution Mike?
Their own evolution trough many many lives or somebody else evolution?
(https://www.gelighting.com/sites/default/files/styles/bulb_finder_/public/2017-10/light-mobile_0_1_0_2_2_2_0_1_2_7_1_11_7_2_7_3_0_1_4_0_0_0_2.png?itok=ZrcaeJ7I)
Let us see if your answer make any sense.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 09:19:23 AMWhy are you so negative?
I'm not being negative. I'm being realistic. You should try it sometimes.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 09:19:23 AMWhy anyone would want to end a state of nirvikalpa samadhi?
I have no idea what you just said, but I don't really care either so...
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 09:19:23 AMIf the universe would end also God would but that is not possible as God is eternal. (according to yoga)
That's not evidence. You can't start with a presupposition and use it to justify your preconceived conclusion. The universe is expanding, and there is no reason to think it'll ever slow down or reverse itself. That's just wishful thinking.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 09:54:29 AM
Universe and karma are two totally different things.
The universe is made of the 5 fundamental factors such as space, air, energy-light, water and matter.
Some people however say that is all matter but that is not important.
In any case this universe has nothing to do with karma so in a way it is impersonal.
Karma instead is a factor that affect our lives.
As in physic it is said that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction also in the consciousness realm the same thing apply.
That doesn't mean that the reaction apply straightaway.
It depend really.
Suppose someone kill several people.
One life wouldn't be enough to pay for it so that person will have to be reborn again and again and killed as many times as he-she killed those people.
But again is not so straightforward because that person may repent and the debt can be paid in a different way.
(according to yoga)
A very nice and enjoyable piece of fiction you have going there.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 10:22:03 AM
So you say..........Humans have consciousness not from magical or mysterious ways, but from evolution...........
Whose evolution Mike?
Their own evolution trough many many lives or somebody else evolution?
Let us see if your answer make any sense.
All that you spew is fiction and nonsense. Yet you want my answer to make sense. All of my answers have made sense, but you filter all that is said to you thru your lens of fictional nonsense. Just because you spend your live in a world of fiction and nonsense, don't expect me to understand or want to participate.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 09:19:23 AM
If the universe would end also God would but that is not possible as God is eternal. (according to yoga)
Which God?
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2019, 11:13:39 AM
I'm not being negative. I'm being realistic. You should try it sometimes.
You realistic?
Are you serious?
How can you think or doubt that a consciousness that took millions of years to evolve to this human stage can vanish into nothing as the physical death happen?
QuoteI have no idea what you just said, but I don't really care either so...
Nirvikalpa samadhi is a state of total bliss so to think that someone would want to end this supreme feeling doesn't make any sense.
QuoteThat's not evidence. You can't start with a presupposition and use it to justify your preconceived conclusion. The universe is expanding, and there is no reason to think it'll ever slow down or reverse itself. That's just wishful thinking.
I am not arguing that the universe is expanding or not.
In fact it make sense that it is expanding as this expansion is driven by an ever expanding spiritual love.
As far as evidence or not you are correct in saying that you do not have any evidence that is why at the end I wrote......according to yoga.
Evidence come with exercising and increase our level of consciousness and that is something that at this stage in time you still haven't done.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2019, 11:28:32 AM
All that you spew is fiction and nonsense. Yet you want my answer to make sense. All of my answers have made sense, but you filter all that is said to you thru your lens of fictional nonsense. Just because you spend your live in a world of fiction and nonsense, don't expect me to understand or want to participate.
I also can say that your beliefs are fiction and nonsense and that is tons more of nonsense considering that materialist think that what took millions of years to evolve such as the human consciousness will vanish into nothing in this short life of ours.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 06:47:41 PM
You realistic?
Are you serious?
How can you think or doubt that a consciousness that took millions of years to evolve to this human stage can vanish into nothing as the physical death happen?
Yes, I'm serious. I don't engage in wishful thinking. I have no reason to think consciousness survives the death of the brain, especially when the brain accounts for everything we call "consciousness." Your assertion makes no sense.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 06:47:41 PMNirvikalpa samadhi is a state of total bliss so to think that someone would want to end this supreme feeling doesn't make any sense.
So basically, you lose your ability to feel but happiness and just become a happy machine. Like being permanently stuck in a drug induced high for all of eternity.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 06:47:41 PMI am not arguing that the universe is expanding or not.
In fact it make sense that it is expanding as this expansion is driven by an ever expanding spiritual love.
As far as evidence or not you are correct in saying that you do not have any evidence that is why at the end I wrote......according to yoga.
Evidence come with exercising and increase our level of consciousness and that is something that at this stage in time you still haven't done.
Actually, I have. I used to be a very devout Christian, and spiritual growth was a high priority for me. Then I realized it was all bullshit.
Just like an ex-smoker ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2019, 06:59:07 PM
Yes, I'm serious. I don't engage in wishful thinking. I have no reason to think consciousness survives the death of the brain, especially when the brain accounts for everything we call "consciousness." Your assertion makes no sense.
You must have noticed that when you drive your car for a while it all seem like you and the car are one.
The car respond to your command and that make you feel that the car is you.
That is wrong because the car is not you.
The same thing happen with the relationship that has been build between you and your brain since you born.
This is not only a materialist dogma (false truth) but it goes a lot further because even a lot of non materialists think in the same way and that is very sad indeed.
QuoteSo basically, you lose your ability to feel but happiness and just become a happy machine. Like being permanently stuck in a drug induced high for all of eternity.
Not really BL.
We humans are equipped with a limited conscious-mind that obviously can not go over certain limits and that make us thinking that also God must have the same limitations.
We can only be in one place at the time and think at one thing at the time so our physical and mental activity is not multi-directional such as God which can be in a state of bliss and at the same time be in full control of everything.
QuoteActually, I have. I used to be a very devout Christian, and spiritual growth was a high priority for me. Then I realized it was all bullshit.
Christianity as it is today is like a drop of water in the ocean as far as being able to increase our consciousness.
The first Christians had a proper system but that is history that is why you got nowhere.
Today Christianity is too corrupted to understand spirituality.
It also depend on the effort that you put.
Most people give it up soon after they started because they find too difficult to go on.
That also apply to all sort of studies and martial arts.
Generally Asians are more woke, than Occidentals, in spite of Occidental chauvinism.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 07:26:18 PMYou must have noticed that when you drive your car for a while it all seem like you and the car are one.
The car respond to your command and that make you feel that the car is you.
That is wrong because the car is not you.
The same thing happen with the relationship that has been build between you and your brain since you born.
This is not only a materialist dogma (false truth) but it goes a lot further because even a lot of non materialists think in the same way and that is very sad indeed.
For your analogy to work, your consciousness would be uneffected if your brain was knocked out. The driver doesn't stop working if the car is turned off. So why is it if you take a blow to your head, you black out?
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 07:26:18 PMNot really BL.
We humans are equipped with a limited conscious-mind that obviously can not go over certain limits and that make us thinking that also God must have the same limitations.
We can only be in one place at the time and think at one thing at the time so our physical and mental activity is not multi-directional such as God which can be in a state of bliss and at the same time be in full control of everything.
Sounds like a lot of BS.
Quote from: Arik on February 14, 2019, 07:26:18 PMChristianity as it is today is like a drop of water in the ocean as far as being able to increase our consciousness.
The first Christians had a proper system but that is history that is why you got nowhere.
Today Christianity is too corrupted to understand spirituality.
It also depend on the effort that you put.
Most people give it up soon after they started because they find too difficult to go on.
That also apply to all sort of studies and martial arts.
Ah. The No True Scotsman argument. I figured as much. If effort is what matters, I graduated with my Masters a few years ago, and I think I made two B's my entire college career. All the rest were A's. I put more effort in my spiritual growth than my academic success. Few people put more effort into spirituality than I did, yet I came up empty.
"Few people put more effort into spirituality than I did, yet I came up empty." .... everybody is different.
But not a knock on you ... "you did it wrong, quality beats quantity" as an encouragement for others.
QuoteNirvikalpa samadhi is a state of total bliss so to think that someone would want to end this supreme feeling doesn't make any sense.
In the words of the wise Jim Jefferies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPYN-hpF1hs&feature=youtu.be&t=78 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPYN-hpF1hs&feature=youtu.be&t=78)
Quote from: Plu on February 15, 2019, 06:50:24 AM
In the words of the wise Jim Jefferies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPYN-hpF1hs&feature=youtu.be&t=78 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPYN-hpF1hs&feature=youtu.be&t=78)
This Jeff is a total nut case.
I can understand a bit about his aversion towards religions considering all religious dogmas and non sense but to hate God for no reason is a total different story.
I wouldn't like to be in his shoes when the truth will hit straight in his face.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2019, 09:47:59 PM
For your analogy to work, your consciousness would be uneffected if your brain was knocked out. The driver doesn't stop working if the car is turned off. So why is it if you take a blow to your head, you black out?
Simple BL.
Our consciousness is stuck inside the body-brain until physical death occur.
There is no escape unless the person commit suicide.
Anything that happen to our body-mind affect our consciousness because our consciousness rely on the body-brain to work as a driver rely on the vehicle to go somewhere and obviously a blow to our body-brain is felt to our consciousness that is unable to escape that situation.
QuoteSounds like a lot of BS.
I suppose that anything that doesn't follow your logic is BS.
The problem however is to find out whether your logic is good or is a load of BS.
QuoteAh. The No True Scotsman argument. I figured as much. If effort is what matters, I graduated with my Masters a few years ago, and I think I made two B's my entire college career. All the rest were A's. I put more effort in my spiritual growth than my academic success. Few people put more effort into spirituality than I did, yet I came up empty.
In most cases it is a lack of sincerity that prevent people from getting there but there may also be other reasons like being in two places at the same time.
Suppose you wish to be with a person and at the same time remember also somebody else.
You can trick this person in pretending that you are sincere but with God is a different story because God can read your mind.
In other words when your physical-material desires are stronger than your desire to reach God that will not work.
QuoteI wouldn't like to be in his shoes when the truth will hit straight in his face.
You might have been in his shoes hundreds of times already, but how would you know? You can't remember your previous lives anyway, right?
Quote from: Plu on February 15, 2019, 08:48:26 AM
You might have been in his shoes hundreds of times already, but how would you know? You can't remember your previous lives anyway, right?
That is 100% true Plu but the fact that I did grow up from that dark stage along my personal evolution means that I don't have to worry anymore unless all of a sudden I decide to behave like a total fool.
Your hero on the other hand is still stuck in that hell.
Quote from: Arik on February 15, 2019, 10:09:12 AM
That is 100% true Plu but the fact that I did grow up from that dark stage along my personal evolution means that I don't have to worry anymore unless all of a sudden I decide to behave like a total fool.
Your hero on the other hand is still stuck in that hell.
In Hinduism/Buddhism there is a lowest hell, a Tartarus ... aka Avici Hell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avīci
This is why there are scoffers and mockers ... they want to do whatever they want, without negative consequences. I do to ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2019, 09:47:59 PM
Sounds like a lot of BS.
There's probably a good reason for that...
Quote from: Arik on February 15, 2019, 10:09:12 AM
Your hero on the other hand is still stuck in that hell.
I dunno, he seems a lot happier with his life than you do. And he's talking to audiences that actually enjoy listening to him, while you're just being played with because people are bored.
Quote from: Plu on February 15, 2019, 01:52:35 PM
I dunno, he seems a lot happier with his life than you do. And he's talking to audiences that actually enjoy listening to him, while you're just being played with because people are bored.
Happy? As is alcohol, sex, tobacco, gambling, drugs? Good stuff if you can get it. Helter Skelter stoners.
Hedonism comes thru ... lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride ... plus acedia and vainglory.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2019, 01:18:15 PM
But we put quality over quantity ;-)
I feel the need to change my t-shirt to a clean one.
If it feels good, do it!
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 13, 2019, 08:05:53 PM
Depends on if this thing called a soul actually exists. It most likely doesn't, but assuming it did, your stream of consciousness could continue between lifetimes, even if your memories didn't. Some people think memories do survive reincarnation, though. It's just that those memories are buried and not easily available to the conscious mind. Supposedly, when the Dalai Lama reincarnates, they find him by presenting children with objects that were important to his past self, along with some random assortment of stuff serving as placebos in a sense. The Dalai Lama's reincarnated self is supposed to be drawn to the objects that are familiar to him. Of course, when you have a ton of kids doing the same test, plus having the confirmation bias at play, that test doesn't really serve as proof of anything, but that's how they justify their beliefs.
Pretty much. Eventually, some kid is going to pick the thing you want to be picked, simply as a matter of statistics. And all that proves is that statistics are statistical in nature.
For the record, no, I don't think there are souls, nor that there is such a thing as reincarnation. Just oughta clarify that, to be safe. :)
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 15, 2019, 08:22:17 PM
If it feels good, do it!
Correct. But we don't all feel good the same way. Individuality and competition (by individual, by class, by nation) slips in. Virtue signaling is that ... I am justified in my sins (because materialistic progress). Its a backward justification that suggests "ends justifies the means". Karl Marx isn't all that different from John Stewart Mill. Karl Marx is Utilitarianism plus arithmetic that is forward looking, not just descriptive. Karl Marx sees a double blind in this, unless you eliminate artificial boundaries of nations and class. Stalin emphasizes class, Trotsky emphasizes nations ... both to be eliminated. Karl Marx in the meantime, predicting that the surplus profit would go into finance, rather than to labor.
Quantified utilitarianism ... plus the notion that with progress (automation) in the end, the actual cost to make a product or service tends to zero, and that means at any given population, we need fewer and fewer employees over time. With capitalism (as opposed to socialism) we have no obligation to take care of the unemployed, in fact, we are rewarded indirectly in producing the army of the unemployed. The incentive is destructive. At that point, French Revolution steps in and redistributes ... the capital (of automation) and the benefits of automation are redistributed to the whole society rather than just one class.
The anti-semitic view of course, is that finance is parasitic on the bad aspects of capitalism, and that Jews dominate finance (Rothschilds). In a classless society, there is no religion as well as no class and no national boundaries. And that is why, having "no borders" is Marxist. Similarly the notion of progress is Marxist, if you fairly distribute. Liberal capitalism respects property ownership, resists revolution. It ameliorates the army of the unemployed by "bread and circuses".
Quote from: Plu on February 15, 2019, 01:52:35 PM
I dunno, he seems a lot happier with his life than you do. And he's talking to audiences that actually enjoy listening to him, while you're just being played with because people are bored.
It is a question of priority Plu.
While your hero spend a lot of his time try to invent all those BS that he later will recite on stage during his rants I prefer to spend my time practicing yoga.
My priority is to reduce the distance that separate me from the goal of life while the priority of your hero is to enjoy his foolish show of rants and at the end having his level of consciousness reduced instead of having it increased.
Quote from: Baruch on February 16, 2019, 01:05:48 AM
Correct. But we don't all feel good the same way. Individuality and competition (by individual, by class, by nation) slips in. Virtue signaling is that ... I am justified in my sins (because materialistic progress). Its a backward justification that suggests "ends justifies the means". Karl Marx isn't all that different from John Stewart Mill. Karl Marx is Utilitarianism plus arithmetic that is forward looking, not just descriptive. Karl Marx sees a double blind in this, unless you eliminate artificial boundaries of nations and class. Stalin emphasizes class, Trotsky emphasizes nations ... both to be eliminated. Karl Marx in the meantime, predicting that the surplus profit would go into finance, rather than to labor.
Quantified utilitarianism ... plus the notion that with progress (automation) in the end, the actual cost to make a product or service tends to zero, and that means at any given population, we need fewer and fewer employees over time. With capitalism (as opposed to socialism) we have no obligation to take care of the unemployed, in fact, we are rewarded indirectly in producing the army of the unemployed. The incentive is destructive. At that point, French Revolution steps in and redistributes ... the capital (of automation) and the benefits of automation are redistributed to the whole society rather than just one class.
The anti-semitic view of course, is that finance is parasitic on the bad aspects of capitalism, and that Jews dominate finance (Rothschilds). In a classless society, there is no religion as well as no class and no national boundaries. And that is why, having "no borders" is Marxist. Similarly the notion of progress is Marxist, if you fairly distribute. Liberal capitalism respects property ownership, resists revolution. It ameliorates the army of the unemployed by "bread and circuses".
Oh, well if you are in this type of thinking you may like this system that is an alternative to Communism and Capitalism.
https://prout.info/
Quote from: Arik on February 16, 2019, 10:01:55 AM
Oh, well if you are in this type of thinking you may like this system that is an alternative to Communism and Capitalism.
https://prout.info/
Yes, basically the Third world has to find another way. Being a cat's paw of Russia/China is not good. Being a cat's paw of US/UK is not good either. Having all your people move to Europe or the US, removes the human resource. Local development, one person, one village at a time. Not thru over-dependence on import/export. Unfortunately endemic corruption intervenes. But corruption is blocked by superior spiritual development, not by consumerism. Ultimately it all comes down to the quality of one's consciousness. And that is improved thru spiritual practice. So atheism won't get you far either.
Quote from: Baruch on February 16, 2019, 11:07:59 AM
Yes, basically the Third world has to find another way. Being a cat's paw of Russia/China is not good. Being a cat's paw of US/UK is not good either. Having all your people move to Europe or the US, removes the human resource. Local development, one person, one village at a time. Not thru over-dependence on import/export. Unfortunately endemic corruption intervenes. But corruption is blocked by superior spiritual development, not by consumerism. Ultimately it all comes down to the quality of one's consciousness. And that is improved thru spiritual practice. So atheism won't get you far either.
Spiritual development doesn't come very easily through reasoning.
It usually come as an absolute necessity when the world seem to collapse around people and that is stupidity but that is how it happen most of the time.
Most people have been so blind that they have let slip down to a dangerous level their morality which in turn gave way to exploitation, hatred, wars, pollution-climate changes and all the rest.
It is only when people realize that we are getting on the road of no return that they are waking up and realize that the materialism that so far they enjoy is ruining our life and the planet of ours but as the old granny said.........BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
Quote from: Arik on February 17, 2019, 08:50:58 AM
Spiritual development doesn't come very easily through reasoning.
It usually come as an absolute necessity when the world seem to collapse around people and that is stupidity but that is how it happen most of the time.
Most people have been so blind that they have let slip down to a dangerous level their morality which in turn gave way to exploitation, hatred, wars, pollution-climate changes and all the rest.
It is only when people realize that we are getting on the road of no return that they are waking up and realize that the materialism that so far they enjoy is ruining our life and the planet of ours but as the old granny said.........BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
I am a student of Zen. To be woke you have to abandon reason. But not empiricism, which is broadly interpreted as the sum of all personal experience (as opposed to public narrative).
Marxism and Capitalism both believe in the myth of progress. But progress has to be humanistic, not materialistic.
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2019, 11:38:07 AM
But progress has to be humanistic, not materialistic.
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic. Why? Because there is nothing else but the material universe. To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there. For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world. I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world). Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity.
Baruch--I forgot, sorry----key stage left--But Hilary................and Obama!!
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 17, 2019, 12:26:31 PM
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic. Why? Because there is nothing else but the material universe. To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there. For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world. I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world). Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity.
As I pointed out, per-modern Micronesia was happy, and had no iPhones. Quality over quantity. If you have work you love (even if it is harvesting coconuts), a family you love and who loves you back, if you have friends who will support you ... does the level of technology, the lifespan, the chatchkas really matter?
Notice I am talking psychology, not religion. But a quote ... “For what profits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul†... but not a meme-de-jour.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 17, 2019, 12:26:31 PM
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic. Why? Because there is nothing else but the material universe. To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there. For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world. I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world). Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity.
Faith just means "believe what you're told by the religious leaders of your religion."
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 17, 2019, 05:16:58 PM
Faith just means "believe what you're told by the religious leaders of your religion."
Gullibility just means "believe what you're told by the political leaders of your party".
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 17, 2019, 12:26:31 PM
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic. Why? Because there is nothing else but the material universe. To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there. For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world. I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world). Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity.
Pretty much. There has never been an instance where religion provided a more correct answer to a question about the universe than science did.
Put scientists and engineers together, and you get CERN and the International Space Station.
Put clerics of whatever stripe together, and you not only get fighting between, but
within religions.
Quote from: trdsf on February 18, 2019, 05:46:40 AM
Pretty much. There has never been an instance where religion provided a more correct answer to a question about the universe than science did.
Put scientists and engineers together, and you get CERN and the International Space Station.
Put clerics of whatever stripe together, and you not only get fighting between, but within religions.
Put science together, get Zyklon B and the atom bomb.
Quote from: trdsf on February 18, 2019, 05:46:40 AM
Pretty much. There has never been an instance where religion provided a more correct answer to a question about the universe than science did.
Religions, religions ...................who cares about the self imposed intermediaries between God and the masses.
Nothing to do with God.
QuotePut scientists and engineers together, and you get CERN and the International Space Station.
Wonder why CERN pay tribute to SHIVA the very first scientist on earth and wonder why CERN is slowly discovering what SHIVA said thousand years ago?
QuotePut clerics of whatever stripe together, and you not only get fighting between, but within religions.
Religions, religions...........who cares.
Nothing to do with spirituality.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/cd/59/f8cd594e171431a7ff88fde088cd5237.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2019, 06:21:57 AM
Put science together, get Zyklon B and the atom bomb.
I hate it Burach, when you don't finish your thought. You forgot--but, but......Hilary and Obama.................!!!
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2019, 11:38:07 AM
I am a student of Zen. To be woke you have to abandon reason. But not empiricism, which is broadly interpreted as the sum of all personal experience (as opposed to public narrative).
It really depend where reason come from.
There is a volatile reason that come from physical science and the universal reality and one reason that come from within but in order to understand this reason a person must have build his-her consciousness to an high degree.
QuoteMarxism and Capitalism both believe in the myth of progress. But progress has to be humanistic, not materialistic.
Yes.
Marxism and Capitalism believe in a very strange idea of progress which has nothing to do with human progress.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 17, 2019, 12:26:31 PM
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic. Why? Because there is nothing else but the material universe. To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there. For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world. I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world). Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity.
I suppose it must be very very hard to understand whether the amount of good is more than the amount of bad in favor of religions but after all who cares.
As far as the belief that there is only the material universe this belief is as bad as any of the religious dogmas.
The day you or anyone else will show that the consciousness is made of matter then I will apologize with all those who said that there is nothing else but the material universe.
I am however adamant that that day will never come.
(https://cdn.firstcrycdn.com/2018/03/73195261-H-300x205.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on February 17, 2019, 08:50:58 AMSpiritual development doesn't come very easily through reasoning.
