That is funny.
Atheists often point out how many Gods religious people have.
The list goes on and on with no end in sight and that is funny indeed because God is one if of course there is a God so all Gods except one are just the creation of people.
Here however is my point.
People create a myriad of Gods which of course are not real except in their imagination.
Materialists are no exception in creating a myriad of Gods in their imagination.
So criticizing religious people for their thousand Gods while creating a myriad of Gods in their mind is quite hypocritical.
But let us see how people create Gods in their mind.
Today most people are not Atheists or theists.
They are materialists.
They wouldn't care less whether there is God or not.
They only care about material things or objects.
By giving too much importance to these object their mind become more and more attached to them.
Sometime ago I read that a thief stole a smartphone from a girl intent to use it.
This girl try to chase the thief not realizing that she entered the railways ground with an incoming train.
The poor girl died and she died because her smartphone become her God.
Throughout history we have seen many people who died for their God but their God was not made of matter and that make a lot of difference.
Today people suffer and die for a God that is made of matter.
Atheists are no exception.
They also create in their mind an admiration for objects and these objects soon or later become their Gods.
Why on earth choose the very low kind of God hidden in matter which is the low of lowest form of latent consciousness when you can have the very high form of consciousness?
I'm à materialist and an atheist.
If you want to give arbitrary definitions to gods, I guess you could call anyone a theist. Hell, if you define changing a person as the death of that individual and the rebirth of another, you could say we are all murderers.
It means nothing, but you could say it.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 09:31:51 AM
I'm à materialist and an atheist.
If you want to give arbitrary definitions to gods, I guess you could call anyone a theist.
Very true.
We are all theists but with a very important difference.
By turning an object made of matter into our God we choose the very lowest form of God which does nothing to improve our spiritual evolution and in turn lower our real evolution because matter lie on the very bottom of evolution but by choosing the highest form of God we improve our evolution so the difference is outstanding.
QuoteHell, if you define changing a person as the death of that individual and the rebirth of another, you could say we are all murderers.
It means nothing, but you could say it.
I am afraid that your pretend analogy doesn't make any sense at all.
Death?
What death MO?
Nobody die.
Nobody ever did and nobody ever will die.
Changes do not means death.
Energy-consciousness is immortal.
Even science say that energy is behind destruction.
Evolution need changes which are only possible through changes in bodies so death of a body doesn't means real death.
Quote from: Arik on May 08, 2019, 08:42:34 AM
Why on earth choose the very low kind of God hidden in matter which is the low of lowest form of latent consciousness when you can have the very high form of consciousness?
short version......why believe in the "god" you made up when you should believe in the one I made up?
oh yeah.....That's funny....only sensible words in the vomitus.
Stupid word games today, is it? Well, as long as we're muddying the definitions of words to the point of them becoming meaningless... A human is defined as a featherless biped. I present to you, a human being.
(https://www.chickenheavenonearth.com/uploads/4/4/8/2/4482500/featherless-chicken-jalwah-facebook_3.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on May 08, 2019, 10:48:21 AM
Very true.
We are all theists but with a very important difference.
By turning an object made of matter into our God we choose the very lowest form of God which does nothing to improve our spiritual evolution and in turn lower our real evolution because matter lie on the very bottom of evolution but by choosing the highest form of God we improve our evolution so the difference is outstanding.
I am afraid that your pretend analogy doesn't make any sense at all.
Death?
What death MO?
Nobody die.
Nobody ever did and nobody ever will die.
Changes do not means death.
Energy-consciousness is immortal.
Even science say that energy is behind destruction.
Evolution need changes which are only possible through changes in bodies so death of a body doesn't means real death.
Exactly. What death is there in my analogy? There is no death unless you choose to define it as such.
What god is it that you speak of? It takes as liberal an interpretation as my version of death.
Meaningless dribble, both of them.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 11:13:39 AM
Exactly. What death is there in my analogy? There is no death unless you choose to define it as such.
What god is it that you speak of? It takes as liberal an interpretation as my version of death.
Meaningless dribble, both of them.
It is all a question of evolution MO.
Once you understand that evolution goes from point A to point Z so to speak you also understand that matter lie on the very bottom and God at the very top.
It is all made of consciousness which is not express in matter and is fully express at the end when your consciousness reach the very top.
There is no liberal interpretation of how the system works.
It is all very very clear and simple.
Also plants have consciousness and struggle to evolve and so everything else.
Only fools think that lower form of lives will never reach the top of evolution.
It’s true that I am not an atheist. I worship our Lord and Lizard.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190508/8892b54eb58498b2816117cf95c7d8ab.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Arik on May 08, 2019, 11:27:58 AM
It is all a question of evolution MO.
Once you understand that evolution goes from point A to point Z so to speak you also understand that matter lie on the very bottom and God at the very top.
It is all made of consciousness which is not express in matter and is fully express at the end when your consciousness reach the very top.
There is no liberal interpretation of how the system works.
It is all very very clear and simple.
Also plants have consciousness and struggle to evolve and so everything else.
Only fools think that lower form of lives will never reach the top of evolution.
So do rocks dream of mountains?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 11:30:22 AM
So do rocks dream of mountains?
mine dream of getting off.........................................................................
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2019, 11:29:14 AM
It’s true that I am not an atheist. I worship our Lord and Lizard.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190508/8892b54eb58498b2816117cf95c7d8ab.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your avatar tells me you worship some kinky stuff.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 02:10:32 PM
Your avatar tells me you worship some kinky stuff.
I’ll have you know that I strongly believe in the separation of Church and Fap.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2019, 02:11:44 PM
I’ll have you know that I strongly believe in the separation of Church and Fap.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shake hands with the snake, not the serpent.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2019, 11:11:30 AM
Stupid word games today, is it? Well, as long as we're muddying the definitions of words to the point of them becoming meaningless... A human is defined as a featherless biped. I present to you, a human being.
(https://www.chickenheavenonearth.com/uploads/4/4/8/2/4482500/featherless-chicken-jalwah-facebook_3.jpg)
Looks like Bill Clinton after Hillary cuts him a new one ...
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 11:30:22 AM
So do rocks dream of mountains?
Mountain to sand grain ... I am your Father, Chip!
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2019, 05:11:30 PM
Mountain to sand grain ... I am your Father, Chip!
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c7a569e364faec6fdf0102aa12403aaf/tenor.gif?itemid=3471978)
Arik ... materialist ideology prevents them from realizing their error, like a sand grain is less irritating after the oyster makes it into a pearl ...
Natural only ... so no supernatural
Material only ... so no immaterial
Impersonal ... so no personality (life is an illusion, consciousness is delusion, meaning is fruitless)
Virtuous ... so no sin
Truth ... so no ideology
That they might be wrong ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhXjcZdk5QQ
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2019, 05:17:12 PM
Arik ... materialist ideology prevents them from realizing their error, like a sand grain is less irritating after the oyster makes it into a pearl ...
Oh, we have no problem spotting errors in our logic. When those errors are demonstrated to exist, which you've failed to do.
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2019, 05:17:12 PMNatural only ... so no supernatural
Material only ... so no immaterial
Again, you sure love your strawmen, don't you? No one denied the existence of immaterial things.
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2019, 05:17:12 PMImpersonal ... so no personality (life is an illusion, consciousness is delusion, meaning is fruitless)
Virtuous ... so no sin
Truth ... so no ideology
What the fuck are you talking about?
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 09, 2019, 12:11:18 AM
Oh, we have no problem spotting errors in our logic. When those errors are demonstrated to exist, which you've failed to do.
Again, you sure love your strawmen, don't you? No one denied the existence of immaterial things.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Covering all the bases, for Arik.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 11:30:22 AM
So do rocks dream of mountains?
Perfect MO.
Here you show your total failing.
Evolution in lower form of life differ from evolution in humans but for those materialists that hang on Darwin theories this fact is really not important and in this way they learn absolutely nothing.
Consciousness is in a latent stage in matter so matter can not possible think until mother nature after millions of years push matter into a stage in which consciousness start to be aware to a certain degree and that is in the plants stage and will develop even more in animals.
Free will which start in humans change everything so humans are not canalized or directed anymore by mother nature as it happens in lower form of life.
Unfortunately free will is not all good because wrong choices come at a price like when someone create in his-her mind admiration and love for objects until these objects become their Gods which in turn lower their awareness in the real God.
In the past many humans worship wooden or stone idols.
These days nothing really change because material object replace those old idols.
The foolishness never die that is why materialists are losers.
(http://en.protothema.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cars1.jpg)
Materialists claim opposite things. One, that change in inanimate matter isn't evolution. And that change in animate matter is meaningless. While claiming that animate and inanimate matter are the same thing.
Quote from: Arik on May 09, 2019, 11:22:44 AM
The foolishness never die that is why materialists are losers.
LOL.
I know you are, but what am l?
I think that's about the level of argument we've reduced ourselves to, here.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 09, 2019, 02:26:16 PM
LOL.
I know you are, but what am l?
I think that's about the level of argument we've reduced ourselves to, here.
Most people would not accept Arik's panpsychism.
Quote from: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 03:46:29 PM
Most people would not accept Arik's panpsychism.
True.
Quote from: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 03:46:29 PM
Most people would not accept Arik's panpsychism.
Well, he's certainly proving that the link between a mind and a brain is tenuous at best.
I only have one god - Baruch! :-P
we thought them cheesizts were nuts now we got these new age cheesizt boohdies yammering about as if they have some kinda special insight. Materialists bad....said by those who spend billions on metal crosses, worship medallions wear both and splatter themselves across the floor with their material girl self.
Boring.
Yeah, materialism is bad - except that the materialistic science has given us literally everything we use in our daily lives.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 09, 2019, 06:29:23 PM
I only have one god - Baruch! :-P
Arithmetically challenged? ;-} I have billions.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 09, 2019, 07:52:54 PM
Yeah, materialism is bad - except that the materialistic science has given us literally everything we use in our daily lives.
Sorry, but science and technology won't save anyone from being a self destructive species.
Yes, you also have fiction, but you are all bigots on fiction (who isn't). You aren't purely materialistic.
Quote from: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 07:55:58 PM
Arithmetically challenged? ;-} I have billions.
Well, that's good, because Trump lost billions! Dollars, that is.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 09, 2019, 04:15:45 PM
True.
In that case you reject what physical science already said which is that even plants have a degree of consciousness.
Don't you think that it is quite hypocritical to glorify science when goes along with your thinking (very very rarely indeed) and reject it when it goes against?
Quote from: Arik on May 09, 2019, 09:41:25 PM
In that case you reject what physical science already said which is that even plants have a degree of consciousness.
Don't you think that it is quite hypocritical to glorify science when goes along with your thinking (very very rarely indeed) and reject it when it goes against?
Science here mostly consists in believing in fictional giant sentient robots ;-)
Quote from: Arik on May 09, 2019, 09:41:25 PM
In that case you reject what physical science already said which is that even plants have a degree of consciousness.
Don't you think that it is quite hypocritical to glorify science when goes along with your thinking (very very rarely indeed) and reject it when it goes against?
Regardless of if it is right or not, how many agree with you?
So it is true that most would not accept your panpsychism.
Learn to read and understand replies by other people. It'll help you to reply correctly to them.
I don't deny anything, for that matter. I've just not been interested by your other threads. So any evidence of plants having conscience you already posted is lost on me.
You're welcome to point me in the right direction as I'll admit: that is news to me.
Though I don't see how it would drive me to panpsychism.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2019, 11:11:30 AM
Stupid word games today, is it? Well, as long as we're muddying the definitions of words to the point of them becoming meaningless... A human is defined as a featherless biped. I present to you, a human being.
(https://www.chickenheavenonearth.com/uploads/4/4/8/2/4482500/featherless-chicken-jalwah-facebook_3.jpg)
Humans are differently bipedal. Birds are bipedal but they tend to hop. Kangaroos are bipedal, but they alternate between pentapedalism (4 legs and a tail) except when they hop., Some apes CAN walk bipedal but mostly just stand erect to look around rather than move.
Humans seem to be the only animals that actual walk or run be literally falling forward as they go.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 10, 2019, 02:05:55 AM
Humans are differently bipedal. Birds are bipedal but they tend to hop. Kangaroos are bipedal, but they alternate between pentapedalism (4 legs and a tail) except when they hop., Some apes CAN walk bipedal but mostly just stand erect to look around rather than move.
Humans seem to be the only animals that actual walk or run be literally falling forward as they go.
Kangaroos use their big tail ... so not true bipedalism.
Quote from: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 03:46:29 PM
Most people would not accept Arik's panpsychism.
There was Idealism (there is no matter, only ideas) in 19th century philosophy. For contemporary non-supernatural panpsychism that I would lean toward ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCo9fJ9EP_k
Basically he denies epiphenomenalism, eliminationism, Cartesian dualism.
Cartesian Dualism = there are two things, mind and matter, neither of which can influence each other.
Eliminationism = there is no such thing as mind, it is an illusion. But this is incoherent ... who or what is having the illusion?
Epiphenomenalism = consciousness is a secondary product of the electrical behavior of the brain (consciousness can't effect brain).
And ancient materialism = thoughts are very fine atoms, more like fire than like gas.
Also see Rupert Sheldrake for a holistic view (vs non-reductionist/materialist) ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4SvvxTfZY
So there are arguments for panpsychism. I am pantheist (Spinoza version), because I am theist, but would otherwise agree with panpsychism. For me there is no opposition between natural and supernatural, between matter and mind. These are categories of cognitive convenience applied to reality by monkeys.
Quote from: Baruch on May 10, 2019, 04:00:08 AM
Kangaroos use their big tail ... so not true bipedalism.
Only when pentalizing (sp?). When bipedal, the tail is only a counterweight off-ground. Pental movement is when they are on all 4 limbs AND use the tail to move as well. I know I'm getting the term wrong , but I can't find the right term quickly.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 10, 2019, 01:34:23 AM
Regardless of if it is right or not, how many agree with you?
So it is true that most would not accept your panpsychism.
Learn to read and understand replies by other people. It'll help you to reply correctly to them.
I don't deny anything, for that matter. I've just not been interested by your other threads. So any evidence of plants having conscience you already posted is lost on me.
You're welcome to point me in the right direction as I'll admit: that is news to me.
Though I don't see how it would drive me to panpsychism.
Changes do not occur easily.
Most people wait and wait until everybody else is aboard to join and jump on the bandwagon themselves.
This is better known as the sheep attitude or sheep syndrome.
Intelligent people on the other hand do not follow this system.
They search and search until they reach a positive result regardless of what other people think or do.
Most people these days are victim of this sheep attitude while intelligent people are few.
Not only atheists and materialists but even many theists (mostly religious theists) behave in the same way.
The thing however is that intelligent people get there first and fools much later on wasting in this way precious time and that means more and more suffering for themselves.
There are already tons and tons of information about consciousness in lower form of life but most people are just not interested or prefer to see the topic become a normal thing before they agree with it.
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/jagadish-chandra-bose-plants-life-322594-2016-05-10
Quote from: Arik on May 10, 2019, 11:31:50 AM
Changes do not occur easily.
Most people wait and wait until everybody else is aboard to join and jump on the bandwagon themselves.
This is better known as the sheep attitude or sheep syndrome.
Intelligent people on the other hand do not follow this system.
They search and search until they reach a positive result regardless of what other people think or do.
Most people these days are victim of this sheep attitude while intelligent people are few.
Not only atheists and materialists but even many theists (mostly religious theists) behave in the same way.
The thing however is that intelligent people get there first and fools much later on wasting in this way precious time and that means more and more suffering for themselves.
There are already tons and tons of information about consciousness in lower form of life but most people are just not interested or prefer to see the topic become a normal thing before they agree with it.
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/jagadish-chandra-bose-plants-life-322594-2016-05-10
After reading your article, I need to ask you:
Did you think any of us denied that a plant dipped in poison would react differently from one planted in a healthy manure?
And while I agree a plant is a living organism, I need to ask you: how does that reaction equate conscience?
And even if it did, let's say for arguments sake that it does, how does that prove that this world is made up of mind instead of matter?
Never mind, doesn't matter.
QuoteThroughout history we have seen many people who died for their God but their God was not made of matter and that make a lot of difference.
Why does it make a difference?
QuoteToday people suffer and die for a God that is made of matter.
That is not anything new, that is literally describing life at the most fundamental level. When you boil it all down, all life is is a state of suffering and dying while chasing matter to extend life to it's longest possible extent.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 10, 2019, 08:44:20 PM
Why does it make a difference?
People are motivated by ideas. So ideas are very important.
Quote
That is not anything new, that is literally describing life at the most fundamental level. When you boil it all down, all life is is a state of suffering and dying while chasing matter to extend life to it's longest possible extent.
Correct. Are you a vegetarian yet?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 10, 2019, 08:14:01 PM
Never mind, doesn't matter.
Sense of humor always help.
Good on you. :grin: :lipsrsealed: :laugh:
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 10, 2019, 08:11:53 PM
After reading your article, I need to ask you:
Did you think any of us denied that a plant dipped in poison would react differently from one planted in a healthy manure
With his experiment Bose change the notion that the stimuli in plants had to have a chemical nature or cause.
But even today most atheists think that this is the case so to ask me what any of you think I would say.......you guys are still miles and miles away from the truth.
QuoteAnd while I agree a plant is a living organism, I need to ask you: how does that reaction equate conscience?
Simple MO.
By showing that the reaction of that plant was NOT caused by a chemical reaction or cause Bose proved that plants have consciousness.
Only consciousness is able to show a reaction to pain and affection.
QuoteAnd even if it did, let's say for arguments sake that it does, how does that prove that this world is made up of mind instead of matter?
Energy and consciousness always go hand in hand like the two sides of the same sheet.
Matter is energy which is kept in a latent stage because there is no awareness in the consciousness that is in that matter so the question is not whether the world is made of mind or matter.
It is rather that is made of energy and consciousness.
(https://cdn5.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/92/39/transparent-soap-or-water-bubbles-background-vector-14039239.jpg)
Quote from: Shiranu on May 10, 2019, 08:44:20 PM
Why does it make a difference?
If you believe in evolution you should know that something lie on the bottom and something else is up towards an higher level of consciousness.
Matter lie on the very bottom of evolution so by siding with the bottom you automatically choose a lower degree of consciousness that is why it is important to side with and higher degree of consciousness such as a spiritual entity.
QuoteThat is not anything new, that is literally describing life at the most fundamental level. When you boil it all down, all life is is a state of suffering and dying while chasing matter to extend life to it's longest possible extent.
When we are bound to live within a material-physical situation is not that easy to get out and live outside, outside in a dimension void of suffering but if we act with intelligence we can overcome in part this constrain by planning our life in such a way that there is a balance between physical needs, mental needs and spiritual needs waiting for an auspicable day when our balance is perfect and we accomplished the reason why we exist.
That is not what most of the people do these days.
They are
out of balance so their life is a dreadful torture.
(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/47500/Donkey-Pulling-a-Heavy-Cart-47611.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on May 08, 2019, 08:42:34 AM
That is funny.
Atheists often point out how many Gods religious people have.
The list goes on and on with no end in sight and that is funny indeed because God is one if of course there is a God so all Gods except one are just the creation of people.
Here however is my point.
People create a myriad of Gods which of course are not real except in their imagination.
Materialists are no exception in creating a myriad of Gods in their imagination.
So criticizing religious people for their thousand Gods while creating a myriad of Gods in their mind is quite hypocritical.
But let us see how people create Gods in their mind.
Today most people are not Atheists or theists.
They are materialists.
They wouldn't care less whether there is God or not.
They only care about material things or objects.
By giving too much importance to these object their mind become more and more attached to them.
Sometime ago I read that a thief stole a smartphone from a girl intent to use it.
This girl try to chase the thief not realizing that she entered the railways ground with an incoming train.
The poor girl died and she died because her smartphone become her God.
Throughout history we have seen many people who died for their God but their God was not made of matter and that make a lot of difference.
Today people suffer and die for a God that is made of matter.
Atheists are no exception.
They also create in their mind an admiration for objects and these objects soon or later become their Gods.
Why on earth choose the very low kind of God hidden in matter which is the low of lowest form of latent consciousness when you can have the very high form of consciousness?
That is one long and wordy equivocation fallacy you got there.
You can redefine the word 'god' as much as you like, but if the vast majority of people are not defining the word as you are, then you are not communicating anything.
Quote from: Arik on May 11, 2019, 09:37:49 AM
When we are bound to live within a material-physical situation is not that easy to get out and live outside, outside in a dimension void of suffering but if we act with intelligence we can overcome in part this constrain by planning our life in such a way that there is a balance between physical needs, mental needs and spiritual needs waiting for an auspicable day when our balance is perfect and we accomplished the reason why we exist.
I don't understand the concept of "spiritual needs." Can you elaborate? What exactly are "spiritual needs"? Are they synonymous with emotional needs?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 14, 2019, 02:38:53 PM
I don't understand the concept of "spiritual needs." Can you elaborate? What exactly are "spiritual needs"? Are they synonymous with emotional needs?
you get a little woo from over there, and a little woo for over yonder and a touch of woo right over here and voila...you gots a woo-woo-woo, yooby doo doo.
Ah, yes, exactly so! With a woo woo here and a woo woo there, here a woo, there a woo, everywhere a woo woo!
Quote from: Arik on May 11, 2019, 08:53:10 AM
With his experiment Bose change the notion that the stimuli in plants had to have a chemical nature or cause.
But even today most atheists think that this is the case so to ask me what any of you think I would say.......you guys are still miles and miles away from the truth.
Simple MO.
By showing that the reaction of that plant was NOT caused by a chemical reaction or cause Bose proved that plants have consciousness.
Only consciousness is able to show a reaction to pain and affection.
Energy and consciousness always go hand in hand like the two sides of the same sheet.
Matter is energy which is kept in a latent stage because there is no awareness in the consciousness that is in that matter so the question is not whether the world is made of mind or matter.
It is rather that is made of energy and consciousness.
Bold mine: It's rather a big leap to say that the electric rather than chemical nature of of stimuli-conduction makes a plant conscious.
Even bigger still to leap from that to the sentences I underlined.
Plant perception is a proven thing, but not in your paranormal sense of the word.
You might deemme small-minded, but it seems to me like you're simply overextending the consequences of the electrical excitability of plant cells.
There are all sorts of chemical and electrical processes in living tissue, including plants. Even single celled life is amazingly complicated. We choose to call one tissue of that, for historical reasons ... neural ... and attach sensation and consciousness to that kind of tissue. But we are the done's drawing the dividing line, same as a national boundary. The choice is humanistic and pragmatic, not literal. Hence the openness to at least limited pan-psychism. None of that requires paranormal speculation. Paranormal is metaphysical, not physical. I would contend that we don't even understand, in actual living tissue, what all is happening in the physical. There are about 100 billion neurons in the human brain. If you look at the combinatorial influence (at all levels, not just neural synapses) that is 100 billion factorial, an unimaginable large number. Way more than a googol.
Apparently, plants even do quantum physics, so they must be pretty smart!
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22996054
Things happen naturally without thought ... that is how politics works too ;-)
Quote from: Arik on May 08, 2019, 08:42:34 AM
Today most people are not Atheists or theists.
What planet are you from?
Quote from: Baruch on May 14, 2019, 10:44:49 PM
Things happen naturally without thought ... that is how politics works too ;-)
Rhubarb - Nettle
2020
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 15, 2019, 12:15:24 AM
What planet are you from?
I suppose you must go around with the blinkers on your eyes.
Where I work during the break I see 9 people out of 10 that spend most of their break time checking, sending messages and playing with their smart phone.
If you try to talk about life with them they look at you like if you are an alien that is why I said that most people are materialists that wouldn't care less whether God exist or not.
But in a way they are also theists because material things become their God but it would be better to call them.....worthless theists.
Quote from: Arik on May 08, 2019, 08:42:34 AM
Today most people are not Atheists or theists.
I missed this gem on my first reading of the OP.
There are no other choices.
Either one accepts the claim that a god exists as being true. This defines them as a theist.
Or one does not accept that claim as being true. This defines them as an atheist.
This is a binary mental state. There are no other possibilities than the above 2 positions.
Quote from: Simon Moon on May 14, 2019, 02:26:26 PM
That is one long and wordy equivocation fallacy you got there.
You can redefine the word 'god' as much as you like, but if the vast majority of people are not defining the word as you are, then you are not communicating anything.
The main reason why I did start this thread was to show the stupidity of those who criticizing theists for creating a myriad of Gods while at the same time they also create a myriad of Gods considering that their materialism is a God in itself with all object of pleasure that it create which are countless.
Now the point is to understand what the word God means.
When someone thinking become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction then they create a God in their mind so whether a God is real or it is an illusion it doesn't much of a difference in term of saying God but of course it make a lot of difference if it is not an illusion because while the illusion will harm the consciousness the reality does not but of course you may well say that there is no a real God so everything is an illusion or even say that the material reality is real while a real God is an illusion.
The time is also an illusion because when something nice happen the time goes very very fast but when something bad happen the time never goes.
This physical-material so called reality is all a creation of the mind.
A brick in the head can kill you but some martial art professional can brake a brick without any problem so again all this physical-material so called reality can be cancel-override and nullify and that means that if you go behind the illusion you can understand the real reality which of course is not this material one.
So my definition of God is of a God that is behind this illusion.
Quote from: Arik on May 15, 2019, 10:55:00 AM
If you try to talk about life with them they look at you like if you are an alien
i.e people who aren't stupid are not going to sit and listen to your bat shit crazy prattle. And he calls
them stupid....oy
Quote from: Simon Moon on May 15, 2019, 11:26:28 AM
I missed this gem on my first reading of the OP.
There are no other choices.
Either one accepts the claim that a god exists as being true. This defines them as a theist.
Or one does not accept that claim as being true. This defines them as an atheist.
This is a binary mental state. There are no other possibilities than the above 2 positions.
Narrow minded of you. Another possibility that you haven't considered, that the two most popular positions, are both wrong.
Meanwhile all ego boosting by all sides ... I am a genius, no I am a genius ... monkey shines.
Even almost 2000 years ago, Indian Mahayana Buddhists had 4 level logic, not 2 level logic ...
A is right, B is wrong - the usual Western prejudice
A is wrong, B is right - the usual Western prejudice
A is right, B is right - via positiva in theology
A is wrong, B is wrong - via negative in theology
Meanwhile, the advocates of 18th century Enlightenment (Oh, snap, Newton was also a theologian and alchemist) continue to make false dichotomies. If two things are complementary (as theism/atheism are), then they aren't opposites, they aren't mutually exclusive. To make them mutually exclusive, you have to make an unconscious, or otherwise un-justified assumption. This is almost universal in human cogitation, it is so much easier if we prematurely limit the possibilities to two on any question. Example:
In GB, there is only Conservative or Labor, there are no other choices
In USA, there is only Republican or Democrat, there are no other choices
This hints that the major reason why we make premature or false dichotomies is because ... laziness and appeal to emotion.
Quote from: aitm on May 15, 2019, 11:32:24 AM
i.e people who aren't stupid are not going to sit and listen to your bat shit crazy prattle. And he calls them stupid....oy
Oh well, only the time will tell who is stupid and who is not.
In yoga according to our desires people reborn getting what they always wish in this life so most of the people who follow a materialist agenda will reborn chasing the same material goods and their consciousness will sink deeper and deeper into the illusion that the material reality is the real McCoy.
As it is true that you sink into the consciousness of what you eat is also true that you sink into the consciousness of what you admire and dream of and that is something very very dangerous indeed because the consciousness hidden in matter is quite low indeed.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 14, 2019, 02:38:53 PM
I don't understand the concept of "spiritual needs." Can you elaborate? What exactly are "spiritual needs"? Are they synonymous with emotional needs?
When you smoke, drink or take drugs you are looking for peace within and happiness but that is like a mental masturbation.
This urge that come from within tell you to seek this state of being which is not necessary a state of mind but it goes much further than that.
Weak people always try the easy way to achieve this state of being by masturbating their brain with the above substances but intelligent people understand that the feeling of achieving peace and happiness withing must be achieve in a different way.
Nothing really to do with emotions UB.
It is rather a natural call to go behind this false reality in which exist peace and happiness within and this is the real reality.
Even atheists and materialists strive to get in that spiritual dimension although they confuse the reality with the illusion nevertheless the urge to get in that state of being is there and that has nothing to do with body or mind but goes further than that and into the realm of spirituality.
Quote from: Arik on May 16, 2019, 11:34:12 AMOh well, only the time will tell who is stupid and who is not.
Given your track record here, I doubt you could accurately predict whether or not it stormed yesterday with a newspaper in hand, let alone deliver the grand truth of life, the universe, and everything.