*eyes roll* Gee, I wonder why.
Quote from: Arik on February 18, 2019, 09:19:41 AMAs far as the belief that there is only the material universe this belief is as bad as any of the religious dogmas.
The day you or anyone else will show that the consciousness is made of matter then I will apologize with all those who said that there is nothing else but the material universe.
(https://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg)
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 18, 2019, 08:46:07 AM
I hate it Burach, when you don't finish your thought. You forgot--but, but......Hilary and Obama.................!!!
Well, Hillary and Obama had nothing to do with Zyklon B or the atom bomb, except ...
Hillary and Obama were behind the false flag gas attacks in Syria, the revolt in Libya, and the nuclear confrontation in Ukraine ...
Quote from: Arik on February 18, 2019, 08:56:36 AM
It really depend where reason come from.
There is a volatile reason that come from physical science and the universal reality and one reason that come from within but in order to understand this reason a person must have build his-her consciousness to an high degree.
Yes.
Marxism and Capitalism believe in a very strange idea of progress which has nothing to do with human progress.
Rationality (aka rational numbers only) ... 2+2=4 therefore there is no irrationality! Pythagoras is G-d.
Empiricism (aka the obvious) ... I drop something and it falls, therefore there are no supernatural phenomena! Galileo is G-d.
Reality ... rationalists prefer the rational, and ignore the irrational ... empiricists prefer the natural, and ignore the supernatural. Both engage in cult of personality, particularly all properly degreed academics. This is what happens when people go to college to be brainwashed.
Quote from: Arik on February 18, 2019, 09:19:41 AM
I suppose it must be very very hard to understand whether the amount of good is more than the amount of bad in favor of religions but after all who cares.
As far as the belief that there is only the material universe this belief is as bad as any of the religious dogmas.
The day you or anyone else will show that the consciousness is made of matter then I will apologize with all those who said that there is nothing else but the material universe.
I am however adamant that that day will never come.
I can understand why you think you live in a world of wonders and magic. The wind must drive you crazy, since you can't see it. And electricity and dog whistles must seem like miracles to you. Of course infrared light cannot exist for you cannot see it. Gravity must just boggle what passes for a mind for you.
I still find magnets mind boggling. As did Einstein as a child. You have to understand Dirac Equation theory to understand it. Do you understand the Dirac Equation?
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 18, 2019, 12:28:16 PM
I can understand why you think you live in a world of wonders and magic. The wind must drive you crazy, since you can't see it. And electricity and dog whistles must seem like miracles to you. Of course infrared light cannot exist for you cannot see it. Gravity must just boggle what passes for a mind for you.
I am afraid Mike that you got a long long way to go before you can understand how all the system works.
Consciousness is one but her awareness depend on the individual progress.
Matter has no awareness but the potential is there and so all other fundamental factor that make up the universe such as space air, light and water and as these factors through the evolution process turn into human consciousness then the awareness in it is reaching a very high degree.
The consciousness get more and more expressed as the evolution advance and less and less as it decrease as in the matter.
Matter is bottled up energy.
Energy and consciousness are but the two sides of the same sheet no matter in which entity is manifested.
In other words it is the opposite of what you believe.
Everything is made of consciousness not of matter because even the matter is made of energy-consciousness.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 18, 2019, 10:55:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg)
I suppose you refer to Mike claim when he say that everything is made of matter?
Quote from: Arik on February 19, 2019, 10:02:56 AM
I am afraid Mike that you got a long long way to go before you can understand how all the system works.
It's statements like these that makes me glad you have stayed. I need a good belly-laugh every now and again!!
For Arik ... in Kabbalah, the sephirot correspond to chakras, and Hebrew letters connecting the sephirot correspond to nadis. The network makes up Adam Kadmon ... the template of the spiritually fulfilled human. Alternatively this is called the Tree of Life.
I'm not really a full-bore materialist myself, since I believe in the "existence" of an abstract realm that has a different kind of existence than does the material world. Just as one example, the quintillionth digit of pi "exists" even though no human mind knows what it is. It's there in the abstract realm, and can potentially, at least, be discovered by human minds. Everything exists in the abstract realm before it can exist in the physical realm. That's the only metaphysics to which I subscribe. What human brains do is provide a bridge between the abstract and the physical, and can transpose things from one realm to the other.
Roger Penrose discusses this some in The Road to Reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality).
Pi is a special transcendental number. You can actually directly calculate the nth position directly, without first determining the prior digits. So yes, we can calculate the quintillionth digit, without having to first calculate the digit just before that. Like most transcendental number however, the calculation either way (sequential or direct) is very slow to converge.
Plato had nothing on you ;-)
I love that matter is energy E=MC 2. Which means M=E/C 2? And I can't think of what that means... Its a good thing I had a basic logical office career.
And in my experience, light is cubed being in 3 dimensions (like light from a grow bulb shining on a plant).
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 19, 2019, 01:23:27 PM
I'm not really a full-bore materialist myself, since I believe in the "existence" of an abstract realm that has a different kind of existence than does the material world. Just as one example, the quintillionth digit of pi "exists" even though no human mind knows what it is. It's there in the abstract realm, and can potentially, at least, be discovered by human minds. Everything exists in the abstract realm before it can exist in the physical realm. That's the only metaphysics to which I subscribe. What human brains do is provide a bridge between the abstract and the physical, and can transpose things from one realm to the other.
Roger Penrose discusses this some in The Road to Reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality).
Interestingly (if you're a math nerd, anyway), the quintillionth digit of
Ï€ is directly calculable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%22Borwein%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%22Plouffe_formula), without going through all the intervening digits.
Score one more for the real world and the people who explore it. :)
Wow, that's awesome! I'll have to look at it some more tomorrow when I have more time.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 19, 2019, 08:26:01 PM
Wow, that's awesome! I'll have to look at it some more tomorrow when I have more time.
A product of transcendental number sequence, which is pseudorandom. But there are different flavors of pseudorandom. I assume though, that this property only works if you are doing Pi in decimal digits.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 19, 2019, 11:15:34 AM
It's statements like these that makes me glad you have stayed. I need a good belly-laugh every now and again!!
I suppose it must be better to have a good belly-laugh than to cry in desperation considering your low level of knowledge regarding basic things.
Have a good day and a good belly-laugh anyway.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2019, 12:45:59 PM
For Arik ... in Kabbalah, the sephirot correspond to chakras, and Hebrew letters connecting the sephirot correspond to nadis. The network makes up Adam Kadmon ... the template of the spiritually fulfilled human. Alternatively this is called the Tree of Life.
Unfortunately what is left in all these beliefs is only the theory which obviously get people nowhere unless is follow by practice.
(https://images.megapixl.com/5749/57491910.jpg)
That is what "woke" people would ask a newcomer back in the day "What is your practice?". Of course one assumed one was actually following it.
"Practice" here is mostly arts (not bad), sex and maybe substance abuse.
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 20, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.
Talent is required also.
Quote from: Arik on February 18, 2019, 08:29:55 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/cd/59/f8cd594e171431a7ff88fde088cd5237.jpg)
QuoteSpirituality is a network linking us to the Most High, the universe, and each other
as opposed to suggesting that a Most High links us to menstrual cycles and racism....... meh. My Most High is just as high as your Most High.
I got most high last night...
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 20, 2019, 07:58:08 PM
I got most high last night...
Demi-god ... with assistance.
In the West everyone is a profit.
Quote from: Baruch on February 20, 2019, 12:26:11 PM
That is what "woke" people would ask a newcomer back in the day "What is your practice?". Of course one assumed one was actually following it.
"Practice" here is mostly arts (not bad), sex and maybe substance abuse.
That is interesting Baruch.
Most materialists are so eager about the concept of Darwin evolution that for them evolution of the consciousness means absolutely nothing so for them evolution is only one way up basically related to body changes.
These folks don't even realize that along with evolution there is also an other phenomenon which we can call Devolution which is the opposite of evolution in the way that instead of going up is going down (descent to a lower or worse state).
Nothing is fixed in this universe so obviously everything move and change such as the awareness in consciousness.
These folks play with something that they do not know and that is quite dangerous indeed.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 20, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.
It all depend where the head is heading to.
(http://rs270.pbsrc.com/albums/jj111/SailorRiniMoon/angrygirl.gif~c200)
Quote from: Arik on February 21, 2019, 09:06:38 AM
That is interesting Baruch.
Most materialists are so eager about the concept of Darwin evolution that for them evolution of the consciousness means absolutely nothing so for them evolution is only one way up basically related to body changes.
These folks don't even realize that along with evolution there is also an other phenomenon which we can call Devolution which is the opposite of evolution in the way that instead of going up is going down (descent to a lower or worse state).
Nothing is fixed in this universe so obviously everything move and change such as the awareness in consciousness.
These folks play with something that they do not know and that is quite dangerous indeed.
Materialist evolution ... I have so many mansions, i have lost count (see John McCain). I have so many employees, I send employees to he market for more employees (Disney Aladdin paraphrase).
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 20, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.
But it won't get you a job. I'm not being trite. Skill is one thing and being able to use it is another. Say you are great at magic tricks, but have no panter. You'll thrill kids at patrties, but you'll never get on late night shows.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 22, 2019, 12:05:03 PM
But it won't get you a job. I'm not being trite. Skill is one thing and being able to use it is another. Say you are great at magic tricks, but have no panter. You'll thrill kids at patrties, but you'll never get on late night shows.
That is raciiiis. Everyone is equal by fiat; regardless of talent, experience, education, training, opportunity ...
Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2019, 12:54:17 PM
That is raciiiis. Everyone is equal by fiat; regardless of talent, experience, education, training, opportunity ...
Is "raciiiis" some sort of bacteria? Anyway, I never said everyone was equal. I said (somewhere in the past) that all people are born equal. After that, all bets are off the table. My goal is to rebalance things by adulthood to make up for environments..
Quote from: Cavebear on February 22, 2019, 01:03:46 PM
Is "raciiiis" some sort of bacteria? Anyway, I never said everyone was equal. I said (somewhere in the past) that all people are born equal. After that, all bets are off the table. My goal is to rebalance things by adulthood to make up for environments..
Jefferson was a slaving raping POS. You are not born equal either. Otherwise the Black Jeffersons would have been embarrassed by their White slaves. And BTW, I was mostly agreeing with you. But as knee-jerk radical ...
Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2019, 01:11:06 PM
Jefferson was a slaving raping POS. You are not born equal either. Otherwise the Black Jeffersons would have been embarrassed by their White slaves. And BTW, I was mostly agreeing with you. But as knee-jerk radical ...
Do you realize that you make my point?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 22, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
Do you realize that you make my point?
I made your point, first!
Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2019, 06:23:43 PM
I made your point, first!
Indeed you did. Mine. And I truly thank you for that. It isn't ever day that someome makes the very point I wish to make before or after I do.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 20, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.
So will the Q subway line.
Miles and miles of theory and intellectual jargon and still zero practice.
How sad.
(https://exploringyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/sad-girl-on-a-cliff.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on February 23, 2019, 09:43:40 AM
Miles and miles of theory and intellectual jargon and still zero practice.
How sad.
(https://exploringyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/sad-girl-on-a-cliff.jpg)
People who live in their head ... Vulcans.
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2019, 09:57:49 AM
People who live in their head ... Vulcans.
I close my eyes.
I can hear the sound of the universe.
There is life in it.
The sound never stop.
The life never stop.
It is eternal.
It is calling us all.
It was calling millions years ago and will call millions years in the future.
Thanks father.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/62/e7/f3/62e7f3bffbed9a72380a12e0a95c6708.jpg)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohhwHbnyqUFUxVWzm/giphy.gif)
Materialists are one-dimensional in a multi-dimensional world. No wonder they surrender so easily, so French of them.
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2019, 10:35:10 AM
Materialists are one-dimensional in a multi-dimensional world. No wonder they surrender so easily, so French of them.
What a terrible waste (for them of course).
It took millions of years to be lifted into humanity from lower form of lives to this high degree of consciousness and now when they are so close to the goal of life they go blind within and think that life end right here with this physical death.
I just can not believe it.
Excessive individualism. I am not my own, I am part of humanity, both now and into the distant past. I am what my ancestors dreams of, I am what my contemporaries hope will support them. If one is sociopathic, then one doesn't see that.
If consciousness doesn't need the brain, then why didn't humans have a higher consciousness millions of years ago?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 24, 2019, 05:12:47 PM
If consciousness doesn't need the brain, then why didn't humans have a higher consciousness millions of years ago?
Time is an illusion. Even physicists claim this. See Dr Greene ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZeFTJHLU5A
Newtonian time was created by Newton, to support his physics. He took this from Medieval time, which supported the daily cycle of prayers (synchronized across Europe). Heisenberg time was created by Heisenberg, to support his physics. Ideology may be based on long dead philosophers. But atheism may be based on long dead physicists ;-)
Another, even better film on this in the physics section ...
No, atheism is based on the disbelief in deities, nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 24, 2019, 07:08:43 PM
No, atheism is based on the disbelief in deities, nothing more, nothing less.
But that seems to be disingenuous ... you believe or disbelieve in a lot more than that. It is like claiming you only disbelieve in the letter "e".
Quote from: Baruch on February 24, 2019, 07:21:40 PM
But that seems to be disingenuous ... you believe or disbelieve in a lot more than that. It is like claiming you only disbelieve in the letter "e".
that's rich-----you claiming somebody else is disingenuous!! Hell, you are living on blind faith. No facts, no reality, nothing but belief and faith. Your mind is as closed as a steel bear trap. Yet, you claim others are disingenuous? You constantly inflate what others say and try to make them appear to say something else. You belong in Washington. Trump could use you--you seem to be in line with his 12 lies per day. You would make a great politician. And no, I'd not vote for you.
Quote from: Baruch on February 24, 2019, 07:21:40 PM
But that seems to be disingenuous ... you believe or disbelieve in a lot more than that. It is like claiming you only disbelieve in the letter "e".
But disbelieving in the letter "e," or anything else, has nothing to do with my atheism.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 24, 2019, 08:00:08 PM
that's rich-----you claiming somebody else is disingenuous!! Hell, you are living on blind faith. No facts, no reality, nothing but belief and faith. Your mind is as closed as a steel bear trap. Yet, you claim others are disingenuous? You constantly inflate what others say and try to make them appear to say something else. You belong in Washington. Trump could use you--you seem to be in line with his 12 lies per day. You would make a great politician. And no, I'd not vote for you.
No blind faith. Not faith at all. No scripture even. I see my hand. I know it is a hand and it is mine. For the same reasons, I see experience myself, and thru careful semantics of what "demi-god" means ... I also know I am a demi-god. In spite of 6 decades of neurolinguistic programming to the contrary, by the Enlightenment Central Committee. I need not adopt the biased semantics of enemies of the people.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 24, 2019, 08:04:59 PM
But disbelieving in the letter "e," or anything else, has nothing to do with my atheism.
Unbeliever is more than an atheist ... for the same reason there is more than one letter in the alphabet. In Chinese, with characters, there is more than one character in Chinese, there are several thousand. Think of characters as concepts. If Unbeliever only has one concept, and it is a negation ... then he is a maximal nihilist, and it would be impossible for him to post here. He would be less communicative than a e e cummings poem, which disbelieves in the unwokeness of capitalization.
Nenenenenenene ... meaning repetitive negation of "e". Knights of Ne.
Quote from: Baruch on February 24, 2019, 10:21:33 PM
No blind faith. Not faith at all. No scripture even. I see my hand. I know it is a hand and it is mine. For the same reasons, I see experience myself, and thru careful semantics of what "demi-god" means ... I also know I am a demi-god. In spite of 6 decades of neurolinguistic programming to the contrary, by the Enlightenment Central Committee. I need not adopt the biased semantics of enemies of the people.
I don't know what semantics you subscribe to, but it is NOT semantics to communicate with others but to slur and put down. You no longer seem to strive to make things more clear but muddier. You use what you now call humor to humiliate. You seem to think you have such superior insight into this world and people that you ignore what others are trying to say; you'd rather go for the clever (to you) putdown or try to make others seem stupid compared to you. Venom--that is the word I attach to you any more. And Baruch, I feel all that as a personal loss in my computer world.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 24, 2019, 10:47:38 PM
I don't know what semantics you subscribe to, but it is NOT semantics to communicate with others but to slur and put down. You no longer seem to strive to make things more clear but muddier. You use what you now call humor to humiliate. You seem to think you have such superior insight into this world and people that you ignore what others are trying to say; you'd rather go for the clever (to you) putdown or try to make others seem stupid compared to you. Venom--that is the word I attach to you any more. And Baruch, I feel all that as a personal loss in my computer world.
I deny Rousseau and Voltaire. They were evil men, same as Marx and Lenin. You may disagree. Or think that you don't carry forward their French Revolution memes. It is not insight, it is cult deprogramming. Enlightenment cult deprogramming. Which impacts what I see as the American Revolution. I didn't plan on this happening, it simply happened as part of my maturation. That is my kind of nihilism perhaps, to unlearn all I have been taught. However well meaning or deluded my teachers were. The past isn't what we think it was, and so the present isn't either. It is undiscovered country, even if not full of Klingons.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 24, 2019, 05:12:47 PM
If consciousness doesn't need the brain, then why didn't humans have a higher consciousness millions of years ago?
I can see your problem brother.
It is all about not understanding how the evolution works.
That's all.
For a materialist a stone stay stone for ever, a plant born plant and die plant with no chance to evolve to animal, human and God and so on.
That is not how the system works.
Evolution is all about changes and so devolution which is the opposite of evolution.
Once you understand that everything move and change and with that the awareness in evolution or devolution take place then it will become very very clear how all the system works.
Materialists are still stuck in the stone age thinking that doesn't take into account the changes into consciousness awareness.
Darwin changes are but the external facade which doesn't take into account the internal change and materialists are stuck with this external facade.
A brain is not needed to a stone or a plant but as the awareness in consciousness evolve then a brain is needed and again is not needed anymore as a human evolve into God so everything is needed or not needed as the journey to high evolution speed up, slow down or recede.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 24, 2019, 10:47:38 PM
I don't know what semantics you subscribe to, but it is NOT semantics to communicate with others but to slur and put down. You no longer seem to strive to make things more clear but muddier. You use what you now call humor to humiliate. You seem to think you have such superior insight into this world and people that you ignore what others are trying to say; you'd rather go for the clever (to you) putdown or try to make others seem stupid compared to you. Venom--that is the word I attach to you any more. And Baruch, I feel all that as a personal loss in my computer world.
In ancient times a forum was a physical place or space where ideas and views on a particular issue could be exchanged.
Today the forum is not a physical place or space anymore nevertheless the purpose for it is the same.
If you think that someone post something that doesn't make sense to you you can always fight back with your intellect in order to prove you right.
If you can not do that then you fail.
It is all about a mind clash.
No need to get upset.
(http://www.romanhomes.com/your_roman_vacation/quarters/images/Forum-npn-da-m10-2-23-m3.jpg)
Roman forum.
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2019, 12:20:59 AM
I deny Rousseau and Voltaire. They were evil men, same as Marx and Lenin. You may disagree. Or think that you don't carry forward their French Revolution memes. It is not insight, it is cult deprogramming. Enlightenment cult deprogramming. Which impacts what I see as the American Revolution. I didn't plan on this happening, it simply happened as part of my maturation. That is my kind of nihilism perhaps, to unlearn all I have been taught. However well meaning or deluded by teachers were. The past isn't what we think it was, and so the present isn't either. It is undiscovered country, even if not full of Klingons.
I agree with all of that (well, maybe not the Rousseau, Voltaire, Marx and Lenin comments). As a freshman history major I learned that history was not anywhere near what I thought (and was taught) it was/is. the US Army taught me that about my country/society, as well. My country is really 'my' country, since I know of it through only my own lens. Oh, I do read, talk to people and watch the news and such, but what I think of this country is still filtered through my lens. The same with you. You no more have your finger on the pulse of the 'real' history than I do. You have a lens and all is filtered through it--that is simply the human condition. What I don't understand is your extreme bitterness, both personal and in general. You strike me as a fan (fanatic) of your favorite sports team whom you feel has betrayed you; or a disciple of a particular man or movement that has disappointed you. You are simply bitter--and none are more bitter than a betrayed sports fan. You no longer seem to care about any sort of facts or reasons; only bitterness shows through. It is not becoming. It is, for me, deeply disappointing. I guess I was sort of a 'fan' of yours, but your bitterness and simple craziness has washed that away--not that I expect you to care one iota.
Bitterness comes with wisdom. See Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner. Also Ecclesiastes.
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2019, 12:46:12 PM
Bitterness comes with wisdom. See Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner. Also Ecclesiastes.
I would suggest the opposite. One can find whatever one wants to in the bible or the Ancient Mariner. Be bitter all you want--I guess you enjoy chocking on your own bile.
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2019, 12:46:12 PM
Also Ecclesiastes.
What does Ecclesiastes have to do with bitterness? I don't see bitterness when I read it, only realistic common sense - except for the later-added God parts.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 25, 2019, 01:02:59 PM
I would suggest the opposite. One can find whatever one wants to in the bible or the Ancient Mariner. Be bitter all you want--I guess you enjoy chocking on your own bile.
Choking on my bile, not your bile. That is what independent people do. Puritans and totalitarians generate mega-bile and make it state policy.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 25, 2019, 01:18:11 PM
What does Ecclesiastes have to do with bitterness? I don't see bitterness when I read it, only realistic common sense - except for the later-added God parts.
You say tomato and I say tomatoe ;-) Realistic common sense only to 50+ year old men. The author calls out to G-d, because he realizes no matter what he does, he is fucked.
I've read somewhere that the praising-God parts of Ecclesiastes were interpolated, but I haven't yet found a reference. I'll keep looking, though.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 25, 2019, 07:14:58 PM
I've read somewhere that the praising-God parts of Ecclesiastes were interpolated, but I haven't yet found a reference. I'll keep looking, though.
All the books of the Bible were written by Jewish men high on hashish. What interpolation could you find?
I was so stoned when I was a teenager that I gave a whole new meaning to "high school."
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 25, 2019, 07:37:25 PM
I was so stoned when I was a teenager that I gave a whole new meaning to "high school."
OK, here is the reference you were seeking. In rabbinic theology, they build a "fence around the Torah".
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-fence-around-the-Torah
In other words, to give additional guarantees that a violation isn't committed (by man or G-d). This had to do with warning signs and fences that help to prevent inadvertent violation of the sanctity of the Temple in Herodian times. But also, it could be used to refer to interpretation that is designed to protect G-d's reputation. Hence the invention of the Devil in the Book of Job (the only place in orthodox Jewish scripture where the devil is mentioned) so that G-d doesn't have to take responsibility for what happens to Job. In other words, to deal with the theodicy problem (why is there evil).