QuoteIn yoga according to our desires people reborn getting what they always wish in this life so most of the people who follow a materialist agenda will reborn chasing the same material goods and their consciousness will sink deeper and deeper into the illusion that the material reality is the real McCoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Quote from: Baruch on May 11, 2019, 06:34:20 AM
People are motivated by ideas. So ideas are very important.
Correct. Are you a vegetarian yet?
No. I think a totally vegan diet is not sufficient for active humans. Close is, and 90% of my food is. But there is a difference between "some" and "none"
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 16, 2019, 12:21:19 PM
Given your track record here, I doubt you could accurately predict whether or not it stormed yesterday with a newspaper in hand, let alone deliver the grand truth of life, the universe, and everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
If you guys persist in thinking that NDEs are hallucinations or lies than that is your problem not mine.
Evidence is there, people are real, accidents and casualties are real and proven and so doctors and hospitals in which these people end up so the witness of thousand of these people that by the way go hand in hand which each other can not be discounted and if you do then it is you that fail not me.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 16, 2019, 01:59:57 PM
No. I think a totally vegan diet is not sufficient for active humans. Close is, and 90% of my food is. But there is a difference between "some" and "none"
It is a myth that a vegan or vegetarian diet is not sufficient for active humans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZwmluSn_T0
One more materialist myth is that the physical-material power is the stronger power.
There are people who can brake bricks with the head and that is a power coming from the mind when you reach the stage in which you know that you can do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UE9WLnWirk
Above the mental power there is a stronger power but that is something that materialists will learn at a later stage.
Quote from: Arik on May 15, 2019, 10:55:00 AM
I suppose you must go around with the blinkers on your eyes.
Where I work during the break I see 9 people out of 10 that spend most of their break time checking, sending messages and playing with their smart phone.
If you try to talk about life with them they look at you like if you are an alien that is why I said that most people are materialists that wouldn't care less whether God exist or not.
But in a way they are also theists because material things become their God but it would be better to call them.....worthless theists.
Are you related to Baruch? Because you sound like it.
Quote from: Arik on May 17, 2019, 10:03:51 AM
One more materialist myth is that the physical-material power is the stronger power.
There are people who can brake bricks with the head and that is a power coming from the mind when you reach the stage in which you know that you can do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UE9WLnWirk
Above the mental power there is a stronger power but that is something that materialists will learn at a later stage.
Some things must be seen to be believed. Other things must be believed to be seen. A balanced view isn't materialist or idealist.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 17, 2019, 10:48:26 AM
Are you related to Baruch? Because you sound like it.
How can you think of that DA?
Baruch is quite deep in intellectual knowledge.
He may well be a professor in philosophy.
I instead prefer yoga.
Yoga is little intellectuality a more meditation which is internal knowledge but again I do not know Baruch enough to judge him.
Some of the words that he use I had to go looking for the meaning in google because they were new to me.
However there is one word the Baruch may not know.
Let us see if he know where the word cancer come from and his real meaning.
You too guys can try but the rule is that nobody is allow to cheat by looking in the net or any other source of information.
Are you ready?
Doesn't the word "cancer" mean "crab"?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 17, 2019, 01:11:44 PM
Doesn't the word "cancer" mean "crab"?
Yup. That's why the sign "Cancer" looks like a crab. Don't know what that's supposed to prove, though. Signs are bullshit.
(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59919514_568661673622579_8935695402246602752_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=8c497d1b2ae3e858617754da67ba8f35&oe=5D755FC2)
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 17, 2019, 10:48:26 AM
Are you related to Baruch? Because you sound like it.
We are both students of S Asian culture, but he may be an actual S Asian. My range of study covers all (hence the appearance of general philosophy rather than narrow ideology), not just S Asia. Yoga however, in Asia ... is cross-cultural ... going back to prehistoric Asian shamanism.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 17, 2019, 01:11:44 PM
Doesn't the word "cancer" mean "crab"?
But what does "crab" mean? Several, but this one is spot on ...
To move sideways or obliquely. That is a good description of my rhetorical technique.
Earlier I was referring to cancer by analogy with the medical term, an out of control growth. Humans are very feral in that way.
Again from 4 years ago, my Point of Reference is Kabbalah. There are three areas of interest in Kabbalah ...
1. Theoretical speculation - both meta-physical and physical (aka Sankhya/Jnana in Hindu culture)
2. Metaphysical practice - magic (metaphysical) (aka Bhakti/Siddhi in Hindu culture, subjective reality)
3. Physical practice - non-magic (physical) (aka Karma, Raja, Hatha in Hindu culture, objective reality)
As a pragmatist, my emphasis is on #3. Though I am not disinterested in the first two.
The primary problem for anyone focused on a particular system is practice. Hopefully as a retiree I can devote more time to that.
Quote from: Baruch on May 17, 2019, 02:13:58 PM
To move sideways or obliquely. That is a good description of my rhetorical technique.
I actually agree with that. To me, though, it gives of the vibe that you don't want to have a conversation about things but that more often than not, you just want to say a great number of things.
I like you best when you are consistent.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2019, 03:44:47 AM
I actually agree with that. To me, though, it gives of the vibe that you don't want to have a conversation about things but that more often than not, you just want to say a great number of things.
I like you best when you are consistent.
If I am inflexible, then I am a block head. By being oblique, I am leaving my own opinion open.
Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2019, 04:45:56 AM
If I am inflexible, then I am a block head. By being oblique, I am leaving my own opinion open.
No, sorry, what I feel happens is you say one thing, someone makes an aimed response and you reply with a great number of things half touching on that reply, leasurly. That's just moving out of the way to avoid your opinion coming under a closer microscope for yourself or your conversational partners. That's not keeping it open, that's keeping it from harm's way.
At least, that's how it comes across for me.
Here is consistency ...
1. There are theists, atheists and in-between
2. It is OK to be any of those
3. Not everyone is OK with those two points, but I am
Is there anything else that needs to be said in the Religion section?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 17, 2019, 01:11:44 PM
Doesn't the word "cancer" mean "crab"?
That is the easy part UB.
The difficult part is to know the real story behind it which is something that even most doctors do not know.
In the old times people who develop a cancer didn't have any strong pain killer so when the cancer develop to the chronic stage they felt the pain of hell.
They felt like a crab bite and eat their flesh so when they were feeling this they were saying..........I got a crab......and because in Latin the world crab mean cancer obviously they were saying.........I got a cancer.
These days people with cancer can get rid of most of the pain using morphine so obviously they would think of a crab eating their flesh.
Even the sign of the cancer in the sky look a bit like a crab.
(https://rfclipart.com/image/big/b6-c1-4f/zodiac-sign-cancer-made-of-stars-Download-Royalty-free-Vector-File-EPS-134203.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on May 18, 2019, 09:35:24 AM
Even the sign of the cancer in the sky look a bit like a crab.
(https://rfclipart.com/image/big/b6-c1-4f/zodiac-sign-cancer-made-of-stars-Download-Royalty-free-Vector-File-EPS-134203.jpg)
ah...not even close to a crab. 5 stars could be anything. Now actually draw a crab around any 5 stars in the sky and voila! A crab. Sheeesh.....looks like a crab...what a nut.
Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2019, 05:56:51 AM
Here is consistency ...
1. There are theists, atheists and in-between
2. It is OK to be any of those
3. Not everyone is OK with those two points, but I am
Is there anything else that needs to be said in the Religion section?
Brevity helps in concistency, I guess :p
I'm not OK with the first point. But I can't claim you are being inconsistent here.
Quote from: aitm on May 18, 2019, 12:38:27 PM
ah...not even close to a crab. 5 stars could be anything. Now actually draw a crab around any 5 stars in the sky and voila! A crab. Sheeesh.....looks like a crab...what a nut.
Looks like a lobster.
Which cancer (zodiac) is in Dutch.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2019, 02:10:27 PM
Brevity helps in concistency, I guess :p
I'm not OK with the first point. But I can't claim you are being inconsistent here.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Ralph Waldo Emerson
On #1 ... you are denying that there is an intermediate position? Surely you aren't denying the existence of theists or atheists?
Given that root position, I am poetically free to elaborate, in a context sensitive way. So I talk Hindu around Hindus etc. That is versatility, not inconsistency. Neither are obtuseness ... that is solely my fault.
Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2019, 02:21:13 PM
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Ralph Waldo Emerson
On #1 ... you are denying that there is an intermediate position? Surely you aren't denying the existence of theists or atheists?
Given that root position, I am poetically free to elaborate, in a context sensitive way. So I talk Hindu around Hindus etc. That is versatility, not inconsistency. Neither are obtuseness ... that is solely my fault.
Yes, I don't deny that you are theist nor that I am atheist.
I don't agree there can be an intermediate state.
If you believe in any gods, you are a theist. If you do not believe in any gods, you're an atheist. What room is there in between? Even if you're unsure and you don't want to take a stance, you still do not believe in gods, which makes you an atheist. If you believe in gods, but don't agree with the definition of the word "god," then you still a theist.
Here's a nice, strong crab:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmm9KYvNPPY
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2019, 02:23:25 PM
Yes, I don't deny that you are theist nor that I am atheist.
I don't agree there can be an intermediate state.
Agnosticism doesn't exist?
i am always suspicious of false dichotomy. Take any two opposites, I will say complements instead. There is an edge between the head and the tails.
Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2019, 11:08:39 PM
Agnosticism doesn't exist?
i am always suspicious of false dichotomy. Take any two opposites, I will say complements instead. There is an edge between the head and the tails.
Sure it exists, but it's not an intermediate position. It's a stance on a different question all together
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 19, 2019, 02:07:40 AM
Sure it exists, but it's not an intermediate position. It's a stance on a different question all together
And the wags say, I play semantic games.
How about ... two mothers, one baby ... propose to cut the baby in half to be fair?
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 04:42:05 AM
And the wags say, I play semantic games.
How about ... two mothers, one baby ... propose to cut the baby in half to be fair?
I say you play 1984-games, not semantics.
doublethink
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 19, 2019, 04:56:17 AM
I say you play 1984-games, not semantics.
doublethink
In the Multiverse, consciousness is infinity-think. I got the gauntlet from Thanos, a nihilist, because his denial of any meaning, made him vulnerable to every used car salesman ;-)
Quote from: aitm on May 18, 2019, 12:38:27 PM
ah...not even close to a crab. 5 stars could be anything. Now actually draw a crab around any 5 stars in the sky and voila! A crab. Sheeesh.....looks like a crab...what a nut.
To me those stars form a design similar to a crab or maybe a lobster but astronomy is not much part of my knowledge so I really wouldn't know how to judge the sign of the stars in a perfect way.
In the old times people judge which is which so you should direct to them your complain if of course you can have a chat with them.
Quote from: Arik on May 15, 2019, 11:28:59 AM
Now the point is to understand what the word God means.
When someone thinking become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction then they create a God in their mind so whether a God is real or it is an illusion it doesn't much of a difference in term of saying God but of course it make a lot of difference if it is not an illusion because while the illusion will harm the consciousness the reality does not but of course you may well say that there is no a real God so everything is an illusion or even say that the material reality is real while a real God is an illusion.
Then you are using the word 'god' in a very nonstandard way. The
vast majority of humanity, would look at you a bit strangely for using the word that way.
So, it seems like you are defining the word to be almost synonymous with 'obsession'. Not sure where that gets any of us?
But even under your strange definition, I still have no gods.
Now, I do understand that there are people that, as you say, "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" to an unhealthy level. So, if that is your definition of 'god', then under your definition, those gods exist.
Congratulations! You were able to define gods in such a bizarre way, that I am not an atheist with regards to your definition. Because, yes, people do become obsessed toward things to an unhealthy level.
Quote from: Arik on May 19, 2019, 09:22:46 AM
To me those stars form a design similar to a crab or maybe a lobster but astronomy is not much part of my knowledge so I really wouldn't know how to judge the sign of the stars in a perfect way.
In the old times people judge which is which so you should direct to them your complain if of course you can have a chat with them.
These stars look like the were desirned to look like a crab or a lobster? Seriously?!
(https://www.zodiacsignastrology.org/wp-content/uploads/cancer-constellation.jpg)
Quote from: Simon Moon on May 19, 2019, 01:32:53 PM
Then you are using the word 'god' in a very nonstandard way. The vast majority of humanity, would look at you a bit strangely for using the word that way.
So, it seems like you are defining the word to be almost synonymous with 'obsession'. Not sure where that gets any of us?
But even under your strange definition, I still have no gods.
Now, I do understand that there are people that, as you say, "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" to an unhealthy level. So, if that is your definition of 'god', then under your definition, those gods exist.
Congratulations! You were able to define gods in such a bizarre way, that I am not an atheist with regards to your definition. Because, yes, people do become obsessed toward things to an unhealthy level.
When I was a Christian, this same tactic was used in the church to basically bring everyone down to their level. If there was anything more important than god in your life, that thing was your god. So this also served as a way of shaming people who weren't Christian enough, as well as turn anyone with an interest in anything into a theist.
Quote from: Simon Moon on May 19, 2019, 01:32:53 PM
Then you are using the word 'god' in a very nonstandard way. The vast majority of humanity, would look at you a bit strangely for using the word that way.
So, it seems like you are defining the word to be almost synonymous with 'obsession'. Not sure where that gets any of us?
But even under your strange definition, I still have no gods.
Now, I do understand that there are people that, as you say, "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" to an unhealthy level. So, if that is your definition of 'god', then under your definition, those gods exist.
Congratulations! You were able to define gods in such a bizarre way, that I am not an atheist with regards to your definition. Because, yes, people do become obsessed toward things to an unhealthy level.
Non-standard as in non-Western. We are the master race, after all ;-(
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 19, 2019, 01:49:12 PM
When I was a Christian, this same tactic was used in the church to basically bring everyone down to their level. If there was anything more important than god in your life, that thing was your god. So this also served as a way of shaming people who weren't Christian enough, as well as turnint anyone with an interest in anything into a theist
Now that you are more mature (as happens to everyone, but not the same way), do you realize if you live long enough, you will look back from the future at your present self, as a kind of idiot now?
Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2019, 11:08:39 PM
Agnosticism doesn't exist?
i am always suspicious of false dichotomy. Take any two opposites, I will say complements instead. There is an edge between the head and the tails.
As I'm sure you know, agnosticism is about knowledge (or lack thereof), not belief. So an agnostic person can still either believe or not, depending on their state of willingness to believe, and nothing else. But they can't both believe and not believe at the same time. Unless, of course, they're a Gemini...
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 19, 2019, 05:23:41 PM
As I'm sure you know, agnosticism is about knowledge (or lack thereof), not belief. So an agnostic person can still either believe or not, depending on their state of willingness to believe, and nothing else. But they can't both believe and not believe at the same time. Unless, of course, they're a Gemini...
...unless you are Baruch.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2019, 06:28:23 PM
...unless you are Baruch.
The regulars here are grammar Nazis ;-) They carefully define words like Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland. But I am more of a Cheshire Cat.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 19, 2019, 05:23:41 PM
As I'm sure you know, agnosticism is about knowledge (or lack thereof), not belief. So an agnostic person can still either believe or not, depending on their state of willingness to believe, and nothing else. But they can't both believe and not believe at the same time. Unless, of course, they're a Gemini...
You are a binary, because you have two separate personalities ... nothing in between, like Sybil?
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 01:54:22 PM
Non-standard as in non-Western. We are the master race, after all ;-(
No, nonstandard as in the way the vast majority of humanity, from all over the world, in many cultures, and many religions, define gods.
I can almost guarantee, that the number of Hindus that define gods as an object that one "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" is near zero.
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 09:46:29 PM
You are a binary, because you have two separate personalities ... nothing in between, like Sybil?
Please describe a mental state one can be in, with regards to existential claims, besides accepting the claim as being true, or not accepting the claim as being true.
In other words, besides: accepting the claim that a god exists as being true (theist), and not accepting that claim as being true (atheist), what other mental state can one be in with regards to the claim that gods exist?
If one claims that they don't know if gods exist, then that sure seems like they are in the 'not accepting the claim' camp. If one claims that they vacillate between the 2 positions, at least for part of the time, they are in the 'not accepting the claim' camp. Which is still a binary mental state.
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 05:39:55 AM
In the Multiverse, consciousness is infinity-think. I got the gauntlet from Thanos, a nihilist, because his denial of any meaning, made him vulnerable to every used car salesman ;-)
Haven't seen those films yet. So I don't get that reference.
Quote from: Simon Moon on May 19, 2019, 10:10:16 PM
Please describe a mental state one can be in, with regards to existential claims, besides accepting the claim as being true, or not accepting the claim as being true.
In other words, besides: accepting the claim that a god exists as being true (theist), and not accepting that claim as being true (atheist), what other mental state can one be in with regards to the claim that gods exist?
If one claims that they don't know if gods exist, then that sure seems like they are in the 'not accepting the claim' camp. If one claims that they vacillate between the 2 positions, at least for part of the time, they are in the 'not accepting the claim' camp. Which is still a binary mental state.
You don't know me very well. For me, atheism/theism isn't a matter of logic or epistemology, but of psychology. Epistemological or historical arguments, for me, are irrelevant. I don't care if the supernatural objectively exists, or the natural for that matter. Don't care if Jesus lived as a man or a god objectively. Objectivity/subjectivity is irrelevant to me. A false dichotomy.
You might have a subjective experience that you are rational .. I call BS. You might have a subjective experience that you are empirical ... I call BS. You might believe that your subjective experience of an objective reality (aka Plato's cave) is true. Human psychology is not a matter of reality, but of imagination, some of which is entirely convincing, and some of which is just play time.
Example ... if you are Jewish in 1940, and you meet up with a Nazi who wants to kill you ... the logical or empirical status of Nazi ideology is irrelevant. That is for useless academics to debate. The problem is ... the Nazi believes it and will act on it! That is what atheists are afraid of too, as a despised minority. Argue as a Japanese in Hiroshima, that nuking you is cruel. Enjoy the ball of fire either way.
Here is where philosophy gets you ...
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-10-09
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 20, 2019, 01:12:37 AM
Haven't seen those films yet. So I don't get that reference.
You didn't miss much, but even the Avengers last movie was better than last two episodes of Game of Thrones ;-(
Quote from: Simon Moon on May 19, 2019, 01:32:53 PM
Then you are using the word 'god' in a very nonstandard way. The vast majority of humanity, would look at you a bit strangely for using the word that way.
So, it seems like you are defining the word to be almost synonymous with 'obsession'. Not sure where that gets any of us?
But even under your strange definition, I still have no gods.
Now, I do understand that there are people that, as you say, "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" to an unhealthy level. So, if that is your definition of 'god', then under your definition, those gods exist.
Congratulations! You were able to define gods in such a bizarre way, that I am not an atheist with regards to your definition. Because, yes, people do become obsessed toward things to an unhealthy level.
If you believe the story about Buddha he sat down under the tree in meditation until he attained enlightenment and that time last seven weeks.
When you are very close to the goal of life you become obsessed.
And he became obsessed to reach this goal.
As far as the goal that you try to reach lead you to spiritual progress the obsession is not a problem.
However it become a big problem when the obsession is towards materials objects and in many cases even towards a physical entity.
The reason is very simple.
While within the material and physical arena the positive always go hand in hand with the negative within the spiritual arena the negative does not exist that is why an obsession in this field is good while in the material-physical arena is bad.
(https://edwardtraversa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/38686856_1957005651023939_6002018102382952448_o-uai-258x387.jpg)
Quote from: Simon Moon on May 19, 2019, 01:43:39 PM
These stars look like the were desirned to look like a crab or a lobster? Seriously?!
(https://www.zodiacsignastrology.org/wp-content/uploads/cancer-constellation.jpg)
Seriously sure.
Sure that you take it too seriously.
You are an intellectual so you try to get the perfection within the mental arena in contrast to the people of the past that were not much intellectual.
Everything to them was so much more simple so they related signs to anything that came in their mind and two lines that extend out a possible body represent the arms of a crab but again if you try to be too squeamish-fussy or picky then you will never get it.
(https://myfitbrain.in/blog_images/1545737666My-child-is-a-fussy-eater-what-should-i-do.jpg)
Came across this just now.
Reminded me of this thread.
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/I-am-the-cartoonist-behind-the-webcomic-Rustled-Jimmies-5a24fa2b692f6-png__880.jpg)
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 17, 2019, 01:42:28 PM
Yup. That's why the sign "Cancer" looks like a crab. Don't know what that's supposed to prove, though. Signs are bullshit.
(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59919514_568661673622579_8935695402246602752_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=8c497d1b2ae3e858617754da67ba8f35&oe=5D755FC2)
LOVED THAT!
Quote from: Baruch on May 17, 2019, 02:13:58 PM
But what does "crab" mean? Several, but this one is spot on ...
To move sideways or obliquely. That is a good description of my rhetorical technique.
Earlier I was referring to cancer by analogy with the medical term, an out of control growth. Humans are very feral in that way.
Again from 4 years ago, my Point of Reference is Kabbalah. There are three areas of interest in Kabbalah ...
1. Theoretical speculation - both meta-physical and physical (aka Sankhya/Jnana in Hindu culture)
2. Metaphysical practice - magic (metaphysical) (aka Bhakti/Siddhi in Hindu culture, subjective reality)
3. Physical practice - non-magic (physical) (aka Karma, Raja, Hatha in Hindu culture, objective reality)
As a pragmatist, my emphasis is on #3. Though I am not disinterested in the first two.
The primary problem for anyone focused on a particular system is practice. Hopefully as a retiree I can devote more time to that.
LOL! crab in Latin is "cancer". Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: Baruch on May 20, 2019, 01:21:50 AM
You might have a subjective experience that you are rational .. I call BS. You might have a subjective experience that you are empirical ... I call BS. You might believe that your subjective experience of an objective reality (aka Plato's cave) is true. Human psychology is not a matter of reality, but of imagination, some of which is entirely convincing, and some of which is just play time.
Well, one way to test "objective reality" would be to explode a grenade in your face (thinking it was non-real) and then see if you could discuss it afterwards...
Note: I DO assume no one would be that stupid...
Actually, that is an assumption. And we can't function without assumptions (hence even proper deduction is weak). It is assumed you are real, that you are alive, that you are conscious .. I agree these are compelling assumptions. But that doesn't make them true. You could still be a brain in a jar with artificial stimuli. Our whole individual personality and whole collective culture is based on "make believe" that is inherited, with mutations, from one generation to the next. Just like those non-existent lines that divide countries on maps.
Quote from: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 07:08:58 AM
It is assumed you are real, that you are alive, that you are conscious ..
I must disagree. You can assume you may not be real, but you can't prove it.
By what evidence can be used to suggest one may not be real against all that suggests you are? I would assume that reality would be the default, not the assumption that everything is false.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 22, 2019, 05:27:08 AM
Well, one way to test "objective reality" would be to explode a grenade in your face (thinking it was non-real) and then see if you could discuss it afterwards...
Note: I DO assume no one would be that stupid...
There are people who can brake bricks with the head and other that can introduce hooks or metal rods through their flesh and feel no pain
https://www.google.com/search?q=hindu+festival+poke+the+flesh&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:Cdk5_1ibclj28IjhTPNHx1pMC6BTRJjtxqDR4EiY0kg7bTV-qO7bgueXqNFYZq1Z7yjEcOhtfGHemCV0BECO-geTByCoSCVM80fHWkwLoEamISY4kqhJaKhIJFNEmO3GoNHgREJ3TW_1yTkAEqEgkSJjSSDttNXxHc8xXx9AC9ZyoSCao7tuC55eo0EfO8v6-LE0osKhIJVhmrVnvKMRwRMyKJuH_1tHGYqEgk6G18Yd6YJXREg2osbj6GIESoSCQEQI76B5MHIEf2W0oXC3Zes&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY5t3JsK_iAhWIvY8KHR4CCyoQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1280&bih=686&dpr=1#imgrc=_
and I suppose that if you develop your consciousness to a very high degree you could also overcome a grenade in your face but again all this is not for a week consciousness.
It all depend CB.
Once you reach the stage in which you realize that this universe is a mental projection of someone very very powerful than you also realize that the matter such as a grenade can not harm you at all because what is inferior to you has no power over you.
Obviously to reach this state you got to lift your consciousness to the very top of the human emancipation.
Oh, by the way do not ask me if I would let a grenade explode over me.
I am not God after all.
What bull-shit. Humans are only a very small part of the life on this planet but nutjob here thinks they have some special link to some grand wizard that hovers over a 14 billion light year universe.
We evolved from fungi, plant based. Get over your grand illusion that we are all that important to anything but our own existence and to the future of our planet should probably get more involved in saving that as our only place to live.
You probably should park your ass in the dark forests and whisper to mushrooms....or at least into the ocean and kneel before the sponges...then you may get the enlightenment you seek, pretty obvious to most but sometimes you need a grenade to the side of the head to get some brain activity going.
Quote from: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 07:08:58 AM
You could still be a brain in a jar with artificial stimuli.
More likely to be a Boltzmann brain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kii-s2eDZps
Quote from: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 07:08:58 AM
You could still be a brain in a jar with artificial stimuli.
I keep hearing people suggest this but never with a reason why...or a guess as to why....or even some nutjob Ariklien lunacy as to why....so why?
Quote from: aitm on May 22, 2019, 07:34:12 AM
I must disagree. You can assume you may not be real, but you can't prove it.
By what evidence can be used to suggest one may not be real against all that suggests you are? I would assume that reality would be the default, not the assumption that everything is false.
Proof only exists in math. And even in math, proof isn't iron-clad, only relatively so. Everything else is "demonstration" not "proof". As people often say here, use the correct word or be considered less ...
To assume that there is only true/false is an assumption (Law of Excluded Middle) is invalid in higher math. Even invalid in Buddhist logic from 2000 years ago. It is impossible not to have assumptions. You are assuming that what you see directly with your eyes etc is real. But that isn't true (or false). It is a pragmatic assumption.
I do use the same method, I regard my hand on the end of my arm as real. Other assumptions, even with proper deduction, that would deny that, are nonsense. But I understand I have no proof.
Quote from: aitm on May 22, 2019, 01:54:26 PM
I keep hearing people suggest this but never with a reason why...or a guess as to why....or even some nutjob Ariklien lunacy as to why....so why?
It is a thought experiment, by psychologists/philosophers. Similarly the "can't tell a human from a zombie" model of consciousness (thought experiment). That materially, you could have a zombie with no consciousness, and it would behave indistinguishably from a human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Most people are "naive realists" ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism
Quote from: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 03:36:48 PM
You are assuming that what you see directly with your eyes etc is real. But that isn't true (or false).
I disagree, though really I don't know why I would bother as this topic has plenty of coverage. Until you can show why I should assume that what my eyes see is not true, I am forced to assume it must be true for there can be no other logical assumption that can be made.
To simply say....maybe.... is to simply say maybe, which is no reason to consider the obvious as not true.
If, in actuality,it could be shown that there is reasonable logic to assume that what we see is not true then I will continue to follow the road and not veer off into the woods.
One of the reasons the masses lost interest in philosophy is when it ventured into the realm of the unproven able it suggested it must be assumed as a possibility instead of a mind experiment. Which is all it is, and all it will ever be. A mere thought experiment, with absolutely no possibility of being true.
It is OK to be a naive realist. It is what most people are. Even I use it (but I label the real things differently than you do). We both agree that your hand is attached to your arm, and my hand is attached to my arm (assuming no amputations). We can get past assumptions with a Skype call, that would count as at demonstration (not proof). Usually, being like other people, is somehow unsatisfactory for most of us.
So my realism doesn't equal your realism, because of labels. But I accept that we are both naive (we are monkeys).
The point for a more sophisticated philosophy? Maybe no point. The famous case of "sophists" is they can argue in an Athenian court that the truth is false and the false is true. Socrates (philosopher - lover of sophistry) claimed to get beyond this limitation, but an Athenian court executed him.
Quote from: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 04:06:23 PM
The point for a more sophisticated philosophy?
By mimicking the ridiculous claims of religion? Philosophy....though by threat of execution most likely, was forced to grant religious thought equal footing in the world of "knowledge" and thus allowed ignorance a equal chair at the table. We have been unable to pull that chair from them since. But philosophy decided that they too would like a piece of the woo money and all kinds of "spiritual" schools pranced to life to gather the dollars from the ignorant.
Now they invent nonsense and claim that we must grant them respect because even though they cannot prove their spectacular claims....like religion they cannot be disproven.. I do not grant this to religion or whack-a-doo philosophy dressed in fancy words. I have taken a page from religion. I will not accept what you present without evidence. Your claims have no merit without absolute proof. Now of course, what I think means nothing at all to the argument....it only means something to me.
You are free. You need not respect anyone or anything. But don't go too far, otherwise you travel beyond psychopathy into sociopathy.
I choose to sympathize with people, but not their BS ideas. Their ideas are the raving content of their self/mutual delusion. My understanding of what is delusion, is more skeptical than your kind. But not because I am seeking some pure nihilism.
Quote from: aitm on May 22, 2019, 11:42:31 AM
What bull-shit. Humans are only a very small part of the life on this planet but nutjob here thinks they have some special link to some grand wizard that hovers over a 14 billion light year universe.
We evolved from fungi, plant based. Get over your grand illusion that we are all that important to anything but our own existence and to the future of our planet should probably get more involved in saving that as our only place to live.
You probably should park your ass in the dark forests and whisper to mushrooms....or at least into the ocean and kneel before the sponges...then you may get the enlightenment you seek, pretty obvious to most but sometimes you need a grenade to the side of the head to get some brain activity going.
Most probably in my past lives I was a dreamer like you but evolution does miracles so now I am here looking at myself in you hundreds years ago.
But don't worry mate because you too will get out that mental stagnation in which you are at the moment.
The time is a clear indicator that this dimension is but a big illusion because when we are happy the time goes very fast but when we suffer the time takes ages and ages to pass.
If this dimension would be real then it should take the same time to pass as a watch show but in reality it doesn't.
When you believe that we humans have a different origin and that low form of life like mushrooms and sponges from the ocean never improve their status to reach human status and above then you show that you understand evolution as a donkey understand the carrot trick.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q4prlDodH74/TwmWkpb10eI/AAAAAAAAAAw/HkACXe69lUg/s1600/donkey-carrot.gif)
Babbling stupid shit in an attempt to appear enlightened merely shows your bulb is out. Seriously...whatever shit your drinking, you should bottle.
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2019, 10:35:29 AM
Babbling stupid shit in an attempt to appear enlightened merely shows your bulb is out. Seriously...whatever shit your drinking, you should bottle.
You still don't get the fact that Darwin explanation of evolution only related to body changes do you?
How long will it takes to understand the full picture?
I understand the full picture. You seem to think humans are special. They are not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msDcShv_r20
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2019, 10:35:29 AM
Babbling stupid shit in an attempt to appear enlightened merely shows your bulb is out. Seriously...whatever shit your drinking, you should bottle.
If you are skeptic enough when will you doubt yourself?
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2019, 12:18:16 PM
I understand the full picture. You seem to think humans are special. They are not.
And people think I am a misanthrope? I am a humanist/humanitarian. Unfortunately this is the NYC zoo from Madagascar.
I don't hate humanity, most of us understand that if you could reduce DNA to a handful of colored marbles the only difference between us, an oak tree or a cricket is a couple marbles...hence "he's a couple marbles short"....lol, I know... I had too, it was right there.
Anyhoo, we did evolve into splendid creatures.... but many don't want to be associated with "filthy dirty animals", even though we are filthy dirty animals. Our very bodies are walking Queen Mary's to a billion organisms feasting off us and in us. Perhaps the micro world created us to live in. There is far more reason to follow that line of creation than the idea that a grand wizard popping universes into existence and then creating miniature creatures to inhabit a planet and then demand homage and punish them for loving someone or for eating another creature is absurd. Just absurd. And Yo-yo here thinks we can be one with the universe.....oy.
Well, maybe we can be three with the universe...
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2019, 02:38:09 PM
I don't hate humanity, most of us understand that if you could reduce DNA to a handful of colored marbles the only difference between us, an oak tree or a cricket is a couple marbles...hence "he's a couple marbles short"....lol, I know... I had too, it was right there.
Anyhoo, we did evolve into splendid creatures.... but many don't want to be associated with "filthy dirty animals", even though we are filthy dirty animals. Our very bodies are walking Queen Mary's to a billion organisms feasting off us and in us. Perhaps the micro world created us to live in. There is far more reason to follow that line of creation than the idea that a grand wizard popping universes into existence and then creating miniature creatures to inhabit a planet and then demand homage and punish them for loving someone or for eating another creature is absurd. Just absurd. And Yo-yo here thinks we can be one with the universe.....oy.
Once again you show how little you understand evolution.
Humans are not special or lucky for some mysterious unknown reasons but are rather special and lucky because they reach a significant progress in the effort to reach the goal of life so the only difference between humans and low form of life is the line of progress that separate one with the other.
That of course means that everybody and everything will in due time reach the same goal.
A bit like a pupil that just start school and those more advanced in their studies and progress.
Progress is open to anyone so a plant will evolve into animal life, animals into humans and humans will reach the goal of life which is something that atheists still don't know it exist.
Unfortunately atheists are still stuck with the notion that all form of life stay as they are and evolution is only related to changes in physical structure with no way for anyone to evolve through reincarnation.
By thinking in this way they also should think that a pupil that start the first year in their primary class have no chance to progress to year two and so on until they reach the uni.
This form of dogma is as bad as any religious dogma which make them go around with the blinkers in the eyes.
Quote from: Arik on May 24, 2019, 09:11:43 AM
but are rather special and lucky because they reach a significant progress in the effort to reach the goal of life so the only difference between humans and low form of life is the line of progress that separate one with the other.
I know, in your mind, that makes sense. But your idea that we are where we are because there is an "effort to reach the goal of life" is just babbling arrogance. You have convince yourself...that's just fine and dandy. Your bullshit won't work here. Don't you have some incense to burn and some meditating to do? You sure spend a lot of time here instead of perfecting your OM.
Quote from: aitm on May 24, 2019, 11:43:49 AM
I know, in your mind, that makes sense. But your idea that we are where we are because there is an "effort to reach the goal of life" is just babbling arrogance. You have convince yourself...that's just fine and dandy. Your bullshit won't work here. Don't you have some incense to burn and some meditating to do? You sure spend a lot of time here instead of perfecting your OM.
Difference between bottom up and top down explanations. With bottom up, somehow, we don't know how, the random motions of atoms makes a human, and that human voted for Gary Johnson ;-) With top down, you start from life, from consciousness, from humanity. But that is the traditional POV, Arik has a version of the traditional view. Materialists must, must explain bottom up. I have yet to hear a bottom up explanation that actually explains the mega-phenomena of human life (materialists reply ... there is no other choice other than the one we miraculously support). Any argument that goes "we have no other choice than the choice I already made ..." is unconvincing. And materialists took over the entire Enlightenment mantel ... though at the time, 300 years ago, the definition included top down as well. Materialism 300 years ago was the minority position among modern thinkers. The Marxists did the same thing it he 19th century. 200 years ago, there was more than one version of socialism, but by 100 years ago the choice had been narrowed, by propaganda, to Vladimir Lenin.
Quote from: Baruch on May 24, 2019, 02:13:09 PM
Difference between bottom up and top down explanations.
If you could simply....try to make a point, instead of bouncing off walls of a plethora of nothing....perhaps....maybe....we could actually understand what the fuck you are trying to say. I know you THINK you made a point, but the fact is the gibberish that made sense to you, kinda enforces the idea you just make up shit to make yourself look "schmarter". Really, I don't have a clue what your trying to say, and if you think that this is an indication of intellectual level, you need to understand that the goal of an intellectual should be to spread their knowledge, not pontificate to the point where we think your actually ignorant.
Quote from: aitm on May 24, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
If you could simply....try to make a point, instead of bouncing off walls of a plethora of nothing....perhaps....maybe....we could actually understand what the fuck you are trying to say. I know you THINK you made a point, but the fact is the gibberish that made sense to you, kinda enforces the idea you just make up shit to make yourself look "schmarter". Really, I don't have a clue what your trying to say, and if you think that this is an indication of intellectual level, you need to understand that the goal of an intellectual should be to spread their knowledge, not pontificate to the point where we think your actually ignorant.
Sorry, but I won't write the Wikipedia for you. No, I am not smarter. If you think I am, that is your problem, not mine. I am not some public intellectual, trying to achieve a greater Marxist utopia. I will leave that to others. And yes, I don't know everything, just some things. So I am ignorant, same as you, but on different things.
That quote was taken out of context. It might make more sense, in its original context, as a snippet of a dialog. Quote the entire paragraph ... and refute that. Otherwise it is just proof-texting.
Quote from: aitm on May 24, 2019, 11:43:49 AM
I know, in your mind, that makes sense. But your idea that we are where we are because there is an "effort to reach the goal of life" is just babbling arrogance. You have convince yourself...that's just fine and dandy. Your bullshit won't work here. Don't you have some incense to burn and some meditating to do? You sure spend a lot of time here instead of perfecting your OM.
When will you ever stop contradicting yourself?
Right now you are here in this forum BECAUSE you wish to communicate and that means to learn as well.
Learning means to advance and that is a fact.
Who push you to advance Mister?
Father Christmas or something within?
Stop fooling yourself by living in your little cocoon of materialism because the force from within that keep on telling you go ahead fight very very hard to wake you up and grow you up and if you keep on resisting then you castrate yourself.
We all have our own way to advance.
Baruch aim may be to get more intellectual knowledge, my way is to reduce the distance that separate myself from the goal of life through yoga but your way is the silly possible way and it will take longer and longer to get there but there you will get anyway because there is no other place to go unless you wish to float in this material illusion for the next million years.
Quote from: Arik on May 24, 2019, 10:19:00 PM
little cocoon of materialism
You really are a f-ing retard. This whole crappy argument of materialism is new age psycho-babble for inferiority complexes you suffer from. You can't afford a nice car or even a real bicycle so you rant and rave that anyone who can is a slave to your ignorant position.
Half the world doesn't even have a goddamn bowl and spoon and if they did it would be considered a treasure. Half the world is poverty stricken but here you are yapping about shit that nobody cares about except people jealous of the success of others and embarrassed by their lack of motivation and prattle on about it as if it is some great and grand idea when the truth is your just a lazy ass dead beat pretending to be some grand master of the mind. No matter how much you try you're not going to get any better sitting on your ass trying to convince people you have some secret knowledge when your just jacking off in the wind.
Quote from: Arik on May 24, 2019, 10:19:00 PMWhen will you ever stop contradicting yourself?
He hasn't.
And he won't.
Quote from: aitm on May 25, 2019, 07:36:18 AM
You really are a f-ing retard. This whole crappy argument of materialism is new age psycho-babble for inferiority complexes you suffer from. You can't afford a nice car or even a real bicycle so you rant and rave that anyone who can is a slave to your ignorant position.
Half the world doesn't even have a goddamn bowl and spoon and if they did it would be considered a treasure. Half the world is poverty stricken but here you are yapping about shit that nobody cares about except people jealous of the success of others and embarrassed by their lack of motivation and prattle on about it as if it is some great and grand idea when the truth is your just a lazy ass dead beat pretending to be some grand master of the mind. No matter how much you try you're not going to get any better sitting on your ass trying to convince people you have some secret knowledge when your just jacking off in the wind.
Sure, Mister sure but if you know how things should be then why don't you explain how a person can break bricks with the head?
Materialism is your strong subject isn't it aitm?
A brick is made of very very hard matter but the head is made of weak matter so how a weak type of matter can break hard matter?
Any chance you can answer this question?
(https://www.pehub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/answers.jpg)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 25, 2019, 08:36:19 AM
He hasn't.
Yes, he has because on one hand he deny that there is progress towards a goal of life but on the other hand he keep on creating progress in his mind by interrelate to other minds here in this forum and possibly in his life outside this forum as well.
Of course he may not see a relation between learning for the sake of learning and learning in order to reach a spiritual goal but that matter very little because all this learning goes right within to enrich his consciousness which again can only lead to a strongest consciousness and that is progress towards a goal of life so even if he is not aware of where this learning end up
he is still contradicting his own consciousness.
Quote from: Arik on May 25, 2019, 09:41:32 AM
Yes, he has because on one hand he deny that there is progress towards a goal of life but on the other hand he keep on creating progress in his mind by interrelate to other minds here in this forum and possibly in his life outside this forum as well.
You’re projecting your made up conclusions onto others.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 25, 2019, 09:52:07 AM
You’re projecting your made up conclusions onto others.
Oh, well if you are any good in knowing something about conclusions you and your friends should know how a guy can break dozen and dozen of real bricks with his head.
Let us see if you too can explain how that is possible. :sad:
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 25, 2019, 09:52:07 AM
You’re projecting your made up conclusions onto others.
That is the consequence of consciousness, and assuming we are the same species. Are we?
Quote from: Arik on May 25, 2019, 10:00:35 AM
Oh, well if you are any good in knowing something about conclusions you and your friends should know how a guy can brake dozen and dozen of real bricks with his head.
Let us see if you too can explain how that is possible. :sad:
Reality is more complicated than simple lay POV.
Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2019, 10:03:17 AM
That is the consequence of consciousness, and assuming we are the same species. Are we?
Good point.
A lot of people ignore that the seeds originate from the same tree of life.
Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2019, 10:04:03 AM
Reality is more complicated than simple lay POV.
You just remind me when I did learn how to swim.
At one stage I was quite frustrated that I could not float in the water or swim but one day I just jump in the water in a pool where I could not touch the bottom and I realize that I was able to float.
That was the day that I stop clinging to my fears.
When the reality seems far too complicated then is time to stop clinging to our own fears and let go.
Quote from: Arik on May 25, 2019, 10:00:35 AM
Oh, well if you are any good in knowing something about conclusions you and your friends should know how a guy can brake dozen and dozen of real bricks with his head.
Let us see if you too can explain how that is possible. :sad:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190525/1bd6b85ab9bb8583b00cd63d7e3cb730.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on May 25, 2019, 10:00:35 AM
Oh, well if you are any good in knowing something about conclusions you and your friends should know how a guy can brake dozen and dozen of real bricks with his head.
Let us see if you too can explain how that is possible. :sad:
First of all, video or it didn't happen. Second, obviously the guy used his brain magic to break the bricks just before his head came into contact with them. Duh.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 25, 2019, 11:13:33 AM
First of all, video or it didn't happen. Second, obviously the guy used his brain magic to break the bricks just before his head came into contact with them. Duh.
Same people never give up isn't it BL?
Even when the evidence is there and right in front of you you try your very best to fabricate excuses in order to keep your head above the water.
So sad!
Quote from: Arik on May 25, 2019, 07:40:03 PM
Same people never give up isn't it BL?
Even when the evidence is there and right in front of you you try your very best to fabricate excuses in order to keep your head above the water.
So sad!
I see no video, so how is the evidence right on front of me? Since you're so confident in your position, how about you offer us a demonstration?
And I don't give up? That's not true. I gave up trying to talk sense into you a long time ago. Now you've reached chew toy status.
“Glendower: I can call the spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come, when you do call for them?â€
― William Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part 1
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 25, 2019, 07:54:02 PM
I see no video, so how is the evidence right on front of me? Since you're so confident in your position, how about you offer us a demonstration?
And I don't give up? That's not true. I gave up trying to talk sense into you a long time ago. Now you've reached chew toy status.
Page 5 BL.
Go to page 5 on this thread to see the video.
Thanks.
Quote from: Arik on May 26, 2019, 01:06:13 AM
Page 5 BL.
Go to page 5 on this thread to see the video.
Thanks.
Oh. I thought you meant actual bricks, like the kind used for building houses. Instead, it's these thin plates specifically made for breaking. That was a lot less impressive than you made it out to be. Yeah, I'm sure his forehead hurt like hell afterwards, but it's nothing someone with enough determination and masochism couldn't accomplish. This is sad. Next you're going to be referencing the people who punch themselves in the balls as proof of "mental power."
Edit: Not to mention, this is a karate master. You know. A person who trains their physical body, and learns how to use it most efficiently to maximize damage and minimize self-injury. Not a yoga instructor, who spends all day meditating. You'd think the latter would have an easier time doing this, if it were really this brain magic that made it possible.
Quote from: Arik on May 22, 2019, 11:08:13 AM
There are people who can brake bricks with the head and other that can introduce hooks or metal rods through their flesh and feel no pain
It all depend CB.
Once you reach the stage in which you realize that this universe is a mental projection of someone very very powerful than you also realize that the matter such as a grenade can not harm you at all because what is inferior to you has no power over you.
Without evidence, I do not consider "someone very very powerful" in any theistic sense to exist.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 25, 2019, 11:07:23 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190525/1bd6b85ab9bb8583b00cd63d7e3cb730.jpg)
How on earth can you say that?
Here I clearly show that materialism is a losing option and you say...........WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING..........Are you kidding me?
Considering that the head is thousand times softer than bricks would come obvious to understand that the guy in question must have apply his mental power to break the bricks.
That clearly means that the mental power is stronger than the pysical-material power therefore materialists that only believe in physical-material power are losers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4TEmFqSxQE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xKOwmuq-Vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFRHMt4GaTs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHMoT3ogblo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QvyzTzuG5U
Quote from: Arik on May 26, 2019, 02:27:25 AM
How on earth can you say that?
Here I clearly show that materialism is a losing option and you say...........WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING..........Are you kidding me?
Considering that the head is thousand times softer than bricks would come obvious to understand that the guy in question must have apply his mental power to break the bricks.
That clearly means that the mental power is stronger than the pysical-material power therefore materialists that only believe in physical-material power are losers.
Since when does breaking a brick with your head make any logical argument? I can only smile...
If brains are not the source of conscience, why does even the head bit matter? People brake these with their hands too, don't they? And with al matter of objects.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 02:49:04 AM
If brains are not the source of conscience, why does even the head bit matter? People brake these with their hands too, don't they? And with al matter of objects.
What is this with "brake". It's "break"!
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 26, 2019, 01:11:19 AM
Oh. I thought you meant actual bricks, like the kind used for building houses. Instead, it's these thin plates specifically made for breaking. That was a lot less impressive than you made it out to be.
Gee, there got to be a big big difference between a house brick and a concrete block.
Thanks for telling me. :azn:
QuoteYeah, I'm sure his forehead hurt like hell afterwards
Not at all BL.
As you can see these guys look very well indeed after that.
Quotebut it's nothing someone with enough determination and masochism couldn't accomplish. This is sad. Next you're going to be referencing the people who punch themselves in the balls as proof of "mental power."
Why not BL.
If the mental power is superior to the physical power that need to be said and if the spiritual power is even more powerful than the mental power also that need to be said.
Obviously you guys are not going to believe that Jesus was walking on the water or heal people but again nobody expect that someone deep entrenched in materialism all of a sudden open his-her eyes and learn.
QuoteEdit: Not to mention, this is a karate master. You know. A person who trains their physical body, and learns how to use it most efficiently to maximize damage and minimize self-injury.
You just don't get it BL do you?
Not all those who can break bricks are karate masters as you can also see in my previous post.
It is rather a question to train your mind karate or not karate.
QuoteNot a yoga instructor, who spends all day meditating. You'd think the latter would have an easier time doing this, if it were really this brain magic that made it possible.
You have no idea what you are talking about my friend.
Yoga goes well over the mental power so obviously anyone serious in meditation must have a lot more power than the physical and mental power put together.
The only reason why a serious yogy doesn't show his-her power is because we surrender that power to our guru for some simple reasons.
It is very very dangerous to use that power.
Once you start using it you want more and more and that is energy that leave you beside it would attract a lot of karma and you don't want to get stuck with more and more reincarnation in the effort of getting rid of that karma.
The aim of a serious yogy is to get closer and closer to the source of everything and by using that power you just get farther and farther away from it so obviously you will never see a serious yogy playing up with power.
Only once you reach the apex of human existence you can use that power without any problem and that is what Jesus, Shiva, Krishna and few other were doing.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 03:01:08 AM
What is this with "brake". It's "break"!
You are 100% correct.
Thanks for telling us.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 02:49:04 AM
If brains are not the source of conscience, why does even the head bit matter? People brake these with their hands too, don't they? And with al matter of objects.
Surely the brain is not the source of the conscience but because the consciousness reside in the brain and more exactly in the pineal gland the two in a way become one.
A bit like when you travel in your vehicle so you and the vehicle become one that is why everything matter.
Quote from: Arik on May 25, 2019, 10:18:28 AM
Good point.
A lot of people ignore that the seeds originate from the same tree of life.
A good summary of Yoga history ... aka the sum of Indian experience ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92J-JPChaeI
Quote from: Arik on May 26, 2019, 03:10:46 AM
You are 100% correct.
Thanks for telling us.
The correction was needed. I was laughing too loud at home about "brakes".
But that makes me wonder. If the spelling was a non-English-first-language thing, I do apologize. It wasn't meant as an insult. I made an assumption that may have been wrong.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 04:06:52 AM
The correction was needed. I was laughing too loud at home about "brakes".
But that makes me wonder. If the spelling was a non-English-first-language thing, I do apologize. It wasn't meant as an insult. I made an assumption that may have been wrong.
Not just that, but American spelling isn't the only English ... the English spell differently, and that Indian English is different yet.
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 04:09:01 AM
Not just that, but American spelling isn't the only English ... the English spell differently, and that Indian English is different yet.
Do you confuse "breaks" with "brakes? Just asking.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 04:12:10 AM
Do you confuse "breaks" with "brakes? Just asking.
Are you Funk, or Wagnal? Who made you the grammar Nazi? There is more than one spelling of words, in World English. This was potentially the case. Or a simple error. Either way, you show what a demi-god you are ;-)
Quote from: Arik on May 26, 2019, 03:19:52 AM
Surely the brain is not the source of the conscience but because the consciousness reside in the brain and more exactly in the pineal gland the two in a way become one.
A bit like when you travel in your vehicle so you and the vehicle become one that is why everything matter.
But it also resides in the rest of the body? I mean, plants don't have pineal glands. We've already established to dissagree if plants are conscious or not, but you believe they are, don't you?
Also, we've been using 'conscience' where I think we should have been using 'consciousness' for a while now.
Noticed it after Cavebear pointed out the 'Break' 'brake' thingamajig.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 05:28:02 AM
But it also resides in the rest of the body? I mean, plants don't have pineal glands. We've already established to dissagree if plants are conscious or not, but you believe they are, don't you?
Also, we've been using 'conscience' where I think we should have been using 'consciousness' for a while now.
Noticed it after Cavebear pointed out the 'Break' 'brake' thingamajig.
Conciousness is tricky. Plants react to insect attacks, and seem to warn other plants. But in the human sense, no, plants are not concious. as we understand it.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 06:01:52 AM
Conciousness is tricky. Plants react to insect attacks, and seem to warn other plants. But in the human sense, no, plants are not concious. as we understand it.
I agree, it's what I also told rikki. Plant perception is a thing, but it is not actual consciousness as we say in day to day meaning.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 06:19:59 AM
I agree, it's what I also told rikki. Plant perception is a thing, but it is not actual consciousness as we say in day to day meaning.
Yes. And I do try to distinguish between plant and animal conciousness. But the more I read about plant studies, the more I wonder. I suspect it is all just a matter of degree.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 06:19:59 AM
I agree, it's what I also told rikki. Plant perception is a thing, but it is not actual consciousness as we say in day to day meaning.
I could claim the same for most voters ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 07:11:18 AM
I could claim the same for most voters ;-)
Coming from a Trump supporter, that is quite an emission...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 07:36:20 AM
Coming from a Trump supporter, that is quite an emission...
Not a Trump supporter. Just not an Orange Man Bad psychopath. There is no such thing as morality. Therefore all politicians are equally innocent/guilty.
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 10:12:03 AM
Not a Trump supporter. Just not an Orange Man Bad psychopath. There is no such thing as morality. Therefore all politicians are equally innocent/guilty.
You might not suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but you have all the hallmarks of a moral relativist.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 26, 2019, 10:16:28 AM
You might not suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but you have all the hallmarks of a moral relativist.
Moral nihilist. A relativist would say ... what I like is more moral than what you like. Please get it right ;-) Cavebear is a relativist.
Quote from: Arik on May 26, 2019, 02:27:25 AM
How on earth can you say that?
Here I clearly show that materialism is a losing option and you say...........WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING..........Are you kidding me?
Considering that the head is thousand times softer than bricks would come obvious to understand that the guy in question must have apply his mental power to break the bricks.
That clearly means that the mental power is stronger than the pysical-material power therefore materialists that only believe in physical-material power are losers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4TEmFqSxQE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xKOwmuq-Vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFRHMt4GaTs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHMoT3ogblo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QvyzTzuG5U
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190526/5363aa61b7526eea8fb4011b2e307875.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 05:28:02 AM
But it also resides in the rest of the body? I mean, plants don't have pineal glands. We've already established to dissagree if plants are conscious or not, but you believe they are, don't you?
As the consciousness in an entity get more advanced the need arise for a medium to host or accommodate such a consciousness so animals who have a spinal cord and humans need a place and the pineal gland is such a place.
A plant has got such a tiny consciousness that there is no need for her to create a medium capable to old her tiny consciousness which may reside anywhere in her body.
Awareness in consciousness goes in degree from no awareness in matter to tiny awareness in plants to more awareness in animals until the apex of total awareness is reached when humans merge in God and at that stage consciousness is everywhere so the pineal gland or a body is not needed anymore .
QuoteAlso, we've been using 'conscience' where I think we should have been using 'consciousness' for a while now.
Noticed it after Cavebear pointed out the 'Break' 'brake' thingamajig.
Conscience may feel you guilty or happy.
When I am awake I am conscious and my awareness come from my consciousness.
As you can see they may sound differently but at the end they are very very similar to each other.
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 10:26:01 AM
Moral nihilist. A relativist would say ... what I like is more moral than what you like. Please get it right ;-) Cavebear is a relativist.
Why nihilist? You don't think there are any moral values?
I don't know what label I qualify for, but I do believe there are moral values; just not any absolute ones. Does that make me a relativist? IDK. I like Sam Harris' explanation of moral values as a landscape. At the bottoms is suffering and the various peaks are wellbeing and happiness. Then you can talk about the extremes of the values in the landscape, and how many dimensions there are.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 26, 2019, 01:04:41 PM
Why nihilist? You don't think there are any moral values?
I don't know what label I qualify for, but I do believe there are moral values; just not any absolute ones. Does that make me a relativist? IDK. I like Sam Harris' explanation of moral values as a landscape. At the bottoms is suffering and the various peaks are wellbeing and happiness. Then you can talk about the extremes of the values in the landscape, and how many dimensions there are.
There are no genuine moral values, among humans. Not what I want, this is an empirical observation. People are not bat shit crazy just to be bat shit crazy. But are situational crazy. And in the moment, their Id (Forbidden Planet) kicks in with irrational survival of the meanest, like the Bill Murray speech to the NYC mayor in the first Ghostbusters movie. When people are only potential not actual, they talk shop. And after the zombie cannibalism is over, then they rationalize. Just the way we are.
Sam Harris is Buddhist, very beta male. In a bar fight, he would be the first one killed and eaten (along with any other cucked pacifists). Lord of the Flies is very real, the Donner Party is very real ... but the blinders don't come off very often. Every person, as victim, is a child subject to immediate extermination at Auschwitz. Every person, as a perp, is a Auschwitz camp guard, a baby Hitler. Every person will sell out their own mother under the right circumstances, am I right Winston Smith? The rats are hungry for your face!
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 26, 2019, 01:11:19 AM
Oh. I thought you meant actual bricks, like the kind used for building houses. Instead, it's these thin plates specifically made for breaking. That was a lot less impressive than you made it out to be. Yeah, I'm sure his forehead hurt like hell afterwards, but it's nothing someone with enough determination and masochism couldn't accomplish. This is sad. Next you're going to be referencing the people who punch themselves in the balls as proof of "mental power."
Edit: Not to mention, this is a karate master. You know. A person who trains their physical body, and learns how to use it most efficiently to maximize damage and minimize self-injury. Not a yoga instructor, who spends all day meditating. You'd think the latter would have an easier time doing this, if it were really this brain magic that made it possible.
And bricks, as we know, don't hit back.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 26, 2019, 05:18:11 PM
And bricks, as we know, don't hit back.
What, randomly arranged bricks aren't sentient?
Not according to Bolo Yeung.
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 02:19:03 PM
There are no genuine moral values, among humans. Not what I want, this is an empirical observation. People are not bat shit crazy just to be bat shit crazy. But are situational crazy. And in the moment, their Id (Forbidden Planet) kicks in with irrational survival of the meanest, like the Bill Murray speech to the NYC mayor in the first Ghostbusters movie. When people are only potential not actual, they talk shop. And after the zombie cannibalism is over, then they rationalize. Just the way we are.
They're not exactly abstract like math or anything. They're tied to humans, obviously. There wouldn't be any ethics without humans to propagate them.