I specifically disagree with this, I see no reason to protect G-d's reputation in theory or in fact, in theology or in scripture. Apostle Paul for instance dealt with this by simply saying like at the end of the Book of Job, that G-d is mysterious, all-powerful and you should SFTU. St Augustine dealt with people with too many questions from the congregation with "G-d devised Hell to deal with people like that". In other words, pagans, heretics and skeptics should be excommunicated from synagogue or church, for being annoying.
Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2019, 12:39:24 AM
So will the Q subway line.
I can't help but recall Charlie and The MTA...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2019, 08:54:30 AM
I can't help but recall Charlie and The MTA...
Isn't he riding the streets of Boston forever.............................?
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 26, 2019, 09:01:22 AM
Isn't he riding the streets of Boston forever.............................?
OK, you asked for it...
https://www.google.com/search?nlpd391lnw=1&st=ds&u_ip=100.15.37.215&obt9bpdyed=1&q=charli+and+the+mta
The lyrics...
"Well, let me tell you of the story of a man named Charlie
On a tragic and fateful day
He put ten cents in his pocket, kissed his wife and family
Went to ride on the MTA
Well, did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (what a pity)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Charlie handed in his dime at the Kendall Square station
And he changed for Jamaica Plain
When he got there the conductor told him, "one more nickel"
Charlie couldn't get off of that train!
But did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (poor old Charlie)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Now, all night long Charlie rides through the station
Crying, "what will become of me?
How can I afford to see my sister in Chelsea
Or my cousin in Roxbury?"
But did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (shame and scandal)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Charlie's wife goes down to the Scollay Square station
Every day at quarter past two
And through the open window she hands Charlie a sandwich
As the train comes rumbling through!
But did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (he may ride forever)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Pick it Davey
Kinda hurts my figers
Now, you citizens of Boston, don't you think it's a scandal
How the people have to pay and pay?
Fight the fare increase, vote for George O'Brian
Get poor Charlie off the MTA!
Or else he'll never return
No he'll never return and his fate is still unlearned (just like Paul Revere)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
He's the man who never returned
He's the man who never returned
Et tu, Charlie?"
Ah, yes--'neath the streets........................
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 26, 2019, 09:01:22 AM
Isn't he riding the streets of Boston forever.............................?
Dilbert's father never returned from the food court at the Mall, because he was at an all-you-can-eat ... and he never got full .. he simply changed that to his place of residence ;-)
I used to have a buddy who'd go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eat all he could - then go to the restroom and throw it all up so he could go back and eat all he could a second time. He though he wasn't getting his money's worth otherwise.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2019, 12:09:53 AM
OK, here is the reference you were seeking. In rabbinic theology, they build a "fence around the Torah".
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-fence-around-the-Torah
In other words, to give additional guarantees that a violation isn't committed (by man or G-d). This had to do with warning signs and fences that help to prevent inadvertent violation of the sanctity of the Temple in Herodian times. But also, it could be used to refer to interpretation that is designed to protect G-d's reputation. Hence the invention of the Devil in the Book of Job (the only place in orthodox Jewish scripture where the devil is mentioned) so that G-d doesn't have to take responsibility for what happens to Job. In other words, to deal with the theodicy problem (why is there evil).
I specifically disagree with this, I see no reason to protect G-d's reputation in theory or in fact, in theology or in scripture. Apostle Paul for instance dealt with this by simply saying like at the end of the Book of Job, that G-d is mysterious, all-powerful and you should SFTU. St Augustine dealt with people with too many questions from the congregation with "G-d devised Hell to deal with people like that". In other words, pagans, heretics and skeptics should be excommunicated from synagogue or church, for being annoying.
The book of Job can be summed up with 3 words: might makes right.
With G-d, you bet your sweet bippy - Laugh In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UMr469p3Mg
Oh, good! I always wondered what a bippy was - now I know!
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 24, 2019, 05:12:47 PM
If consciousness doesn't need the brain, then why didn't humans have a higher consciousness millions of years ago?
For that matter, if consciousness doesn't need a brain, why bother with biological evolution in the first place?
Quote from: trdsf on February 27, 2019, 01:43:01 AM
For that matter, if consciousness doesn't need a brain, why bother with biological evolution in the first place?
If radio doesn't need a receiver/transmitter, why bother with developed devices? There are natural radio waves, that aren't human caused.
Quote from: trdsf on February 27, 2019, 01:43:01 AM
For that matter, if consciousness doesn't need a brain, why bother with biological evolution in the first place?
Next time I see Darwin around I will make sure that he will explain to everybody that small form of life such as plants and animals are guided by mother nature or what we know as instinct so plants do not need a brain and animals only need a simple brain and the brain get more and more complex as lower form of lives turn into humans.
Brain or not brain consciousness is there anyway because even plants that do not have a brain react under good or bad conditions.
I will scold Darwin for not explaining that in the first place.
I promise.
Quote from: Arik on February 27, 2019, 07:25:35 AM
Next time I see Darwin around I will make sure that he will explain to everybody that small form of life such as plants and animals are guided by mother nature or what we know as instinct so plants do not need a brain and animals only need a simple brain and the brain get more and more complex as lower form of lives turn into humans.
Brain or not brain consciousness is there anyway because even plants that do not have a brain react under good or bad conditions.
I will scold Darwin for not explaining that in the first place.
I promise.
Plants do react, with means other than neurons. But animals are speciesist when it comes to the nearly defenseless plant kingdom. Liberate plants now, plant a giant Venus Fly Trap today.
Quote from: Baruch on February 27, 2019, 12:47:35 PM
Plants do react, with means other than neurons. But animals are speciesist when it comes to the nearly defenseless plant kingdom. Liberate plants now, plant a giant Venus Fly Trap today.
I am quite puzzled by the materialists way of thinking.
On one hand they pretend to be the real believers in evolution but in reality they have no clue as the evolution works.
For them individual evolution come to an end with the physical death.
Consciousness also die when the body die.
No goal to be achieved, nothing and the consciousness that we have come thanks to previous generation.
Gee, that belief is as bad as any religious belief in which good things pop up in a mysterious way for free.
Just incredible.
I never seen anyone who give something for free.
Even pedos give candies to kids for a reason.
Quote from: Arik on February 28, 2019, 09:06:33 AM
I am quite puzzled by the materialists way of thinking.
On one hand they pretend to be the real believers in evolution but in reality they have no clue as the evolution works.
For them individual evolution come to an end with the physical death.
Consciousness also die when the body die.
No goal to be achieved, nothing and the consciousness that we have come thanks to previous generation.
Gee, that belief is as bad as any religious belief in which good things pop up in a mysterious way for free.
Just incredible.
I never seen anyone who give something for free.
Even pedos give candies to kids for a reason.
Materialism is a part of reductionism. Reductionism is "over simplification". So we resort to this often, given that we can't deal with real complexity. So in that POV, evolution is limited to material concerns ... better and better combinations of atoms, according to some mysterious criteria that says that this combination of atoms is better than that combination of atoms. Atomic bigotry perhaps? Darwinian evolution only applied to biology, only at the species level, and only for those types with dimorphic sex. There is something more general than Darwinian evolution, which is "development". Even individuals do this, not just species. That is what you are referring to. I think development is happening all the time, is unavoidable. But like death and decay, it can't be called progressive or regressive. The idea of progress is incredibly bigoted ... usually of the European type of 100 years ago. Communism is developed out of European capitalism ... and also assumes progress.
A musical summary of Arik's position and mine, even though we differ in some ways ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE
The rest of you aren't cool.
Quote from: Arik on February 28, 2019, 09:06:33 AM
I am quite puzzled by the materialists way of thinking.
On one hand they pretend to be the real believers in evolution but in reality they have no clue as the evolution works.
For them individual evolution come to an end with the physical death.
Consciousness also die when the body die.
No goal to be achieved, nothing and the consciousness that we have come thanks to previous generation.
Gee, that belief is as bad as any religious belief in which good things pop up in a mysterious way for free.
Just incredible.
I never seen anyone who give something for free.
Even pedos give candies to kids for a reason.
OK, first, "atheism" and "materialism" are not the same.
Second, evolution isn't a "belief" any more than "gravity" is. It is merely the best factual understanding of who existence works.
Third, "evolution" ends when the cessation of sexual reproduction even if you live past that.
Fourth, there is no "goal"or direction to existence. All continuing species are genetically successful at perpetuating themselves (viruses to trees to humans) but there is no intent or goal involved.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 26, 2019, 01:19:31 PM
I used to have a buddy who'd go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eat all he could - then go to the restroom and throw it all up so he could go back and eat all he could a second time. He though he wasn't getting his money's worth otherwise.
Very Romanly orgiastic of him. But quite frankly, throwing up is more unpleasant to me than eating again... I'll stick with what I eat the first time.
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2019, 09:26:22 AM
Materialism is a part of reductionism. Reductionism is "over simplification". So we resort to this often, given that we can't deal with real complexity. So in that POV, evolution is limited to material concerns ... better and better combinations of atoms, according to some mysterious criteria that says that this combination of atoms is better than that combination of atoms. Atomic bigotry perhaps? Darwinian evolution only applied to biology, only at the species level, and only for those types with dimorphic sex. There is something more general than Darwinian evolution, which is "development". Even individuals do this, not just species. That is what you are referring to. I think development is happening all the time, is unavoidable. But like death and decay, it can't be called progressive or regressive. The idea of progress is incredibly bigoted ... usually of the European type of 100 years ago. Communism is developed out of European capitalism ... and also assumes progress.
Let me see one of your point where you say.................development is happening all the time, is unavoidable..........
It really depend Baruch.
It happen in plants and animals that follow the instinct guided by mother nature but as soon as these lower form of life merge into humanity the free will pop up therefore with development come also the opposite that cause the loss of what people already had.
As far as system in power I can see that a cycle is always followed.
When the exploitation of the dominant class become unbearable then the next system take over.
From the capitalistic exploitation the masses revolt but this revolt is quickly stolen by the warriors class (military) to be follow by the intellectual class (clergy) and again by the new capitalists in a never ending cycle so to call it progress may be a bit of a speculation as the old mistakes are repeated again and again.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 08:38:15 AM
OK, first, "atheism" and "materialism" are not the same.
Let me see.
In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter, isn't it mate?
Unless of course you may indicate to me that beside matter there is something else other than God.
QuoteSecond, evolution isn't a "belief" any more than "gravity" is. It is merely the best factual understanding of who existence works.
Time and time again I have seen (read) atheists that when arguing with religious people that believe in creation say that they believe in evolution so where the non believe suppose to be?
QuoteThird, "evolution" ends when the cessation of sexual reproduction even if you live past that.
If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution.
QuoteFourth, there is no "goal"or direction to existence. All continuing species are genetically successful at perpetuating themselves (viruses to trees to humans) but there is no intent or goal involved.
Again.
Tanks for your personal belief which obviously is not supported by any evidence.
In fact there is evidence on the contrary.
Just read thousand of NDEs and you will see that your personal belief has no place in the reality.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
Quote from: Arik on March 01, 2019, 09:17:45 AM
Let me see.
In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter, isn't it mate?
Unless of course you may indicate to me that beside matter there is something else other than God.
Time and time again I have seen (read) atheists that when arguing with religious people that believe in creation say that they believe in evolution so where the non believe suppose to be?
If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution.
Again.
Tanks for your personal belief which obviously is not supported by any evidence.
In fact there is evidence on the contrary.
Just read thousand of NDEs and you will see that your personal belief has no place in the reality.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
"In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter". That is a triple negative, so I won't even bother about that.
If you have seen atheists say that they "believe" in evolution they were either careless in description or you more likely were intuiting it. inaccurately. Evolution is not a "belief". It is a fact.
Religion versus evolution is not a logically equal debate between two valid arguments. There is no equivalency here. Evolution is factual, religion is a belief.
You posted "If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution."
That makes no sense whatsoever...
Cavebear
Quote from: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 09:43:47 AM
"In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter". That is a triple negative, so I won't even bother about that.
If you have seen atheists say that they "believe" in evolution they were either careless in description or you more likely were intuiting it. inaccurately. Evolution is not a "belief". It is a fact.
Religion versus evolution is not a logically equal debate between two valid arguments. There is no equivalency here. Evolution is factual, religion is a belief.
You posted "If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution."
That makes no sense whatsoever...
Cavebear
I suppose nothing that I say make sense to you CB but don't you worry, one day it will.
I also went through most of those fantasies in the past but I did change when I realized that I was not getting anywhere.
Quote from: Arik on March 01, 2019, 10:04:25 AM
I suppose nothing that I say make sense to you CB but don't you worry, one day it will.
I also went through most of those fantasies in the past but I did change when I realized that I was not getting anywhere.
I will certainly agree that nothing you are saying HERE makes any sense
Quote from: Arik on March 01, 2019, 08:54:43 AM
Let me see one of your point where you say.................development is happening all the time, is unavoidable..........
It really depend Baruch.
It happen in plants and animals that follow the instinct guided by mother nature but as soon as these lower form of life merge into humanity the free will pop up therefore with development come also the opposite that cause the loss of what people already had.
As far as system in power I can see that a cycle is always followed.
When the exploitation of the dominant class become unbearable then the next system take over.
From the capitalistic exploitation the masses revolt but this revolt is quickly stolen by the warriors class (military) to be follow by the intellectual class (clergy) and again by the new capitalists in a never ending cycle so to call it progress may be a bit of a speculation as the old mistakes are repeated again and again.
Development isn't necessarily what people call improvement. A cheese left out will grow mold and rot. As it should. But that isn't an improvement for the cheese seller.
Quote from: Arik on March 01, 2019, 10:04:25 AM
I suppose nothing that I say make sense to you CB but don't you worry, one day it will.
I also went through most of those fantasies in the past but I did change when I realized that I was not getting anywhere.
For materialists, ideas aren't non-material. They are as material as the ink on paper. But I think this view is entirely inadequate. Ideas also exist in spoken words and in thoughts. More than one medium can host them. Moreover, they are from living things .. non-living have no ideas. So the problem is .. what is life?
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 PM
For materialists, ideas aren't non-material. They are as material as the ink on paper. But I think this view is entirely inadequate. Ideas also exist in spoken words and in thoughts. More than one medium can host them. Moreover, they are from living things .. non-living have no ideas. So the problem is .. what is life?
there is only nature--no such thing as supernatural or unnatural. There is only material--so such thing as unmaterial. Ideas are not visible yet we know they come from our material brains. Which come from nature. Humans are limited in their senses. Other animals are also limited in their senses, yet they can sense different things than humans can. (dog whistles, infrared and a host of other things, for example) Simply because we cannot see infrared does not make them unnatural. All that is, is natural. Unnatural is simply fantasy or fairy tale stuff---wishful thinking.
What is life? I has not been defined precisely yet. Is fire alive? Are virus'? Big debate. But because I cannot define it I do know that I am alive and I know what my purpose is. As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life. And that is why life can be found in almost every layer of this planet--in ice, in boiling water and chemicals, in places where we did not even know there were places in days gone past.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2019, 01:17:44 PM
As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life.
One of the few things he ever said that made much sense...
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2019, 01:17:44 PM
there is only nature--no such thing as supernatural or unnatural. There is only material--so such thing as unmaterial. Ideas are not visible yet we know they come from our material brains. Which come from nature. Humans are limited in their senses. Other animals are also limited in their senses, yet they can sense different things than humans can. (dog whistles, infrared and a host of other things, for example) Simply because we cannot see infrared does not make them unnatural. All that is, is natural. Unnatural is simply fantasy or fairy tale stuff---wishful thinking.
What is life? I has not been defined precisely yet. Is fire alive? Are virus'? Big debate. But because I cannot define it I do know that I am alive and I know what my purpose is. As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life. And that is why life can be found in almost every layer of this planet--in ice, in boiling water and chemicals, in places where we did not even know there were places in days gone past.
There is only beef jerky. Anyone says different, they are jerky ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 01:24:06 PM
One of the few things he ever said that made much sense...
But rocks and atheists have no life. At least, I don't invite them to parties ...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 01:24:06 PM
One of the few things he ever said that made much sense...
He said more than that. I liked his view of the meaning of myth for societies--he did not regard them as being supernatural but were simply stories to pass wisdom along. He also said that to be happy one must follow your bliss. He did not say what that was, for each of us has to figure that out. He said to find it and then follow it. He even indicated to not worry about how you would make your living for if you really do follow your bliss that will happen. I don't see Campbell as a pusher for god.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2019, 01:46:08 PM
He said more than that. I liked his view of the meaning of myth for societies--he did not regard them as being supernatural but were simply stories to pass wisdom along. He also said that to be happy one must follow your bliss. He did not say what that was, for each of us has to figure that out. He said to find it and then follow it. He even indicated to not worry about how you would make your living for if you really do follow your bliss that will happen. I don't see Campbell as a pusher for god.
You have to listen to Campbell carefully. I think he gets rather over-excited in combining various myths and cultural beliefs. Don't get me wrong; he has some interesting ideas. But he lacks specificity, and details are not his "thing".
I'll admit that his personality sets me off a bit. But even when I just read him, I don't find a lot of rigorous thought there. Enthusiastic thought, to be sure and we need that sometimes. But not much I would consider "scientific".
Quote from: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 05:33:14 PM
You have to listen to Campbell carefully. I think he gets rather over-excited in combining various myths and cultural beliefs. Don't get me wrong; he has some interesting ideas. But he lacks specificity, and details are not his "thing".
I'll admit that his personality sets me off a bit. But even when I just read him, I don't find a lot of rigorous thought there. Enthusiastic thought, to be sure and we need that sometimes. But not much I would consider "scientific".
Campbell wrote a lot. Was mostly interested Native Americans. His psychology came from Jung, same as Jordan Peterson.
There isn't much people here would call scientific. Ohm's law. Arithmetic. Arik is using a Medieval definition of science, still current in S Asian culture.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 05:33:14 PM
You have to listen to Campbell carefully. I think he gets rather over-excited in combining various myths and cultural beliefs. Don't get me wrong; he has some interesting ideas. But he lacks specificity, and details are not his "thing".
I'll admit that his personality sets me off a bit. But even when I just read him, I don't find a lot of rigorous thought there. Enthusiastic thought, to be sure and we need that sometimes. But not much I would consider "scientific".
Yeah, he was lacking in the scientific area. But I read him for his cultural insights, not science. The purpose of life is life is not scientific. Nor is his insistence of following one's bliss. But I still understood what he was driving at and I agree with him. So, you see, I did not go to him for science. But his two philosophical statements makes sense to me, so I remember them. They sort of match the type of board game I like--simple rules (like chess), but great depth when trying to play it. So, Campbell still has a place on my bookshelf.
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2019, 05:58:15 PM
Campbell wrote a lot. Was mostly interested Native Americans. His psychology came from Jung, same as Jordan Peterson.
There isn't much people here would call scientific. Ohm's law. Arithmetic. Arik is using a Medieval definition of science, still current in S Asian culture.
If I look in some dictionaries for the meaning of the word "science" it usually say that the science is knowledge about the universe or the natural world.
That I find a very very simplistic answer.
Why knowledge must be confined to the universe and what on earth it means to the natural world?
What the natural world suppose to be?
Again and again I see that this natural world according to strange beliefs is confined to this universe made of matter.
What about the natural world that is not made of matter?
Where is the evidence that there is not a dimension that is not made of matter?
I really do not bother too much whether my idea of science come from here or there.
What is important to me is whether science deliver the goods or not in whichever way a person is interested into.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2019, 01:17:44 PM
there is only nature--no such thing as supernatural or unnatural. There is only material--so such thing as unmaterial. Ideas are not visible yet we know they come from our material brains. Which come from nature. Humans are limited in their senses. Other animals are also limited in their senses, yet they can sense different things than humans can. (dog whistles, infrared and a host of other things, for example) Simply because we cannot see infrared does not make them unnatural. All that is, is natural. Unnatural is simply fantasy or fairy tale stuff---wishful thinking.
What is life? I has not been defined precisely yet. Is fire alive? Are virus'? Big debate. But because I cannot define it I do know that I am alive and I know what my purpose is. As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life. And that is why life can be found in almost every layer of this planet--in ice, in boiling water and chemicals, in places where we did not even know there were places in days gone past.
I suppose that you must have solid evidence that ideas ...........come from our material brains..........
Ok, let us see this evidence.
(https://pics.me.me/surely-a-will-come-i-just-have-to-wait-patiently-14013252.png)
Quote from: Arik on March 02, 2019, 09:08:17 AM
I suppose that you must have solid evidence that ideas ...........come from our material brains..........
Ok, let us see this evidence.
(https://pics.me.me/surely-a-will-come-i-just-have-to-wait-patiently-14013252.png)
You are not only stupid, you like to roll in it like a rat rolling in shit. Unless your 'evidence' is made up of only wishful and fanciful thinking, you won't consider it.
I really would like to know how you got that picture of me waiting for a response from you with any evidence at all that your beliefs are more than that--beliefs! But I'm sure that my old bones will be just dust before you attempt to supply any such evidence.
Ha, that picture is just a computer user who failed to allow a push of the latest OS/app patch from Communist Microsoft or Nazi Apple. Don't cooperate, and we will strangle your access speed ... there is no Net Neutrality!
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 02, 2019, 09:37:01 AM
You are not only stupid, you like to roll in it like a rat rolling in shit. Unless your 'evidence' is made up of only wishful and fanciful thinking, you won't consider it.
I really would like to know how you got that picture of me waiting for a response from you with any evidence at all that your beliefs are more than that--beliefs! But I'm sure that my old bones will be just dust before you attempt to supply any such evidence.
I do apologize for the picture but eh, how many times atheists ask theists for evidence after all?
Wouldn't be fair that also atheists stop asking for evidence for a moment and instead start producing their own evidence for their own beliefs?
Quote from: Arik on March 02, 2019, 10:11:43 AM
I do apologize for the picture but eh, how many times atheists ask theists for evidence after all?
Wouldn't be fair that also atheists stop asking for evidence for a moment and instead start producing their own evidence for their own beliefs?
The biggest gambit in the evidence business isn't what evidence you produce, but what evidence you ignore.
Quote from: Arik on February 23, 2019, 10:31:02 AM
I close my eyes.
I can hear the sound of the universe.
We call it imagination.....but hey..whatever bloviates your nads man.