We have morals, because of social cohesion - if you take that away, of course we're gonna act like asocial animals where physical strength and survival ability kicks in. But lest you didn't last notice, we live in a civilization, where we suppress our animalistic instincts to be able to live with each other; I'm sure you already know this.
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 02:19:03 PM
Sam Harris is Buddhist, very beta male. In a bar fight, he would be the first one killed and eaten (along with any other cucked pacifists). Lord of the Flies is very real, the Donner Party is very real ... but the blinders don't come off very often. Every person, as victim, is a child subject to immediate extermination at Auschwitz. Every person, as a perp, is a Auschwitz camp guard, a baby Hitler. Every person will sell out their own mother under the right circumstances, am I right Winston Smith? The rats are hungry for your face!
Yet even animals, social animals for the most part, display moral behavior such as compassion and empathy. It is only when kicked out of fucking society (for humans) and under tough pressure that the basest of behavior becomes evident. Is this any surprise? It's like asking what happens if you take away air, and somehow expect everyone still be able to breathe.
Optimist! ;-) A well fed tiger, isn't dangerous. A starving tiger, is dangerous. What does that show you about tigers? Depends on context.
We don't have a common community, we have war of everyone against everyone else ... we are even trying to progressively eliminate marriage and the family. Collectivism is tribalism, is nationalism ... that is bad? We are 7 billion individuals, being divided and ruled by George Soros etc. while being collectively monitored via the new Big Brother. But if collectivism is wrong, then the UN, the EU etc are wrong also. You won't end war by ending nations and tribes. Collectivism has real problems, so does individualism. I would never turn my back on the most dangerous animal in this solar system ... and they are not the Kzinti ...
They're not mutually exclusive. You can still retain your individualism while still live collectively. It's only when you're ideologically possessed that collectivism becomes a problem.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 26, 2019, 06:10:13 PM
They're not mutually exclusive. You can still retain your individualism while still live collectively. It's only when you're ideologically possessed that collectivism becomes a problem.
People are possessed by Satan ... really repossessed, because of unplayable debt ;-( Mutual exclusion (false view) is the modus operandi for ideology.
I like Groucho Marx ... that any group that would have me as a member, I don't want to be a member.
Here's a guy with a really hard head - but not quite hard enough! :-P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9uYttWZx4Q
This is why I never took "Use your head" literally ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 10:12:03 AM
There is no such thing as morality.
I agree in the sense that morals are religious. I care more about ethics, which are not.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 09:25:27 PM
I agree in the sense that morals are religious. I care more about ethics, which are not.
Correct again. But X-ethics is an oxymoron, like military justice. Really just means fairness ... everyone starts with the same number of poker cards, from a random deck. Then the merit system of play/bluff cuts in. That only works in ... poker.
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 09:59:06 PM
Correct again. But X-ethics is an oxymoron, like military justice. Really just means fairness ... everyone starts with the same number of poker cards, from a random deck. Then the merit system of play/bluff cuts in. That only works in ... poker.
"X-ethics"? Well, of course that makes no sense, since you just made up the term. And "military justice" is real, being about having true peers judge their own.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 10:39:53 PM
"X-ethics"? Well, of course that makes no sense, since you just made up the term. And "military justice" is real, being about having true peers judge their own.
Sorry, but I condemn ethics as virtue signaling hypocrisy. I consider all human behavior to be risible hypocrisy. Life isn't fair. If you don't like it, contact someone from the Dr Kavorkian society.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 26, 2019, 06:34:46 PM
Here's a guy with a really hard head - but not quite hard enough! :-P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9uYttWZx4Q
That is very funny UB.
Unfortunately the guy didn't know that the strength must come from the mind not from the body or head.
He will learn eventually (one day).
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*YZyHx8ZittvvirTTlwffxQ.gif)
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 04:06:07 AM
A good summary of Yoga history ... aka the sum of Indian experience ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92J-JPChaeI
A lot of interesting things in that video however there is something very important missing and that is the fact that yoga must be dynamic in nature rather than rely on old ways of practicing.
Humans change all the time therefore what was correct hundreds or thousand years ago is not good anymore.
There got to be a sort of UP TO DATE system in place which only a guru can give.
Take acupuncture.
When it started maybe few thousand years ago the human nervous system was a bit different from what we have today so that system of acupuncture was quite efficient but today is less and less effective.
The mantra in yoga must also change because our glands have gone through some changes in the meantime and that is a point missing in that video.
Quote from: Arik on May 27, 2019, 10:35:31 AM
A lot of interesting things in that video however there is something very important missing and that is the fact that yoga must be dynamic in nature rather than rely on old ways of practicing.
Humans change all the time therefore what was correct hundreds or thousand years ago is not good anymore.
There got to be a sort of UP TO DATE system in place which only a guru can give.
Take acupuncture.
When it started maybe few thousand years ago the human nervous system was a bit different from what we have today so that system of acupuncture was quite efficient but today is less and less effective.
The mantra in yoga must also change because our glands have gone through some changes in the meantime and that is a point missing in that video.
What a crock of crap. You have been full of shit from the moment you posted on this site and you remain one today. You are consistent; idiot you are and idiot you shall remain. You make pronouncements and expect us to take that for evidence of some kind; and really, it is evidence of a sort--the sort that proves you are simply a driveling idiot; and you are consistent in that. At least you do serve a purpose--if I forget what a driveling idiot writes like, all I have to do is read any of your posts.
first of all nitwit. The skull is NOT 1000 times weaker than a concrete block. Second you don 't present a single video of a real concrete block. You have videos of cheap cement slabs maybe 1-1/2" thick with little spacers between them. Anyone over the age of 5 can most likely break one of these. Also be smarter than wood okay.....they are not breaking a 1x12 length wise they are breaking a 1x12 width wise...for god sake boy I can drop a glass of water on a 1x12 and break it in half. Are you stupid? Do you not understand the simplicity of wood grain or real concrete? Are you that fucking stupid?
For fuck sake moron I grew up in construction, I can break a 1" concrete slab just by sitting on it. Any normal sized human can break a 1x12 across the grain....god boy do you not understand simple physics? You are the most ignorant naive fuck ever, If Jim Jones was still alive you would think he was a god.
Post a video of a guy breaking a REAL concrete block with his head. Post a video of a person breaking a real piece of lumber against the grain...like a 1x4 that is merely 24" inches long against the grain. Good luck. Color me impressed with a real concrete block.
Not that it matters too much, materialism is far more successful and impressive to human development than your bullshit panty waist moronic piff. At least with materialism you have something tangible, real, beneficial, and monetary...all you have is you talking to a wall in grammies basement thinking you are doing to win a interview with some imaginary pussified puffcake that can't even guarantee an available burger at a McDonalds.
Why there have to be one God? Maybe they are a council of Gods who created the earth and living creatures on it...
You have no knowledge; but you have ideas...on what you don't have knowledge...
I think the closest philosophy that supports the scientific thought is, materialism... And materialism is an atheistic philosophy...
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 27, 2019, 07:17:17 PM
Why there have to be one God? Maybe they are a council of Gods who created the earth and living creatures on it...
You have no knowledge; but you have ideas...on what you don't have knowledge...
I think the closest philosophy that supports the scientific thought is, materialism... And materialism is an atheistic philosophy...
The OT clearly indicates god(s) ... thus you are to selectively worship only one. Later interpretation reduced the other gods to non-entities. Then the NT messed things up again (Hellenistic Jews) ... with ambiguity regarding the relationship within what would later be called a "trinity".
Quote from: aitm on May 27, 2019, 06:18:44 PM
first of all nitwit. The skull is NOT 1000 times weaker than a concrete block. Second you don 't present a single video of a real concrete block. You have videos of cheap cement slabs maybe 1-1/2" thick with little spacers between them. Anyone over the age of 5 can most likely break one of these. Also be smarter than wood okay.....they are not breaking a 1x12 length wise they are breaking a 1x12 width wise...for god sake boy I can drop a glass of water on a 1x12 and break it in half. Are you stupid? Do you not understand the simplicity of wood grain or real concrete? Are you that fucking stupid?
For fuck sake moron I grew up in construction, I can break a 1" concrete slab just by sitting on it. Any normal sized human can break a 1x12 across the grain....god boy do you not understand simple physics? You are the most ignorant naive fuck ever, If Jim Jones was still alive you would think he was a god.
Post a video of a guy breaking a REAL concrete block with his head. Post a video of a person breaking a real piece of lumber against the grain...like a 1x4 that is merely 24" inches long against the grain. Good luck. Color me impressed with a real concrete block.
Not that it matters too much, materialism is far more successful and impressive to human development than your bullshit panty waist moronic piff. At least with materialism you have something tangible, real, beneficial, and monetary...all you have is you talking to a wall in grammies basement thinking you are doing to win a interview with some imaginary pussified puffcake that can't even guarantee an available burger at a McDonalds.
I suppose that some materialists must be dreaming that when they die they may carry with them all their money and material things that they own now?
What a joke considering that you can only carry with you your consciousness as already proven by thousand of NDEs and if your consciousness is full of materialistic ideas then you are in a real mess but of course all this will turn into reality later on for people like you.
In the meantime you still haven't explained how is possible that after breaking dozen of thick concrete blocks the people do not show any sign of injury on their head.
And what about during the Indus festival where there is no sign of injury once the metal rods are taken away from their bodies.
I have seen that.
You on the contrary haven't so what are you babble about things that you do not know?
They want to become disembodied AI software in a constantly upgraded computer
blah blah....
materialists must be dreaming blah blah
if your consciousness is full of materialistic ideas blah blah...er...what? LOLOLOL...blah blah
blah blah....steel rods...oh my...
meanwhile...still no real proof. blah blah blah..
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 27, 2019, 07:17:17 PM
I think the closest philosophy that supports the scientific thought is, materialism... And materialism is an atheistic philosophy...
Yeah, the world of science uses something called
metodological naturalism (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism), and, considering its success down through the centuries, I don't think the world of science is about to replace it with woo.
Quote from: Arik on May 28, 2019, 05:37:54 AM
What a joke considering that you can only carry with you your consciousness as already proven by thousand of NDEs and if your consciousness is full of materialistic ideas then you are in a real mess but of course all this will turn into reality later on for people like you.
Have you ever noticed that there's an "N" in NDE? It stands for "near" and means that the person having the experience did not die, but only nearly so. So NDE's prove nothing at all about any sort of life or conciousness after death.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 28, 2019, 01:31:42 PM
Have you ever noticed that there's an "N" in NDE? It stands for "near" and means that the person having the experience did not die, but only nearly so. So NDE's prove nothing at all about any sort of life or conciousness after death.
This has already been pointed out to him, as well as the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDE's. Some people just refuse to change their minds when the facts are presented to them.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 28, 2019, 02:16:12 PM
This has already been pointed out to him, as well as the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDE's. Some people just refuse to change their minds when the facts are presented to them.
This guy doesn't know facts from fancy--much like trump; facts simply do not matter, especially when they interfere with is beliefs.
Maybe he's just a fan of those "alternative facts."
Watch out for scientism it isn't science. Scientism says that everything is science. That I was conducting a post-graduate science experiment in Athens in 1983, when I drank too much Retsina, and had to crawl to the toilet to throw up. That would be "mad science" not science.
There is nothing "wrong" with "materialism". Materialism is not a swear word or disparaging one, materialism is the one thing that most all humans have and enjoy. It is the very thing that gives life LIFE. It's all fine and dandy if Arik wants to live under a blue tarp in the woods eating grass and acorns and thinking, "hey, I have connected with the great one and when I die, I will be rewarded handsomely-----with all the shit he supposedly frowns on now. But fear not friends, owning shit is great. Having shit is great, having money is great, having more money is ever greater. Don't listen to this layabout lazy fuck who won't work long enough to buy his own sandwich...he is out in the street begging for your money.
Embrace our lives...enjoy it. I do.
Nothing wrong with theist either. Just words. Nothing wrong with Nazi, communist, cannibal etc. Words can't hurt you, right?
Quote from: Baruch on May 28, 2019, 08:26:55 PM
Nothing wrong with theist either. Just words. Nothing wrong with Nazi, communist, cannibal etc. Words can't hurt you, right?
Common saying.....but apparently all lies.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 28, 2019, 02:16:12 PM
This has already been pointed out to him, as well as the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDE's. Some people just refuse to change their minds when the facts are presented to them.
What a load o'crap.
Where suppose to be the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDEs?
Show that to me BL and I mean real evidence not just guessing.
In the meantime I show to you some real evidence that the brain is totally off.
For practical purposes outside the world of academic debate, three clinical tests commonly determine brain death. First, a standard electroencephalogram, or EEG, measures brain-wave activity. A "flat" EEG denotes non-function of the cerebral cortex - the outer shell of the cerebrum. Second, auditory evoked potentials, similar to those [clicks] elicited by the ear speakers in Pam's surgery, measure brain-stem viability. Absence of these potentials indicates non-function of the brain stem. And third, documentation of no blood flow to the brain is a marker for a generalized absence of brain function.
But during "standstill", Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical tests - her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was absent, and no blood flowed through her brain. Interestingly, while in this state, she encountered the "deepest" NDE of all Atlanta Study participants.
Some scientists theorize that NDEs are produced by brain chemistry. But, Dr. Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist and the leading authority in Britain concerning NDEs, believes that these theories fall far short of the facts. In the documentary, "Into the Unknown: Strange But True," Dr. Fenwick describes the state of the brain during an NDE:
"The brain isn't functioning. It's not there. It's destroyed. It's abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very clear experiences ... an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don't know what's happening and the brain isn't working. The memory systems are particularly sensitive to unconsciousness. So, you won't remember anything. But, yet, after one of these experiences [an NDE], you come out with clear, lucid memories ... This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact."
https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-have-ndes-while-brain-dead.html
TL:DR....shit happens when you kinda temporarily die....ish. Shit be happening we don't understand yet so we don't want to just randomly make up stuff....
Arik: THERE IS A CONNECTION TWIXT HUMANS AND THE UNY-VERSE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY THE UNDEAD DEAD.....GOD DID IT BUT GOD IS NOT THE GOD YOU SEE BUT HE IS THE GOD OF THE UNY-VERSE AND ALSO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BUT NOT THE GOD OF THE ...ER.......YEAH.
Quote from: Arik on May 29, 2019, 07:19:04 PM
What a load o'crap.
Where suppose to be the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDEs?
Show that to me BL and I mean real evidence not just guessing.
Do scientific journals by neuroscientists studying the brain during and around NDE's count as "evidence" to you? Of course not. Clearly, it's the people with the degrees who are guessing, not the meditating manbuns. You're a fucking idiot. Here. Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/). If you're interested in undumbing yourself, learn how to use it. I'm not doing the work for a willful moron.
Quote from: Arik on May 29, 2019, 07:19:04 PMIn the meantime I show to you some real evidence that the brain is totally off.
Oh yes. Your sources are totally accurate, up-to-date with what experts currently know, and are trustworthy, coming from true authorities on the subject. Since I know you have the intelligence of a pet rock, let me spell this out for you. I'm being sarcastic right now, and you can go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Arik on May 27, 2019, 10:35:31 AMWhen it started maybe few thousand years ago the human nervous system was a bit different from what we have today so that system of acupuncture was quite efficient but today is less and less effective.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/dd/ddd25bdcc9b156390f5fdd78d98aec49528bd4996a0d9f71005a3c06d8d8ab93.jpg)
Acupuncture was first documented at around 100 BC. A little over 2000 years ago.
Any evidence to support this? Or just more of the same? (Bullshit claim after bullshit claim)
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 29, 2019, 10:51:01 PM
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/dd/ddd25bdcc9b156390f5fdd78d98aec49528bd4996a0d9f71005a3c06d8d8ab93.jpg)
Acupuncture was first documented at around 100 BC. A little over 2000 years ago.
Any evidence to support this? Or just more of the same? (Bullshit claim after bullshit claim)
Arik is starting to remind me of Spirit Science on YouTube. If you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a video about him. (I don't want to give Spirit Science's channel any views.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nazSov2_gvg
Quote from: aitm on May 29, 2019, 10:13:21 AM
Common saying.....but apparently all lies.
You didn't get my irony. Words hurt a lot, even cause genocide. Words are among the greatest and oldest WMD we humans have.
There is New Age stuff, and genuine Indian stuff. Not saying which is which.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 29, 2019, 10:51:01 PM
Acupuncture was first documented at around 100 BC. A little over 2000 years ago.
Any evidence to support this? Or just more of the same? (Bullshit claim after bullshit claim)
Gee, what a big deal Hydra...................
2000 years aren't ...................what I said about few thousand years?
So where is the big deal?
However there is something that you ignore and that is that human progress follow the same system as an avalanche.
In the early stages it goes so so slow that we can hardly see it moving but as it take speed it goes faster and faster.
Human civilization follow the same system.
For almost a million years there was hardly any progress but about 15000 years ago things start moving and now the speed of progress is going very fast so humans that stayed almost the same for such a long time now even in 20 years time they are going through a huge change.
Our bodies and nervous system must cope with different task and that in turn bring a lot of changes in us humans.
Just 50 years ago most people used their body to perform task while today automatism replace humans so muscles are not needed so much and this involve changes in our bodies and mind that is why what worked in the past can not work so much these days.
Quote from: aitm on May 29, 2019, 08:26:07 PM
TL:DR....shit happens when you kinda temporarily die....ish. Shit be happening we don't understand yet so we don't want to just randomly make up stuff....
Arik: THERE IS A CONNECTION TWIXT HUMANS AND THE UNY-VERSE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY THE UNDEAD DEAD.....GOD DID IT BUT GOD IS NOT THE GOD YOU SEE BUT HE IS THE GOD OF THE UNY-VERSE AND ALSO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BUT NOT THE GOD OF THE ...ER.......YEAH.
Oh, well why you guys didn't tell me in the first place that you are not interested in evidence?
First you ask me for evidence that the brain is not dead during an NDE.
After when I bring evidence you say..........blah....blah.....blah....... and then change argument by talking this nonsense as above.
Make up your mind?
(https://images.middletonstours.co.uk/tbsimages/overview/670x295_mysterysign.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BgMpr4z.jpg)
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 29, 2019, 09:54:47 PM
Do scientific journals by neuroscientists studying the brain during and around NDE's count as "evidence" to you? Of course not. Clearly, it's the people with the degrees who are guessing, not the meditating manbuns. You're a fucking idiot. Here. Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/). If you're interested in undumbing yourself, learn how to use it. I'm not doing the work for a willful moron.
Oh yes. Your sources are totally accurate, up-to-date with what experts currently know, and are trustworthy, coming from true authorities on the subject. Since I know you have the intelligence of a pet rock, let me spell this out for you. I'm being sarcastic right now, and you can go fuck yourself.
The evidence hurt BL, isn't?
Or maybe not if you sweep it under the carpet.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 29, 2019, 11:08:56 PM
Arik is starting to remind me of Spirit Science on YouTube. If you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a video about him. (I don't want to give Spirit Science's channel any views.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nazSov2_gvg
A cult is nothing else but a set of people with a set of practices.
What make a cult good or bad is all related to good or bad practices so to denigrate the word cult without first understanding what this cult is all about denote an high level of stupidity.
Quote from: Arik on May 30, 2019, 10:23:13 AMHowever there is something that you ignore and that is that human progress follow the same system as an avalanche.
In the early stages it goes so so slow that we can hardly see it moving but as it take speed it goes faster and faster.
Human civilization follow the same system.
For almost a million years there was hardly any progress but about 15000 years ago things start moving and now the speed of progress is going very fast so humans that stayed almost the same for such a long time now even in 20 years time they are going through a huge change.
The claim was about anatomical change, not technological change. Only an idiot would find your doubling-down on bullshit (once again sans evidence) convincing.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 29, 2019, 11:08:56 PM
Arik is starting to remind me of Spirit Science on YouTube. If you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a video about him. (I don't want to give Spirit Science's channel any views.)
He really does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDx1Kh2iU6o
All of his arguments rely entirely on the audience wanting to believe his claims and therefore accepting everything without skepticism. This works great on friendly audiences but collapses spectacularly with skeptical audiences. Perhaps no one informed him of this or perhaps he thinks his sheer charisma *laughs* will carry the day. Either way, it's foolish and mildly insulting.
Quote from: Arik on May 30, 2019, 11:22:03 AM
A cult is nothing else but a set of people with a set of practices.
What make a cult good or bad is all related to good or bad practices so to denigrate the word cult without first understanding what this cult is all about denote an high level of stupidity.
A cult is a religion without mainstream acceptance.
Yeah, the only difference between a cult and a mainstream religion is the size of its voting block.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 30, 2019, 12:42:19 PM
A cult is a religion without mainstream acceptance.
Eh. There are different ways of defining the word "cult." Most of the time, people just use it as a derogatory term about a collective of people who believe the same. Christians, for example, tend to think every religion other than theirs is a cult. Mormonism is a cult, Islam is a cult, etc. Then there's the B.I.T.E. model, which I think is acceptable. Personally, I just define cults as religious groups that try to isolate its members and/or cause serious physical, emotional, or monetary harm through its mandates. I actually wouldn't consider Spirit Science a cult, but just an idiot.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 30, 2019, 12:42:19 PM
A cult is a religion without mainstream acceptance.
How many Hindus? (rhetorical)
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 30, 2019, 03:01:23 PMPersonally, I just define cults as religious groups that try to isolate its members and/or cause serious physical, emotional, or monetary harm through its mandates.
If you want to be super technical about it, a cult is just a new religious movement.
You seem to be using the term in the general sense, which is akin to a destructive or socially harmful cult. That's fine, that's how most people use the term, but it's kind of a messy, subjective, derogatory term (hence the technical one)
My issue with the general definition is that even some major religions would be considered cults since they exhibit this behavior to a certain extent (do not yoke yourself with unbelievers, blessed be the marytr, blessed are those that tithe, etc).
Of course, these ideas no longer have quite the traction they once had, but they're still very much part of the underlying message. It seems strange to give them a pass and condemn their pallette-swapped cousins as cultists for pretty much the same sort of thing.
In academic circles I think, they use "cultus" for the non-pejorative meaning (sub sect or new sect). Cult retaining the pejorative meaning.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 27, 2019, 11:25:05 AM
What a crock of crap. You have been full of shit from the moment you posted on this site and you remain one today. You are consistent; idiot you are and idiot you shall remain. You make pronouncements and expect us to take that for evidence of some kind; and really, it is evidence of a sort--the sort that proves you are simply a driveling idiot; and you are consistent in that. At least you do serve a purpose--if I forget what a driveling idiot writes like, all I have to do is read any of your posts.
Don't beat around the bush, man, speak your mind. Seriously, I agree completely. That was a real diaper-load from Arik. I am constantly amazed that some people can continue to believe in such medieval ideas.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 30, 2019, 11:57:34 PM
Don't beat around the bush, man, speak your mind. Seriously, I agree completely. That was a real diaper-load from Arik. I am constantly amazed that some people can continue to believe in such medieval ideas.
In GB they have Jedi as a recognized religion.
Quote from: Baruch on May 31, 2019, 12:05:02 AM
In GB they have Jedi as a recognized religion.
Anyone can start a religion. All you need is a good speaker and a hook. And a collection plate.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 30, 2019, 12:14:02 PM
The claim was about anatomical change, not technological change. Only an idiot would find your doubling-down on bullshit (once again sans evidence) convincing.
You don't seem to get it Hydra, do you?
There is always a strong connection between anatomical changes and technological changes.
Anatomical changes are due to an higher level of consciousness and this consciousness evolve due to more challenges which in turn create more technology.
It is all connected but you wouldn't see any connection.
How sad.
What is all this garbage about cults that suppose to be only part and parcel of some religious group of fanatics?
Where is written that this is the case?
A cult is a believe in something, in some practices that are followed by a set of people.
All you do guys is making up a lot of guessing a lot of stories and nothing else because not all those who follow some practices are following bad practices.
That is very bizarre of you because you suppose to be open mind people but in reality you generalize a lot and that show how close minded you are.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 02:01:34 AM
Anyone can start a religion. All you need is a good speaker and a hook. And a collection plate.
So what is stopping you? ;-}
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 30, 2019, 12:18:47 PM
He really does.
All of his arguments rely entirely on the audience wanting to believe his claims and therefore accepting everything without skepticism. This works great on friendly audiences but collapses spectacularly with skeptical audiences. Perhaps no one informed him of this or perhaps he thinks his sheer charisma *laughs* will carry the day. Either way, it's foolish and mildly insulting.
Nothing really to do with SKEPTICAL audiences Hydra.
It has to do instead with audiences that sweep under the carpet the evidence and then they say that there is no evidence.
Dr. Peter Fenwick is a neuropsychiatrist in Britain not any BS chap so if you reject his knowledge and at the same time you do not bring any material to contradict him then you show how erroneous and false you are.
Any evidence that contradicts one's religion or lack of it, politics or lack of it, is dismissed by all humans. We seek affirmation of our prejudices, not the truth.
Quote from: Baruch on May 31, 2019, 10:15:30 AM
So what is stopping you? ;-}
What makes you think I haven't? I'm retired an the collection plate is a welcome addition.
Never heard of "The Our Lady Of Perpetual Misery Hollowed Be My Name" church?
Quote from: Arik on May 31, 2019, 10:21:38 AM
Nothing really to do with SKEPTICAL audiences Hydra.
It has to do instead with audiences that sweep under the carpet the evidence and then they say that there is no evidence.
Dr. Peter Fenwick is a neuropsychiatrist in Britain not any BS chap so if you reject his knowledge and at the same time you do not bring any material to contradict him then you show how erroneous and false you are.
According to the British "The Telgraph" (of which I know nothing) Dr Fenwick bases his "new model of dying" on reports of death bed visions, such as visitations by deceased relatives, and spooky coincidences, such as clocks stopping when someone dies.
Just mentioning that...
Quote from: Arik on May 31, 2019, 09:59:33 AMAll you do guys is making up a lot of guessing a lot of stories and nothing else because not all those who follow some practices are following bad practices.
Pot hello Kettle.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 31, 2019, 10:50:57 AM
Pot hello Kettle.
I love the idea that many religions are like too many pots calling too many kettles black...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 10:32:40 AM
According to the British "The Telgraph" (of which I know nothing) Dr Fenwick bases his "new model of dying" on reports of death bed visions, such as visitations by deceased relatives, and spooky coincidences, such as clocks stopping when someone dies.
Just mentioning that...
Why don't you bring some link to that stuff so I can see the whole story.
Just mentioning that...
Quote from: Arik on May 31, 2019, 11:17:46 AM
Why don't you bring some link to that stuff so I can see the whole story.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html (ftp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html)
I messed up the quote trying to post a quote. But the link is there as requested. Sorry...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 11:44:13 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html (ftp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html)
I messed up the quote trying to post a quote. But the link is there as requested. Sorry...
Nothing really special in that link except for atheists that are still stuck to the notion that everything must follow a material outcome.
If Fenwick would be an idiot then nobody would contact him to talk and explain how things works but important institution contact him quite regularly so there has got to be a reason.
Here below you can see his credentials.
Peter Fenwick, M.D., F.R.C.Psych., is Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London, and associated with the Mental Health Group at the University of Southampton. He is also Consultant Neuropsychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital and at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, and holds a visiting professorship in Japan, where he spends three months of the year in advanced neuropsychiatric research.
https://iands.org/research/nde-research/important-research-articles/42-dr-peter-fenwick-md-science-and-spirituality.html
Just mentioning that...
These people don't believe in psychology, because it doesn't give them the confirmation bias they crave … same with philosophy. It isn't just theology they have a problem with.
Materialist have an answer for everything …
Who won the world series … atoms … one answer fits all ;-)
But there is variation in inhumanism …
Materialist - I am atoms, same as a rock.
Naturalist - I am an animal, usually herbivore.
Humanist - I am more than material, more than animal, I am special (Materialist and Naturalist groan … noooo … humans are just rocks or cows)
Hindus should adopt inhumanists as pets … they make great sacred cows ;-)
Quote from: Arik on June 01, 2019, 05:42:19 AM
Here below you can see his credentials.
My sister-in-law has a Doctorate in Social Sciences and has worked in Hospice care for 30 years.....she thinks a carpenter is a person who lays carpet.
Just saying....
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 10:28:11 AM
These people don't believe in psychology, because it doesn't give them the confirmation bias they crave … same with philosophy. It isn't just theology they have a problem with.
Materialist have an answer for everything …
Who won the world series … atoms … one answer fits all ;-)
But there is variation in inhumanism …
Materialist - I am atoms, same as a rock.
Naturalist - I am an animal, usually herbivore.