Quote from: Arik on February 25, 2019, 08:29:23 AM
For a materialist a stone stay stone for ever, a plant born plant and die plant with no chance to evolve to animal, human and God and so on.
That is not how the system works.
Evolution is all about changes and so devolution which is the opposite of evolution.
Once you understand that ......
Hoo-boy....being lectured by someone who says evolution is kinda proven false by miniature gods. K
Quote from: aitm on March 02, 2019, 01:58:26 PM
We call it imagination.....but hey..whatever bloviates your nads man.
Nihilist artists hate ... imagination?
Quote from: aitm on March 02, 2019, 02:02:01 PM
Hoo-boy....being lectured by someone who says evolution is kinda proven false by miniature gods. K
Actually I never said that Darwin evolution is wrong.
I instead said that Darwin evolution is related to physical changes due mainly to survival.
The chap only studied external changes or body changes and that is quite ok. for me.
What I do not agree is not about Darwin work.
What I do not agree instead is the way that materialists believe in Darwin evolution as it is all there is to know considering that Darwin for his own personal reasons did not studied how consciousness affect changes which I reckon that these changes are much more important than external changes.
While external changes in lower form of life are trigger by mother nature external changes in humans are trigger by consciousness.
That is a big problem for materialists that only care about external changes and neglect what is most important.
An analogy that applies to anything in anthropology. There is a difference between those who study chess playing, and those who play chess. Intellectuals fit the first category. So what is the difference in quality of insight, that is obtained from the first group vs second group? I fit into the second group.
"gather around the table children, I am Pastor Arik, today we are going to witness Gods power. Here is a candle and we are going to sit here and pray and ask God to make the candle flicker.......now everyone pray and watch closely..................
...............
...............
okay, it's a bit hot in here, Ima gonna open up this window a little......
...............
........... HEY DID YOU SEE IT FLICKER? THAT IS THE POWER OF PRAYER AND THE POWER OF GOD.......let's all pray.....
Quote from: Baruch on March 03, 2019, 07:59:15 AM
An analogy that applies to anything in anthropology. There is a difference between those who study chess playing, and those who play chess. Intellectuals fit the first category. So what is the difference in quality of insight, that is obtained from the first group vs second group? I fit into the second group.
Surprise, surprise Baruch because also my spiritual teacher did make a similar example.
Two chaps walk and walk in search of something that would put an end to their trouble.
After sometime they see a mango tree full of ripe and beautiful mangoes.
One chap start looking and analyze the tree and his branches and his leaves and the number of the fruit in it while the other chap start straight away to pick up the mangoes and eat them.
Now you tell me........who is the smarter and more intelligent?
Intellectuals have their uses. Just like lawyers and doctors. Because of social cachet, many people want to join the professional class, but someone has to pick the mangoes.
Quote from: aitm on March 03, 2019, 08:15:30 AM
"gather around the table children, I am Pastor Arik, today we are going to witness Gods power. Here is a candle and we are going to sit here and pray and ask God to make the candle flicker.......now everyone pray and watch closely..................
...............
...............
okay, it's a bit hot in here, Ima gonna open up this window a little......
...............
........... HEY DID YOU SEE IT FLICKER? THAT IS THE POWER OF PRAYER AND THE POWER OF GOD.......let's all pray.....
Not at all mate.
Brother Arik does not ask God for any material things.
To ask God for material things would be like a son that ask his father for food and that would be ridiculous and a mockery.
Only religions ask God for material things.
I have nothing to do with religions.
I only pray God to be closer to him and that's all I ask but that is more a wish than a prayer.
Quote from: Arik on March 03, 2019, 09:03:37 AM
Two chaps walk and walk in search of something that would put an end to their trouble.
After sometime they see a mango tree full of ripe and beautiful mangoes.
One chap start looking and analyze the tree and his branches and his leaves and the number of the fruit in it while the other chap start straight away to pick up the mangoes and eat them.
Now you tell me........who is the smarter and more intelligent?
Depends upon the situation. If neither had seen nor heard of a mango tree was nor what it's fruit was like, the smartest one was the analyzer. It could be a deadly tree to eat from. So, the guy digging in right off the bat would be taking a chance that he could die.
Specious reasoning ... I can prove, with bad axioms and good deduction, that Socrates is a merman. The intellectual can help us articulate some things, that are hard for us to articulate. But he won't harvest any mangoes. That is for the people outside the ivory tower.
Quote from: Baruch on March 03, 2019, 01:12:55 PM
I can prove, with bad axioms and good deduction, that Socrates is a merman.
You can? OK, let's see you do that.
Quote from: Baruch on March 03, 2019, 01:12:55 PM
The intellectual can help us articulate some things, that are hard for us to articulate. But he won't harvest any mangoes. That is for the people outside the ivory tower.
Bullshit!! And you really do seem to have a corner on bullshit lately. The intellectuals of this country can not only articulate some things (which is very important, btw) but can also get down and dirty with any typical worker. They may not harvest the mangoes now, but very well could have worked doing that earlier earlier. And they will help figure out how to harvest them faster and better and how to improve the crop generally. Historically, the intellectual has taken a beating in this country. And they still are. You are the type of person Trump and his ilk of know-nothings, that put intellectual and intellect down. You seem to revel in those who are ignorant and proud of it, and seem to find that a virtue. You wallow in your fictional god and seem to think that that is a good thing. Your brand of ignorance and intellectual hating is repugnant at best and destructive at worst.
Now Mike, try not to get too worked up over Baruch's bullshit, you know he's only trying to push our buttons, and when he sees that he's done that he only gets worse.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 03, 2019, 05:19:11 PM
You can? OK, let's see you do that.
Athenians are mer-people
Socrates an Athenian man
Therefore ... Socrates is a mer-man.
But the first axiom is not true.
Reasoning involves both good deduction, but also good axioms.
Where do we have the best example? Euclid's Axioms. It had a few holes, that took 2200 years to complete patch. But almost all the rest of human reasoning is a sieve of specious reasoning.
Intellectuals = Plato ... Greek mother fuckers for 2400 years ... sophisticates aka Sophists. The ancients were reasonable to exile or execute such enemies.
Uh, those aren't axioms, they're premises - there's a difference. That first one is called the major premise, I promise.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 03, 2019, 06:34:31 PM
Uh, those aren't axioms, they're premises - there's a difference. That first one is called the major premise, I promise.
Yes, two promises, one conclusion. But If I feel strong, then my axiom is your BS, and vice versa. That is why philosophy/theology gets us nowhere. As it is, the Euclidean Axiom that two points define a straight line ... turns out to be false (because there are unstated assumptions behind it). This wasn't clarified until 1899 (it wasn't just a problem with the Parallel Postulate).
https://www.storyofmathematics.com/20th_hilbert.html His work in geometry is briefly noted.
A lovely web site all in all. Hilbert's modified Euclidean Geometry is consistent in a way that Arithmetic is not (per Godel theorems). DH EG is complete (all well formed formulas can be proven true or false within the system) ... which is not possible with Arithmetic. There are valid arithmetical statements that can't be derived from any finite list of axioms.
Of course regular logical debate (say in a court room) has more to do with Socrates than with Euclid. And pretty much falls apart (without the addition of empirical physical evidence), because only math pretends to be rigorous.
Quote from: Arik on March 03, 2019, 10:15:32 AM
Not at all mate.
Brother Arik does not ask God for any material things.
To ask God for material things would be like a son that ask his father for food and that would be ridiculous and a mockery.
Only religions ask God for material things.
I have nothing to do with religions.
I only pray God to be closer to him and that's all I ask but that is more a wish than a prayer.
I acknowledge Arik's view that he prays to his particular deity in complete purity of hope that he will reside by the Great One in some sort of afterlife. I have no doubt that he believes it. But people buy lottery tickets, wager in casinos, and bet on sports events, too. And I suspect Arik's hopes are less likely than the others.
Many people engage in irrational beliefs (religion, lotteries, gambling). He isn't the first, and he won't be the last. What saddens me is that someday, when he is old and dying, he will still believe that failed superstition, whereas he COULD have had a full realistic life free of such nonsense.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 03, 2019, 12:44:38 PM
Depends upon the situation. If neither had seen nor heard of a mango tree was nor what it's fruit was like, the smartest one was the analyzer. It could be a deadly tree to eat from. So, the guy digging in right off the bat would be taking a chance that he could die.
Well, in this case both may die but with a difference.
The one who eat mangoes die with the full stomach but the intellectual that doesn't eat will starve to death.
Much better to die quickly by poison that die slow by starving so once again the smarter is the one who eat mangoes and the fool is the one who slowly starve in agony.
(https://www.booktopia.com.au/http_coversbooktopiacomau/600/9789769615403/i-am-smart-after-all-.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on March 04, 2019, 05:14:49 AM
Well, in this case both may die but with a difference.
The one who eat mangoes die with the full stomach but the intellectual that doesn't eat will starve to death.
Much better to die quickly by poison that die slow by starving so once again the smarter is the one who eat mangoes and the fool is the one who slowly starve in agony.
(https://www.booktopia.com.au/http_coversbooktopiacomau/600/9789769615403/i-am-smart-after-all-.jpg)
That may qualify as the weirdest justification for a bad argument I have EVER heard in my life...
Quote from: Arik on March 04, 2019, 05:14:49 AM
Well, in this case both may die but with a difference.
The one who eat mangoes die with the full stomach but the intellectual that doesn't eat will starve to death.
Much better to die quickly by poison that die slow by starving so once again the smarter is the one who eat mangoes and the fool is the one who slowly starve in agony.
(https://www.booktopia.com.au/http_coversbooktopiacomau/600/9789769615403/i-am-smart-after-all-.jpg)
You constantly prove that reasoning is not your strong suit--or any suit at all in your case.
He was trying to bring it down to y'all's level ... but as pseudo-intellectuals you don't get it.
Well, as Lo Pan said, we are not brought upon this world to get it.
Arik's "facts" are based on nothing except his total conviction that they're true.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 04, 2019, 04:43:12 PM
Arik's "facts" are based on nothing except his total conviction that they're true.
Same as yours or mine. Ego maniacs are like that. Arik isn't egoless.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 04, 2019, 01:17:27 PM
Well, as Lo Pan said, we are not brought upon this world to get it.
Then why listen to false claims of those who tell you what you want to hear?
Quote from: Baruch on March 04, 2019, 07:03:31 PM
Same as yours or mine. Ego maniacs are like that. Arik isn't egoless.
That is true.
I still got a bit of ego but again that is one of the reason why I do practice yoga so one day I may be 100% free of ego.
On the other hand most people do absolutely nothing so their ego instead of going down goes up.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 04, 2019, 04:43:12 PM
Arik's "facts" are based on nothing except his total conviction that they're true.
Let us see if you are fair and impartial by criticize also your little mates when they say something that is not backed by evidence.
Let us see Mike's statement when he says that........... ideas come from our material brains.......
Have you ever criticize Mike for coming up with this statement that is 100% void of evidence?
The evidence is in your own head, all you have to do is think a bit and you'll know it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 06, 2019, 01:19:46 PM
The evidence is in your own head, all you have to do is think a bit and you'll know it.
If it wasn't in your head, to begin with, how did it get written down? Oija spirit perhaps? If the head is inherently corrupt, what will you do?
Materialism is necessary, but a distraction from what is more real ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ205esn7qE
Agon - ancient Greek for contest ... and where "agony" comes from. Such is life. It is a contest, which you detest, which you cannot avoid.
Quote from: Arik on March 05, 2019, 05:36:00 AM
That is true.
I still got a bit of ego but again that is one of the reason why I do practice yoga so one day I may be 100% free of ego.
Then you need to do more yoga...
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 06, 2019, 01:19:46 PM
The evidence is in your own head, all you have to do is think a bit and you'll know it.
The problem is that faith-based thinkers never gain anything by factual learning and stay in their original spots. If faith-based thinking still ruled, we would be in septic-filled cities, burning innocent people as witches, and thinking the universe revolved around us.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 01:37:39 AM
Then you need to do more yoga...
Actually correct. But don't get yourself tied in knots over it ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 01:42:19 AM
The problem is that faith-based thinkers never gain anything by factual learning and stay in their original spots. If faith-based thinking still ruled, we would be in septic-filled cities, burning innocent people as witches, and thinking the universe revolved around us.
[/quote
The facts are irrelevant, unless you are the sanitary engineer taking care of all the free crap the public flushes.
We are in primitive cities, in most places. You may not be privileged to live in one however, check your White privilege.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 06, 2019, 01:19:46 PM
The evidence is in your own head, all you have to do is think a bit and you'll know it.
That is correct mate.
Consciousness is in my head that is why I know that ideas do not come from the material brain.
(https://images.theconversation.com/files/218314/original/file-20180509-34021-1t9q8r0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip)
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 01:42:19 AM
The problem is that faith-based thinkers never gain anything by factual learning and stay in their original spots. If faith-based thinking still ruled, we would be in septic-filled cities, burning innocent people as witches, and thinking the universe revolved around us.
Gee, I really like your comment CB.
Fortunately I have nothing to do with them.
I always said that the best knowledge come from within and that is the knowledge that I tap into from my consciousness through yoga practices.
Faith believers usually are religious people that believe in a paradise for them or materialists that think that the universe pop up as per magic and need no one to run it which in this case is also faith in magic.
Quote from: Arik on March 07, 2019, 04:38:55 AM
Gee, I really like your comment CB.
Fortunately I have nothing to do with them.
I always said that the best knowledge come from within and that is the knowledge that I tap into from my consciousness through yoga practices.
Faith believers usually are religious people that believe in a paradise for them or materialists that think that the universe pop up as per magic and need no one to run it which in this case is also faith in magic.
Well, now that IS interesting. Faith believers tend to think that their beliefs come to them from within (as faith rather than fact), though I will say they consider the SOURCE of their beliefs are certainly some sort of outside deity. And YOU are saying that your source of belief comes from within you via your consciousness and no where else.
So you are claiming to be an atheist? Which would be all fine and good, but I can't help thinking that you are ALSO claiming some sort of higher consciousness through the power of your own mind beyond that of ordinary mortals. Do I have that right?
You are an atheist denying all outside powers? Yet you also suggest that atheists are "materialists that think that the universe pop up as per magic and need no one to run it which in this case is also faith in magic" which certainly suggests you think there is a POWER of SOME sort that created the universe, and atheists don't think THAT.
Sounds like trying to have your deity cake and eat it too, betwixt and between... And I suspect you don't exactly think THAT either (consciously), though it seems apparent in your post.
So which is it? Was the universe created by "any sort of intelligence" or not. Can't really have it both ways.
There is more to Heaven and Earth than Southern Baptists and their opponents.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 06:02:23 AM
Well, now that IS interesting. Faith believers tend to think that their beliefs come to them from within (as faith rather than fact), though I will say they consider the SOURCE of their beliefs are certainly some sort of outside deity. And YOU are saying that your source of belief comes from within you via your consciousness and no where else.
So you are claiming to be an atheist? Which would be all fine and good, but I can't help thinking that you are ALSO claiming some sort of higher consciousness through the power of your own mind beyond that of ordinary mortals. Do I have that right?
You are an atheist denying all outside powers? Yet you also suggest that atheists are "materialists that think that the universe pop up as per magic and need no one to run it which in this case is also faith in magic" which certainly suggests you think there is a POWER of SOME sort that created the universe, and atheists don't think THAT.
Sounds like trying to have your deity cake and eat it too, betwixt and between... And I suspect you don't exactly think THAT either (consciously), though it seems apparent in your post.
So which is it? Was the universe created by "any sort of intelligence" or not. Can't really have it both ways.
I do appreciate your inquisitiveness which by the way is also one way to reach some conclusion.
Unfortunately this time you failed to reach any conclusion but you should try again and again until you succeed.
Anyway let me explain why you failed.
In yoga God is real but unlike many religions is within rather than externally.
That means that you are God.
Like a seed that once it sprout (so to speak) will turn into the same tree from which it originated from also the individual consciousness will one day turn into the same entity from which it originate from and that is God.
Individual mortals also come from the same entity so no one is inferior or superior to anyone else.
The only difference however is that many people haven't yet reach the stage in which they are interested in this topic and other people such as religious people think that God is external to them so they are wasting their precious time chasing a fantasy.
To me God is everywhere and is everything but to find Him you got to look within and the consciousness is the seed that one day will show you the real YOU.
Who in reality you are.
Obviously God created the universe which is his way to spread the seeds of consciousness that one day through the process of evolution will go back to the source.
Quote from: Arik on March 07, 2019, 07:45:44 AM
I do appreciate your inquisitiveness which by the way is also one way to reach some conclusion.
Unfortunately this time you failed to reach any conclusion but you should try again and again until you succeed.
Anyway let me explain why you failed.
In yoga God is real but unlike many religions is within rather than externally.
That means that you are God.
Like a seed that once it sprout (so to speak) will turn into the same tree from which it originated from also the individual consciousness will one day turn into the same entity from which it originate from and that is God.
Individual mortals also come from the same entity so no one is inferior or superior to anyone else.
The only difference however is that many people haven't yet reach the stage in which they are interested in this topic and other people such as religious people think that God is external to them so they are wasting their precious time chasing a fantasy.
To me God is everywhere and is everything but to find Him you got to look within and the consciousness is the seed that one day will show you the real YOU.
Who in reality you are.
Obviously God created the universe which is his way to spread the seeds of consciousness that one day through the process of evolution will go back to the source.
Well, I suppose we could argue until we are both dust, but the important thing (to me) was you established with your own words that you are not an atheist ("To me God is everywhere and is everything but to find Him you got to look within") and you even capitalized "him" (showing that you are not only just another theist but also a gender-superiorist). Logically, a deity would be an "it", not needing a gender.
This pretty much ends all curiosity I had about you. You are a theist (thinking you are different from others, but not so in any way other than details that do not matter to me) and even a typical "god is male" which makes no sense whatsoever except in your imagining).
Thank you for the clarity of your superstitious beliefs. Too many theists beat around the bush here and try to hide it.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 08:24:08 AM
Well, I suppose we could argue until we are both dust, but the important thing (to me) was you established with your own words that you are not an atheist ("To me God is everywhere and is everything but to find Him you got to look within") and you even capitalized "him" (showing that you are not only just another theist but also a gender-superiorist). Logically, a deity would be an "it", not needing a gender.
This pretty much ends all curiosity I had about you. You are a theist (thinking you are different from others, but not so in any way other than details that do not matter to me) and even a typical "god is male" which makes no sense whatsoever except in your imagining).
Thank you for the clarity of your superstitious beliefs. Too many theists beat around the bush here and try to hide it.
I though I made quite clear in some previous post that God has no gender but to refer to this entity has an IT which I would use to describe something like animals or object doesn't present much respect for something so so high that is why I have no choice but say Him.
Even if you read thousand of NDEs you will find that they refer as Him even if they explain that God does not have a gender but is pure sublime consciousness.
The same thing happen when we say men to say both men and women.
The problem is that we humans not being able to describe this power in simple words have no choice but to say Him.
Quote from: Arik on March 07, 2019, 09:34:26 AM
I though I made quite clear in some previous post that God has no gender but to refer to this entity has an IT which I would use to describe something like animals or object doesn't present much respect for something so so high that is why I have no choice but say Him.
Even if you read thousand of NDEs you will find that they refer as Him even if they explain that God does not have a gender but is pure sublime consciousness.
The same thing happen when we say men to say both men and women.
The problem is that we humans not being able to describe this power in simple words have no choice but to say Him.
So "Him," reflects respect to an omnipresent genderless Being, but "It" doesn't? You make me smile...
I assume by NDE, you mean Near Death Experiences (and whether you do or don't, it is a good habit to the use the full term the first time for the benefit of readers who don't know your codes). Be that as it may, the experiences of people who are seriously drugged or near death (with at LEAST temporarily diminished mental capacities) is not going to be a benchmark for me. I mean seriously, you are depending on people who are "non compos mentos" as your evidence of the gender of a deity?
Spare me the opportunity for humor...
"The same thing happen when we say men to say both men and women." I try not to. I may fail sometimes, but never casually or deliberately.
"The problem is that we humans not being able to describe this power in simple words have no choice but to say Him." Try saying "it" and see how that fits. Logically, it should. Or try saying "Her" and expand your "consciousness". LOL! I would object to that just as much, but I would give you credit for TRYING to think.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 06:02:23 AM
Sounds like trying to have your deity cake and eat it too,
That's what the Eucharist is for - so they can have their deity and eat it too.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 01:38:22 PM
That's what the Eucharist is for - so they can have their deity and eat it too.
"This is my body you eat and blood you drink"
WTF!?! SPEW...
Yeah, religious cannibalism.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 01:38:22 PM
That's what the Eucharist is for - so they can have their deity and eat it too.
I prefer to eat women thank you very much ;-)
OK, but you should ask them first...
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 06:11:21 PM
OK, but you should ask them first...
Gentlemen who are too timid, don't get seconds, sometimes not even firsts. I know how that was until I reached 30. I know all about being a beta male.
We have become, through reason and the scientific method, the eyes and mind of the planet. The observations of science are the eyes of the rational mind. Through scientific observation, using tools never before available with which to see, we can now see both the big picture and the small picture, the macrocosm and the microcosm, where previously we could only partially observe even the mesocosm.
We will likely never be able to claim omniscience, so there will always be gaps in our knowledge - but filling those gaps with "God" is to define "God" as "ignorance". Since neither "I", nor "we", can know everything, then, if God is ignorance, I'd have to admit to a belief in God. But that's a far cry from the all-powerful being of the Bible, which certainly does not exist. And, if God is ignorance, then it's the job of science to kill God, or at least to grind away at it, by eliminating as much ignorance as possible, reducing the number of gaps available for God to hide in. If seeing is believing, then seeing what isn't real can only lead to false beliefs about the world and existence. False beliefs are not conducive to behaviour commensurate with survival.
The Earth has been blind for billions years, but now, thanks so science and reason, it can see - not only itself, it can see the universal home in which it resides. Earth was blind, but now it sees!
Not only can the Earth see itself and the universe, but, since the Earth's minds were engendered by the universe, we are the universe looking at itself.
Organized religion and the right wing political machine want to keep the planet blind, choosing to see only a fantasy worldview, and doing its utmost to force that self-delusion down everyone's throats. We must not let the theocrats put out the eyes of reason, we must continue looking as deeply and as far into the nature of reality as possible. Reason is not the best tool for interpreting what we see, through scientific observation - it is the only tool.
The Earth has been exploring, since its birth, as many of the myriad ways as it could manage of being alive. Now that it has awakened and become aware of itself and its circumstances in the universe, the Earth can attempt to find the least-hostile path through space/time - the path to abundant life.
The Earth has long been considered as Mother, but it is an Egg as well.
If an eagle egg dies before it hatches, it will never become an eagle.
If Earth, as Egg, dies before it can hatch, what is it that will never be become?
I've long considered myself to be a nihilist. I don't believe the universe, or anything in it, has any extrinsic, objective meaning. Life itself my have intrinsic meaning, though, and only that meaning that we provide can give the universe meaning.
Many have wondered what is the meaning of life, and what meaning life can have in a universe without God. This is the wrong question. It assumes that meaning can only be passed from God (or the universe) to us. The correct question is: What meaning could God, if it exists, or the universe, possibly have without life? Before God created the universe, he could have had no meaning at all, given that he was the sole existent. Without something other than himself to relate to, God could have had no meaning at all. Even after the universe was created, God would still have lacked all meaning, until mind arose.
And in a universe without God, such as we find ourselves in, the universe also derives its meaning from us, not vice versa. before the advent of life, especially sentient life, the universe could have had no meaning at all. It is we that provide meaning and purpose to the universe, by allowing the universe to observe itself, to understand itself, although imperfectly, as yet. And because we have meaning for ourselves, that meaning is transferred to the universe that engendered us.
Being who you are ... whatever that may be ... isn't the problem. That is what individuality is all about. And why I oppose collectivism that goes beyond necessary social comity.
Are you an atheist? I don't care. That is the basis for what toleration I can manifest. Same thing with being gay. I don't care. If you think that you are not alive, not conscious, or not human ... I still don't care. I find it a curious form of delusion however. Atheist or theist, neither look like delusion to me. Gay or straight, neither look like delusion to me. But there are manias ... that look like manias to me ;-) There is a difference between variance and deviation.
I simply accept human diversity, and eschew any notion of utopia, that conveniently looks like a social insect hive based on me. I support humanism, such monkey-business as we are all familiar with. Some people don't think they are human, or find being a random collection of atoms to be ... exciting. But such are manias.
I concidered myself nihilist, until i discovered absurdism, which i think i fit more into.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 08, 2019, 04:51:23 AM
I concidered myself nihilist, until i discovered absurdism, which i think i fit more into.
You Dischordian you ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 07:39:46 PM
I've long considered myself to be a nihilist. I don't believe the universe, or anything in it, has any extrinsic, objective meaning. Life itself my have intrinsic meaning, though, and only that meaning that we provide can give the universe meaning.
Many have wondered what is the meaning of life, and what meaning life can have in a universe without God. This is the wrong question. It assumes that meaning can only be passed from God (or the universe) to us. The correct question is: What meaning could God, if it exists, or the universe, possibly have without life? Before God created the universe, he could have had no meaning at all, given that he was the sole existent. Without something other than himself to relate to, God could have had no meaning at all. Even after the universe was created, God would still have lacked all meaning, until mind arose.
And in a universe without God, such as we find ourselves in, the universe also derives its meaning from us, not vice versa. before the advent of life, especially sentient life, the universe could have had no meaning at all. It is we that provide meaning and purpose to the universe, by allowing the universe to observe itself, to understand itself, although imperfectly, as yet. And because we have meaning for ourselves, that meaning is transferred to the universe that engendered us.
Guessing after guessing after guessing in a never ending trying in order to establish a theory that make sense.
All uselessly.
Obviously you start with the wrong foot by thinking that within a material universe you can find any answer.
The same goes for our mate Mike when he says that ...........ideas come from our material brains.......
It would be like saying that it is the vehicle and not the driver that decide where to go.
Absurd.
How can pure matter void of any awareness be able to think and act?
Atheists just don't get it.
Even the science that materialists glorify all the time does not back any of the materialists ideas.
None at all.
Since when science say that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that consciousness life end with the physical death?
Don't you think is time to get real?
(https://www.realmccoyslondon.com/us/static/frontend/RealMccoys/default/en_GB/assets/img/svg/logo.svg)
The first mistake is thinking one can never be mistaken. The second mistake is realizing one is mistaken, and not moving forward from there. Many people here are over 50 years old, we have a hard time losing our leopard spots.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 10:05:47 AM
"The problem is that we humans not being able to describe this power in simple words have no choice but to say Him." Try saying "it" and see how that fits. Logically, it should. Or try saying "Her" and expand your "consciousness". LOL! I would object to that just as much, but I would give you credit for TRYING to think.
Or 'Them'. I used to drive the Campus Crusaders up the metaphorical wall when I'd point out to them that referring to their god only as 'he' was putting a human limitation on that which was by their own definition supposed to be beyond limitation, and that therefore it was equally valid to use 'she', 'it', and 'they'. Only one of them ever had the logical consistency to agree. And after a couple encounters like that, they started leaving me alone...
Quote from: trdsf on March 09, 2019, 12:09:17 AM
Or 'Them'. I used to drive the Campus Crusaders up the metaphorical wall when I'd point out to them that referring to their god only as 'he' was putting a human limitation on that which was by their own definition supposed to be beyond limitation, and that therefore it was equally valid to use 'she', 'it', and 'they'. Only one of them ever had the logical consistency to agree. And after a couple encounters like that, they started leaving me alone...
Correct ... mono, binary and plurality are just POV. They aren't the ultimate ... hence my return to polytheism, as a useful gambit. Because sometimes monotheism is unintelligible. We don't all share the same "cognitive ease" ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebFWOlx848
Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2019, 01:05:36 PM
The first mistake is thinking one can never be mistaken. The second mistake is realizing one is mistaken, and not moving forward from there. Many people here are over 50 years old, we have a hard time losing our leopard spots.
Yes, but I also suppose that to admit that we are mistaken would show our failure in life and that is hard to digest.
(https://agileleanlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FailureInLife.jpg)
But not all is lost...........in fact.....................
(http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors1/winston-churchill-quote-success-is-going-from-failure-to-failure-witho.jpg)
Quote from: trdsf on March 09, 2019, 12:09:17 AM
Or 'Them'. I used to drive the Campus Crusaders up the metaphorical wall when I'd point out to them that referring to their god only as 'he' was putting a human limitation on that which was by their own definition supposed to be beyond limitation, and that therefore it was equally valid to use 'she', 'it', and 'they'. Only one of them ever had the logical consistency to agree. And after a couple encounters like that, they started leaving me alone...
Obviously these people that did not know what to answer must have been quite good in their faith but very poor in their understanding of how the system works.
It is because God is beyond limitation that we humans find difficult to describe such an entity and that is not a failure in any way but to admit that we humans still have some way to climb before we will be able to understand everything so to say HIM is quite honest.
It is quite natural that we humans have limitations otherwise we would be like God.
Quote from: Arik on March 09, 2019, 08:23:26 AM
It is quite natural that we humans have limitations otherwise we would be like God.
Or Bugs Bunny or Pecos Bill or fairies or the Easter Bunny or .........................any other fiction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 09, 2019, 10:00:07 AM
Or Bugs Bunny or Pecos Bill or fairies or the Easter Bunny or .........................any other fiction.
Ok. Mike.......let me see your signature.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?
It seems that in your statement free will doesn't exist and kids that grow up should be controlled by their father.
Do you really like as an adult to be controlled by your father?
So why you expect God to control his adult creatures?
Don't you know that only low form of life such as plants and animals follow mother nature instinct while men (men and women) are not?
Can you see that you are a total contradiction?
Quote from: Arik on March 09, 2019, 11:15:12 AM
Ok. Mike.......let me see your signature.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?
It seems that in your statement free will doesn't exist and kids that grow up should be controlled by their father.
Do you really like as an adult to be controlled by your father?
So why you expect God to control his adult creatures?
Don't you know that only low form of life such as plants and animals follow mother nature instinct while men (men and women) are not?
Can you see that you are a total contradiction?
How you got whatever it is you are rambling on about out of my signature, is beyond me. What my signature does is simply point out what a contradiction the concept of god really is. Your comments on my signature makes no sense at all. I really don't know what your point is nor how free will and being controlled by my father comes in. Your communication and grammar skills are nonexistent. But then, as a theist babble is your language.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 09, 2019, 12:19:38 PM
How you got whatever it is you are rambling on about out of my signature, is beyond me. What my signature does is simply point out what a contradiction the concept of god really is. Your comments on my signature makes no sense at all. I really don't know what your point is nor how free will and being controlled by my father comes in. Your communication and grammar skills are nonexistent. But then, as a theist babble is your language.
Contradiction isn't a problem if you are a nihilist (Unbeliever) or absurdist (Mr Obvious). Or an irrationalist (Baruch).
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. â€" 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' â€" Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.†- Emerson
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 09, 2019, 10:00:07 AM
Or Bugs Bunny or Pecos Bill or fairies or the Easter Bunny or .........................any other fiction.
Being a Democrat or a Republican or an American or a Frenchman ... these are fictions that the many ascribe to, but majority doesn't make it true.
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2019, 02:29:31 PM
Contradiction isn't a problem if you are a nihilist (Unbeliever) or absurdist (Mr Obvious). Or an irrationalist (Baruch).
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. â€" 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' â€" Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.†- Emerson
Yes, "A foolish consistency" would be a problem. But it is less of a problem than a foolish inconsistency. Or a foolish fiction. Or a foolish belief (there is no other kind of belief is there) in a god is a problem. " With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." What bullshit. A truly great person (there are no souls) is nothing but consistent!
"Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. â€" 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' --You are describing Trump here, for he changes what he has said from day to day, if not hour to hour. Your hero's are a pretty crappy bunch--truly mean in most aspects of their lives. Sort of like your fictional god.
"................and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.†- Emerson" There are no 'spirits'. If that quote is accurate, why then did Emerson write to be understood? Like all the quotes you tried to feed to me, they are actually bullshit designed to allow a 'leader' to do as they please. To be misunderstood is easy. To be understood and to be consistent is not easy and something to be striven for. Your supplied drivel is stuff of theists. To be a theist is to be be inconsistent and unreal, and so, to claim that god is so profound that he/she/it will be misunderstood is the crap the small minds of theists want us to buy into. Your beastly, inconsistent, cruel and fictional god; something your mind made up and you want to fob off on the rest of us is just that. It is more a reflection of you than anything else.
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2019, 02:30:53 PM
Being a Democrat or a Republican or an American or a Frenchman ... these are fictions that the many ascribe to, but majority doesn't make it true.
That is exactly the same for your, or any other, fictional god. Because the majority of human kind believes in one god or another does not make it so.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 09, 2019, 06:32:10 PM
That is exactly the same for your, or any other, fictional god. Because the majority of human kind believes in one god or another does not make it so.
I will stop "believing" when you do it first. You are not American, not Democrat, not male, not human etc. those are all figments of the human imagination.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 09, 2019, 12:19:38 PM
How you got whatever it is you are rambling on about out of my signature, is beyond me. What my signature does is simply point out what a contradiction the concept of god really is. Your comments on my signature makes no sense at all. I really don't know what your point is nor how free will and being controlled by my father comes in. Your communication and grammar skills are nonexistent. But then, as a theist babble is your language.
You work out in your mind that the concept of God is a contradiction and that idea to me has zero value that is why I did explained to you in simple words why.
It is the free will used in the wrong way by humans that generate all evil so nothing to do with God.
On one hand you know quite well that evil is generate by humans and on the other hand you ask why God doesn't stop it.
Don't you know that in nature we have both the positive and negative or yin and yang?
Would you like only the positive Mike?
Would you like a machine to print money so you don't have to work anymore.
Would you like total health and well being and never get sick or old?
Why God would create the universe with only the positive?
Well Mike I leave to you to work that out.
I am sure that one day you will work that out.
Good luck.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61ORHFtl-KL._SX425_.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2019, 10:45:24 PM
I will stop "believing" when you do it first. You are not American, not Democrat, not male, not human etc. those are all figments of the human imagination.
Well, as all theists do, you mistake thoughts for "beliefs". The real problem that theists have is that they can't QUITE comprehend the difference between ideas they have that are supported only by belief and those that are supported by facts.
I can't really help you about that. It's the difference between HOPING a deity exists and Measuring how planets orbit around the sun. The is not real and the other is. That's really all there is to it. But some people just can't see the difference. Still, that is THEIR problem, not mine.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 04:51:53 AM
Well, as all theists do, you mistake thoughts for "beliefs". The real problem that theists have is that they can't QUITE comprehend the difference between ideas they have that are supported only by belief and those that are supported by facts.
I can't really help you about that. It's the difference between HOPING a deity exists and Measuring how planets orbit around the sun. The is not real and the other is. That's really all there is to it. But some people just can't see the difference. Still, that is THEIR problem, not mine.
All theists do?
Are you sure that all theists do?
I believe in what I can be very very sure about not on something that some people tell me as facts.
Your problem CB like most materialists people do is that you come to the conclusion that something is real only when your physical senses can ascertain the so called facts in this way.
Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.
Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?
Love is not physical yet you believe in it as a fact, isn't the case CB?
But again materialists put a barrier between what is physical and what is not?
Why?
Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain.
That way of judging is bankrupt CB.
Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs.
Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution.
Unfortunately for people who only believe in what they can perceive with their physical senses.
Quote from: Arik on March 14, 2019, 08:59:11 AM
All theists do?
Are you sure that all theists do?
I believe in what I can be very very sure about not on something that some people tell me as facts.
Your problem CB like most materialists people do is that you come to the conclusion that something is real only when your physical senses can ascertain the so called facts in this way.
Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.
Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?
Love is not physical yet you believe in it as a fact, isn't the case CB?
But again materialists put a barrier between what is physical and what is not?
Why?
Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain.
That way of judging is bankrupt CB.
Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs.
Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution.
Unfortunately for people who only believe in what they can perceive with their physical senses.
First, I'm not "CB" to you. Or "Cavey". I grant my friends the right to that (reluctantly, sometimes). You are not one of them.
Second, as a theist, you are not guided by evidence/facts/information or any other word you think of that is opposition to what basically drives your mind. Which is unsupported thoughts, superstitions, magical thoughts, imaginings, dreams, etc. In other words, "faith". I have no use for that, and no respect for it either. I think superstitious-thinking people are a bit nuts and probably their brains were wrong-wired at an early age by the influence of older nuts.
Third, I suspect that half the craziness in the world from the earliest times to today is due to such superstitious thinking (the other half is just plain mean greedy thinking).
Now, let me address your statements...
"Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?"Yes it is and there are reasons. I grow to understand that person, find value in how they think, and agree with them because they generally agree with my understanding of the universe. I would not love, or even spend much time with, someone who did not.
"Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain"We do not (yet) understand consciousness but it is a product of the brain, and the brain is a bodily organ. It is material.
"Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution"That makes no sense, of course. There is no "devolution". Even species that seem to revert to previous forms are merely newly-evolving to changing conditions. Would you like to give an example of "devolution"?
You said that
"Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs"Some thoughts about that:
1. The first part is correct. Science never said that love or consciousness are material things. But that is completely irrelevant.
2. But science does not back "beliefs". Scientists (and other logical beings) do not make that claim. Faith-believers do, however.
What you can't seem to get past is that rational thinkers are NOT LIKE YOU!
I hope that is sufficient to help you understand what a non-faith-believer THINKS...
@Cavebear You mind if I call you 'Cave'? It's a force of habit of mine to find nicknames to people's online nicknames and call 'em by that.
But if you prefer, I will strive to call you Cavebear.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 14, 2019, 10:34:20 AM
@Cavebear
You mind if I call you 'Cave'? It's a force of habit of mine to find nicknames to people's online nicknames and call 'em by that.
But if you prefer, I will strive to call you Cavebear.
OK, a short story here. I met a friend in college and his stated name on the door was "Jeffrey". I don't know why I called him "Jeff". 20 years later, someone called him "Jeff" and he very pointedly said "Its "Jeffrey", only HE (pointing to me) can call me "Jeff". I never realized that. And I never called him "Jeff" again, out of respect. For all I know, he missed me calling him "Jeff". But that was how he generally wanted the world to call him, and I obliged.
So, I can't control what anyone calls me here. But I AM "Cavebear". I do not think of myself as "CB", "Cavey", "CBear" or anything else. I am "Cavebear" after the 'Clan of the Cave Bear' books by Jean Auel...
I am not upset in any way, nicknames are generally meant well. But since you ask, it's "Cavebear".
Quote from: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 10:09:30 AM
First, I'm not "CB" to you. Or "Cavey". I grant my friends the right to that (reluctantly, sometimes). You are not one of them.
I never intended to call you CB for disrespect but only because I try to save time so I tend to reduce people name with A B C letters.
That's all.
QuoteSecond, as a theist, you are not guided by evidence/facts/information or any other word you think of that is opposition to what basically drives your mind. Which is unsupported thoughts, superstitions, magical thoughts, imaginings, dreams, etc. In other words, "faith". I have no use for that, and no respect for it either. I think superstitious-thinking people are a bit nuts and probably their brains were wrong-wired at an early age by the influence of older nuts.
That is not as the evolution works.
The more you are able to penetrate the inner self the more you understand how the system works.
The same goes for anything in life.
The more you study the more you know things but of course to you all this means nothing considering that for you the role of consciousness means nothing and evolution is only related to physical changes.
QuoteThird, I suspect that half the craziness in the world from the earliest times to today is due to such superstitious thinking (the other half is just plain mean greedy thinking).
Once again you generalize as if all the people would be the same.
QuoteNow, let me address your statements...
"Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?"
Yes it is and there are reasons. I grow to understand that person, find value in how they think, and agree with them because they generally agree with my understanding of the universe. I would not love, or even spend much time with, someone who did not.
So if you agree that love is real then why there should be a difference between physical-mental love and spiritual love?
Isn't love something able to penetrate the core of your consciousness in either situations?
Quote"Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain"
QuoteWe do not (yet) understand consciousness but it is a product of the brain, and the brain is a bodily organ. It is material.
Stop there Mister.
One time you talk and talk about so called theists fantasies about something that is void of evidence.
The next time you come down with statements which are 100% void of any evidence like the story that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Are you serious?
Quote"Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution"
QuoteThat makes no sense, of course. There is no "devolution". Even species that seem to revert to previous forms are merely newly-evolving to changing conditions. Would you like to give an example of "devolution"?
I am not talking about low form of life such as plants and animals which are driven by mother nature or instinct.
There can not be devolution there but there is devolution and evolution in humans which is due to human free will.
This is well documented in thousand of NDEs and it make sense because without justice nothing would work.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
QuoteYou said that "Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs"
Some thoughts about that:
1. The first part is correct. Science never said that love or consciousness are material things. But that is completely irrelevant.
2. But science does not back "beliefs". Scientists (and other logical beings) do not make that claim. Faith-believers do, however.
What you can't seem to get past is that rational thinkers are NOT LIKE YOU!
I hope that is sufficient to help you understand what a non-faith-believer THINKS...
Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 11:00:45 AM
OK, a short story here. I met a friend in college and his stated name on the door was "Jeffrey". I don't know why I called him "Jeff". 20 years later, someone called him "Jeff" and he very pointedly said "Its "Jeffrey", only HE (pointing to me) can call me "Jeff". I never realized that. And I never called him "Jeff" again, out of respect. For all I know, he missed me calling him "Jeff". But that was how he generally wanted the world to call him, and I obliged.
So, I can't control what anyone calls me here. But I AM "Cavebear". I do not think of myself as "CB", "Cavey", "CBear" or anything else. I am "Cavebear" after the 'Clan of the Cave Bear' books by Jean Auel...
I am not upset in any way, nicknames are generally meant well. But since you ask, it's "Cavebear".
Then Cavebear it is.
Quote from: Arik on March 14, 2019, 11:05:59 AMAnyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.
Faith-addled people are fond of telling other people that 1) there's nothing wrong with being religious 2) non-religious people are actually religious in a bizarre attempt at a put-down.
Cognitive dissonance, much?
Quote from: Arik on March 14, 2019, 11:05:59 AM
I never intended to call you CB for disrespect but only because I try to save time so I tend to reduce people name with A B C letters.
That's all.
"NO PROB"
Other than that, you don't seem to understand logic at all...
*SIGH* Talking to non-factual people is like arguing with children about dessert...
OK look, evolution is probably my favorite subject as a concept. It is probably one of the most brilliant thought-concepts of all time . So, to start, you are unlikely to be able to tell me "that's not as the evolution works " (and I will allow "how" because sometimes I don't type worth a damn, either).
Your several statements after that made no sense at all...
That is not as the evolution works.
The more you are able to penetrate the inner self the more you understand how the system works.
The same goes for anything in life.
The more you study the more you know things but of course to you all this means nothing considering that for you the role of consciousness means nothing and evolution is only related to physical changes.
Once again you generalize as if all the people would be the same.
No, I generalize only about the superstitious faith-oriented people here. You ARE a majority in most places, but shrinking...
So if you agree that love is real then why there should be a difference between physical-mental love and spiritual love?
Isn't love something able to penetrate the core of your consciousness in either situations?
Because there are actual people I love, not an imaginary "Being-In-The-Sky"...
"One time you talk and talk about so called theists fantasies about something that is void of evidence.
The next time you come down with statements which are 100% void of any evidence like the story that the consciousness is a product of the brain. "Are you serious?
Yes. Jab a screwdriver in a brain and stir it around and see if the Creature functions. QED. [Note to any readers, I am NOT suggesting this].
I am not talking about low form of life such as plants and animals which are driven by mother nature or instinct.
There can not be devolution there but there is devolution and evolution in humans which is due to human free will.
This is well documented in thousand of NDEs and it make sense because without justice nothing would work.
Give any specific example...
Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.
A very old and boring claim. Faith-believers just LOVE to try to make factual people the same as them to get that argument about facts and evidence off the table. It's a trick Trump tries daily. It doesn't impress me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 14, 2019, 11:43:13 AM
Faith-addled people are fond of telling other people that 1) there's nothing wrong with being religious 2) non-religious people are actually religious in a bizarre attempt at a put-down.
Cognitive dissonance, much?
Monkeys throw poo. Who knew?
Quote from: Arik on March 14, 2019, 08:59:11 AM
Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.
Yeah, it's called the Twilight Zone.
Quote from: Arik on March 14, 2019, 08:59:11 AMUnfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.
Oh, and how do you know that? Did someone die and go to heaven and then tell a story about what they saw? :angel:
Quote from: Arik on March 14, 2019, 11:05:59 AM
Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.
There's a big difference between "believing" something and accepting something as a "working hypothesis" until further evidence/information is available. To believe something is to fully accept that it is true, now and forever, whereas a working hypothesis can, and should, be altered by new knowledge.