Humanist - I am more than material, more than animal, I am special (Materialist and Naturalist groan … noooo … humans are just rocks or cows)
Hindus should adopt inhumanists as pets … they make great sacred cows ;-)
You forgot the last one:
religionists- I am the product of a spectacular god a god that has existed forever that knows everything before it ever existed and how it will react and how all life forms act even though they never existed prior to his inventing them, I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen.
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 10:28:11 AM
These people don't believe in psychology, because it doesn't give them the confirmation bias they crave …
You're misusuing the term "confirmation bias." Confirmation bias is when you notice every example that is consistent with your belief, and ignore every example that contradicts it. Like when you notice every red light that stops you, forget when they don't stop you, and conclude that red lights are out to get you.
So then...how many times have you seen a soul? Oh, you haven't? That's funny. I haven't seen a single soul in my life either. Then we can't be guilty of confirmation bias, now can we? You two, on the other hand, have zero evidence for any of your claims, but are convinced of them regardless. The bias is yours. Stop trying to drag us down to your level.
Quote from: aitm on June 01, 2019, 11:01:09 AM
You forgot the last one:
religionists- I am the product of a spectacular god a god that has existed forever that knows everything before it ever existed and how it will react and how all life forms act even though they never existed prior to his inventing them, I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen.
There are irreligious humanists, and religious humanists. I am not picky.
Arrogance isn't limited to theists. All monkeys are arrogant.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 01, 2019, 12:34:58 PM
You're misusuing the term "confirmation bias." Confirmation bias is when you notice every example that is consistent with your belief, and ignore every example that contradicts it. Like when you notice every red light that stops you, forget when they don't stop you, and conclude that red lights are out to get you.
So then...how many times have you seen a soul? Oh, you haven't? That's funny. I haven't seen a single soul in my life either. Then we can't be guilty of confirmation bias, now can we? You two, on the other hand, have zero evidence for any of your claims, but are convinced of them regardless. The bias is yours. Stop trying to drag us down to your level.
How many times have you seen a mind? This is why in Behaviorism dogma, they assumed there was no mind.
People select evidence according to their emotional commitments … whether verses from the Bible or Das Capital.
And yes, we all ignore contradictory evidence, that Is where we say … that isn't valid evidence. We have to protect our precious egos.
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 06:22:40 PM
How many times have you seen a mind? This is why in Behaviorism dogma, they assumed there was no mind.
People select evidence according to their emotional commitments … whether verses from the Bible or Das Capital.
And yes, we all ignore contradictory evidence, that Is where we say … that isn't valid evidence. We have to protect our precious egos.
Unlike the soul, the mind can be observed through science. So again, what evidence have we been ignoring? Or are you just committing a false equivalence fallacy? We know the answer. The question is will you admit it?
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 02, 2019, 12:09:09 AM
Unlike the soul, the mind can be observed through science. So again, what evidence have we been ignoring? Or are you just committing a false equivalence fallacy? We know the answer. The question is will you admit it?
That is bizarre BL.
Atheists glorify physical science but science is not something that lie there for all to see with a click of a button.
Science take time and I would say long long time to unravel all his secrets to serious scholars
So much evidences that is still to unravel will be unravel at a later stage beside physical science is not the correct type of science to unravel what lie behind the physical-material aspect of life such as the soul.
One reason why physical science is called such is because it study the physical aspect of what is there not what exist along with the physical aspect such as the soul.
I suppose atheists never ponder this simple point, isn't it BL?
Beside you have to consider that until few thousand years ago people live in caves and their main objective in life was to find food to eat rather than worry about physical science.
Occasionally they rather think about spirituality but they didn't yet come to the point in which they really understand real spirituality that is why they worship idols made of wood.
Only recently in the history of human evolution man (men & women) got interested in physical science and so far we know only a little of what is there that is why most of what is there is still hidden to us.
On the other hand real spirituality started as soon as people started ponder about real questions such as......who are we....why are we here...where are we going to.........and after sometime they understood what evolution and the scope of life is but I suppose for atheists will take a bit longer to understand and that is very very bizarre to see that people who lived few thousand years ago beat you in that task. Lol :grin:
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 06:22:40 PM
How many times have you seen a mind? This is why in Behaviorism dogma, they assumed there was no mind.
People select evidence according to their emotional commitments … whether verses from the Bible or Das Capital.
And yes, we all ignore contradictory evidence, that Is where we say … that isn't valid evidence. We have to protect our precious egos.
Our friend BL still doesn't know that at this stage in time physical science still doesn't know whether the consciousness is a product of the brain or it is totally separate and is not a product of the brain.
With this sort of knowledge BL tell us that he is better qualify to know so many other things about brain, mind, consciousness and soul.
How sad!
Quote from: Arik on June 02, 2019, 10:15:09 AM
Our friend BL still doesn't know that at this stage in time physical science still doesn't know whether the consciousness is a product of the brain or it is totally separate and is not a product of the brain.
With this sort of knowledge BL tell us that he is better qualify to know so many other things about brain, mind, consciousness and soul.
How sad!
Empirical science is hybrid. It is both outside you (in observation and experiment) and inside you (perception). What a lay person sees and what a scientist sees, isn't the same, because one has a much more refined perception. Usually engineers for instance, see a Newtonian world, even though that isn't strictly what it is. The first person to see reality this new way, in a new consciousness, was probably Archimedes.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 02, 2019, 12:09:09 AM
Unlike the soul, the mind can be observed through science. So again, what evidence have we been ignoring? Or are you just committing a false equivalence fallacy? We know the answer. The question is will you admit it?
You are equivocating. You cannot see the mind or hear it. The mind is a model, a construct that helps us understand ourselves and each other. The hand, that I can see and feel. Science says … we can see all sorts of invisible things. And you can see with PET for instance, activity in the brain. But that isn't your mind, that is just a physiological thing … that we choose to associate with mental activity. It isn't the mental activity itself.
Quote from: aitm on June 01, 2019, 11:01:09 AM
You forgot the last one:
religionists- I am the product of a spectacular god a god that has existed forever that knows everything before it ever existed and how it will react and how all life forms act even though they never existed prior to his inventing them, I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen
That may well be the attitude of a lot of religious people which I do not agree to but in your post there is something that attract my attention and that is when you say................... I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen
According to my beliefs the system doesn't really work like that.
A drop of water when she finally reach the ocean it become the ocean so at the same time when we reach the cosmic entity we become same same as the cosmic entity.
Why then should we worship ourselves?
(https://www.nuviewnutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ah-ha-moment-clipart-emoji-with-light-bulb.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on June 02, 2019, 10:22:26 AM
You are equivocating. You cannot see the mind or hear it. The mind is a model, a construct that helps us understand ourselves and each other. The hand, that I can see and feel. Science says … we can see all sorts of invisible things. And you can see with PET for instance, activity in the brain. But that isn't your mind, that is just a physiological thing … that we choose to associate with mental activity. It isn't the mental activity itself.
It is mental activity. And until you provide evidence of your proposition, the brain as the source of the mind will remain the scientific (read: "true") position. You don't get to just ignore evidence when convenient and assert your own claims without evidence.
Anyway, after I perused this thread, I decided to look up some figures about the strength of bone compared to concrete and other ceramics. Here's what I found:
Bone: ~170 MPa (compression), ~104 MPa (tension), ~53 MPa (shear)
Concrete (<1yr): ~6.895 MPa (compression), ~1.379 MPa (tension) â€"no data for shearâ€"
So this notion that the skull is "thousands" of times softer than rock or concrete or ceramic is total bollocks. If anything, it's stronger than un-reinforced concrete. Also, bone is a natural composite material, hydroxylapatite in a collagen matrix, which means that it tends to be tougher than expected. Bone is not the weak, flabby material that Arik characterizes it as; it's been honed through a half billion years of evolution to be strong, rugged and tough, able to hold up to the insults of life.
Also, all those demonstrations are breaking bricks on easymode. The way they were arranged basically gave every engineering advantage to the breakers. If those were solid blocks of stone the same thickness, or made of hardened steel which is actually legitimately strong in that application, I might be impressed.
PS, yeah, I'm back, for a bit.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 02, 2019, 12:06:09 PM
It is mental activity. And until you provide evidence of your proposition, the brain as the source of the mind will remain the scientific (read: "true") position. You don't get to just ignore evidence when convenient and assert your own claims without evidence.
Yadayada ... and my dreams are views of eternity, disprove that. Until then, you evidence for atoms is null and void. In fact, the electron probability cloud goes out to infinity. In repetitive solids, they overlap, hence conductivity. Where does one atom end and another begin? Why was "atomos" aka uncuttable ... cleverly extended once the atom was split? Because scientists are ... rhetorical.
And yes, I am convinced you have no mind, just random atom movements, same as my hot tea. My tea is sentient too! I reject any evidence you care to bring up, because ... same reason you reject mine.
Just kibitzing ... some people survive a fall of 30 stories, but not uninjured ...
http://mentalfloss.com/article/63088/how-far-can-you-fall-and-still-survive
There is difference between static compressive strength, static tensile strength, and the dynamic versions of those. And luck ;-)
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 02, 2019, 08:23:04 PM
Anyway, after I perused this thread, I decided to look up some figures about the strength of bone compared to concrete and other ceramics. Here's what I found:
Bone: ~170 MPa (compression), ~104 MPa (tension), ~53 MPa (shear)
Concrete (<1yr): ~6.895 MPa (compression), ~1.379 MPa (tension) â€"no data for shearâ€"
So this notion that the skull is "thousands" of times softer than rock or concrete or ceramic is total bollocks. If anything, it's stronger than un-reinforced concrete. Also, bone is a natural composite material, hydroxylapatite in a collagen matrix, which means that it tends to be tougher than expected. Bone is not the weak, flabby material that Arik characterizes it as; it's been honed through a half billion years of evolution to be strong, rugged and tough, able to hold up to the insults of life.
Also, all those demonstrations are breaking bricks on easymode. The way they were arranged basically gave every engineering advantage to the breakers. If those were solid blocks of stone the same thickness, or made of hardened steel which is actually legitimately strong in that application, I might be impressed.
PS, yeah, I'm back, for a bit.
I see..............so I suppose that anyone can break those materials by using only their bones or skull and the power of the mind is not necessary.
Is that so?
If you are so expert in the matter than I suppose you know why these people do not show a single scratch on their head and what about those guys that insert metal hooks through their flesh and at the end of the festival when they remove those metal hooks the hole close as nothing happen leaving no trace of blood or injuries.
How do you explain that?
Do you really think you can explain that with your compression, tension and shear logic?
https://newsfeeds.media/hindu-devotees-force-skewers-through-their-flesh-to-satisfy-the-god-shiva/
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 02, 2019, 12:06:09 PM
It is mental activity. And until you provide evidence of your proposition, the brain as the source of the mind will remain the scientific (read: "true") position. You don't get to just ignore evidence when convenient and assert your own claims without evidence.
Oh, I see..........
Here we got an other expert in the mind-brain issue.
Let us see where is this scientific position that give evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
PS. I am prepared to wait for this evidence but only until Christmas. :cool:
Quote from: Arik on May 31, 2019, 09:37:06 AM
You don't seem to get it Hydra, do you?
There is always a strong connection between anatomical changes and technological changes.
In that case, I eagerly await a hand capable of using a N64 controller properly.
(https://ci.memecdn.com/7251633.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on June 03, 2019, 09:51:48 AM
Oh, I see..........
Here we got an other expert in the mind-brain issue.
Let us see where is this scientific position that give evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
PS. I am prepared to wait for this evidence but only until Christmas. :cool:
The evidence has been presented to you several times. Your inability to understand it doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It just means that you're an idiot.
Arik logic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lu5_5Od7WY
You can't argue with such sound logic!
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 03, 2019, 12:53:52 PMYou can't argue with such sound logic!
I'm convinced the conclusions are randomly selected and any arguments in defense of it are where the real thinking happens, such as it is.
"3+3=5!"
"No it doesn't"
"Yes, it does, you're just closed off to the evidence that 3+3=5 in your 6-centric worldview."
God of the Gaps as per mind/brain dualism.
We have good evidence that the brain is the center of the mind, that they're in fact the same qualia. The story of Phineas Gage, amongst others, tell us as much. Not to mention run-of-the-mill brain surgery where brain surgeons have to know where the vital centers of the brain are located and use an electrode to map it during surgery. In fact, you can map, for instance, the motor functions of the body unto the brain.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=map+of+the+brain
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 03, 2019, 02:43:11 PM
God of the Gaps as per mind/brain dualism.
We have good evidence that the brain is the center of the mind, that they're in fact the same qualia. The story of Phineas Gage, amongst others, tell us as much. Not to mention run-of-the-mill brain surgery where brain surgeons have to know where the vital centers of the brain are located and use an electrode to map it during surgery. In fact, you can map, for instance, the motor functions of the body unto the brain.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=map+of+the+brain
The brain is the center of the nervous system. Qualia question is hard, and unresolved aka mind But I thought you people didn't do philosophy? The brain is like a radio. It isn't the radio program, but it is where the radio program manifests in a more physical form. Imagine that it is both a transmitter and receiver .. it gets a mixture of pickup from its own signals, as well as those outside. And the action/reaction part is wired up to the peripheral nervous system.
To stretch that radio analogy further, there a different configurations of the brain (i.e. plasticity) which means different memories, different perspectives, etc. from other brains.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 03, 2019, 03:06:20 PM
To stretch that radio analogy further, there a different configurations of the brain (i.e. plasticity) which means different memories, different perspectives, etc. from other brains.
Now going too far, I am not claiming the brain/nervous system is man-made as in un-natural. It took a long time, over countless generations, to make it.
Normally you wouldn't want feedback, the radio transmitter feeding back into its own receiver ... but that might explain how broken people are. Ever have an audio-visual system screech?
I think consciousness is just the brain perceiving parts of itself. Maybe the inner dialogue we experience is just communication between Wernicke's and Boca's areas. The current drive to map the brain will teach us a lot about how these things happen, but we will always have more questions.
Quote from: Arik on June 03, 2019, 09:31:06 AM
I see..............so I suppose that anyone can break those materials by using only their bones or skull and the power of the mind is not necessary.
Is that so?
I have seen no evidence that the feats you describe require any sort of "power of the mind" beyond mere discipline.
Quote
If you are so expert in the matter than I suppose you know why these people do not show a single scratch on their head
For the same reason I can hit a table and not acquire a scratch, really. There's a reason why the medical term for a scratch is "abrasion."
Quote
and what about those guys that insert metal hooks through their flesh and at the end of the festival when they remove those metal hooks the hole close as nothing happen leaving no trace of blood or injuries.
What makes you think that they get away with no blood or injuries? There is certainly a traceable hole, and if you think otherwise, you need to provide evidence that the hole simply disappears. I have no need to explain what is not evident. (No, a sensationalist newspaper article does not cut it. You need a medical examination.) As to why there's no blood (assuming there is), well, if you poke the same spot multiple times, the body is going to stop bothering healing it up completely and just scar a hole over, like your ear piercings.
Quote
How do you explain that?
Do you really think you can explain that with your compression, tension and shear logic?
Yes. You have yet to give evidence of
anything that is genuinely inexplicable. I don't think you know well enough how nature works to say anything is supernatural.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 03, 2019, 03:28:13 PM
I think consciousness is just the brain perceiving parts of itself. Maybe the inner dialogue we experience is just communication between Wernicke's and Boca's areas. The current drive to map the brain will teach us a lot about how these things happen, but we will always have more questions.
Correct. Feedback has to be part of it. Otherwise you wouldn't be conscious of self, by definition.
Quote from: Arik on June 01, 2019, 05:42:19 AM
Nothing really special in that link except for atheists that are still stuck to the notion that everything must follow a material outcome.
If Fenwick would be an idiot then nobody would contact him to talk and explain how things works but important institution contact him quite regularly so there has got to be a reason.
Here below you can see his credentials.
Peter Fenwick, M.D., F.R.C.Psych., is Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London, and associated with the Mental Health Group at the University of Southampton. He is also Consultant Neuropsychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital and at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, and holds a visiting professorship in Japan, where he spends three months of the year in advanced neuropsychiatric research.
Just mentioning that...
Just noting that he still depends on "reports of death bed visions, such as visitations by deceased relatives, and spooky coincidences, such as clocks stopping when someone dies".
His list of credentials does not change that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 03, 2019, 11:45:47 AM
In that case, I eagerly await a hand capable of using a N64 controller properly.
(https://ci.memecdn.com/7251633.jpg)
A hand?
That is a primitive way of doing.
If you will be alive maybe in 30-40 years time those machines will be controlled by the mind.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 04, 2019, 01:54:10 AM
Just noting that he still depends on "reports of death bed visions, such as visitations by deceased relatives, and spooky coincidences, such as clocks stopping when someone dies".
His list of credentials does not change that.
That article in that paper make a very short comment about what the journalist think he understood about Dr. Fenwick or maybe this journalist made up a story, who knows?
I would like to see and read what really Dr. Fenwick said in the proper context.
Only after that is possible to make a comment.
Remember however that there is a huge difference between a vision that may be caused by an hallucination and a real experience as an NDE.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 03, 2019, 03:28:13 PM
I think consciousness is just the brain perceiving parts of itself. Maybe the inner dialogue we experience is just communication between Wernicke's and Boca's areas. The current drive to map the brain will teach us a lot about how these things happen, but we will always have more questions.
How can something made of matter perceive part of itself?
That is absurd.
It would be like to say that a vehicle made of matter is able to perceive part of itself.
The consciousness is the only entity able to perceive itself same same as the driver of the vehicle is the only entity able to perceive himself.
One day you too will be able to differentiate between an abstract entity such as the consciousness and the brain which is made of matter that is only there to serve the boss-consciousness.
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a4/5d/1b/a45d1bbcfb4ae5a9e1a750f69f275984--we-the-people-human-condition.jpg)
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 03, 2019, 05:24:02 PM
I have seen no evidence that the feats you describe require any sort of "power of the mind" beyond mere discipline.
For the same reason I can hit a table and not acquire a scratch, really. There's a reason why the medical term for a scratch is "abrasion."
What makes you think that they get away with no blood or injuries? There is certainly a traceable hole, and if you think otherwise, you need to provide evidence that the hole simply disappears. I have no need to explain what is not evident. (No, a sensationalist newspaper article does not cut it. You need a medical examination.) As to why there's no blood (assuming there is), well, if you poke the same spot multiple times, the body is going to stop bothering healing it up completely and just scar a hole over, like your ear piercings.
Yes. You have yet to give evidence of anything that is genuinely inexplicable. I don't think you know well enough how nature works to say anything is supernatural.
If I wouldn't have seen with my eyes many years ago in Penang I wouldn't have believed that as soon as the hooks are removed the hole close by itself in seconds.
Apart from feeling no pain, no blood is shed and no scars will remain.
http://scribol.com/anthropology-and-history/cultures/ouch-extreme-body-piercing/
I am curious to know if any devotee has been hospitalized or seriously wounded due to this practice. Upon asking this I am answered with a very clear ‘no’. Devotees are able to obtain a trance-like state in which they feel no pain, not bleed from their wounds and leave no scars. I am amazed at their spiritual strength. The ability to control the body is achievable, but to control the mind to remain on a single focus is a far more difficult task and takes practice. Yet, despite this barrier I witnessed young children participating in Vel Kavadi, disregarding the pain of having your flesh flagellated by imploring the help of Lord Murugan.
https://snapshotfromsomewhere.com/2019/02/27/thaipusam/
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 03, 2019, 12:49:34 PM
The evidence has been presented to you several times. Your inability to understand it doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It just means that you're an idiot.
The evidence has been presented to you several times.....................oh, yeah, is that so BL.........WHEN, WHEN BL? Please show that to me so I can believe that.
Quote from: Arik on June 04, 2019, 11:05:33 AM
Please show that to me so I can believe that.
You are a good little theist, aren't you. You live in a little world in which only beliefs exist. Facts don't matter, so why even bother considering them. And you don't. You are a vapid little creature with no desire to think--that is way beyond what you are capable of, so why try???? As the typical little theist if you believe it it is so. Typical.
Quote from: Arik on June 04, 2019, 09:51:32 AM
Remember however that there is a huge difference between a vision that may be caused by an hallucination and a real experience as an NDE.
"Real experience"? Right. I had a dream when I was a little boy of flying over the house and fields next to the house and over the AuSable river. Never flew before, even in a plane at the time yet the mind was able to generate real accurate views of everything from above looking down without ever actually flying. The mind is capable of producing any thing it wants. Whether we want it too or not. I know your in love and all breathless over your yoga-ish and Indian mysticism but.....meh. When they start stopping floods or typhoons or even a runaway elephant call me.
Yeah, you'd think those yogis could do more than stage magic tricks.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 04, 2019, 01:16:27 PM
Yeah, you'd think those yogis could do more than stage magic tricks.
They can, per physiological studies. But anything that isn't an iPhone is magic. Or is an iPhone quite magical? I find it to be magical. Any sufficiently advanced technical means of suicide is indistinguishable from magic.
Quote from: aitm on June 04, 2019, 12:24:33 PM
"Real experience"? Right. I had a dream when I was a little boy of flying over the house and fields next to the house and over the AuSable river. Never flew before, even in a plane at the time yet the mind was able to generate real accurate views of everything from above looking down without ever actually flying. The mind is capable of producing any thing it wants. Whether we want it too or not. I know your in love and all breathless over your yoga-ish and Indian mysticism but.....meh. When they start stopping floods or typhoons or even a runaway elephant call me.
That was a real experience. But different from an awake experience of flying in a passenger airplane. But you only accept what confirms your rationalization (same as all other people). Arik has different experiences, is of a different culture. Therefore just a colonial subject to the Progressive Empire (authoritarianism by the Middle Class).
Quote from: Arik on June 04, 2019, 09:35:47 AM
A hand?
That is a primitive way of doing.
If you will be alive maybe in 30-40 years time those machines will be controlled by the mind.
Biofeedback devices already exist. But they aren't user friendly, same as speech-to-text ... you have to train the system to each particular user ... and that requires work, and the point of technology is to make us all gods who don't work for a living, while our android sex slaves toil away ;-)
Quote from: Arik on June 04, 2019, 11:05:33 AM
The evidence has been presented to you several times.....................oh, yeah, is that so BL.........WHEN, WHEN BL? Please show that to me so I can believe that.
All Westerners have Rudyard Kipling syndrome. You aren't a European intelligentsia ... so you need to be colonized for your own good.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2019, 12:06:25 PM
You are a good little theist, aren't you. You live in a little world in which only beliefs exist. Facts don't matter, so why even bother considering them. And you don't. You are a vapid little creature with no desire to think--that is way beyond what you are capable of, so why try???? As the typical little theist if you believe it it is so. Typical.
There is a dialectic between imagination and experience. Imagination itself being a part of experience. Literalists don't believe in the imagination, except for video games where they can pretend to the omipotence of pagan gods.
Some things have to be believed, to be seen. Some things have to be seen, to be believed. But not all believed things are seen. And not all seen things, are believed.
Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 02:11:25 PM
That was a real experience.
I think it would be characterized as a real dream, not a real experience. But them philosopher types like to insert qualifications into everything.
" was it a dream? the experience of the dream was real....ergo"....
oy
Quote from: Arik on June 04, 2019, 10:50:57 AM
If I wouldn't have seen with my eyes many years ago in Penang I wouldn't have believed that as soon as the hooks are removed the hole close by itself in seconds.
Did the wound actually close and heal, or did it seem to close with no apparent wound? Were you allowed to try to force apart the sides of the wound to make sure?
Quote
Apart from feeling no pain, no blood is shed and no scars will remain.
http://scribol.com/anthropology-and-history/cultures/ouch-extreme-body-piercing/
I am curious to know if any devotee has been hospitalized or seriously wounded due to this practice. Upon asking this I am answered with a very clear ‘no’. Devotees are able to obtain a trance-like state in which they feel no pain, not bleed from their wounds and leave no scars.
Yeah, and a hypodermic needle doesn't bleed nor leaves any scars either. Are they mystical? The way a wound is caused and the way it is handled has a great effect on whether it bleeds and whether or not it will heal up without scars. Certain wounds may even appear to be completely gone in seconds, because collagen is sticky, and as such long, shallow intrusions into the skin's outer layers tend to get pressed shut and seem to vanish.
I can speak from personal experience that you can be punctured in certain parts of your skin and not bleed much. Subcutaneous cuts and punctures particularly never did any more than ooze for me. Furthermore, it's not like none of these gurus or whatever they are have never done this before, and as such, have not worked out technique that allows them to poke themselves in such a way to cause themselves little to no bleeding, and have conditioned their skin and refined their technique such that the wound springs shut and leaves no apparent hole.
As to pain, you don't know that any of these gurus experienced no pain, rather than distancing themselves from that pain such that it doesn't affect their outward behavior. And of course, pain exists in the mind anyway, so even if they were able to poke themselves and feel no pain, it's not
that remarkable. It does speak to the discipline and technique of these gurus to do such amazing feats, but again nothing outside the realm of physical possibility.
When someone has dementia or Alzheimer's disease, do they have it because their consciousness has declined, or has their consciousness declined because they have dementia or Alzheimer's?
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 04, 2019, 07:25:25 PM
When someone had dementia or Alzheimer's disease, do they have it because their consciousness has declined, or has their consciousness declined because they have dementia or Alzheimer's?
Doctors have lists of symptoms. And sometimes the symptoms are unambiguous. But even then, we have official diagnosis as to the cause of symptoms. But that doesn't make it true, just current medical convention. Like the story of cholesterol, we now know there are two kinds, one good and one bad.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2019, 12:06:25 PM
You are a good little theist, aren't you. You live in a little world in which only beliefs exist. Facts don't matter, so why even bother considering them. And you don't. You are a vapid little creature with no desire to think--that is way beyond what you are capable of, so why try???? As the typical little theist if you believe it it is so. Typical.
You are mistaken once again my friend.
Yoga does give facts as you go along but physical science does only give today facts not what lies ahead.
What was good yesterday is not good anymore today and what is good today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow and this is a fact MC that is why intelligent people should only take this material dimension as a temporary thing not as a permanent reality because within this dimension there is not a permanent reality.
Years ago didn't you cast in the rubbish bin your box monitor in order to get the new flat monitor that right now you are watching?
Eh, but wait a moment mate.
What about the new model that just came out?
Aren't you think about that?
(https://silentsparksff.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/cropped-header-v41.jpg)
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 04, 2019, 07:25:25 PM
When someone had dementia or Alzheimer's disease, do they have it because their consciousness has declined, or has their consciousness declined because they have dementia or Alzheimer's?
One or both options are possible.
When a vehicle (and the brain is a vehicle) doesn't perform well (for different reasons) also the driver which is stuck inside has to put up with a vehicle that doesn't go properly and also when the driver is not well his driving can not be proper so in both cases the situation is not the best but it is even worse when both vehicle and driver are in a bad situation.
Quote from: Arik on June 05, 2019, 12:23:12 AM
You are mistaken once again my friend.
Yoga does give facts as you go along but physical science does only give today facts not what lies ahead.
What was good yesterday is not good anymore today and what is good today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow and this is a fact MC that is why intelligent people should only take this material dimension as a temporary thing not as a permanent reality because within this dimension there is not a permanent reality.
Years ago didn't you cast in the rubbish bin your box monitor in order to get the new flat monitor that right now you are watching?
Eh, but wait a moment mate.
What about the new model that just came out?
Aren't you think about that?
(https://silentsparksff.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/cropped-header-v41.jpg)
As usual--gibberish. More than half the time I have to guess at what it is you are talking about. Well, I used to have to guess--don't bother any more for you do just ramble on. What is clear is that you haven't met a fact yet that you don't ignore. Your life is just one airy-fairy idea after another--you life in your little fairyland world and believe it to be all there is. A brain stunted, not nearly as conscious as he believes he is, idiot. But that IS the universe of the theist--right Baruch?!
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 05, 2019, 08:51:19 AM
As usual--gibberish. More than half the time I have to guess at what it is you are talking about. Well, I used to have to guess--don't bother any more for you do just ramble on. What is clear is that you haven't met a fact yet that you don't ignore. Your life is just one airy-fairy idea after another--you life in your little fairyland world and believe it to be all there is. A brain stunted, not nearly as conscious as he believes he is, idiot. But that IS the universe of the theist--right Baruch?!
This is the real gibberish CL.
We live in a dimension that is moving and changing all the time and you talk of facts and reality.
Facts and reality are of permanent nature so obviously you can not have them in this material changing dimension.
Only dreamers think otherwise.
Quote from: aitm on June 04, 2019, 04:18:25 PM
I think it would be characterized as a real dream, not a real experience. But them philosopher types like to insert qualifications into everything.
" was it a dream? the experience of the dream was real....ergo"....
oy
Awake = bullshit
Dream = more bullshit
So when I am typing this, it isn't asleep, so it is bullshit
When I am in a dream, I don't do typing, maybe I fly, so it is more bullshit
Since "experience" is no longer politically correct ... lets ban all words that are hard for the liberals to understand
I would ask you druggies out there ... when you are high, is that "more awake" ... LSD people say so. Would seem raw majority here would be anti-drug ... so no alcohol etc because you want to be as real as possible. Also imagination is evil, need to have no imagination.
Quote from: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 09:59:17 AM
So when I am typing this, it isn't asleep, so it is bullshit
Finally.....
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 04, 2019, 05:31:41 PM
Did the wound actually close and heal, or did it seem to close with no apparent wound? Were you allowed to try to force apart the sides of the wound to make sure?
Yeah, and a hypodermic needle doesn't bleed nor leaves any scars either. Are they mystical? The way a wound is caused and the way it is handled has a great effect on whether it bleeds and whether or not it will heal up without scars. Certain wounds may even appear to be completely gone in seconds, because collagen is sticky, and as such long, shallow intrusions into the skin's outer layers tend to get pressed shut and seem to vanish.
I can speak from personal experience that you can be punctured in certain parts of your skin and not bleed much. Subcutaneous cuts and punctures particularly never did any more than ooze for me. Furthermore, it's not like none of these gurus or whatever they are have never done this before, and as such, have not worked out technique that allows them to poke themselves in such a way to cause themselves little to no bleeding, and have conditioned their skin and refined their technique such that the wound springs shut and leaves no apparent hole.
As to pain, you don't know that any of these gurus experienced no pain, rather than distancing themselves from that pain such that it doesn't affect their outward behavior. And of course, pain exists in the mind anyway, so even if they were able to poke themselves and feel no pain, it's not that remarkable. It does speak to the discipline and technique of these gurus to do such amazing feats, but again nothing outside the realm of physical possibility.
I guess that the only way for you to believe is to be present and attend one of these festival like I did.
Once you will see with your very eyes you will change not only your mind but that will also help you to give up your atheists beliefs because these events can only happen when the mind is focus on God and they go a lot further than breaking slabs of concrete where only a strong mind is needed.
Quote from: Arik on June 05, 2019, 10:15:25 AM
when the mind is focus on God
I must have missed your previous enlightened readings......exactly which god allows all this super power....the fat one or the one with 8 arms?
Quote from: Arik on June 05, 2019, 09:49:18 AM
We live in a dimension that is moving and changing all the time and you talk of facts and reality.
Yeah, I do. To bad you don't. Drivel on idiot!
Quote from: aitm on June 05, 2019, 10:07:48 AM
Finally.....
The wokeness of the sleeper ... Hinduism is illustrative ...
It always comes down to ... theist has experiences (not necessarily quantitative experimental science) and this is denied by the atheist. The theist thinks they are a demi-god (as image of god/Deva). Atheist has experiences (not necessarily quantitative experimental science) and this is denied by the theist. The atheist thinks they are a anti-demi-god (as image of anti-god/Asura). The obvious difference is that the atheist doesn't realize their own irony.
Quote from: Arik on June 05, 2019, 10:15:25 AM
I guess that the only way for you to believe is to be present and attend one of these festival like I did.
Once you will see with your very eyes you will change not only your mind but that will also help you to give up your atheists beliefs because these events can only happen when the mind is focus on God and they go a lot further than breaking slabs of concrete where only a strong mind is needed.
Those certain in their closed mindedness .. avoid new experiences.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 05, 2019, 11:31:05 AM
Yeah, I do. To bad you don't. Drivel on idiot!
Relative vs absolute. I see that as a moot point. But common to philosophical types. For some, only the absolute is real, in which case space-time isn't. But I would have a hard time agreeing to that, so I don't. The relative is just as real as the absolute. Not sure any monkey has ever grasped anything that is absolute anyway.
Quote from: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 01:22:59 PM
Relative vs absolute. I see that as a moot point. But common to philosophical types. For some, only the absolute is real, in which case space-time isn't. But I would have a hard time agreeing to that, so I don't. The relative is just as real as the absolute. Not sure any monkey has ever grasped anything that is absolute anyway.
Airk is not about relative vs absolute. For him, and most theists, there is only absolute. He is absolutely sure his is correct--and only he (and fellow travelers) are correct. He does not want to be bothered to think only flap is lips and produce inane stupidity. That's his call; he can do as he wishes. So, drivel on.........................
Quote from: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 01:20:26 PM
The atheist thinks they are a anti-demi-god (as image of anti-god/Asura). The obvious difference is that the atheist doesn't realize their own irony.
okay...I kinda think we are successful animals....pretty much that. All that god/anti-god is from people who believe that we are special and created by something even "specialer".
Yeah, isn't that special...
;-P
Quote from: aitm on June 05, 2019, 03:23:18 PM
okay...I kinda think we are successful animals....pretty much that. All that god/anti-god is from people who believe that we are special and created by something even "specialer".
Yes, I agree, you aren't special (rhetorical). I am special, in an ordinary way. Cynic much?
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 05, 2019, 03:36:51 PM
Yeah, isn't that special...
;-P
Exactly. Everyone is uniquely special. Otherwise there would only be one person in history.
Quote from: Arik on June 05, 2019, 10:15:25 AM
I guess that the only way for you to believe is to be present and attend one of these festival like I did.
I would need to be more than merely "present" at the festival. I would need to be able to examine the 'woundless' gurus afterward to fully verify what you say, because just looking ain't enough.
Or you could produce an
actual medical examination of one of these gurus post ritual (instead of something some dude present reported without close examination or expertise on the matter) to verify what you say is
really medically impossible. I would also throw in a stage magician, too, to preclude actual trickery.
I don't claim any camera trickery, so I don't think I need to
see any more. I would need to perform some actual experiments, like stick a blunt dowel into any spot they claim had had a wound but disappeared... but somehow I doubt it. If that were the case, there would already be literature about it.
QuoteOnce you will see with your very eyes you will change not only your mind but that will also help you to give up your atheists beliefs because these events can only happen when the mind is focus on God and they go a lot further than breaking slabs of concrete where only a strong mind is needed.
Because I know I can be fooled, I know that sometimes just seeing it â€"even in personâ€" is not enough. It is the height of arrogance to think that you can't be fooled by a skilled practicioner or con men. Indeed, it is the people who think that they can't be fooled who turn out to be the most gullible.
So far, you have described NOTHING that requires that I go to the supernatural of any flavor. Just a few pages back we had
@aitm tell you, straight to your face, that concrete ain't the super-material that you're implying, because he grew up in construction and knew how easily it can break. It can fail suprisingly easy, if you use the (in)correct loading. That's why working in concrete is a
skill and it's something you call a professional to handle; you can fuck it up such that a concrete slab you poured will fail if you look at it cross-eyed. Even if it's properly and fully cured, certain shapes will still break very easily with the wrong loading. If I were to try to break concrete without the help of any mental power, I would go about it EXACTLY as those martial artists have done.
Like I said before, you have to know well enough how nature works to say anything is supernatural. So far, you given no indication of expertise, just credulity.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 05, 2019, 05:13:36 PM
I would also throw in a stage magician, too, to preclude actual trickery.
Yeah, James Randy comes to mind. I wonder if he still debunks con artists?
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 05, 2019, 05:19:17 PM
Yeah, James Randy comes to mind. I wonder if he still debunks con artists?
James Randi is 90 now. Better find another.
Dogbert is a god-like consultant ... but he isn't the Trashman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB-OaWQIS2k
Proof that Randi is actually a cartoon ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkfNc6TEAQ
another two-dimensional Ranti (that also shows multiple universe theory is real) ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otWtofvQExs
How three-dimensional divine beings create a two-dimensional universe ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xa3imjfMUA
That is the picture of the incarnate voice of Alice ...
This also includes a clip of "I don't believe in Todd" ... which shows that most people here are alter-egos of Catbert.
Since this video is actually fro 20 years ago it is now old enough to be holy scripture ;-)
The end shows the truth about NDE ... we are all in NDE right now ;-))
Skeptic Magazine comes to mind. They used to offer a million dollar reward for anybody who could prove anything supernatural. Have not paid out yet. When I go to Barns and Noble, that is the first publication I snag (with a current baseball publication) to read with my coffee.
Scientists are easier to fool than most people would think, that's why stage magicians are better at debunking supernatural claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToyylAvlJ0
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 05, 2019, 06:58:54 PM
Skeptic Magazine comes to mind. They used to offer a million dollar reward for anybody who could prove anything supernatural. Have not paid out yet. When I go to Barns and Noble, that is the first publication I snag (with a current baseball publication) to read with my coffee.
I am skeptical you actually do that ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 05, 2019, 07:09:11 PM
Scientists are easier to fool than most people would think, that's why stage magicians are better at debunking supernatural claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToyylAvlJ0
Must be true. I love good stage magicians (not literally).
Quote from: Arik on June 04, 2019, 09:35:47 AM
A hand?
That is a primitive way of doing.
If you will be alive maybe in 30-40 years time those machines will be controlled by the mind.
I might tend to agree with you on that. But I'm still waiting for my flying car and speech-dictated email... And my fuel-cell car for that matter. And I (probably) don't have 30 years to wait.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 06, 2019, 01:57:26 AM
I might tend to agree with you on that. But I'm still waiting for my flying car and speech-dictated email... And my fuel-cell car for that matter. And I (probably) don't have 30 years to wait.
You don't have to worry about that mate.
When you will reborn you will find yourself in a more advanced technology dimension but don't forget that from now on you will have to be a good boy eh. :cheesy:
Quote from: Arik on June 06, 2019, 09:08:38 AM
You don't have to worry about that mate.
When you will reborn you will find yourself in a more advanced technology dimension but don't forget that from now on you will have to be a good boy eh. :cheesy:
Thank you for the kind thoughts. Utter absurdity, of course, but surely well-meant.
I don't expect to be "reborn" and I don't expect any "afterlife". Those who do are probably going to be disappointed, but then, they wouldn't know they were, being utterly dead, would they?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 05, 2019, 01:55:55 PM
Airk is not about relative vs absolute. For him, and most theists, there is only absolute. He is absolutely sure his is correct--and only he (and fellow travelers) are correct. He does not want to be bothered to think only flap is lips and produce inane stupidity. That's his call; he can do as he wishes. So, drivel on.........................
Wrong again CL.
I never said that I do not believe in the relative.
You say things that I never said and that is not very nice of you.
To me God is the absolute truth, and the universe is also truth, but relative.
Relative of what?
Suppose you create in your mind a vision.
That vision is part of you but is relative because your vision is not the real you.
That is why this created universe is relative and God is the absolute truth.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 06, 2019, 09:20:29 AM
Thank you for the kind thoughts. Utter absurdity, of course, but surely well-meant.
I don't expect to be "reborn" and I don't expect any "afterlife". Those who do are probably going to be disappointed, but then, they wouldn't know they were, being utterly dead, would they?
What about if it is you that will be disappointed?
But no, you will not be disappointed because as you die (leave your body) you will understand that the real reality is behind death but again soon after you will be reborn into an other atheist and you will forget that reality for one more time until the day that you will surrender to the real reality.
Quote from: Arik on June 06, 2019, 10:14:33 AM
Wrong again CL.
I never said that I do not believe in the relative.
You say things that I never said and that is not very nice of you.
To me God is the absolute truth, and the universe is also truth, but relative.
Relative of what?
Suppose you create in your mind a vision.
That vision is part of you but is relative because your vision is not the real you.
That is why this created universe is relative and God is the absolute truth.
Like I said---drivel on, oh willfully stupid one.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 06, 2019, 10:55:07 AM
Like I said---drivel on, oh willfully stupid one.
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a4/5d/1b/a45d1bbcfb4ae5a9e1a750f69f275984--we-the-people-human-condition.jpg)
I am so so sorry that you are not interested in evolution but again if you think that evolution stop when it reach man then you will have to delay once again the day in which you will get out your cocoon of fantasy by keeping on worshipping your many materialists Gods.
Sad indeed Mike.
(https://breakupwallpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/A-Guy-Setting-Sadlly-Breakup-Wallpapers-For-Boys-In-HD-4K-Quality-Image-Free-Download-200x200.jpg)
Assuming reincarnation, I see people getting what they deserve. Can't say that is a bad thing. If some people are reincarnated as discontinued Atari video game cartridges (1980s), then OK by me.
Quote from: Arik on June 08, 2019, 02:03:02 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a4/5d/1b/a45d1bbcfb4ae5a9e1a750f69f275984--we-the-people-human-condition.jpg)
I am so so sorry that you are not interested in evolution but again if you think that evolution stop when it reach man then you will have to delay once again the day in which you will get out your cocoon of fantasy by keeping on worshipping your many materialists Gods.
Sad indeed Mike.
(https://breakupwallpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/A-Guy-Setting-Sadlly-Breakup-Wallpapers-For-Boys-In-HD-4K-Quality-Image-Free-Download-200x200.jpg)
You do like to drivel all over yourself, don't you--you must go thru tons of Depends since you are always driveling all over yourself.
You simply have no idea what evolution is nor how it functions. And you have no idea what what the word 'worship' means. In fact, language and accuracy seems to throw you for a loop. As Mr. Gump (a mental giant compared to you) says--'Stupid is as stupid does'.............and you do stupid always and constantly.
Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2019, 05:12:10 AM
Assuming reincarnation, I see people getting what they deserve. Can't say that is a bad thing. If some people are reincarnated as discontinued Atari video game cartridges (1980s), then OK by me.
My belief is a little bit different Baruch.
I do not like or dislike to see people in trouble due to their own bad karma.
As far as they are repented or in need of help I am always ready to help.
It is when I see angry-swearing people that do not get the fact that they suffer for a reason that make me stay away from them and let them sort out their own problems.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 08, 2019, 09:16:33 AM
You do like to drivel all over yourself, don't you--you must go thru tons of Depends since you are always driveling all over yourself.
You simply have no idea what evolution is nor how it functions. And you have no idea what what the word 'worship' means. In fact, language and accuracy seems to throw you for a loop. As Mr. Gump (a mental giant compared to you) says--'Stupid is as stupid does'.............and you do stupid always and constantly.
You got it wrong once again Mike.
Evolution is NOT an exclusive property directed to biological changes but his meaning cover an infinity of things.
Rocket science has evolved.
Medical science has evolved.
All different sciences have evolved and so on so the word evolution can not be confined to biological changes.
In fact the word evolution is related to the gradual development of something.
The forms of written languages undergo constant evolution and so all the rest.
In one dictionary I read....development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding and more that is why you got it wrong.
But again the most important form of evolution is the progress that is made within because that is the only progress that you can keep with you once you leave your body.
As far as the word worship here you are wrong again.
Different people worship different things so this word is not and can not be associated with worship only a deity because many people turn their material object of worship into their God.
Quote from: Arik on June 08, 2019, 09:56:56 AM
You got it wrong once again Mike.
Evolution is NOT an exclusive property directed to biological changes but his meaning cover an infinity of things.
Rocket science has evolved.
Medical science has evolved.
All different sciences have evolved and so on so the word evolution can not be confined to biological changes.
In fact the word evolution is related to the gradual development of something.
The forms of written languages undergo constant evolution and so all the rest.
In one dictionary I read....development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding and more that is why you got it wrong.
But again the most important form of evolution is the progress that is made within because that is the only progress that you can keep with you once you leave your body.
As far as the word worship here you are wrong again.
Different people worship different things so this word is not and can not be associated with worship only a deity because many people turn their material object of worship into their God.
:grin: :grin: You are so willfully ignorant and stupid that you do provide some comic relief-- :cheesy: :cheer:
Quote from: Arik on June 08, 2019, 09:27:58 AM
My belief is a little bit different Baruch.
I do not like or dislike to see people in trouble due to their own bad karma.
As far as they are repented or in need of help I am always ready to help.
It is when I see angry-swearing people that do not get the fact that they suffer for a reason that make me stay away from them and let them sort out their own problems.
My hope is that everyone will be successful and happy, but experience teaches me to expect disappointment. Yes, my hope is self contradictory, given the win/lose relationship between people ;-(
My fear is that retribution is great, that many reincarnations as Atheistforums commentators will be required of one and all, a fate worse than Avichi hell ;-)
But my rhetoric can be as biting as a great white shark. I have a broad smile, but lots of teeth. People insist on partisan selfishness. And hostility when they don't get what they want or when they want. ;-p
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 08, 2019, 10:27:48 AM
:grin: :grin: You are so willfully ignorant and stupid that you do provide some comic relief-- :cheesy: :cheer:
There is a huge difference between my clear explanation of definitions and meanings of words and your constant confusion and your use of degrading and demeaning words in order to try to keep your credibility alive.
Any independent jury would find you loser no matter what.
Quote from: Arik on June 06, 2019, 09:08:38 AMYou don't have to worry about that mate.
When you will reborn you will find yourself in a more advanced technology dimension but don't forget that from now on you will have to be a good boy eh. :cheesy:
Dibs on the Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 08, 2019, 11:22:09 AM
Dibs on the Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus.
Don't forget your windup key ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uQTVTH5qdw
Quote from: Arik on June 08, 2019, 09:27:58 AM
As far as they are repented or in need of help I am always ready to help.
ah so your fat or 8 limbed god is a prick after all. Gotta repent. Yeah.....yer a bubble all right.
Quote from: aitm on June 08, 2019, 05:37:55 PM
ah so your fat or 8 limbed god is a prick after all. Gotta repent. Yeah.....yer a bubble all right.
Per Mahayana Buddhism, one can't actually help. You have to do it yourself. But I am not sure how it is in Hinduism (Yoga).
There is positive and negative theology (Pelagius controversy in early Christianity and Daoism in China).
It isn't repentance that magically changes things. The repentance us evidence of an internal change. And that change could be ... that you have removed yourself as an obstacle to your own progress. If G-d is responsible for everything, then G-d is necessary for this success or failure.
Quote from: Arik on June 08, 2019, 09:56:56 AM
Rocket science has evolved.
Medical science has evolved.
All different sciences have evolved and so on so the word evolution can not be confined to biological changes.
In fact the word evolution is related to the gradual development of something.
The forms of written languages undergo constant evolution and so all the rest.
In one dictionary I read....development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding and more that is why you got it wrong.
But again the most important form of evolution is the progress that is made within because that is the only progress that you can keep with you once you leave your body.
Dearheart, the thinking that people have mind powers, souls and whatnot is somewhere where we've
already been. To return to that thinking is going backwards, downwards down that train of steps in that cartoon you like showing. No, the future steps in our evolution is
not going to be towards mind powers in the way you're thinking of them. When it's going to happen, it's going to be granting the powers of the mind through mind/machine interfaces augmenting our bodies with purpose-built machines, and granting immortality by making us
actually immortal. People have tried your woo approach, and it doesn't work. When people try hard-nosed scientific investigation, it works and extremely well. I know where I'm putting my money.
Quote
As far as the word worship here you are wrong again.
Different people worship different things so this word is not and can not be associated with worship only a deity because many people turn their material object of worship into their God.
You call it "worship" because it's the only way you can understand our zeal for it. It is so unlike worship of gods it is not even in the same category. There is no ritual we perform towards materialism to affirm our faiths, no creed we follow, no silly hats we wear, it's just a deep understanding of what we're talking about, and the fact that it actually makes sense of the world we see is the amazing part. There's simply no room for your woo. Science and the hard-nosed investigation and critical scrutiny of ideas is what has given us the wonders of the cosmological perspective, the understanding of the world of the very small, and the keys to the universe.
In short, we are so zealous, not because we
don't understand the designs of entities unknown but assumed, but because we
do understand to a substantial degree the entities we have verified and investigated.
Quote from: Arik on June 08, 2019, 11:02:06 AM
There is a huge difference between my clear explanation of definitions and meanings of words and your constant confusion and your use of degrading and demeaning words in order to try to keep your credibility alive.
Any independent jury would find you loser no matter what.
Every cluless moron says the exact same thing: "You're confused; I'm talking sense; all people who are woke will agree with me." It gets old after a while.
Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2019, 05:58:47 PM
quoting some stuff
Bull shit is still bull shit even when it is painted.
Quote from: aitm on June 08, 2019, 09:17:41 PM
Bull shit is still bull shit even when it is painted.
If one can't do anything else for the world, one can at least provide fertilizer.
Helps if properly labeled.
Labeling ... is where polytheism excels ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL-kf6JZJss
Quote from: Arik on June 08, 2019, 11:02:06 AM
There is a huge difference between my clear explanation of definitions and meanings of words and your constant confusion and your use of degrading and demeaning words in order to try to keep your credibility alive.
Any independent jury would find you loser no matter what.
Arik, you so completely misunderstand "evolution". It is NOT a basic learning process like science is, and as you seem to think. Evolution is more correctly called "Natural Selection". And, as such, it merely means that among any multitude of organisms, from the simplest to the most complex, some individual ones will be very slightly different and more able to succeed in the conditions in which they live.
It doesn't matter if it is the smallest microbe slightly more able to ingest or utilize the nutrients around it, a bird who's beak is EVER SO SLIGHTLY better at getting at flower seeds, or a more complex creature with a slight change in vision that allows it to identify riper fruits than it's group members. The point is that small changes add up over time and give a tiny advantage to one ability over another.
And whatever level, those tiny advantages gradually result in improved reproduction rates that slowly among those with the slightly better skill at anything (because they eat "just a little better" or jump "just a little faster" or whatever is an advantage). If those individuals produce 1,000 offspring and the ones without that advantage produce 999, eventually that advantage will be widespread and universal.
Think of 100s of generations and do the simple math.
Religion has nothing to do with it. Natural Selection does not engage religion in any way. And Natural Selection IS "evolution".
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 08, 2019, 06:00:38 PM
Dearheart, the thinking that people have mind powers, souls and whatnot is somewhere where we've already been. To return to that thinking is going backwards, downwards down that train of steps in that cartoon you like showing. No, the future steps in our evolution is not going to be towards mind powers in the way you're thinking of them. When it's going to happen, it's going to be granting the powers of the mind through mind/machine interfaces augmenting our bodies with purpose-built machines, and granting immortality by making us actually immortal. People have tried your woo approach, and it doesn't work. When people try hard-nosed scientific investigation, it works and extremely well. I know where I'm putting my money.
You forget one important thing my friend and that is that humans are not only made of body.
You can do all the scientific investigation that you wish but that will not give you peace of mind and permanent happiness that is why by relying on that you will never be able fulfill the most human aspiration and longing.
QuoteYou call it "worship" because it's the only way you can understand our zeal for it. It is so unlike worship of gods it is not even in the same category. There is no ritual we perform towards materialism to affirm our faiths, no creed we follow, no silly hats we wear, it's just a deep understanding of what we're talking about, and the fact that it actually makes sense of the world we see is the amazing part. There's simply no room for your woo. Science and the hard-nosed investigation and critical scrutiny of ideas is what has given us the wonders of the cosmological perspective, the understanding of the world of the very small, and the keys to the universe.
You can become the most expert in physical science but once again this science is unable to satisfy the human desire and longing for peace of mind and total bliss.
QuoteIn short, we are so zealous, not because we don't understand the designs of entities unknown but assumed, but because we do understand to a substantial degree the entities we have verified and investigated.
Every cluless moron says the exact same thing: "You're confused; I'm talking sense; all people who are woke will agree with me." It gets old after a while.
The day you will have finish to investigate everything within this material dimension you still will be billions of miles away from any solution for the simple reason that what your subconscious wish does not belong in this material dimension.
All the best anyway.
Quote from: Arik on June 09, 2019, 11:33:28 AM
You forget one important thing my friend and that is that humans are not only made of body.
You can do all the scientific investigation that you wish but that will not give you peace of mind and permanent happiness that is why by relying on that you will never be able fulfill the most human aspiration and longing.
You can become the most expert in physical science but once again this science is unable to satisfy the human desire and longing for peace of mind and total bliss.
The day you will have finish to investigate everything within this material dimension you still will be billions of miles away from any solution for the simple reason that what your subconscious wish does not belong in this material dimension.
All the best anyway.
Your assumption that we humans are not made of body is the basis of the failure of your understanding of reality. There is a clear line of evidence that humans are just one of a long string on animals from the simplest to the most complex. We are animals just as an octopus or microbe is. We live in a physical existence and die in it. We do not have a god-given soul any more than my cat does, my aquarium fish, or the hog that was killed to provide the bacon I ate this morning.
We humans are just the currently most self-aware creatures but also just animals. And you really can't STAND that, can you?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 09, 2019, 12:11:44 PM
Your assumption that we humans are not made of body is the basis of the failure of your understanding of reality. There is a clear line of evidence that humans are just one of a long string on animals from the simplest to the most complex. We are animals just as an octopus or microbe is. We live in a physical existence and die in it. We do not have a god-given soul any more than my cat does, my aquarium fish, or the hog that was killed to provide the bacon I ate this morning.
We humans are just the currently most self-aware creatures but also just animals. And you really can't STAND that, can you?
The notion you have that a functioning radio has no program, just electronics ... maybe why you don't hear many songs ;-)
Quote from: Arik on June 09, 2019, 11:33:28 AM
You forget one important thing my friend and that is that humans are not only made of body.
Mere assertion. Claiming things does not make them true.
Quote
You can do all the scientific investigation that you wish but that will not give you peace of mind and permanent happiness that is why by relying on that you will never be able fulfill the most human aspiration and longing.
Says you. I find it very fun finding things out. I devour books on science the same way I would eat candy. Why? Because it's intently fascinating. It's thrilling to see everything you have learned fit together into a coherent whole.
Actually, no. I don't even need a reason to find it fascinating. I just do.
You don't get to say what my aspirations are or what I long for. Only
I get to do that.
Quote
You can become the most expert in physical science but once again this science is unable to satisfy the human desire and longing for peace of mind and total bliss.
You have obviously not talked to
any scientist,
ever, because if you did, and you get them to teach you about a subject they are currently investigating, they will enthusiastically talk your ear off about what they have discovered and how it fits into the overall picture. To do scientific investigation
is the scientists' bliss. Even if they're wrong, they delight in finding out they're wrong.
You have no place telling ANYONE what their desire is, or what they long for, or how they find peace of mind or bliss. You are not them; they are not you; and scientists are not the gurus sitting on the mountains contemplating their navels.
Quote
The day you will have finish to investigate everything within this material dimension you still will be billions of miles away from any solution for the simple reason that what your subconscious wish does not belong in this material dimension.
You have no idea how my subconsious works any more than I do. You do not know what makes me tick. Don't presume to speak for my unconsious, you presumptuous prick.
Quote
All the best anyway.
That is a lie. You want me to follow slavishly in your belief that I'm somehow incomplete without spirituality, and the reason why you do this is because you are such an ignoramus about the material world, that you must invent the immaterial to be one of greater worth that you can lord over us. Sorry, chump, who's to say that your immaterial world is worth more than the material one, even if I were to grant that it exists? You can't. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 09, 2019, 06:00:14 PM
Mere assertion. Claiming things does not make them true.
Says you. I find it very fun finding things out. I devour books on science the same way I would eat candy. Why? Because it's intently fascinating. It's thrilling to see everything you have learned fit together into a coherent whole.
Actually, no. I don't even need a reason to find it fascinating. I just do.
You don't get to say what my aspirations are or what I long for. Only I get to do that.
You have obviously not talked to any scientist, ever, because if you did, and you get them to teach you about a subject they are currently investigating, they will enthusiastically talk your ear off about what they have discovered and how it fits into the overall picture. To do scientific investigation is the scientists' bliss. Even if they're wrong, they delight in finding out they're wrong.
You have no place telling ANYONE what their desire is, or what they long for, or how they find peace of mind or bliss. You are not them; they are not you; and scientists are not the gurus sitting on the mountains contemplating their navels.
You have no idea how my subconsious works any more than I do. You do not know what makes me tick. Don't presume to speak for my unconsious, you presumptuous prick.
That is a lie. You want me to follow slavishly in your belief that I'm somehow incomplete without spirituality, and the reason why you do this is because you are such an ignoramus about the material world, that you must invent the immaterial to be one of greater worth that you can lord over us. Sorry, chump, who's to say that your immaterial world is worth more than the material one, even if I were to grant that it exists? You can't. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Oh don't hold it in, be direct. ;)
Anyone posting here ... "mere assertion". All claimed evidence/proof ... not original, copied from Wikipedia etc.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 09, 2019, 06:00:14 PM
Mere assertion. Claiming things does not make them true.