You haven't yet brought us any new knowledge, only assertions that you cannot back up with evidence. Assertions that cannot be backed up with evidence are only as good as the paper they're written on, since counter-assertions can also be made, and there's no way to differentiate between the two to see which is actually true.
I have a working hypothesis. Humans are not an intelligent species. And as such are disqualified from judging themselves as intelligent.
That, though, does include yourself, does it not?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 14, 2019, 06:53:30 PM
That, though, does include yourself, does it not?
Yes, all the egomaniacs who post here, naturally assume I am an egomaniac too. But some poo tossers are more equal than others.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: Arik on March 14, 2019, 11:05:59 AM
I never intended to call you CB for disrespect but only because I try to save time so I tend to reduce people name with A B C letters.
That's all.
"NO PROB"
Other than that, you don't seem to understand logic at all...
*SIGH* Talking to non-factual people is like arguing with children about dessert...
You got to be alert all the time Mister because logic within a universal system that move and change all the time may mean absolutely nothing.
Real logic to me only apply to a system that is 100% fixed and that if exist as I do believe it does is not this always changeable universe.
Fools try to hold a grip to something that move all the time but that is impossible to hold to for long time.
Nature always win.
QuoteOK look, evolution is probably my favorite subject as a concept. It is probably one of the most brilliant thought-concepts of all time . So, to start, you are unlikely to be able to tell me "that's not as the evolution works " (and I will allow "how" because sometimes I don't type worth a damn, either).
Materialists are not very good observers.
They rely on the physical-material aspect of the creation to try to understand something but what make-trigger the changes in people are not these factors but the consciousness.
That is easily observed in people who follow certain things in life.
You may see people with thirst for material things that look totally different from people who look for scientific knowledge or people who look for drugs or people who look for spiritual knowledge.
After sometime that people follow something in life their body-mind change in order to build a parallelism between their bodies and their consciousness that is why it is the consciousness-mind that trigger changes in the body.
Obviously people who do not understand how the consciousness works can not even understand how the evolution works.
QuoteYour several statements after that made no sense at all...
That is not as the evolution works.
The more you are able to penetrate the inner self the more you understand how the system works.
The same goes for anything in life.
The more you study the more you know things but of course to you all this means nothing considering that for you the role of consciousness means nothing and evolution is only related to physical changes.
How on earth can you understand how evolution works if you don't even understand that it is the consciousness that trigger changes?
Once again you generalize as if all the people would be the same.
QuoteNo, I generalize only about the superstitious faith-oriented people here. You ARE a majority in most places, but shrinking...
Fail once again because yoga is 99% practice and it is through practice that you come to know the reality.
Religious people and materialists on the other hand rely on faith.
So if you agree that love is real then why there should be a difference between physical-mental love and spiritual love?
Isn't love something able to penetrate the core of your consciousness in either situations?
QuoteBecause there are actual people I love, not an imaginary "Being-In-The-Sky"...
The good you feel within can not be imaginary.
The good feeling is something that people conquer through sacrifice.
Nothing fall from the sky as a miracle that is why what you got is real.
You may believe in miracle and that is fantasy that you create in your brain.
I do not.
As far as the good feeling penetrate your inner soul that is real regardless whether is physical, mental or spiritual.
"One time you talk and talk about so called theists fantasies about something that is void of evidence.
The next time you come down with statements which are 100% void of any evidence like the story that the consciousness is a product of the brain. "Are you serious?
QuoteYes. Jab a screwdriver in a brain and stir it around and see if the Creature functions. QED. [Note to any readers, I am NOT suggesting this].
You can well do the experiment with a car in which there is a driver inside and you would produce the same result.
As far as the car is smashed and the driver is stuck inside you will find that nothing will work anymore.
We are stuck inside a body until physical life is there that is why we feel the pain when the body in which we live in is sick.
That however has absolutely nothing to do with whether the consciousness is a product of the brain.
If you thing so then you should also believe that the driver is a product of the car.
I am not talking about low form of life such as plants and animals which are driven by mother nature or instinct.
There can not be devolution there but there is devolution and evolution in humans which is due to human free will.
This is well documented in thousand of NDEs and it make sense because without justice nothing would work.
QuoteGive any specific example...
There is plenty to read about the subject in the thousand of NDEs experiences.
Real people, real incidents, real death, real hospitals and real witnesses but you can also see in people who born with great skills which they could not learn from anyone considering their young age.
Obviously these people developed these skills in previous lives and as there is one way up (evolution) there is also a way down (devolution).
Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.
QuoteA very old and boring claim. Faith-believers just LOVE to try to make factual people the same as them to get that argument about facts and evidence off the table. It's a trick Trump tries daily. It doesn't impress me.
As far as you come up with unproven claims as you do you go hand in hand with those people that you are so eager to criticize.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 14, 2019, 02:03:07 PM
Oh, and how do you know that? Did someone die and go to heaven and then tell a story about what they saw? :angel:
Yes, there are indeed Hydra.
Just take sometime to read these experiences from real people who came back to tell us.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 14, 2019, 02:03:17 PM
There's a big difference between "believing" something and accepting something as a "working hypothesis" until further evidence/information is available. To believe something is to fully accept that it is true, now and forever, whereas a working hypothesis can, and should, be altered by new knowledge.
You haven't yet brought us any new knowledge, only assertions that you cannot back up with evidence. Assertions that cannot be backed up with evidence are only as good as the paper they're written on, since counter-assertions can also be made, and there's no way to differentiate between the two to see which is actually true.
Excuse me mate but is not me that made those assertions which you are referring to.
You should ask the guy who did and ask him for evidence.
Why you take on me?
I can only answer about the assertions that I did made not about other people assertions.
If you are more specific and tell me what I did assert then I may answer to you.
Just not worth the time, "mate."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6u0VBqNBQ8
Also, there's this, that I read about 35 years ago:
THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAK DOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND (http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf) - PDF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgnMyF-o0sQ
Overview of Julian Jaynes's Theory (http://www.julianjaynes.org/julian-jaynes-theory-overview.php)
This is just one theory about consciousness, but it's a very interesting one.
I think, bicameral mind, came about as an idea, because of schizophrenia. The idea is that early man was naturally schizoid, and only later development (when art started?) did we achieve a single mind, rather than two minds in one head (as post-lobotomy). Marvin Minskly, AI pioneer, says consciousness is the "consensus" of multiple sub-routines (personalities).
Owen Barfield is a name I did't know, but I did know his friends, C S Lewis and J R Tolkien.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Barfield
An anti-reductionist, Arik and I would probably fall into that category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireductionism
Karl Popper, wo I also knew, and admire ... was also anti-reductionist. Thales and Pythagoras were the first Greek reductionists. Though this also happened in India with the Charvaka. Buddha however was an anti-reductionist.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 17, 2019, 05:13:27 PM
Just not worth the time, "mate."
No problem brother.
The day will surely come when you will find plenty of time to dedicate to what you will judge as the most important thing in life.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 17, 2019, 05:57:11 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6u0VBqNBQ8
Some interesting theories, some neutral and obvious and some that don't make any sense.
What I find absurd is the fact that the author doesn't distinguish between evolution in lower form of life which are driven mainly by survival and evolution in higher form of life such as in human life which is not necessary driven by survival.
Tomorrow I will see your next video.
Maslow, just sayin' ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Most of the world don't have First World problems.
Quote from: Baruch on March 18, 2019, 01:00:12 PM
Maslow, just sayin' ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Most of the world don't have First World problems.
Maslow had a lot of theories but in his later years he changed his mind to a certain degree because he understood that the desire to reach the infinite in humans is one of the most important desire if not the most important at all.
This goes hand in hand with yoga philosophy which say that humans will never be satisfied unless they reach the infinity and this is not possible to achieve in the material-physical arena where everything is of finite nature.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 17, 2019, 06:00:54 PM
Also, there's this, that I read about 35 years ago:
THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAK DOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND (http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf) - PDF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgnMyF-o0sQ
Overview of Julian Jaynes's Theory (http://www.julianjaynes.org/julian-jaynes-theory-overview.php)
This is just one theory about consciousness, but it's a very interesting one.
Theories, theories and more theories.
At the end without any practice the consciousness does not move a single inch in her journey towards perfection.
What a waste!
It is like to study to learn the road rules in order to get a license but never actually drive a vehicle.
What's the point?
Intellectuals and materialists just don't get it.
Consciousness is there in order to grow in power and that need exercise as every other thing in life.
If you want to become a doctor you also need both the study and a lot of practice otherwise nothing is achieved.
Some people only kvetch others only kibitz. Like the old guys in the Sesame St balcony.
Quote from: Baruch on March 19, 2019, 01:11:24 PM
Some people only kvetch others only kibitz. Like the old guys in the Sesame St balcony.
I just find difficult to believe Baruch.
After some million of years in individual evolution from matter to cells or whatever was the first form of life and up to plants, animal to when they finally reach the human stage now they pretend that their consciousness pop up in some mysterious way and their life and evolution end all of a sudden with their physical death without having to reach any goal or destination.
Just when they are close to the arrival or finishing line they just say...........who cares.......
Quote from: Arik on March 20, 2019, 06:18:10 AM
I just find difficult to believe Baruch.
After some million of years in individual evolution from matter to cells or whatever was the first form of life and up to plants, animal to when they finally reach the human stage now they pretend that their consciousness pop up in some mysterious way and their life and evolution end all of a sudden with their physical death without having to reach any goal or destination.
Just when they are close to the arrival or finishing line they just say...........who cares.......
1st World disassociation of personality.
Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2019, 07:14:29 AM
1st World disassociation of personality.
What is most bizarre in all this is that these guys are still totally convinced that science back them up when in reality science contradict them all the way.
Energy can not be destroyed but of course for them energy and consciousness are two different things.
Just incredible.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EkmrH1MSeJE/WBGR0e75yEI/AAAAAAAAF9g/l-zskJQdQv02pw3ExXOEoD6-JljvFkPvQCLcB/s1600/Bob-works-out-7.gif)
Quote from: Arik on March 22, 2019, 08:01:01 AM
What is most bizarre in all this is that these guys are still totally convinced that science back them up when in reality science contradict them all the way.
Energy can not be destroyed but of course for them energy and consciousness are two different things.
Just incredible.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EkmrH1MSeJE/WBGR0e75yEI/AAAAAAAAF9g/l-zskJQdQv02pw3ExXOEoD6-JljvFkPvQCLcB/s1600/Bob-works-out-7.gif)
Physicalism: chess is made up of a board and two sets of pieces
Consciousness: a particular sequence of arrangement of pieces produced by two opposing players
But, but ... it is still made up of the board and the pieces ... So!
The position of the pieces is the result of pseudo-random movements ... tell that to Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky! The pseudo-random part is only ... not all arrangements of pieces can be arrived at by legal play ... the pieces' movements are limited by rules, by the obstruction of your own pieces, by the obstruction of the opponents pieces and by the taking of pieces off the board during play. Moreover aside from all of that, that only describes all legal arrangements. It doesn't explain the sequence of play. The sequence of play is also determined by the strategies of the opposing players, which is dynamic during the game. The missing element in physicalism is the will, the senses, the living presence of the players.
Reductionism is useful in some circumstances, but it is self limiting, it isn't a panacea. No mental process is.
Quote from: Arik on March 22, 2019, 08:01:01 AM
What is most bizarre in all this is that these guys are still totally convinced that science back them up when in reality science contradict them all the way.
Energy can not be destroyed but of course for them energy and consciousness are two different things.
Just incredible.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EkmrH1MSeJE/WBGR0e75yEI/AAAAAAAAF9g/l-zskJQdQv02pw3ExXOEoD6-JljvFkPvQCLcB/s1600/Bob-works-out-7.gif)
Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works. Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 23, 2019, 12:48:45 AM
Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works. Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize.
Energy is the carrier. As the plastic is the carrier of the chess pieces. But plastic isn't the content of the chess pieces, that is the symbolic information represented by their shapes. A pawn is not a queen. Abstractly, consciousness is a physically embodied form of information. Actual randomness, has zero information and maximum entropy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfffy12uQ7g
Some have tried to used this in physics, that information is fundamental, not mass-energy, not space-time.
A side point ... the utopianism of communism (and progressivism in general) is belief in a self-licking ice-cream cone. Namely a perfect engine (per Carnot) ... a perfect steam engine in the case of Marx's time. The idea is prevalent in capitalism and communism, that with progress, while there isn't a free lunch yet, with technical progress, there will be a free lunch any day now. Marx wasn't competent at physics. All we have is predation, if you want more food energy to keep your body engine going, you have to either grow food, or steal it from farmers. Capitalism grows food. Communism steals it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGlDsFAOWXc
A simple heat engine that is easy to understand. Why isn't it perfectly efficient? Because it can't be completely isolated from its surroundings. Even if put into the vacuum of space, it is losing energy (and gaining entropy) by infrared radiation leaving it (because it has a temperature). Well then, we can improve by lowering the temperature, thus lowing the infrared radiation loss, right? No dice. This is why you can't get to absolute zero temperature. Even empty space isn't at absolute zero, because of the quantum flux of the naked vacuum, which can also be measured ... the Casimir Effect. That is why you can't have a perpetual motion machine.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 23, 2019, 12:48:45 AM
Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works. Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize.
Your problem BL is that you do not know how evolution works along with materialists so you make a hell of a confusion.
But let us see your comment.
1) You say...............Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms......................
Who ever said that energy doesn't change?
Not me BL.
Obviously as consciousness that by the way is also energy gain in awareness through the evolution process she (rather than it) is bound to change form.
If that wouldn't be the case then matter would stay matter, plants stay plants and so animals and human stay what they are and of course matter wouldn't turn in anything else in the first place.
Have you ever seem a creeper moving and moving in search of something?
That is all about evolution of the consciousness.
That consciousness is not happy to stay were she is.
Exactly the same as animals and humans.
There is a force that tell to those consciousness.............GO AHEAD......GO AHEAD......... so the awareness increase in a never end effort to go higher and higher.
2) You say.............. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works......................
More confusion BL.
Evolution of the consciousness is not the same in everyone and everything so your idea that you can compare a human consciousness with one that is millions times less evolved such as an image doesn't make much sense at all however is also true that if one manage to exist also the other must manage to exist but with a difference BL.
While an evolved consciousness such as the one of a human present a more complex level of awareness and therefore is likely to keep her form the other is in a latent stage of awareness so her form is almost impossible for us human to identify once she change but again according to my beliefs even a human consciousness due to her bad karma can turn into something less evolved such as matter, plant or animal.
3) You say..........Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize..........
Once again you pop up with remarks that I never claimed.
Who ever said that the soul is something physical?
Not me BL.
I instead said that energy and consciousness are but the two sides of the same sheet so one can not exist without the other.
And who said that energy can be observed?
To do that you must be a very very advanced human being very similar to God.
Normal people can not observe energy.
They however can measure energy with some instruments.
Most people who had a real NDE could do that once outside their bodies but most people can not.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 23, 2019, 12:48:45 AM
Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works. Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize.
Or Physics, or the Physiology or Medicine prize. Or all three at the same time.
Fortunately, we live in a world where data overrides assertion. Otherwise, I should have a Nobel for asserting that there are other alien intelligences in this galaxy â€" and with a damn sight better reasoning and rationale than this magical soul balderdash.
Quote from: trdsf on March 23, 2019, 08:33:48 PM
Or Physics, or the Physiology or Medicine prize. Or all three at the same time.
Fortunately, we live in a world where data overrides assertion. Otherwise, I should have a Nobel for asserting that there are other alien intelligences in this galaxy â€" and with a damn sight better reasoning and rationale than this magical soul balderdash.
But your assertion is no more valid than his, simply of a different conclusion. My post above gave facts. People here only select the one's they agree with, like a Bible thumper.
Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2019, 09:12:40 PM
But your assertion is no more valid than his, simply of a different conclusion. My post above gave facts. People here only select the one's they agree with, like a Bible thumper.
The guy is convinced that today data is the real data.
He doesn't realize that in this universe everything move and change so obviously what was true yesterday is cast in the rubbish bin of history today and tomorrow a new data will pop up deceiving the gullible into believing that this new data is the ultimate truth.
Materialists are stuck in material reality but that reality is not even close to the real reality so they keep on searching in the wrong place for the ultimate reality saying..................we still do not know but surely science will find out.........
Surely science can give a correct answer.
The problem however is that we also need the proper science which by the way is not what they think it is because physical science is called physical for a reason.
The real truth is outside the physical arena but materialists still ignore this important factor by burying their head on the sand.
(http://blog.core-ed.org/files/2018/01/head-in-sand.jpg)
Sometime searching can produce results however although these results may be interesting they may not be all positive.
(https://i.imgur.com/R1eeO.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on March 24, 2019, 10:30:31 AM
The real truth is outside the physical arena
And exactly how is it that you know this?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 24, 2019, 05:26:05 PM
And exactly how is it that you know this?
How do you know it is not? Dividing things into physical and non-physical is convention ... like what side of the road you drive on.
Truth is evidence that can be shown to others by means of shared information or logical discussion.
Faith is unsupported by evidence, and depends on a superiority of trust over evidence.
Theism is faith-based. There is no evidence for it in any factual basis.
Isn't it strange that all faith-based ideas have NO evidential basis? Wouldn't you think that, at some time, a fact would have SLIPPED in somewhere?
I do not pay attention to anything not fact-based...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 24, 2019, 10:46:52 PM
Truth is evidence that can be shown to others by means of shared information or logical discussion.
Faith is unsupported by evidence, and depends on a superiority of trust over evidence.
Theism is faith-based. There is no evidence for it in any factual basis.
Isn't it strange that all faith-based ideas have NO evidential basis? Wouldn't you think that, at some time, a fact would have SLIPPED in somewhere?
I do not pay attention to anything not fact-based...
Only if you are triggered left wing professors working on the public dole ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 24, 2019, 05:26:05 PM
And exactly how is it that you know this?
Simple UB.
Humans are never satisfied with the limited.
You had a fully function box monitor, didn't you but as soon as you saw the new flat monitor in the shop you discarded the old box and got the flat screen one.
But this is not the end because as soon as a new model with come out you will do the same with the one you got now.
Everybody does that and they do because human thirst can only be satisfied with the unlimited but the unlimited can not exist within the physical-material arena.
From here every smart person will conclude that it is only outside this material universe that the unlimited exist as already proven by anyone engaged seriously in spirituality and by thousand of those who had an NDE which came back to describe the ultimate reality where the infinite is the only way able to put an end to human thirst for the unlimited and the search for peace of mind.
So obviously the truth is nowhere to be found within the material dimension because in this dimension everything is of limited nature.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 24, 2019, 10:46:52 PM
Truth is evidence that can be shown to others by means of shared information or logical discussion.
Ok. if you put it in this way then you should be able to show me that within your soul really exist a very deep love for your lover.
Can you do that?
QuoteFaith is unsupported by evidence, and depends on a superiority of trust over evidence.
A lot of faith it is build on unsupported evidence but again some faith it is build on facts so I wouldn't come out with these UNSUPPORTED claims.
QuoteTheism is faith-based. There is no evidence for it in any factual basis.
Once again you come out with unsupported evidence.
Although many theists base all the trust in faith other do not.
I base my belief in something that works like yoga.
QuoteIsn't it strange that all faith-based ideas have NO evidential basis? Wouldn't you think that, at some time, a fact would have SLIPPED in somewhere?
There are a lot of facts but most people are too blind to understand anything beside not all reality can be demonstrated to other people as I just show you in your first question.
QuoteI do not pay attention to anything not fact-based...
Sure, it is a fact that your love for someone is real but at the same time it is impossible for you to present any evidence to other that what is inside your soul is real.
How on earth can you expect that other people demonstrate to you that their love for God is real?
Who told you that all facts should be demonstrable to be real?
Quote from: Arik on March 25, 2019, 10:56:43 AM
Simple UB.
Humans are never satisfied with the limited.
You had a fully function box monitor, didn't you but as soon as you saw the new flat monitor in the shop you discarded the old box and got the flat screen one.
But this is not the end because as soon as a new model with come out you will do the same with the one you got now.
Everybody does that and they do because human thirst can only be satisfied with the unlimited but the unlimited can not exist within the physical-material arena.
From here every smart person will conclude that it is only outside this material universe that the unlimited exist as already proven by anyone engaged seriously in spirituality and by thousand of those who had an NDE which came back to describe the ultimate reality where the infinite is the only way able to put an end to human thirst for the unlimited and the search for peace of mind.
So obviously the truth is nowhere to be found within the material dimension because in this dimension everything is of limited nature.
But what about those of us, like me, who aren't very smart?
Quote from: Arik on March 23, 2019, 11:09:01 AM
Your problem BL is that you do not know how evolution works along with materialists so you make a hell of a confusion.
But let us see your comment.
1) You say...............Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms......................
Who ever said that energy doesn't change?
Not me BL.
Obviously as consciousness that by the way is also energy gain in awareness through the evolution process she (rather than it) is bound to change form.
If that wouldn't be the case then matter would stay matter, plants stay plants and so animals and human stay what they are and of course matter wouldn't turn in anything else in the first place.
Have you ever seem a creeper moving and moving in search of something?
That is all about evolution of the consciousness.
That consciousness is not happy to stay were she is.
Exactly the same as animals and humans.
There is a force that tell to those consciousness.............GO AHEAD......GO AHEAD......... so the awareness increase in a never end effort to go higher and higher.
2) You say.............. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works......................
More confusion BL.
Evolution of the consciousness is not the same in everyone and everything so your idea that you can compare a human consciousness with one that is millions times less evolved such as an image doesn't make much sense at all however is also true that if one manage to exist also the other must manage to exist but with a difference BL.
While an evolved consciousness such as the one of a human present a more complex level of awareness and therefore is likely to keep her form the other is in a latent stage of awareness so her form is almost impossible for us human to identify once she change but again according to my beliefs even a human consciousness due to her bad karma can turn into something less evolved such as matter, plant or animal.
3) You say..........Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize..........
Once again you pop up with remarks that I never claimed.
Who ever said that the soul is something physical?
Not me BL.
I instead said that energy and consciousness are but the two sides of the same sheet so one can not exist without the other.
And who said that energy can be observed?
To do that you must be a very very advanced human being very similar to God.
Normal people can not observe energy.
They however can measure energy with some instruments.
Most people who had a real NDE could do that once outside their bodies but most people can not.
Uh, no. You're the one who's demonstrated multiple times a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works. And nowhere in this word salad did you address any of my questions. Energy can be observed. Energy takes many forms, depending on how deep you go. Protons, quarks, waves, all these things are types of energy, and can be observed. Heck, even the dark matter and dark energy can be observed to some extent, despite being invisible, tasteless, etc. So again...where is this soul energy you keep asserting must exist? And if this soul energy does exist, what makes it unique in the universe for having no half-life, no expiration date if you will? Even if I granted that this soul energy exists, why should I believe that it would forever remain soul energy?