Says you. I find it very fun finding things out. I devour books on science the same way I would eat candy. Why? Because it's intently fascinating. It's thrilling to see everything you have learned fit together into a coherent whole.
Actually, no. I don't even need a reason to find it fascinating. I just do.
You don't get to say what my aspirations are or what I long for. Only I get to do that.
You have obviously not talked to any scientist, ever, because if you did, and you get them to teach you about a subject they are currently investigating, they will enthusiastically talk your ear off about what they have discovered and how it fits into the overall picture. To do scientific investigation is the scientists' bliss. Even if they're wrong, they delight in finding out they're wrong.
You have no place telling ANYONE what their desire is, or what they long for, or how they find peace of mind or bliss. You are not them; they are not you; and scientists are not the gurus sitting on the mountains contemplating their navels.
You have no idea how my subconsious works any more than I do. You do not know what makes me tick. Don't presume to speak for my unconsious, you presumptuous prick.
That is a lie. You want me to follow slavishly in your belief that I'm somehow incomplete without spirituality, and the reason why you do this is because you are such an ignoramus about the material world, that you must invent the immaterial to be one of greater worth that you can lord over us. Sorry, chump, who's to say that your immaterial world is worth more than the material one, even if I were to grant that it exists? You can't. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
I find very interesting when you say that I do not know what your desires, your aspirations and your subconscious means to you.
The things is that we all come from the same place and sooner or later we will all go back in the same place so obviously what my subconscious tell me is the same same for your subconscious.
The only difference is that we all have different degree of awareness and that is why not everybody can yet get the clear message from their subconscious mind due to the fact that the mind is stuck in the material dream.
Lack of self reflection is common among the autistic.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 09, 2019, 12:11:44 PM
Your assumption that we humans are not made of body is the basis of the failure of your understanding of reality. There is a clear line of evidence that humans are just one of a long string on animals from the simplest to the most complex. We are animals just as an octopus or microbe is. We live in a physical existence and die in it. We do not have a god-given soul any more than my cat does, my aquarium fish, or the hog that was killed to provide the bacon I ate this morning.
We humans are just the currently most self-aware creatures but also just animals. And you really can't STAND that, can you?
Wrong CB.
You can not read properly my post.
I didn't say that we humans are not made of body.
I instead said that we humans are not made only of body.
Can you see the difference CB?
But let me explain in details what I meant.
Suppose a cart or a buckboard is pulled by 3 horses.
Now suppose that only one of the 3 animals is strong while the other two are weak or very weak.
(https://media.arkansasonline.com/img/photos/2015/09/05/72643946_chuckwagon5_ORIG.JPG)
In this case the cart can not go straight but if all 3 animals are strong then the cart will go straight and fast right?
(https://media.arkansasonline.com/img/photos/2016/09/03/resized_250499-chuckwagon-championships-02_84-21735_t800.JPG?90232451fbcadccc64a17de7521d859a8f88077d)
Now suppose that we humans are made of 3 elements which are BODY-BRAIN, OUTER MIND or the mind that you are aware of and INNER MIND or the subconscious mind.
It is in the human nature to have a balance among these 3 elements if we want to follow our human nature.
Of course you can say that you still have plenty of balance in your life without the need to follow anything but the fact that we all try to improve our life simply means that there is something else other than the physical-material dimension.
Quote from: Arik on June 10, 2019, 09:35:48 AM
the clear message from their subconscious mind due to the fact that the mind is stuck in the material dream.
More bull-shit. Pull a string out of your ass and call it a forklift. Simply making shit up as always for you types of people that think that material and immaterial must be separate instead of operating hand in hand with providing the vessel they both need to survive in a safer, easier and more enjoyable environment. You're wrong Arik. Our sub-conscious thrives and wants the material. The two work together for the mutual benefit. You are trying to separate the two and because you don't have the abilities or wherewithall to go out and GET the material....therefore you try to convince those who are successful that you are somehow better than they are because ...you ...know ....you... will ...never ...be.
Quote from: Arik on June 10, 2019, 10:15:16 AM
Now suppose that we humans are made of 3 elements which are BODY-BRAIN, OUTER MIND or the mind that you are aware of and INNER MIND or the subconscious mind.
*cough* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
I could suppose that roads are made out of candy and water towers are filled with milk chocolate, but that wouldn't make it so.
Quote from: Arik on June 10, 2019, 10:15:16 AM
now suppose that we humans are made of 3 elements which are BODY-BRAIN, OUTER MIND or the mind that you are aware of and INNER MIND or the subconscious mind.
but what about the penis brain? ARIK!! WHAT ABOUT THE PENIS BRAIN? WHAT HAPPENS TO IT?
Quote from: Arik on June 10, 2019, 09:35:48 AM
I find very interesting when you say that I do not know what your desires, your aspirations and your subconscious means to you.
The things is that we all come from the same place and sooner or later we will all go back in the same place so obviously what my subconscious tell me is the same same for your subconscious.
I don't "come from" the same place you did, out my mom's vagina. Are we siblings? No, because my only brother and sibling is not a mealy-mouthed woo-pusher like you. Even if this subconscious mind bullshit is true, I didn't go through the same experiences as you did. My makeup and my influences are not the same as yours. No false equivalence for you.
Quote
The only difference is that we all have different degree of awareness and that is why not everybody can yet get the clear message from their subconscious mind due to the fact that the mind is stuck in the material dream.
And again, mere assertions. Again, you presume to know my subconscious mind better than I do, when even a psychotherapist I would be going to for years wouldn't be so bold. No, you don't get to do that no matter how many times you repeat the same drivel.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 10, 2019, 06:29:39 PM
I don't "come from" the same place you did, out my mom's vagina. Are we siblings? No, because my only brother and sibling is not a mealy-mouthed woo-pusher like you. Even if this subconscious mind bullshit is true, I didn't go through the same experiences as you did. My makeup and my influences are not the same as yours. No false equivalence for you.
And again, mere assertions. Again, you presume to know my subconscious mind better than I do, when even a psychotherapist I would be going to for years wouldn't be so bold. No, you don't get to do that no matter how many times you repeat the same drivel.
Oh, well if you know everything then I suppose you also know where our consciousness come from.
(One tip for you mate)
The consciousness was part of the baby before the baby came out from your mum vagina.
One more thing Haku.
An old saying goes..........ALL ROAD LEAD TO ROME........
Obviously not everybody follow the same route to get to this place but that is totally irrelevant in the context that everybody sooner or later will get there.
But the point is...........WHY EVERYBODY WILL GET THERE?
Simple Haku.
Everybody is looking for peace of mind and permanent happiness.
Now considering that within this FINITE universe there is absolutely nothing permanent the permanent must be elsewhere right, so it doesn't really matter if right now your objectives are different from mine because sooner or later you too will understand where this ROME is located. :wink:
Quote from: aitm on June 10, 2019, 12:39:59 PM
More bull-shit. Pull a string out of your ass and call it a forklift. Simply making shit up as always for you types of people that think that material and immaterial must be separate instead of operating hand in hand with providing the vessel they both need to survive in a safer, easier and more enjoyable environment. You're wrong Arik. Our sub-conscious thrives and wants the material. The two work together for the mutual benefit. You are trying to separate the two and because you don't have the abilities or wherewithall to go out and GET the material....therefore you try to convince those who are successful that you are somehow better than they are because ...you ...know ....you... will ...never ...be.
More daydream aitm?
Wrong again because not only I never said that there should only be the subconscious but my previous post clearly indicate that I believe in a balance among physical-material and the various strata of the mind.
Your continuous insistence that I reject the material side is but a callous way to denigrate or perhaps you can't even read my posts properly which would be as bad as to denigrate.
Quote from: Arik on June 11, 2019, 11:08:30 AM
Oh, well if you know everything then I suppose you also know where our consciousness come from.
Oh, come off it. It doesn't "come from" anywhere. It's a process; it
started. You can control and mess with it with drugs. If you damage the brain, you damage the consciousness. And there is nowhere it "goes" when you die. It just
stops.This is what neuroscience tells us. There's nothing woo about it. Consciousness isn't a material thing because it isn't a thing at all. It isn't an immaterial, woo thing again because it isn't a thing at all. It's a category error to classify it as a thing that "comes from" somewhere upon birth and then "goes" somewhere upon death, because it's what the brain does, and when the brain stops doing what it's doing, consciousness ends as surely as your material life does.
Quote
Everybody is looking for peace of mind and permanent happiness.
The error is thinking that there's only one way to find either, or either is possible.
Quote
Now considering that within this FINITE universe there is absolutely nothing permanent the permanent must be elsewhere right,
Non sequitor. The permanent may be nonexistent and/or unachievable by any means available to us.
Quote
so it doesn't really matter if right now your objectives are different from mine because sooner or later you too will understand where this ROME is located. :wink:
Your analogy is flawed. Unlike the afterlife, we know that Rome is a real place. People have been there and back. There is no such assurance from the afterlife. Death looks to every means available to us to be the end and oblivion, with nothing in the hereafter for us, and as such this life is the
only life we get. I'm not going to squander my only assured life for empty promises of the hereafter.
Quote from: Arik on June 11, 2019, 11:23:12 AM
More daydream aitm?
Wrong again because not only I never said that there should only be the subconscious but my previous post clearly indicate that I believe in a balance among physical-material and the various strata of the mind.
Your continuous insistence that I reject the material side is but a callous way to denigrate or perhaps you can't even read my posts properly which would be as bad as to denigrate.
'
I had a few Supervisors who created facts from nothing and justified it saying they just knew they were right, so making up facts to support the ideas was justified. We analysts referred to them as "rectal extractions". And to be quite honest (here and then) we always let our fellow analysts in the other offices which "facts" were true and which were not. The Supervisors never quite understood how the other offices knew which facts to refute. Sometimes there were several offices involved which made it a bit circular.
The Fellowship Of The Ring...
So, scarred for life then? Can you get a job as a pirate?
Quote from: Baruch on June 12, 2019, 03:11:38 AM
So, scarred for life then? Can you get a job as a pirate?
Nah, I became a Democrat for lack of a better party. The Supervisors were all Republicans, and since they all lied so casually, I didn't want to be one of them.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 11, 2019, 09:59:27 PM
'
I had a few Supervisors who created facts from nothing and justified it saying they just knew they were right, so making up facts to support the ideas was justified. We analysts referred to them as "rectal extractions". And to be quite honest (here and then) we always let our fellow analysts in the other offices which "facts" were true and which were not. The Supervisors never quite understood how the other offices knew which facts to refute. Sometimes there were several offices involved which made it a bit circular.
The Fellowship Of The Ring...
Oh, well if you like to talk about FACTS then I mention a small list of atheists facts.
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
Shell I continue CB?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 12, 2019, 06:21:49 AM
Nah, I became a Democrat for lack of a better party. The Supervisors were all Republicans, and since they all lied so casually, I didn't want to be one of them.
Management requires deception. Only technicians can pretend that honesty and process are all that are required.
Materialists are narrow in their perception of what could be real. The world is material, but much more. I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution. In that way I disagree with Arik. There are random changes only. Except with entropy, it is one step forward and two steps back.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 11, 2019, 05:49:16 PM
Oh, come off it. It doesn't "come from" anywhere. It's a process; it started. You can control and mess with it with drugs. If you damage the brain, you damage the consciousness. And there is nowhere it "goes" when you die. It just stops.
So your guessing suppose to be taken as facts?
Are you serious Haku?
The only thing that make sense in your post is that drugs damage the consciousness but all the rest is pure and simple guess which has zero value.
QuoteThis is what neuroscience tells us.
Some people that study neuroscience are guessing while other do not speculate because so far there is zero evidence to conclude anything however NDEs are leaving no doubt that life is behind destruction.
QuoteThere's nothing woo about it. Consciousness isn't a material thing because it isn't a thing at all. It isn't an immaterial, woo thing again because it isn't a thing at all.
Even a zombie need a bit of consciousness to move around so this consciousness must be something.
No consciousness no life Haku.
As simple as this.
QuoteIt's a category error to classify it as a thing that "comes from" somewhere upon birth and then "goes" somewhere upon death, because it's what the brain does, and when the brain stops doing what it's doing, consciousness ends as surely as your material life does.
Sorry Haku but that is a load of garbage.
If it is true that when the brain stop also the consciousness stop then we can say that when the vehicle is dead also the driver die.
Do you realize the nonsense you are talking?
QuoteThe error is thinking that there's only one way to find either, or either is possible.
Non sequitor. The permanent may be nonexistent and/or unachievable by any means available to us.
Your analogy is flawed. Unlike the afterlife, we know that Rome is a real place. People have been there and back. There is no such assurance from the afterlife. Death looks to every means available to us to be the end and oblivion, with nothing in the hereafter for us, and as such this life is the only life we get. I'm not going to squander my only assured life for empty promises of the hereafter.
It is bizarre how atheists always say that they do not believe in magic but eh, is not magic to believe that we never build the consciousness that we got?
Do you really believe that you are lucky to have the consciousness that you have?
If atheists believe in science then why they believe in magic?
Since when science say that something come from nothing?
Who suppose to have build the consciousness that you got other than you?
Get real brother and don't waste your time chasing illusions.
(https://www.exploratorium.edu/sites/default/files/styles/banner_image/public/feature_slides/illusions.jpg?itok=jdRXG1ap)
Quote from: Arik on June 12, 2019, 11:16:15 AM
Oh, well if you like to talk about FACTS then I mention a small list of atheists facts.
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
Shell I continue CB?
Not CB, but will comment anyway. Decent list, but not quite right.
#5--No, not for me. Religion always has a hierarchy which leads to destruction and evil. Spiritually is a personal thing and is not always unproductive for either the person or society. For example, I have a good friend who meditates daily and says he is searching and getting in touch with his 'higher' being. He claims his spirituality makes him a better person and I don't argue with that.
#7 NDE's are not lies, even if they are hallucinations. Optical illusions are not lies but just how our brain interprets what it 'sees'.
#8--Since our consciousness is a function or our brain, as our brain changes (and evolves), our consciousness will as well.
The rest I agree with. And please continue if you wish.
Quote from: Arik on June 12, 2019, 11:16:15 AM
Oh, well if you like to talk about FACTS then I mention a small list of atheists facts.
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
Well, finally posting something that is not bullshit. I wouldn't say we consider all of the facts..but until we get something from a reputable source telling us otherwise with some backup.
Quote from: aitm on June 12, 2019, 12:14:27 PM
Well, finally posting something that is not bullshit. I wouldn't say we consider all of the facts..but until we get something from a reputable source telling us otherwise with some backup.
Alas, there are no reputable sources ... push come to shove. Human beings are deplorables.
Quote from: Arik on June 12, 2019, 11:47:51 AM
So your guessing suppose to be taken as facts?
Are you serious Haku?
The only thing that make sense in your post is that drugs damage the consciousness but all the rest is pure and simple guess which has zero value.
Bullshit. This isn't just "my guess." This is the body of neuroscience. Specific aspects of consciousness are indeed linked to particular areas of the brain, for instance. Damage your Brocha's area, you will not be able to form or even comprehend sentences, and at best pick out words and try to deduce their meaning; damage your Wernicke's area, and you will start babbling gramatical nonsense. Split the brain down the corpus colosum and you will have two distinct personalities in one body â€" one "consciousness" has become two, and it's certainly not a
de neuvo consciousness either. There is no conservation of consciousness. It shows every indication that it is something that the brain does.
Quote
Some people that study neuroscience are guessing while other do not speculate because so far there is zero evidence to conclude anything however NDEs are leaving no doubt that life is behind destruction.
NDE do not demonstrate that they are anything other than the brain's attempt to reconstruct what was happening after the fact. We've tested NDE, and they fail to show that they are anything supernatural. Yes, these patients describe what they think might have happened during their revival, but they all utterly fail to notice the rather incongruitous and obvious playing card laid atop a shelf in plain view of a supposed soul.
It's like, everyone's seen TV dramas of a patient being revived on an operating table, and everyone expects to be floating above the scene in their NDE, and that's what they experience, but they
don't expect to see playing cards in emergency rooms, and so they don't experience it. Funny thing if NDE's are actually out-of-bodies, huh?
While consciousness in neuroscience is still being studied, that does not mean that we can't say anything about it. We have plenty to say, and the notion that it is a woo thing that "comes from" somewhere and "goes" somewhere is completely unfounded and shows every indication that it is wrong. Your notion that "neuroscience is guessing" on the broad category of what consciousness is (thing vs process) is simply wrong.
Quote
Even a zombie need a bit of consciousness to move around so this consciousness must be something.
No consciousness no life Haku.
As simple as this.
First off, zombies are
fiction. Fiiictiooon. They don't exist the way you think of them. At best, real zombies are still fully alive but brain-damaged people. I have no need to explain what is not evident.
And then there's the fact that there are the brain-dead. People with silent brain matter and well-correlated to having no detectable consciousness, yet are still alive in every other sense. If you can call a meat vegetable "alive." Their organs may even be donated to other people who need them, and will live perfectly happily in them but for immune system rejection issues.
Quote
Sorry Haku but that is a load of garbage.
You calling something garbage does not make it so.
Quote
If it is true that when the brain stop also the consciousness stop then we can say that when the vehicle is dead also the driver die.
Bad analogies are still bad. There is no driver, no homunculus in the brain. Nobody has demonstrated that a consciousness can exist apart from a functioning brain. No, NDE are not examples of this. Again, we've tested them and they show no signs of them being other than reconstructions after the fact. It is a mere experience, not a reality.
Quote
Do you realize the nonsense you are talking?
[Irony meter exploded.]Quote
It is bizarre how atheists always say that they do not believe in magic but eh, is not magic to believe that we never build the consciousness that we got?
Do you really believe that you are lucky to have the consciousness that you have?
If atheists believe in science then why they believe in magic?
Since when science say that something come from nothing?
Who suppose to have build the consciousness that you got other than you?
You have not demonstrated that anything we believe is "magic." Believing that some aspect of yourself exists beyond the expiration of your body, with no evidence to indicate that such a thing exists, and that it has properties that is seen in no other entity in this universe (you think that the consciousness is the only permanent thing in this universe), is to you less magical than believing that such things are horse-hooey. Sorry, your woo is still, at the end, woo.
Quote
Get real brother and don't waste your time chasing illusions.
Gaslighting, pure and simple. Dude, this reality right here that I'm sitting in is the one I have to deal with. You promise me that your woo is more important than the reality that I can readily verify. You promise me that I will achieve peace of mind and permanent happiness with your woo. And if you're wrong and all I get is an empty box... I have no course for redress.
In any other context, such a promise would be rightly regarded as a con, so I'm calling it as I see it.
If there is an afterlife, then its gravy on an already fulfilling life. If there isn't, then I still have my fulfilling life. Either way, I still come out ahead of you.
Quote from: Arik on June 12, 2019, 11:16:15 AM
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
Did you mean to be sarcastic or did you actually express a fairly ground worldview without duress or external aid?
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 13, 2019, 12:33:37 AM
Did you mean to be sarcastic or did you actually express a fairly ground worldview without duress or external aid?
Yes/no, he was sarcastic, but some Eastern beliefs are non-theistic. I don't think Arik is a theist. He is a non-theistic yogi.
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2019, 02:18:26 AM
Yes/no, he was sarcastic, but some Eastern beliefs are non-theistic. I don't think Arik is a theist. He is a non-theistic yogi.
Actually, Airk is a Yogi Bear and coming to us straight from Jellystone Park.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 13, 2019, 08:37:51 AM
Actually, Airk is a Yogi Bear and coming to us straight from Jellystone Park.
Shh! BooBoo the Ranger is coming!
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 13, 2019, 08:37:51 AM
Actually, Airk is a Yogi Bear and coming to us straight from Jellystone Park.
Except that Yogi is smarter than the average bear, and I don't think Arik fits that description. Or maybe Yogi only
believes he's smarter than the average bear, in which case Arik fits better.
Yogi was a talking bear. But, saying things, as shown in this thread for instance, is not a sign of intelligence. If he had an ounce of intelligence, he would've used that ability to become stinking rich, allowing him to get all of the picknick baskets he wanted.
Instead, he chose to sit and shit in the woods.
Do bears shit in the woods?
Quote from: Baruch on June 12, 2019, 11:35:56 AM
Management requires deception. Only technicians can pretend that honesty and process are all that are required.
Materialists are narrow in their perception of what could be real. The world is material, but much more. I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution. In that way I disagree with Arik. There are random changes only. Except with entropy, it is one step forward and two steps back.
When you say......... I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution..........can you please go a bit further and give some examples.
Thanks.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 12, 2019, 11:56:21 AM
Not CB, but will comment anyway. Decent list, but not quite right.
#5--No, not for me. Religion always has a hierarchy which leads to destruction and evil. Spiritually is a personal thing and is not always unproductive for either the person or society. For example, I have a good friend who meditates daily and says he is searching and getting in touch with his 'higher' being. He claims his spirituality makes him a better person and I don't argue with that.
Oh, well at least there is something that you like.
Congratulation mate.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/happy-businessmen-pat-on-shoulder-450w-1020928852.jpg)
Quote#7 NDE's are not lies, even if they are hallucinations. Optical illusions are not lies but just how our brain interprets what it 'sees'.
Now you talk nonsense Mike.
How on earth can a brain off as declared by doctors be able to interpret anything?
Quote#8--Since our consciousness is a function or our brain, as our brain changes (and evolves), our consciousness will as well.
More nonsense Mike.
Who told you that the consciousness is a function of the brain?
Would you say that the driver is a function of the vehicle?
Can't you ponder a bit more before you come up with this nonsense?
QuoteThe rest I agree with. And please continue if you wish.
Very sad Mike, very sad indeed.
Quote from: aitm on June 12, 2019, 12:14:27 PM
Well, finally posting something that is not bullshit. I wouldn't say we consider all of the facts..but until we get something from a reputable source telling us otherwise with some backup.
I have to ask you a big big favor aitm.
I am talking about these atheists facts.
Would you be so kind to bring some evidence about them.
You see aitm I did put down these facts a bit too fast but I did forget to produce any evidence about them.
I am sure you can help with that considering also that you agree with them.
Thanks mate.
Quote from: Arik on June 14, 2019, 08:58:29 AM
When you say......... I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution..........can you please go a bit further and give some examples.
Thanks.
Subject of sentence. You believe in progress, teleology, purposeful evolution. In that sense, you are closer to the regular posters than close to me. Which is fine. You differ from the regular posters in your metaphysics. Which is fine too. They see teleology from a materialist POV, you see it from a spiritualist POV. In that sense, we are closer to each other, than to the regular posters. Because our metaphysics agrees.
Venn diagram ... I am the set that partially covers set A and set B. A natural bridge drug.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 12, 2019, 11:59:41 PM
Bullshit. This isn't just "my guess." This is the body of neuroscience. Specific aspects of consciousness are indeed linked to particular areas of the brain, for instance. Damage your Brocha's area, you will not be able to form or even comprehend sentences, and at best pick out words and try to deduce their meaning; damage your Wernicke's area, and you will start babbling gramatical nonsense. Split the brain down the corpus colosum and you will have two distinct personalities in one body â€" one "consciousness" has become two, and it's certainly not a de neuvo consciousness either. There is no conservation of consciousness. It shows every indication that it is something that the brain does.
What a nonsense Haku.........
Neuroscience as you can see here below study the nervous system not the consciousness and because the consciousness is no part of the nervous system obviously your point is faulty.
Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, mathematical modeling and psychology to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. Wikipedia
QuoteNDE do not demonstrate that they are anything other than the brain's attempt to reconstruct what was happening after the fact. We've tested NDE, and they fail to show that they are anything supernatural. Yes, these patients describe what they think might have happened during their revival
You fail on this point same same as our friend Mike so I repeat what I said to him to you.
How on earth can a brain which has been declared off and dead be able to reconstruct anything?
You too should ponder a bit more before you come up with this nonsense.
Quotebut they all utterly fail to notice the rather incongruitous and obvious playing card laid atop a shelf in plain view of a supposed soul.
It's like, everyone's seen TV dramas of a patient being revived on an operating table, and everyone expects to be floating above the scene in their NDE, and that's what they experience, but they don't expect to see playing cards in emergency rooms, and so they don't experience it. Funny thing if NDE's are actually out-of-bodies, huh?
This is a terrible failing Haku.
NDEs are given for a reason which is to learn and to use this learning in order to improve the life of those people so obviously God wouldn't engage in playing games such as that.
God doesn't give the tips to find the gold because this is not a treasure hunt.
That is also why God doesn't show to you and make you believe in Him.
He is just not part of the universal game.
You got to find Him without using any tricks.
QuoteWhile consciousness in neuroscience is still being studied,
Consciousness is NOT part of neuroscience.
Put that in your mind Haku.
Quotethat does not mean that we can't say anything about it. We have plenty to say, and the notion that it is a woo thing that "comes from" somewhere and "goes" somewhere is completely unfounded and shows every indication that it is wrong. Your notion that "neuroscience is guessing" on the broad category of what consciousness is (thing vs process) is simply wrong.
I send the woo back to the sender. LOL
QuoteFirst off, zombies are fiction. Fiiictiooon. They don't exist the way you think of them. At best, real zombies are still fully alive but brain-damaged people. I have no need to explain what is not evident.
And then there's the fact that there are the brain-dead. People with silent brain matter and well-correlated to having no detectable consciousness, yet are still alive in every other sense. If you can call a meat vegetable "alive." Their organs may even be donated to other people who need them, and will live perfectly happily in them but for immune system rejection issues.
I do not believe in zombies.
Mine was a way to say that even a total idiot need a tiny bit of consciousness to live or be alive.
QuoteYou calling something garbage does not make it so.
True.
QuoteBad analogies are still bad. There is no driver, no homunculus in the brain. Nobody has demonstrated that a consciousness can exist apart from a functioning brain. No, NDE are not examples of this. Again, we've tested them and they show no signs of them being other than reconstructions after the fact. It is a mere experience, not a reality.
I am afraid Haku that NDEs are the perfect example of that.
Everything make sense and show evidence.
The real patient, the real casualty situation, the real hospital, the real doctors and nurses and a real experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years.
On the other hand hallucination are forgotten after a very short time and their vision is all blurry.
Quote[Irony meter exploded.]
You have not demonstrated that anything we believe is "magic." Believing that some aspect of yourself exists beyond the expiration of your body, with no evidence to indicate that such a thing exists, and that it has properties that is seen in no other entity in this universe (you think that the consciousness is the only permanent thing in this universe), is to you less magical than believing that such things are horse-hooey. Sorry, your woo is still, at the end, woo.
Most of the atheists beliefs are build on magic not on reality.
The evidence is not there and by the way they also go against the very science that atheists rely to.
See my 10 points in previous post and see if you can come up with any evidence in anyone of them. :wink:
QuoteGaslighting, pure and simple. Dude, this reality right here that I'm sitting in is the one I have to deal with. You promise me that your woo is more important than the reality that I can readily verify. You promise me that I will achieve peace of mind and permanent happiness with your woo. And if you're wrong and all I get is an empty box... I have no course for redress. In any other context, such a promise would be rightly regarded as a con, so I'm calling it as I see it.
If there is an afterlife, then its gravy on an already fulfilling life. If there isn't, then I still have my fulfilling life. Either way, I still come out ahead of you.
You make the whole situation a bit too complicated.
You don't have to believe in anything as you start your journey.
All you have to believe is to believe in yourself.
Step by step you improve your life and what is needed for climbing to the next step will unfold automatically.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 13, 2019, 12:33:37 AM
Did you mean to be sarcastic or did you actually express a fairly ground worldview without duress or external aid?
Sarcastic but without any bad feeling after all we share this universe.
Quote from: Arik on June 14, 2019, 09:22:10 AM
Very sad Mike, very sad indeed.
Yes, Arik, sad is indeed, one way to take all of your posts.
Quote from: Arik on June 14, 2019, 10:24:53 AM
What a nonsense Haku.........
Neuroscience as you can see here below study the nervous system not the consciousness and because the consciousness is no part of the nervous system obviously your point is faulty.
Mere assertion. Your stating that consciousness is not part of the nervous system does not make it true.
Quote
Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, mathematical modeling and psychology to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. Wikipedia
I see nowhere where Wikipedia claims consciousness is not part of the nervous system.
Quote
You fail on this point same same as our friend Mike so I repeat what I said to him to you.
How on earth can a brain which has been declared off and dead be able to reconstruct anything?
You too should ponder a bit more before you come up with this nonsense.
You really are a dumbass, aren't you? It's called a NEAR DEATH experience because you experience after being near death and come back from the brink. At no point are you actually dead. Even if you are declared dead, that doesn't make you actually dead, because many cells remain alive hours after clinical death.