As for your lesson in evolution, here is how consciousness works. Animals didn't evolve a bigger quantity of invisible soul energy to become more aware. They evolved bigger and more efficient brains. Ever heard of the "reptilian brain?" There's a reason we call it that. Reptile brains basically contain the bare essentials for survival. Mammals, however, have additional structures on top of the reptilian brain, which grant us several advantages such as the ability for introspection, or to develop emotional attachments. In other words, what you're attributing to some invisible energy that somehow survives death, is explained by brain structures.
Your ignorance for how the brain works is not justification for making shit up. If I could travel back in time and grab an ancient Roman and show them my TV, how do you think they would explain it? Most likely, they would resort to the supernatural to explain the television. You are like that hypothetical ancient Roman.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 25, 2019, 04:54:59 PM
Your ignorance for how the brain works is not justification for making shit up. If I could travel back in time and grab an ancient Roman and show them my TV, how do you think they would explain it? Most likely, they would resort to the supernatural to explain the television. You are like that hypothetical ancient Roman.
Except, of course, that there's a chance the ancient Roman could understand a rational explanation.
Quote from: trdsf on March 25, 2019, 06:02:53 PM
Except, of course, that there's a chance the ancient Roman could understand a rational explanation.
Possibly? I expect it'd be hard to explain the idea of a million tiny mirrors creating an image based on a signal that transfers wirelessly from a station playing a recording that was captured with a device called a camera that collects light in its lens. Reminds me of a book I read in college once about a researcher who lived among a tribe living in the jungle. All those people knew was the jungle. When one of the tribesmen traveled with the researcher to the mountains, he asked, "What is that white stuff?" The researcher replied, "It's snow." "What's snow?" "It's frozen water." The tribesman just gave this suspicious look and said, "You're a liar."
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 25, 2019, 06:19:42 PM
Possibly? I expect it'd be hard to explain the idea of a million tiny mirrors creating an image based on a signal that transfers wirelessly from a station playing a recording that was captured with a device called a camera that collects light in its lens. Reminds me of a book I read in college once about a researcher who lived among a tribe living in the jungle. All those people knew was the jungle. When one of the tribesmen traveled with the researcher to the mountains, he asked, "What is that white stuff?" The researcher replied, "It's snow." "What's snow?" "It's frozen water." The tribesman just gave this suspicious look and said, "You're a liar."
I never said it was a large chance... ;)
In the multiverse, anything with a non-zero chance of happening must happen.
Quote from: trdsf on March 25, 2019, 06:02:53 PM
Except, of course, that there's a chance the ancient Roman could understand a rational explanation.
And then promptly conquer and enslave you ;-(
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 25, 2019, 08:28:36 PM
In the multiverse, anything with a non-zero chance of happening must happen.
If you like your multiverse, you can keep your multiverse - Bizzaro Obama
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 25, 2019, 01:13:30 PM
But what about those of us, like me, who aren't very smart?
People before to become smart are non smart (deep philosophy lol)
Everybody go through that stage UB so if I am in you I wouldn't really worry that much.
The important thing however is to wake up and grow up once you understand that you are not smart.
Simple.
(http://abcdvdz.com/image/cache/data/demo/4/smart-guy-51260ce141e48%5B1%5D-700x700-700x700.png)
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 25, 2019, 04:54:59 PM
Uh, no. You're the one who's demonstrated multiple times a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works. And nowhere in this word salad did you address any of my questions. Energy can be observed. Energy takes many forms, depending on how deep you go. Protons, quarks, waves, all these things are types of energy, and can be observed. Heck, even the dark matter and dark energy can be observed to some extent, despite being invisible, tasteless, etc. So again...where is this soul energy you keep asserting must exist? And if this soul energy does exist, what makes it unique in the universe for having no half-life, no expiration date if you will? Even if I granted that this soul energy exists, why should I believe that it would forever remain soul energy?
As for your lesson in evolution, here is how consciousness works. Animals didn't evolve a bigger quantity of invisible soul energy to become more aware. They evolved bigger and more efficient brains. Ever heard of the "reptilian brain?" There's a reason we call it that. Reptile brains basically contain the bare essentials for survival. Mammals, however, have additional structures on top of the reptilian brain, which grant us several advantages such as the ability for introspection, or to develop emotional attachments. In other words, what you're attributing to some invisible energy that somehow survives death, is explained by brain structures.
Your ignorance for how the brain works is not justification for making shit up. If I could travel back in time and grab an ancient Roman and show them my TV, how do you think they would explain it? Most likely, they would resort to the supernatural to explain the television. You are like that hypothetical ancient Roman.
Well, well, well BL.
If you insist that energy can be observed than why not.
A stone is made of energy, a plant too and animals and humans are also made of energy along with everything that exist including the universe and the elements that made it so in a way we can see energy but that is not what we are talking about BL.
Evolution turn rudimental forms of energy into more evolved form of energy and as this happen then this new form of energy become more and more subtle and difficult for human to perceive and understand and it is here that I am talking about.
In the past the saints were represented in paintings with an aura on the head around the pineal gland.
The meaning was that his-her consciousness was so evolved that the aura become resplendent.
You wouldn't be able to perceived whether a person aura is positive or negative or see the energy around it.
In fact you wouldn't even know what the aura is or as the evolution works in individuals so I don't really understand what you trying to say.
(https://www.elevationfloat.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Thinking-of-floating-but-not-sure-if-it%E2%80%99s-for-you.jpg)
Being a genius is hard ... being humble is even harder ;-)
Quote from: Arik on March 26, 2019, 06:14:10 AM
Well, well, well BL.
If you insist that energy can be observed than why not.
A stone is made of energy, a plant too and animals and humans are also made of energy along with everything that exist including the universe and the elements that made it so in a way we can see energy but that is not what we are talking about BL.
Evolution turn rudimental forms of energy into more evolved form of energy and as this happen then this new form of energy become more and more subtle and difficult for human to perceive and understand and it is here that I am talking about.
In the past the saints were represented in paintings with an aura on the head around the pineal gland.
The meaning was that his-her consciousness was so evolved that the aura become resplendent.
You wouldn't be able to perceived whether a person aura is positive or negative or see the energy around it.
In fact you wouldn't even know what the aura is or as the evolution works in individuals so I don't really understand what you trying to say.
(https://www.elevationfloat.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Thinking-of-floating-but-not-sure-if-it%E2%80%99s-for-you.jpg)
The fuck are you talking about? The "saints" were given a halo around their heads because a story about Moses had the character come down the mountain with some of God's light radiating off of his face, as if being around God for an extended amount of time was contagious. They had to hide Moses' face because they couldn't look directly at him.
Nowhere in the Bible is the pineal gland mentioned. You're making shit up. The idea of the pineal gland being the intermediary between the body and the soul was a cop out a philosopher named Descartes came up with. He didn't know what the function of the pineal gland was, and he didn't understand how the "soul" worked, so he claimed that the pineal gland was the "principal seat of the soul and the place in which all our thoughts are formed." Wrong! We understand now that the pineal gland governs sleep patterns. The idea that that tiny little structure of the brain is wholly responsible for 100% of our thoughts is laughable. And you're referencing him? Just goes to show how ignorant you are, I guess.
Americans only know America, nothing outside, and sometimes nothing outside of New Jersey ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 26, 2019, 06:25:38 AM
Being a genius is hard ... being humble is even harder ;-)
Yeah, as the song says, it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way. LOL
Quote from: Arik on March 26, 2019, 05:54:19 AM
People before to become smart are non smart (deep philosophy lol)
Everybody go through that stage UB so if I am in you I wouldn't really worry that much.
The important thing however is to wake up and grow up once you understand that you are not smart.
Simple.
(http://abcdvdz.com/image/cache/data/demo/4/smart-guy-51260ce141e48%5B1%5D-700x700-700x700.png)
There is one thing i know, that is that know nothing...
I guess you don't watch FUX Gnus, or you'd know less than nothing! LOL
Here's someone that
should know what he's talking about:
QuoteProfessor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience Anil Seth looks at the neuroscience of consciousness and how our biology gives rise to the unique experience of being you.
Anil provides an insight into the state-of-the-art research in the new science of consciousness. Distinguishing between conscious level, conscious content and conscious self, he describes how new experiments are shedding light on the underlying neural mechanisms in normal life as well as in neurological and psychiatric conditions.
Anil Seth is Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, where he is also Co-Director of the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science. He is Editor-in-Chief of Neuroscience of Consciousness and is on the steering group and advisory board of the Human Mind Project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRel1JKOEbI
Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework (http://zoo.cs.yale.edu/classes/cs671/12f/12f-papers/dehaene-consciousness.pdf)
So, Unbeliever. You are already a computer program? Can I reboot you (you might like it)?
Your brain is just a random network of neurons, randomly firing.
Cognitive psychology is the present status quo in American psychology. That is why it is OK to waterboard prisoners ... we are simply recharging them.
First you have to boot. Only then can you reboot.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 26, 2019, 07:25:03 PM
First you have to boot. Only then can you reboot.
[/quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt4mwy9OBNA
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 26, 2019, 09:43:15 AM
The fuck are you talking about? The "saints" were given a halo around their heads because a story about Moses had the character come down the mountain with some of God's light radiating off of his face, as if being around God for an extended amount of time was contagious. They had to hide Moses' face because they couldn't look directly at him.
Nowhere in the Bible is the pineal gland mentioned. You're making shit up. The idea of the pineal gland being the intermediary between the body and the soul was a cop out a philosopher named Descartes came up with. He didn't know what the function of the pineal gland was, and he didn't understand how the "soul" worked, so he claimed that the pineal gland was the "principal seat of the soul and the place in which all our thoughts are formed." Wrong! We understand now that the pineal gland governs sleep patterns. The idea that that tiny little structure of the brain is wholly responsible for 100% of our thoughts is laughable. And you're referencing him? Just goes to show how ignorant you are, I guess.
We understand now?
Are you serious BL?
Sorry to tell you but now what science has so far discovered about the pineal gland is not even the tip of the iceberg.
Scientists in general do not practice that science that would allow them to understand what the pineal gland is there for and the reason is that they only study what come under the field of physicality but what lie within this gland is not of physical nature.
Consciousness being of abstract nature can not possibly be understood by physical means.
Materialists obsession..............................................
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pKc6ffFwSu0/maxresdefault.jpg)
...........................with the idea that everything must come under the physical aspect of reasoning fail to comprehend what consciousness is all about.
The pineal gland is not important to most of you but it is certainly important to various governments.
Those who run these gov. understand very well what the pineal gland can do so they try to limit as much as they can his influence on people mind.
No wonder that in many countries they add fluoride to tap water as this keep people docile and easy to control.
It is all about calcifying the pineal gland in order to put it off so mass control can work perfectly.
https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/kwz5m3/why-are-governments-putting-fluoride-in-our-water-sheeple
Quote from: Arik on March 27, 2019, 07:37:15 PM
We understand now?
Are you serious BL?
Sorry to tell you but now what science has so far discovered about the pineal gland is not even the tip of the iceberg.
Scientists in general do not practice that science that would allow them to understand what the pineal gland is there for and the reason is that they only study what come under the field of physicality but what lie within this gland is not of physical nature.
Consciousness being of abstract nature can not possibly be understood by physical means.
Materialists obsession..............................................
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pKc6ffFwSu0/maxresdefault.jpg)
...........................with the idea that everything must come under the physical aspect of reasoning fail to comprehend what consciousness is all about.
(https://i.gifer.com/origin/5b/5b19dfab68a1cdd464d09f5f110d29e9_w200.gif)
Quote from: Arik on March 25, 2019, 10:56:43 AMHumans are never satisfied with the limited.
You had a fully function box monitor, didn't you but as soon as you saw the new flat monitor in the shop you discarded the old box and got the flat screen one.
But this is not the end because as soon as a new model with come out you will do the same with the one you got now.
Everybody does that and they do because human thirst can only be satisfied with the unlimited but the unlimited can not exist within the physical-material arena.
So...the human desire for new and improved gizmos --> the supernatural?
Did you by any chance flunk your logic course? (Or never take one?)
Quote from: Arik on March 28, 2019, 08:41:04 AM
The pineal gland is not important to most of you but it is certainly important to various governments.
Those who run these gov. understand very well what the pineal gland can do so they try to limit as much as they can his influence on people mind.
(https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/seems_a_little_crazy_weird_al.gif)
Actually metaphysical. All atheists flunked that class in school, apparently ;-)
So, Arik, have you done research on the pineal gland? Or have you just been told stuff about it by someone you think you can trust to know what they're talking about?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 28, 2019, 01:19:24 PM
So, Arik, have you done research on the pineal gland? Or have you just been told stuff about it by someone you think you can trust to know what they're talking about?
We all know the answer to that question. There are neuroscientists who study these things for a living, but he thinks his yoga instructor knows better.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 28, 2019, 01:51:09 PM
We all know the answer to that question. There are neuroscientists who study these things for a living, but he thinks his yoga instructor knows better.
Like this one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719544/
Or this one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5870875/
Neither of those appear to have anything at all to say about the pineal gland. So what's your point?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 28, 2019, 07:02:46 PM
Neither of those appear to have anything at all to say about the pineal gland. So what's your point?
Psychiatry supports some some Eastern medical views. It gives general support, not specific support.
Of course, psychiatry isn't a real science, so you can debunk them if you want to.
Nah, it's not worth my time to debunk spychiatry.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 28, 2019, 07:58:06 PM
Nah, it's not worth my time to debunk spychiatry.
Said by someone who might be in need ;-) I have that need too, but who can afford it?
What need would that be?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 28, 2019, 08:11:18 PM
What need would that be?
You claim to be very happy. I think that means you are not well. I am fairly unhappy. I call that realistic. But I could use some free help in dealing with that reality. And I do, I have a good confidant at work, who counsels for free. I hope you have someone similar, to bounce the crazier ideas off of.
Quote from: Baruch on March 28, 2019, 09:12:24 PM
I am fairly unhappy. I call that realistic.
I call that your choice.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 28, 2019, 09:51:52 PM
I call that your choice.
Can you choose to be happy? Maybe with chemical substances? Or are you saying, denial of reality (Hillary lost) is the way forward?
BTW - polls show, Michelle Obama is the immediate front runner for the D-party if she chooses to run ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2019, 03:17:55 AM
Can you choose to be happy? Maybe with chemical substances? Or are you saying, denial of reality (Hillary lost) is the way forward?
BTW - polls show, Michelle Obama is the immediate front runner for the D-party if she chooses to run ;-)
To be happy? What is happy? Can I choose to be satisfied/content? Yeah. The choice is yours. Denial of reality? What is reality? Your reality is what you chose to think it is. Stated another way--the universe is what it is. It does not care what you think or feel; it is not able to think at all, and just is. So, what you chose to think of as your reality is your reality.
BTW, if Michele ran for president, I'd vote for her! If she ran for anything, I'd vote for her.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 28, 2019, 01:51:09 PM
We all know the answer to that question. There are neuroscientists who study these things for a living, but he thinks his yoga instructor knows better.
Neuroscientists study while yoga is all about practice.
Now you tell me one thing BL.
Who will get there first?
The one who study or the one who do practice?
Let me see if you are smart.
(https://s2.coinmarketcap.com/static/img/coins/200x200/1865.png)
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 28, 2019, 07:02:46 PM
Neither of those appear to have anything at all to say about the pineal gland. So what's your point?
Meditation is similar to an art.
Any art will take you to a certain goal but in order to get at the end or at the arrival point a person must struggle a lot and only when you practice for long time you start to see the arrival point.
In the beginning you see nothing or little so obviously the links that Baruch show us are all about experiments done by people who try to get something out their experiments.
If you really want to understand about the role and connection of the pineal gland you got to practice, practice and more practice.
After this you will be able to understand what the pineal gland is all about.
Raffaello, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Mozart and other great people practice and practice in previous lives before they could pop up in that life and perform so well.
All depend on practice to advance in a particular art or field that is why atheists that do not practice can not understand anything about the role that the pineal gland has.
Quote from: Arik on March 29, 2019, 09:39:41 AM
Neuroscientists study while yoga is all about practice.
Now you tell me one thing BL.
Who will get there first?
The one who study or the one who do practice?
Let me see if you are smart.
Get WHERE first? Is stretching your body via yoga exercises teaching you facts you can use in understanding the universe around you in some way?
Quote from: Cavebear on March 29, 2019, 12:20:24 PM
Get WHERE first? Is stretching your body via yoga exercises teaching you facts you can use in understanding the universe around you in some way?
Physical muscle stretching is Hatha Yoga. Yoga is much more than that, it includes stretching mental muscles.
Quote from: Arik on March 29, 2019, 09:39:41 AM
Neuroscientists study while yoga is all about practice.
Now you tell me one thing BL.
Who will get there first?
The one who study or the one who do practice?
Let me see if you are smart.
(https://s2.coinmarketcap.com/static/img/coins/200x200/1865.png)
Yoga instructors don't practice psychology. Are you really that stupid? You have to understand WTF you're talking about before you can practice, and yoga instructors clearly don't know fuck about psychology. Psychiatrists practice, counselors practice, yoga instructors stretch and talk about shit they know nothing about.
Quote from: Baruch on March 28, 2019, 09:12:24 PM
You claim to be very happy. I think that means you are not well. I am fairly unhappy. I call that realistic. But I could use some free help in dealing with that reality. And I do, I have a good confidant at work, who counsels for free. I hope you have someone similar, to bounce the crazier ideas off of.
I've never claimed to be "happy." I could never be truly happy while knowing of all the suffering and misery that takes place every second f every day on this planet, by both human and non-human animals. I do claim to be content with my lot in life, knowing it could surely be a hell of a lot worse than it is.
I have no "good confidant" to bounce crazier ideas off of, either, but then, I don't need therapy, either professional or otherwise.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 29, 2019, 01:17:34 PM
I've never claimed to be "happy." I could never be truly happy while knowing of all the suffering and misery that takes place every second f every day on this planet, by both human and non-human animals. I do claim to be content with my lot in life, knowing it could surely be a hell of a lot worse than it is.
I have no "good confidant" to bounce crazier ideas off of, either, but then, I don't need therapy, either professional or otherwise.
Try me...
Well, at least here I can have someone to talk to, while out here in meat space people only want to talk about stuff I'm not much interested in, and I only want to talk about stuff they're not interested in at all. I still listen to them, though, since it would be rude to ignore them. Even when I'm reading, if someone starts talking to me I put down the book and listen to whatever they have to say. I know the book will be there when I get back to it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 29, 2019, 01:29:35 PM
Well, at least here I can have someone to talk to, while out here in meat space people only want to talk about stuff I'm not much interested in, and I only want to talk about stuff they're not interested in at all. I still listen to them, though, since it would be rude to ignore them. Even when I'm reading, if someone starts talking to me I put down the book and listen to whatever they have to say. I know the book will be there when I get back to it.
OK, so you are reading a book and some idiot comes along saying idiot stuff.
Do you put the book down and engage the idiot, keep reading the book, or try to do both?
I put the book down and listen. You never know what they'll say, it might turn out to be entertaining, at least. But usually not.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 29, 2019, 02:32:07 PM
I put the book down and listen. You never know what they'll say, it might turn out to be entertaining, at least. But usually not.
Depends on the book. But I do agree that you sometimes want to hear what others say even if they are nutso. So what book might you be reading now?
My current book is The Prefect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prefect), by Alastair Reynolds. As soon as I finish that one, I plan to read Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward (https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/lookingbackward/summary/), which I recently found in a box on the sidewalk. I've always got a book to read, but I'm beginning to get a hankering for some non-fiction, so I may read something with a bit less fluff to it after that.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 29, 2019, 01:17:34 PM
I've never claimed to be "happy." I could never be truly happy while knowing of all the suffering and misery that takes place every second f every day on this planet, by both human and non-human animals. I do claim to be content with my lot in life, knowing it could surely be a hell of a lot worse than it is.
I have no "good confidant" to bounce crazier ideas off of, either, but then, I don't need therapy, either professional or otherwise.
You have at times given a "emotion weather report" that was very positive. I that "happy" or just semantics? And you don't need any help, so as a messiah, you don't need a savior then ;-) Oh the other hand, yes ... struggling, suffering and death ... are rather universal and a downer.
My emotional state is always good, as far as my own personal situation is concerned, but the world is going to hell without even the benefit of a hand-basket.
Well hey. A testable theory of consciousness that doesn't require woo (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190326-are-we-close-to-solving-the-puzzle-of-consciousness). Doesn't mean it's right, but it does mean we don't have a good reason (or even a bad reason) to resort to "but but but magic!" to explain consciousness.
Quote from: trdsf on March 29, 2019, 10:34:07 PM
Well hey. A testable theory of consciousness that doesn't require woo (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190326-are-we-close-to-solving-the-puzzle-of-consciousness). Doesn't mean it's right, but it does mean we don't have a good reason (or even a bad reason) to resort to "but but but magic!" to explain consciousness.
In so far as it is talking about natural biological systems, then maybe. They are trying to develop ways to communicate with people with severe brain damage.
As far as AI goes ... no way. Your iPhone isn't conscious. A lobster may be.
More on contemporary consciousness research ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRel1JKOEbI
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2019, 12:35:02 PM
Physical muscle stretching is Hatha Yoga. Yoga is much more than that, it includes stretching mental muscles.
It is incredible Baruch how so many people come to quick judgements convinced that they know what they are talking about when in reality they know nothing or next to nothing about the subject in question.
As you said yoga is a lot more than physical exercised.
In fact these exercises that in yoga are called ASANAS are only part of yoga as a whole.
To say that these ASANAS are yoga is totally incorrect.
It would be like to say that a single state in the US represent all of the US.
So let us explain to these folks what yoga is all about.
Yoga is meditation, exercises, vegetarian or vegan diet, regular fast, a moral code of discipline, some philosophy, helping people in need and all this with the aim to get closer and closer to the universal consciousness and eventually merge in it and become one with it so yoga means union, union with the supreme entity which of course has nothing to do with stretching.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 29, 2019, 12:41:26 PM
Yoga instructors don't practice psychology. Are you really that stupid? You have to understand WTF you're talking about before you can practice, and yoga instructors clearly don't know fuck about psychology. Psychiatrists practice, counselors practice, yoga instructors stretch and talk about shit they know nothing about.
Wrong all the way BL.Real knowledge come from within not from outside.
Outside there is only an ever changing sub-reality which of course does not represent the real reality.
When you want to solve a problem you do not look outside and if you look outside that knowledge came to people who in the past look within so all knowledge come from within whether is yours or somebody else knowledge.
You think and think and eventually the idea will pop up from within.
The knowledge that is outside originally all came from within from people who have now gone or people around us these days.
Yoga is all about getting the knowledge from within by getting closer and closer to the supreme knowledge.
From the biggest mine of knowledge better known as the inner consciousness or super consciousness.
Psychology derive knowledge from within too but through experiments and basically no practice while yoga use the best method which is practice, practice and more practice so obviously yoga come first and all the rest come after.
Unfortunately, wisdom is precious. It can only be gained thru life experience. I celebrate that someone has read a book about reading books. But as in the movie Fahrenheit 451 ... to know a book requires that you become the book. People attracted to talk, don't have time for practice.
So what is meditation? One can read about it. But one really doesn't know, unless one does it. And overcoming one's own self is the hardest fight of all. I was reading the Dao De Jing in the original this morning ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pcRXwoL0z4
In plain English. Only if one has experienced the Dao, will any of these words make sense. It is within the nature of both naturalists and humanists, to approach the Dao, because the Dao is in all.
Quote from: Baruch on March 30, 2019, 11:47:08 AM
Unfortunately, wisdom is precious. It can only be gained thru life experience. I celebrate that someone has read a book about reading books. But as in the movie Fahrenheit 451 ... to know a book requires that you become the book. People attracted to talk, don't have time for practice.
So what is meditation? One can read about it. But one really doesn't know, unless one does it. And overcoming one's own self is the hardest fight of all. I was reading the Dao De Jing in the original this morning ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pcRXwoL0z4
In plain English. Only if one has experienced the Dao, will any of these words make sense. It is within the nature of both naturalists and humanists, to approach the Dao, because the Dao is in all.
I would like to add few words to your post taken from Sri Sathya Sai Baba even if he is not my spiritual teacher.
" I am God and you too are God. The only difference between you and Me is that while I am aware of it you are completely unaware."
(https://wallpapercave.com/wp/wp2044295.jpg)
See posting in Philosophy, regarding un-woke racism of Western thought ...
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 29, 2019, 07:13:15 PM
My emotional state is always good, as far as my own personal situation is concerned, but the world is going to hell without even the benefit of a hand-basket.
Never thought the handbasket was required. But I found some decent historical references at https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hell-in-a-handbasket.html
Some suggested alliterative origins, some suggested that good souls went to heaven while bad ones were carried to hell, and I wonder if there was an idea that "small weak souls" could be carried in a handbasket whereas "large strong souls could not.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 01, 2019, 10:25:34 PM
Never thought the handbasket was required. But I found some decent historical references at https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hell-in-a-handbasket.html
Some suggested alliterative origins, some suggested that good souls went to heaven while bad ones were carried to hell, and I wonder if there was an idea that "small weak souls" could be carried in a handbasket whereas "large strong souls could not.
My reading of your interesting dictionary entry ... sounds like laziness is a path to damnation (given the original form of wheelbarrow).
Quote from: Baruch on April 02, 2019, 02:01:57 AM
My reading of your interesting dictionary entry ... sounds like laziness is a path to damnation (given the original form of wheelbarrow).
Well, historical references are not exactly the same as a "dictionary entry". But the idea of theists that there are sinfully-heavy souls which need to be carried to the afterlife in a basket (as opposed to just "floating up" to heaven) has some theistic logic to it in a medieval sort of way...
I haven't got the percentage of theists that believe in a physical hell and those who do not.
In fact nobody has got that percentage.
In any case I am quite glad that I am not sucked in that belief that by the way
is a creation of the clergy evil minds.
(https://farm1.static.flickr.com/633/22374514414_626308975f_b.jpg)
The notion of Hell is thousands of years old, going back at least 4000 years. Basically the product of virtue-signaling sadists and guilt-feeling masochists.
Quote from: Baruch on April 02, 2019, 12:45:48 PM
The notion of Hell is thousands of years old, going back at least 4000 years. Basically the product of virtue-signaling sadists and guilt-feeling masochists.
One question for you mate.
Do you see any difference among a smart person a person with intellect and an intelligent person?
Can a person have all 3 qualities or not and how would you describe each of the 3 attributes?
Thanks.
(https://images.pexels.com/photos/255268/pexels-photo-255268.jpeg?auto=compress&cs=tinysrgb&dpr=1&w=500)
Quote from: Arik on April 04, 2019, 09:03:32 AM
One question for you mate.
Do you see any difference among a smart person a person with intellect and an intelligent person?
Can a person have all 3 qualities or not and how would you describe each of the 3 attributes?
Thanks.
(https://images.pexels.com/photos/255268/pexels-photo-255268.jpeg?auto=compress&cs=tinysrgb&dpr=1&w=500)
Synonyms are a great source of sin ;-)
There is knowledge. There is understanding. There is wisdom. Usually "intelligent" of any kind simply means "clever" as in IQ tests. I may or may not be able to rotate a 3 dimensional object in my mind (one kind of IQ question), but that has nothing to do with the previous three characteristics. A chimp can use a stick to retrieve termites to eat. That is clever. But I wouldn't say he has risen to knowledge, understanding or wisdom. And then there now is ... EQ, emotional quotient. Autistic males have a high IQ, but aren't necessarily socially functioning.
A person with high social functioning, who isn't psychopath/sociopath ... I would say has a high EQ. Pretty much autistic people are most lacking in that area. But as idiot savants like Bobby Fischer, might be brilliant at chess. Bobby Fischer claimed that his own play was't even thought out, it was recall. His photographic memory could remember every chess position of every state of every game he had ever played. You and I would have to take the existing position and think it out (several moves deep).
So the Bible says, get knowledge. And with your knowledge, get understanding. And with all your getting, get wisdom. Many people have shallow knowledge (thanks Google). Few have understanding (these are creative people necessarily). If you understand something, you can not only recite what works, you can build something new and different that also works. But what is wisdom? Is it a good thing or not ... to build that thing. So as in bioethics ... we might know how to modify the genes of a human. We might even understand (but this is hard with genes) how to produce a baby who will be taller than average. Wisdom consists in is it right to produce more basketball players?
Everyone was handicapped as a child. Most handicaps aren't visible. Most are mental or emotional. On the Internet, you see proof of this every day. So I have compassion, regardless of where someone is coming from, I am dealing with a person who's handicap is different than mine. And that I think, is wise ;-)
This was a really interesting article about consciousness:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/
Neurologists are finally beginning to find methods for determining whether a person - or other animals - are conscious. This is great for those with locked-in syndrome, who are conscious but cannot interact at all with the world outside themselves. And it has nothing at all to do with whether or not their pineal glands are functional.
Quote from: Arik on April 02, 2019, 08:11:04 AM
I haven't got the percentage of theists that believe in a physical hell and those who do not.
In fact nobody has got that percentage.
In any case I am quite glad that I am not sucked in that belief that by the way
is a creation of the clergy evil minds.
I'm glad you managed to avoid the pitfalls of superstitious thinking. *tongue firmly in cheek*
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 04, 2019, 01:21:50 PM
This was a really interesting article about consciousness:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/
Neurologists are finally beginning to find methods for determining whether a person - or other animals - are conscious. This is great for those with locked-in syndrome, who are conscious but cannot interact at all with the world outside themselves. And it has nothing at all to do with whether or not their pineal glands are functional.
I suspect research with the severely autistic was involved. Studying sick people is a great way to try to understand the human animal, at least on one level. Nobody wants to study normal people. Freud couldn't have had paying patients that way. The Big Pharma would go broke.
Here is the larger set of articles ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/biggest-questions/
Scientism ... we be edge lords! Basically arrogance of high functional autistic males. Something of great popularity here ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 04, 2019, 02:06:51 PM
I'm glad you managed to avoid the pitfalls of superstitious thinking. *tongue firmly in cheek*
Here I got a question for you Hydra.
What is the difference between a theist who believe in an unproven physical hell and an atheist who believe in others unproven beliefs such as.............WHEN WE DIE IS ALL OVER..........AND.........THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PRODUCT OF THE BRAIN?
Thanks.
The fact that Scientific American has an article on consciousness ... isn't that proof enough? (sarc)
Quote from: Baruch on April 04, 2019, 01:01:01 PM
Synonyms are a great source of sin ;-)
There is knowledge. There is understanding. There is wisdom. Usually "intelligent" of any kind simply means "clever" as in IQ tests. I may or may not be able to rotate a 3 dimensional object in my mind (one kind of IQ question), but that has nothing to do with the previous three characteristics. A chimp can use a stick to retrieve termites to eat. That is clever. But I wouldn't say he has risen to knowledge, understanding or wisdom. And then there now is ... EQ, emotional quotient. Autistic males have a high IQ, but aren't necessarily socially functioning.
A person with high social functioning, who isn't psychopath/sociopath ... I would say has a high EQ. Pretty much autistic people are most lacking in that area. But as idiot savants like Bobby Fischer, might be brilliant at chess. Bobby Fischer claimed that his own play was't even thought out, it was recall. His photographic memory could remember every chess position of every state of every game he had ever played. You and I would have to take the existing position and think it out (several moves deep).
So the Bible says, get knowledge. And with your knowledge, get understanding. And with all your getting, get wisdom. Many people have shallow knowledge (thanks Google). Few have understanding (these are creative people necessarily). If you understand something, you can not only recite what works, you can build something new and different that also works. But what is wisdom? Is it a good thing or not ... to build that thing. So as in bioethics ... we might know how to modify the genes of a human. We might even understand (but this is hard with genes) how to produce a baby who will be taller than average. Wisdom consists in is it right to produce more basketball players?
Everyone was handicapped as a child. Most handicaps aren't visible. Most are mental or emotional. On the Internet, you see proof of this every day. So I have compassion, regardless of where someone is coming from, I am dealing with a person who's handicap is different than mine. And that I think, is wise ;-)
Actually I never thought in terms of being compassionate or understanding when I see someone who hasn't got intellect or any other quality.
That was not what I intended to talk about.
Of course I like everyone whether they are clever, intellectual knowledgeable, intelligent or not.
All I was looking from you was to know what is your understanding about the 3 attributes that I did mention.
Years ago one of my neighbor (now dead) always show his great intellect which is something that in this life I will never be able to match also because my aim lie elsewhere.
I just could not believe how knowledgeable he was but that intellect was the only thing that he cared in life.
One thing however made me think a lot.
If as the materialists say there is only one life then this guy was on the correct track so to speak because in this case what a person achieve in this material world represent everything and that would also show to be intelligent because what is to be achieved is achieved in full or nearly, however if the life continue after our body die then he would only remain intellectual knowledgeable but not intelligent because in this case intelligence is related to our progress outside this physical reality.
To me a poor illiterate person which aim is to get closer and closer to what may lie outside this physical-material world is a lot smarter and intelligent that a person with an enormous intellect so to me being smart, intellectual knowledgeable and intelligent do not always go hand in hand.
Quote from: Baruch on April 06, 2019, 09:29:53 AM
The fact that Scientific American has an article on consciousness ... isn't that proof enough? (sarc)
Isn't that funny Baruch?
When you ask them where the consciousness come from they always say..........THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PRODUCT OF THE BRAIN.......but when you point out to them that there is no evidence to support that claim then they come up with articles after articles that analyze the connection between brain and consciousness which of course are all guessing and no evidence.
Well, you claim that consciousness is a product of the pineal gland, which is IN THE BRAIN!
Quote from: Arik on April 06, 2019, 09:02:52 AM
What is the difference between a theist who believe in an unproven physical hell and an atheist who believe in others unproven beliefs such as.............WHEN WE DIE IS ALL OVER..........AND.........THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PRODUCT OF THE BRAIN?
Unproven? I thought you had oodles of evidence? Dementia or dropping the pretense? ðŸ¤"
And the answer is as simple as it is obvious: the atheist position is a best guess based on facts while the theist position has always been fantasy and wish fulfillment.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 06, 2019, 10:50:07 PM
Unproven? I thought you had oodles of evidence? Dementia or dropping the pretense? ðŸ¤"
And the answer is as simple as it is obvious: the atheist position is a best guess based on facts while the theist position has always been fantasy and wish fulfillment.
I have several arguments for consciousness residing in the brain.
First, there isn't any better place for it. If you want to claim it is in the liver or spleen, go ahead.
Second, there isn't much other purpose to the brain. The brain is where thoughts are, and thoughts seem necessary to self-awareness.
Third, when accidents mess with the brain, consciousness can be damaged or altered.
Fourth, brain size seems to be correlated with self-awareness.
I'm sure there are other good arguments in favor of my general claim, but I don't have to present ALL arguments. A few seem sufficient.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 03:52:00 AM
I have several arguments for consciousness residing in the brain.
First, there isn't any better place for it. If you want to claim it is in the liver or spleen, go ahead.
Second, there isn't much other purpose to the brain. The brain is where thoughts are, and thoughts seem necessary to self-awareness.
Third, when accidents mess with the brain, consciousness can be damaged or altered.
Fourth, brain size seems to be correlated with self-awareness.
I'm sure there are other good arguments in favor of my general claim, but I don't have to present ALL arguments. A few seem sufficient.
Those are very good arguments. People earlier, sometimes thought that the soul aka consciousness was in the heart or even gut (don't know about the pineal gland being central, but that is traditional in Indian thinking). Of course, the nervous system is a whole, not just the brain. Your awareness, most of which isn't conscious, is throughout your whole body. That is where psycho-somatic things happen. Consciousness is a kind of executive level thing, executive management basically. What part the pineal gland has to do with the nervous system ... is for someone who knows more than I do.
Obviously the endocrine system is closely tied to the emotions. And the emotions seem to be a different level of awareness than the privileged cognitive abilities ... say playing chess ... which both E and W culture tend to value, because of class ... kings play chess ... we all want to be kings, or specifically ... maharajas, since chess originated in India. Looking even more broadly, every cell in your body, every chemical system, is all part of a whole, and your life, as a biological mechanism, is from the whole of that, not just the part that understands that the opponent's queen is worth capturing.
Computers are very good at playing chess, but they don't play like humans, because they are not biological organisms. This is because a chess problem is a toy problem, a closed environment context.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2019, 04:15:44 AM
Those are very good arguments. People earlier, sometimes thought that the soul aka consciousness was in the heart or even gut. Of course, the nervous system is a whole, not just the brain. Your awareness, most of which isn't conscious, is throughout your whole body. That is where psycho-somatic things happen. Consciousness is a kind of executive level thing, executive management basically.
I think you are agreeing with me. Which is good.
I might nitpick about "Your awareness, most of which isn't conscious"... I'm not sure the terms are very different. I fully agree that there is much about our daily actions that are not deliberately thought, but if we had to deliberately breath or pump blood through our arteries, we wouldn't have time to think...
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 04:23:54 AM
I think you are agreeing with me. Which is good.
I might nitpick about "Your awareness, most of which isn't conscious"... I'm not sure the terms are very different. I fully agree that there is much about our daily actions that are not deliberately thought, but if we had to deliberately breath or pump blood through our arteries, we wouldn't have time to think...
Yes, we do agree at least on some level. We always have ;-) The similarity of our circumstances imply it. And yes, it is a very good thing that we don't have to deliberately think about the stages of digestion that happen after swallowing ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 06, 2019, 04:52:19 PM
Well, you claim that consciousness is a product of the pineal gland, which is IN THE BRAIN!
Oh, is that so?
Did I really said that?
NO UB.
I never said that.
I instead said that the pineal gland is the seat of the consciousness.
When you enter your car you obviously sit in the seat of the car don't you UB?
So the seat can not possibly be you.
In the same way the pineal gland is not you.
All the pineal gland is is a place where your consciousness stay as far as physical life is there.
After that when this physical life is over the consciousness will move into a different body-brain and a different pineal gland unless of course you end up your physical journey and merge into the supreme consciousness or unless your karma is so bad that you will not even deserve a physical body.
There are thousand upon thousand of information about the pineal gland as the seat of consciousness if you are interested to know and this goes back to the time of Shiva which is ages and ages ago so it would be wise NOT to come down with guessing before you put something into writing.
Thanks.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 06, 2019, 10:50:07 PM
Unproven? I thought you had oodles of evidence? Dementia or dropping the pretense? ðŸ¤"
And the answer is as simple as it is obvious: the atheist position is a best guess based on facts while the theist position has always been fantasy and wish fulfillment.
Are you kidding me?
You show me some real evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain and I will give you a truck loaded with 24 carat gold bars.
(https://mimzy-lefilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/gold-price-per-kilo-elegant-buy-1-kilo-bar-24-karat-gold-bar-9999-pure-gold-low-price-of-gold-price-per-kilo.jpg)
However this is a bet that you will never be able to win no matter what. :shocked:
As far as the theists position you should remember that every theists has got a position so I wouldn't generalize that much.
Thanks.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 03:52:00 AM
I have several arguments for consciousness residing in the brain.
First, there isn't any better place for it. If you want to claim it is in the liver or spleen, go ahead.
Second, there isn't much other purpose to the brain. The brain is where thoughts are, and thoughts seem necessary to self-awareness.
Third, when accidents mess with the brain, consciousness can be damaged or altered.
Fourth, brain size seems to be correlated with self-awareness.
I'm sure there are other good arguments in favor of my general claim, but I don't have to present ALL arguments. A few seem sufficient.
Somebody must have told you that the consciousness may not reside in the brain.
Who is that fool?
Oh, by the way the brain is a place where many things reside.
Have you got a clue in which exact place in the brain the consciousness may reside?
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/elderly-punker-with-brain-model-holding-finger-on-his-temple-picture-id835211700?s=170667a&w=1007)
Quote from: Arik on April 07, 2019, 09:08:42 AM
Somebody must have told you that the consciousness may not reside in the brain.
Who is that fool?
Oh, by the way the brain is a place where many things reside.
Have you got a clue in which exact place in the brain the consciousness may reside?
Shirley, you jest...
As to where in the brain consciousness resides, I would generally say "the totality" but with a caveat that some portions are very input-sensory and may or may not be specifically part of self-awareness.
As to the rest...
"
Oh, by the way the brain is a place where many things reside."
I initially thought that was a Bushism from years ago, but even HE couldn't have said that. This one topped it. Congratulations, Herman Cain or Betsy de Voss couldn't have said it more Trumpian.
Oh crap, I screwed up the quotes again... Sorry. Damn...
Yes, the totality I think is the correct answer. But we really don't understand that. We understand experiments with individual neurons or neuron pathways.
Trump wants to nominate Herman Cain for Federal Reserve Board ... oh my!
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 12:39:59 PM
Somebody must have told you that the consciousness may not reside in the brain.
Who is that fool?
Oh, by the way the brain is a place where many things reside.
Have you got a clue in which exact place in the brain the consciousness may reside?
Shirley, you jest...
As to where in the brain consciousness resides, I would generally say "the totality" but with a caveat that some portions are very input-sensory and may or may not be specifically part of self-awareness.
As to the rest...
"Oh, by the way the brain is a place where many things reside."
I initially thought that was a Bushism from years ago, but even HE couldn't have said that. This one topped it. Congratulations, Herman Cain or Betsy de Voss couldn't have said it more Trumpian.
Oh crap, I screwed up the quotes again... Sorry. Damn...
So if the consciousness reside in the totality of the brain then we can also say that when you enter your car you are all over the cockpit of the car.
Uhhhm, I think here we may have a bit of a problem mate. :embarrassed:
How can you operate the brakes, the steering wheel and all the rest by not being in the correct seat of your car?
Gee, this is a very difficult question to understand for me unless your are a super being with long arms and legs that can control your car from any place inside the cockpit.
(https://cf1.s3.souqcdn.com/item/2014/11/17/75/54/39/6/item_XL_7554396_6209546.jpg)
Cars are not brains, no matter how badly you want to stretch the metaphor to fit your woo-woo scenario.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 08, 2019, 01:18:00 PM
Cars are not brains, no matter how badly you want to stretch the metaphor to fit your woo-woo scenario.
With electronics, they are smarter than people (so people here have claimed in favor of autonomous vehicles). Look, my truck can play chess, don't worry as it hurtles down the highway at 60 mph, with no driver at the wheel. Just captive passengers screaming their heads off.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 08, 2019, 01:18:00 PM
Cars are not brains, no matter how badly you want to stretch the metaphor to fit your woo-woo scenario.
I knew that my analogy wouldn't make any sense to you but again also your idea that the consciousness reside all over the brain doesn't make any sense to me either.
You are quite free to believe that there can not be any seat of command and the controller does not need a seat of control.
After all materialists also believe that there is no need for any controller anywhere.
Matter can control itself so you must leave the door of your house fully open when you go out or your car unlock because matter control itself.
How smart UB. :cheesy:
(http://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/0519f2ece75319916377cffb8283d49949a05b-wm.jpg?v=3)
You might be interested in this, Arik. Here's a guy who seems to agree with your position, that the brain does not cause consciousness:
QuoteCognitive scientist Donald D. Hoffman discusses why neural correlates of consciousness do not cause consciousness.
This is an excerpt from “Reality Is Not As It Seems“ recorded on February 7, 2019 at The New York Academy of Sciences. For the video of the complete discussion, see:https://youtu.be/3MvGGjcTEpQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr7eaE9AUtg
Cause/Effect is primitive thinking, pre-science. Same with Explanation. These are human terms, not physical terms. Just like the problem I have with Baysian probability.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 09, 2019, 06:16:16 PM
You might be interested in this, Arik. Here's a guy who seems to agree with your position, that the brain does not cause consciousness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr7eaE9AUtg
The guy seems very interested in the topic and I am sure that one day he will get to the point and find out the reality.
Unfortunately dealing with theories only it will take for ever and ever.
Practice on the other hand is a fastest way to come to the point.
By practicing it it come obvious that the body is but a vehicle which the consciousness use to reduce the distance that separate the microcosm from the macrocosm (the single entity from the whole).
That's all it needs to be discovered.
All the rest is a waste of time.
That's also what my analogy was all about the other day.
Not just materialists but even a lot of theists believe that the body is them when in fact the body is just a vehicle same same as the car that you drive to go from point A to point X.
Our body allow us to walk and do a lot of things so there is no differences between a car and a body.
Both of them are made of matter.
Different type of matter but nevertheless matter so my previous analogy was spot on.
It is what is not made of matter that matter and that is the consciousness.
It is by realizing this reality that allow people to progress in the right direction.
(http://agleadership.wcffa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/What-is-your-big-idea.png?w=1400)