It's called a NEAR death experience because the people who experience
aren't actually dead!Maybe
you should ponder this before you open your big trap.
Quote
This is a terrible failing Haku.
NDEs are given for a reason which is to learn and to use this learning in order to improve the life of those people so obviously God wouldn't engage in playing games such as that.
God doesn't give the tips to find the gold because this is not a treasure hunt.
That is also why God doesn't show to you and make you believe in Him.
He is just not part of the universal game.
You got to find Him without using any tricks.
Nonsense.
All God is doing is playing games by being this fucking evasive. People experiencing NDEs
never give testimony out of line from what they expect to find in such experiences. When tested, they never are able to gain any genuinely unexplained knowledge that would prove the are actually sensing something beyond the norm, like those hidden playing cards. Should they have been reliably been seeing those playing cards, even if God has to point out that the playing card is important and they should memorize it, then that would be interesting and something to talk about. But they don't. All we get is pap testimony of things beyond that could just as easily be imagination.
NDEs have never shown themselves to be a reliable source of verifiable knowledge, and until they are, I don't see why anyone would or should trust them any more than any other story that people tell.
Also, a God that is unwilling to be verified by any means obviously values gullibility above critical thinking, and that is a God I cannot respect.
Quote
Consciousness is NOT part of neuroscience.
Put that in your mind Haku.
Mere repetition does not make it any more true than the first time you said it. We even have a field of neuroscience dedicated to the study of the link between consciousness and neurology, cognitive neuroscience. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience)
Cognitive neuroscience is the scientific field that is concerned with the study of the biological processes and aspects that underlie cognition,[1] with a specific focus on the neural connections in the brain which are involved in mental processes. It addresses the questions of how cognitive activities are affected or controlled by neural circuits in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both neuroscience and psychology, overlapping with disciplines such as behavioral neuroscience, cognitive psychology, physiological psychology and affective neuroscience.[2] Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in cognitive science coupled with evidence from neurobiology, and computational modeling.[2]
So, this notion that cognition (including consciousness) is "NOT part of neuroscience," is just you speaking out of your ass again.
Quote
I send the woo back to the sender. LOL
Yeah, yeah. Calling that "woo" does not make it so.
Quote
I do not believe in zombies.
Mine was a way to say that even a total idiot need a tiny bit of consciousness to live or be alive.
Prove it, then. Prove that you are not a philosophical zombie, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie) who is so detailed that it even "thinks" (in whatever facsimile of thinking it's able to perform) that it is conscious. Prove that people are actual conscious beings instead of intricately programmed facsimiles that have been given false experiences and thoughts and the mere illusion of consciousness. Prove that you have
actual consciousness instead of the convincing illusion of it, and you might be getting somewhere. Otherwise, you're up the creek.
And keep in mind, people are quite easily fooled into believing that bots on the internet are real people, at least for a while, and those things are quite simple in their action.
Quote
I am afraid Haku that NDEs are the perfect example of that.
Everything make sense and show evidence.
The real patient, the real casualty situation, the real hospital, the real doctors and nurses and a real experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years.
On the other hand hallucination are forgotten after a very short time and their vision is all blurry.
And yet they never seem to see those playing cards, do they? God never gives them the hint that maybe they should, as part of that "clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years" experiences, be remembering the card and its suit and value, to give some indication... ANY indication... that they're
actually remembering a real experience and not just reconstructing one.
And before you point out the clearness and sharpness again, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a reconstructed memory is shoddy and distorted. Not so. Each and every memory you recall is, at that moment, reconstructed from whatever pieces the brain pulls together. We know this because not only do we have brain scans that show this in action, we know that "clear memories" can be filled with inaccuracies no matter how clear and sharp they seem, because if you compare such a recalled memory over time, it
changes! Especially if the memory is recalled often. What happened to these "experience that are clear, sharp and remembered years later," Arik? If the story changes, then
at most one of the different versions is accurate, if any of them.
Again, until NDEs are validated as a source of real knowledge, I don't see why anyone should take them seriously. A God that is playing games with sending cryptic messages via ALMOST dead people taking about the hereafter (that they never experienced) brought back from the brink instead of first confirming that such a channel can be trusted is a God OBVIOUSLY uninterested in our welfare.
Quote
Most of the atheists beliefs are build on magic not on reality.
The evidence is not there and by the way they also go against the very science that atheists rely to.
See my 10 points in previous post and see if you can come up with any evidence in anyone of them. :wink:
Okay:
ARIK: 1) When we die is all over.
Evidence: The glaring lack of verifiable evidence that the above is anything but this case, even from a God that SHOULD know what kind of evidence would convince us. When there's a lack of evidence in exactly the places where they should be expected, that is evidence against.
ARIK: 2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
Evidence: The intimate relation between damage to the brain and damage to the consciousness. Again, a consciousness that is supposedly permanent should be able to weather such damage without consequence, but when we study brain damaged people, these faculties betray every sign of being completely gone instead of simply having no outlet. When we temporarily silence these regions with transcranial stimulation, patients describe their experience as such. For temporary aphasics (no language), they describe themselves after the fact that during the period of time they were simply unable to comprehend words even in their thoughts.
ARIK: 3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
Obvious deduction from 1 and 2, with the caveat that this holds as long as the universe does not satisfy the conditions of Poincare's recursion theorem.
ARIK: 4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
Evidence: The complete inability for theists to explain why God can exist in the first place if the universe needs a God to create it. The attempts all boil down to special pleading. If God may exist without a cause, there is no real compelling reason why a unverse couldn't exist without a cause as well. Occam's razor slices off the unnecessary premise (God).
ARIK: 5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
CORRECTION: Not a position held by us. I just consider them equally bogus on account that they rely on exactly the same types of evidence for brodly similar claims.
ARIK: 6) Jesus never existed.
If he wasn't a mangod, it wouldn't matter one whit if he existed or not â€" the feats attributed to him are obvious fairy tales and cannot be verified, and again, God would know exactly what kind of evidence it would need to really rigiourously verify such claims. I'm on the side that Jesus is a historicized mythical figure, but that's another story.
ARIK: 7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
CORRECTION: Not necessarily. They're experiences, but not necessarily of the things that they think they are.
Evidence: Again, not one of these NDE people caught on that there was a playing card on those top shelves, and a God didn't see fit to point out the card to those people and say, "See that playing card? Memorize it! It'll be important later!" Again, it looks exactly like people are reconstructing memories after the fact, rather than a genuine real phenomenon. Reconstruction of memories does not require any knowledge of things we don't know about; supernatural woo does. Occam's razor deletes the woo in favor of reconstruction.
ARIK: 8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
We don't call the change of a consciousness with time "evolution." People learn, think, imagine, and grow. But it's not an evolution as you think of it.
ARIK: 9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
Evidence: All theories of woo fall flat on their face. They don't work. Physical science, grounded completely in materialistic thinking, works a charm. This is exactly the distribution of success and failure that you expect if physical science is all there is.
ARIK: 10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
Evidence: All martial artists who are able to break concrete are able to do so after conditioning their
bodies, not spindly little gurus who eschew their bodies. There's a mental component, as one's natural inclination is to not bash their hands, feet, and head against hard rock-like substances, but discipline is as far as it goes. Furthermore, every mechanical advantage is given to the martial artist. And finally, actual calculations indicate that breaking the blocks of concrete actually seen broken is well within the capability of the human body if its well-trained. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the breaking of concrete is a physical phenomenon, rather than a mental one.
Quote
You make the whole situation a bit too complicated.
You don't have to believe in anything as you start your journey.
All you have to believe is to believe in yourself.
Step by step you improve your life and what is needed for climbing to the next step will unfold automatically.
I do belive in myself, but I don't believe
you. You have said nothing in your drivel that has the ring of truth to it. I believe in my ability to understand and grasp even a little bit how the world actually works, and I've
worked to gain the knowledge necessary to understand it, and I have been rewarded with a less shallow than average understanding. You see humans breaking concrete and think, "WOW! That's obviously impossible physically for a human, so it MUST be mental powers!" whereas I think, "Huh, that's cool, and
seems to be impossible! But is that really beyond human capability? Let's see... WOW! Human bodies are more capable than I first thought!"
In short, I see in you nothing more than nonsense masquerading as knowledge. Find a way to VERIFY anything you say with a means equal to your claims, and you might have a case. Until then, it's just a snake-oil salesman trying to sell me cure-all.
Quote from: Arik on June 12, 2019, 11:16:15 AM
Oh, well if you like to talk about FACTS then I mention a small list of atheists facts.
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
Shell I continue CB?
Seems basically right. I'm not sure I would call #7 NDEs "lies" as the people who suffer that truly believe their experiences are true. Lies are deliberate falsehoods. And I'm not sure what you mean by #8 or #10
Quote from: Baruch on June 12, 2019, 11:35:56 AM
with purposeful evolution.
No evolutionists say that evolution is "purposeful". Would you like to discuss that further?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 06:11:05 AM
No evolutionists say that evolution is "purposeful". Would you like to discuss that further?
Purpose ... comes from Aristotle. Aristotle is pre-modern. Aristotle had this idea .. it is the purpose of the acorn, to make an oak tree, or is it the purpose of the oak tree to make an acorn? For Aristotle, cause/effect worked backwards to us. The acorn of the future, calls the oak tree of today into being. That is teleology/purpose to Aristotle. In current scientific method, there is no purpose to anything. Example.
You have an ice-cream cone, with ice-cream in it. The ice-cream is a hard cold ball, it doesn't fill the whole cone. As the ice-cream warms up, it starts to melt, it becomes soft, and starts adjusting to gravity and the shape of the cone. Eventually, before melting completely, the ice-cream fills the cone from the bottom up, without gaps. Its shape is that of the cone, not a sphere.
So I ask you, did the ice-cream have a purpose in mind? It reacted to its environment, and took on the least-energetic posture. It is lazy, as all things are. Like slumping in your chair. But without life, without mind. The simplest things always respond to their immediate environment. And like a "break" of the balls on a billiard table, the cue ball hits the triangle of balls, and they go every which way
Explanation moves from present to future, not future to the past. Ancient people saw time the opposite to what we see. A man looks into the past, not into the future (if you are ancient man). The past can be seen, the future cannot. Modern man is opposite, he turns his back on the past, and looks forward into the future. And repeats every mistake.
Quote from: Baruch on June 15, 2019, 07:01:56 AM
Purpose ... comes from Aristotle. Aristotle is pre-modern. Aristotle had this idea .. it is the purpose of the acorn, to make an oak tree, or is it the purpose of the oak tree to make an acorn? For Aristotle, cause/effect worked backwards to us. The acorn of the future, calls the oak tree of today into being. That is teleology/purpose to Aristotle. In current scientific method, there is no purpose to anything. Example.
You have an ice-cream cone, with ice-cream in it. The ice-cream is a hard cold ball, it doesn't fill the whole cone. As the ice-cream warms up, it starts to melt, it becomes soft, and starts adjusting to gravity and the shape of the cone. Eventually, before melting completely, the ice-cream fills the cone from the bottom up, without gaps. Its shape is that of the cone, not a sphere.
So I ask you, did the ice-cream have a purpose in mind? It reacted to its environment, and took on the least-energetic posture. It is lazy, as all things are. Like slumping in your chair. But without life, without mind. The simplest things always respond to their immediate environment. And like a "break" of the balls on a billiard table, the cue ball hits the triangle of balls, and they go every which way
Explanation moves from present to future, not future to the past. Ancient people saw time the opposite to what we see. A man looks into the past, not into the future (if you are ancient man). The past can be seen, the future cannot. Modern man is opposite, he turns his back on the past, and looks forward into the future. And repeats every mistake.
OK, I have a pack of cigs and a glass of wine, let's talk...
First, let me say that the concept of "purpose" was an important idea. Given that most of the Greeks and others thought the world was pretty random an poly-deitically-controlled, that was a serious thought.
But second, let's agree that an acorn or an oak tree doesn't have a "purpose" in the sense that intent is involved. Purpose does imply, well, "purpose". Nothing has purpose without intent and intent requires thought and plan. So your oak tree can't actually have "purpose".
Third, your ice cream cone is only about viscous liquid responding to temperature and gravity, so there is no purpose in that.
Fourth, you mention ancient people only looking to the past. While they certainly did think of the past (as we also do at times), that says nothing about "purpose" or their whole way of thinking. Did some people in places around the world build terraces for future farming by thinking only of the past? Of course not.
I would even say they mummified or otherwise maintained their ancestors to get advice for their future. Humans always think to the future. They have to. They need to worry about next year crops and children, not the past harvests and births.
And "purpose"? Its the egg not the chicken. The egg always comes first. It's because the genetics demand the first of anything is the result of 2 parents mating who "aren't quite the egg".
Have a good day...
Purpose doesn't "come from" Aristotle. He might have recognized its existence, but it didn't come from him.
I mostly agree. But regarding views of the past, by ancients ... they had this "fate" and "curse" thing going. So the future wasn't a nice thing. I was providing a context, wasn't saying the past caused the present (in their view), that is in fact the modern view.
Quote from: Baruch on June 15, 2019, 09:19:20 AM
I mostly agree. But regarding views of the past, by ancients ... they had this "fate" and "curse" thing going. So the future wasn't a nice thing. I was providing a context, wasn't saying the past caused the present (in their view), that is in fact the modern view.
You didn't answer a single thing in my post.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 14, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
Mere assertion. Your stating that consciousness is not part of the nervous system does not make it true.
I see nowhere where Wikipedia claims consciousness is not part of the nervous system.
Uh, uh, now is getting a bit too long.
If I can't finish to reply to all question tonight it will be tomorrow.
But now let me answer the first question.
The answer is very very simple.
The nervous system is made of matter but the consciousness is an abstract entity.
Normal people do not need much time to understand this simple point so obviously the two need two separate study to understand this point that is why neuroscience that study the nervous system is not able to understand something that is abstract in nature.
An engineer that build the vehicle obviously is not interested in understanding much about a driver that is why you fail once again.
QuoteYou really are a dumbass, aren't you? It's called a NEAR DEATH experience because you experience after being near death and come back from the brink. At no point are you actually dead. Even if you are declared dead, that doesn't make you actually dead, because many cells remain alive hours after clinical death.
It's called a NEAR death experience because the people who experience aren't actually dead!
Is not by calling me with names that you will be able to score any points.
If you want to score any point in front of an impartial jury you will have to come up with something that make sense which is something that so far you have failed to do.
And now to answer your question.
Death to me and to all who had a real NDE is when the consciousness leave the body regardless whether the nerve cells are not dead yet. According to medical science however a person is dead when the heart stop and doesn't send any more blood-oxygen into the brain.
To some other is when the brain cells are all dead.
To me the word NDE is not correct.
The one who invented the word should have call it TDE (temporary death experience) but that is not a big deal anyway.
In most cases the brain cells die within about 3 minutes after the blood-oxygen stop flowing but in some rare cases they last up to ten minutes so after that time the death is real death.
The funny thing Haku is that most of the real NDEs last well over 10 minutes which means that the body and the brain cells are totally lifeless that is why all your excuses to prove that the person is not real dead are all a bunch of nonsense.
FAIL AGAIN HAKU.
QuoteMaybe you should ponder this before you open your big trap.
Nonsense. All God is doing is playing games by being this fucking evasive. People experiencing NDEs never give testimony out of line from what they expect to find in such experiences. When tested, they never are able to gain any genuinely unexplained knowledge that would prove the are actually sensing something beyond the norm, like those hidden playing cards. Should they have been reliably been seeing those playing cards, even if God has to point out that the playing card is important and they should memorize it, then that would be interesting and something to talk about. But they don't. All we get is pap testimony of things beyond that could just as easily be imagination.
Fail again Haku.
There are several cases in which these people who had a real NDE saw what was happening in the hospital while they were out their bodies.
In one case the person saw a nurse that drop a baby which fracture some bones.
The nurse in fear of getting in trouble did not report the incident.
Once the person who had this NDE came back into his body he reported what happen to the doctors that could find the baby and fix the fracture.
In many other cases the NDE person describe what happen in the casualty room while his body was dead.
Doctors and nurses could not believe how a suppose dead person could see and describe all this.
Evidence is there Haku but of course this evidence would shred in pieces all atheists beliefs that is why atheists cling to the idea that NDEs are all rubbish.
QuoteNDEs have never shown themselves to be a reliable source of verifiable knowledge, and until they are, I don't see why anyone would or should trust them any more than any other story that people tell.
Also, a God that is unwilling to be verified by any means obviously values gullibility above critical thinking, and that is a God I cannot respect.
Mere repetition does not make it any more true than the first time you said it.
Free will is there for all to be free to believe or not believe.
Why God would give the free will and then open the eyes of those who are not genuinely interested in Him?
QuoteWe even have a field of neuroscience dedicated to the study of the link between consciousness and neurology, cognitive neuroscience. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience)
Sure Haku.
We also have the engineer that create the vehicle that try to study how the drivers would react to the vehicle but how far do you think that study would go considering that the engineer is manly expert in building the vehicle?
Ponder again Haku.
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)
Quote
Cognitive neuroscience is the scientific field that is concerned with the study of the biological processes and aspects that underlie cognition,[1] with a specific focus on the neural connections in the brain which are involved in mental processes. It addresses the questions of how cognitive activities are affected or controlled by neural circuits in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both neuroscience and psychology, overlapping with disciplines such as behavioral neuroscience, cognitive psychology, physiological psychology and affective neuroscience.[2] Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in cognitive science coupled with evidence from neurobiology, and computational modeling.[2]
QuoteSo, this notion that cognition (including consciousness) is "NOT part of neuroscience," is just you speaking out of your ass again.
Yeah, yeah. Calling that "woo" does not make it so.
Prove it, then. Prove that you are not a philosophical zombie, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie) who is so detailed that it even "thinks" (in whatever facsimile of thinking it's able to perform) that it is conscious. Prove that people are actual conscious beings instead of intricately programmed facsimiles that have been given false experiences and thoughts and the mere illusion of consciousness. Prove that you have actual consciousness instead of the convincing illusion of it, and you might be getting somewhere. Otherwise, you're up the creek.
And keep in mind, people are quite easily fooled into believing that bots on the internet are real people, at least for a while, and those things are quite simple in their action.
And yet they never seem to see those playing cards, do they? God never gives them the hint that maybe they should, as part of that "clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years" experiences, be remembering the card and its suit and value, to give some indication... ANY indication... that they're actually remembering a real experience and not just reconstructing one.
Just answered that point. (see above)
More in the next post
Quote from: Arik on June 15, 2019, 10:07:35 AM
More in the next post
Oh, I can't wait. Please stay up and entertain me more... Please?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 14, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
QuoteAnd keep in mind, people are quite easily fooled into believing that bots on the internet are real people, at least for a while, and those things are quite simple in their action.
And yet they never seem to see those playing cards, do they? God never gives them the hint that maybe they should, as part of that "clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years" experiences, be remembering the card and its suit and value, to give some indication... ANY indication... that they're actually remembering a real experience and not just reconstructing one.
And before you point out the clearness and sharpness again, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a reconstructed memory is shoddy and distorted. Not so. Each and every memory you recall is, at that moment, reconstructed from whatever pieces the brain pulls together. We know this because not only do we have brain scans that show this in action, we know that "clear memories" can be filled with inaccuracies no matter how clear and sharp they seem, because if you compare such a recalled memory over time, it changes! Especially if the memory is recalled often. What happened to these "experience that are clear, sharp and remembered years later," Arik? If the story changes, then at most one of the different versions is accurate, if any of them.
Again, until NDEs are validated as a source of real knowledge, I don't see why anyone should take them seriously. A God that is playing games with sending cryptic messages via ALMOST dead people taking about the hereafter (that they never experienced) brought back from the brink instead of first confirming that such a channel can be trusted is a God OBVIOUSLY uninterested in our welfare.
Okay:
Who told you that God suppose to give hints or experiences only to dead people under the NDEs?
Meditation is one of the best way to experience God and I am fully aware of that but there are many other ways to experience God.
Unfortunately most materialists think that if something is true they should be able to experience it in a material-physical way.
These people don't get the fact that not everything come under the physical-material dimension.
QuoteARIK: 1) When we die is all over.
Evidence: The glaring lack of verifiable evidence that the above is anything but this case, even from a God that SHOULD know what kind of evidence would convince us. When there's a lack of evidence in exactly the places where they should be expected, that is evidence against.
Fail again Haku.
There is evidence that the high degree of consciousness is due to a lot of hard work through the evolution process.
Nothing pop up as per magic.
Only fools believe in magic that is why we lived before in order to climb the ladder of evolution which again means that we lived before and we will live again until we reach the very top of evolution.
QuoteARIK: 2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
Evidence: The intimate relation between damage to the brain and damage to the consciousness. Again, a consciousness that is supposedly permanent should be able to weather such damage without consequence, but when we study brain damaged people, these faculties betray every sign of being completely gone instead of simply having no outlet. When we temporarily silence these regions with transcranial stimulation, patients describe their experience as such. For temporary aphasics (no language), they describe themselves after the fact that during the period of time they were simply unable to comprehend words even in their thoughts.
That is very very silly of you Haku.
Just imagine when people are involved in a vehicle incident.
Obviously the driver get hurt so his consciousness can not work properly as before but this doesn't mean that the driver is part and parcel of the car.
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)
QuoteARIK: 3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
Obvious deduction from 1 and 2, with the caveat that this holds as long as the universe does not satisfy the conditions of Poincare's recursion theorem.
Meaningless answer.
QuoteARIK: 4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
Evidence: The complete inability for theists to explain why God can exist in the first place if the universe needs a God to create it. The attempts all boil down to special pleading. If God may exist without a cause, there is no real compelling reason why a unverse couldn't exist without a cause as well. Occam's razor slices off the unnecessary premise (God).
The universe is also a body and a body need to be fed all the time.
The entropy theory go against this principle and other theories are not applicable so obviously someone is there all the time to feed this universe with energy and whatever is needed to be alive and well.
QuoteARIK: 5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
CORRECTION: Not a position held by us. I just consider them equally bogus on account that they rely on exactly the same types of evidence for brodly similar claims.
Actually I saw several times in different forums that atheists think that both of them are the same thing when in reality the difference is astronomic.
In most cases the only thing that yoga share with religions is that God is real.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 10:16:58 AM
Oh, I can't wait. Please stay up and entertain me more... Please?
Don't say that again or I will charge you for reading my posts eh! :cheesy:
Quote from: Arik on June 15, 2019, 10:52:59 AM
Don't say that again or I will charge you for reading my posts eh! :cheesy:
A penny per 1,000 words would be an overcharge.
Look, to my mind, you are simply one more in a long line of crazed theists who come and go here, and I really don't care a tinker's dam about you and your opinions. I have little use or respect for for theists. Personally, I consider you all to be a blot on the page.
Have a nice day...
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 14, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
ARIK: 6) Jesus never existed.
If he wasn't a mangod, it wouldn't matter one whit if he existed or not â€" the feats attributed to him are obvious fairy tales and cannot be verified, and again, God would know exactly what kind of evidence it would need to really rigiourously verify such claims. I'm on the side that Jesus is a historicized mythical figure, but that's another story.
Usually the history is mainly written by the winner and Jesus did not fight for the winner so obviously not much evidence is there for Jesus.
But again the free will make sure that people shell not be given easy evidence that God exist.
QuoteARIK: 7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
CORRECTION: Not necessarily. They're experiences, but not necessarily of the things that they think they are.
Evidence: Again, not one of these NDE people caught on that there was a playing card on those top shelves, and a God didn't see fit to point out the card to those people and say, "See that playing card? Memorize it! It'll be important later!" Again, it looks exactly like people are reconstructing memories after the fact, rather than a genuine real phenomenon. Reconstruction of memories does not require any knowledge of things we don't know about; supernatural woo does. Occam's razor deletes the woo in favor of reconstruction.
I already answer this question in previous posts.
Read them.
And if you want to know better about the NDEs go in this site.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
QuoteARIK: 8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
We don't call the change of a consciousness with time "evolution." People learn, think, imagine, and grow. But it's not an evolution as you think of it.
Evolution of the consciousness is all about getting more awareness of who you are and your relationship with the whole and this evolution of the consciousness is billion more important that the physical evolution.
QuoteARIK: 9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
Evidence: All theories of woo fall flat on their face. They don't work. Physical science, grounded completely in materialistic thinking, works a charm. This is exactly the distribution of success and failure that you expect if physical science is all there is.
Physical science is only good for physical survival but man is after a lot more than that and this is something that you will find out when you will get tired of getting nowhere by relying on this material-physical dimension.
QuoteARIK: 10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
Evidence: All martial artists who are able to break concrete are able to do so after conditioning their bodies, not spindly little gurus who eschew their bodies. There's a mental component, as one's natural inclination is to not bash their hands, feet, and head against hard rock-like substances, but discipline is as far as it goes. Furthermore, every mechanical advantage is given to the martial artist. And finally, actual calculations indicate that breaking the blocks of concrete actually seen broken is well within the capability of the human body if its well-trained. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the breaking of concrete is a physical phenomenon, rather than a mental one.
I do belive in myself, but I don't believe you. You have said nothing in your drivel that has the ring of truth to it. I believe in my ability to understand and grasp even a little bit how the world actually works, and I've worked to gain the knowledge necessary to understand it, and I have been rewarded with a less shallow than average understanding. You see humans breaking concrete and think, "WOW! That's obviously impossible physically for a human, so it MUST be mental powers!" whereas I think, "Huh, that's cool, and seems to be impossible! But is that really beyond human capability? Let's see... WOW! Human bodies are more capable than I first thought!"
In short, I see in you nothing more than nonsense masquerading as knowledge. Find a way to VERIFY anything you say with a means equal to your claims, and you might have a case. Until then, it's just a snake-oil salesman trying to sell me cure-all.
If you think that mental power is not necessary then let us go a bit further and see if you can poke in your flesh metal hooks without feeling any pain.
Do you think you can do that? :wink:
Quote from: Arik on June 15, 2019, 11:20:24 AM
If you think that mental power is not necessary then let us go a bit further and see if you can poke in your flesh metal hooks without feeling any pain.
Do you think you can do that? :wink:
Crazy people can do things like that.
But sometimes rational people can do that too. My grampa took us fishing at a bridge and I noticed he seemed to be struggling with something. I went over to check and he had a hook in his thumb. He had been standing there trying to wiggle the barbed hook out of his thumb so as not to disturb our fishing. I tried to tell him to stop doing that.
Dad finally noticed and got us all on the way to an ER. I told him what had to happen. The barbed hook would have to be pushed though and the barb cut off so the remainder could be slid back out. It was only logical solution.
Grampa and Dad said they wouldn't do THAT! It was too brutal.
But that was exactly what the ER guys did after a shot in his thumb.
No one ever thinks I am right about stuff like that but I always am. It's EXTREMELY annoying sometimes.
In your case Arik, I think I can confidently say that some people like you can do hooks, cruxifictions, etc just by sheer will. Because you are obsessed. Normal people aren't.
What amazes me is that you think it proves something. It does, but probably not what you think.
Quote from: Arik on June 14, 2019, 09:32:17 AM
Would you be so kind to bring some evidence about them.
Son, you have been responded to by people who have letters behind their names...people who have far more knowledge of science than I and most certainly you, and you just wave your hand as if they know nothing...meaning in short you are simply a troll and a liar or simply a copy pasta idiot. In either case, I...and many of those who could easily boast academic credentials but don't need to in their own home... have grown tired of you. We have given you your due...given you a place to stand and vomit....given you time to consider....given you time..period. Your time is up. We have grown tired of your wallowing in nonsense. So I give you your last couple hours. I am off to quaff a few with some friends and loved ones.....using my delightful material earning to do so. When I come back...unless someone beats me to it. I think it is time for you to move on. Have a the less than happy life you so yearn for. I, on the other hand, knowing what is and what has been supposed, choose that what is and will enjoy what it is. Good bye.
Worshipper of idols? Sounds like paganism to me. Magic letters? Sounds like Salem Mass.
Quote from: Arik on June 15, 2019, 10:07:35 AM
The nervous system is made of matter but the consciousness is an abstract entity.
You are merely ASSERTING that consciousness is an entity at all, let alone an abstract one. Consciousness is a process, because a consciousness that does not engage in cognition is not a consciousness, but unconsciousness. By analogy, the running of a car
cannot exist without a car, yet it is as much an "abstract entity" as consciousness.
Quote
Normal people do not need much time to understand this simple point so obviously the two need two separate study to understand this point that is why neuroscience that study the nervous system is not able to understand something that is abstract in nature.
Most people aren't very intelligent, and that's the difference. I've been telling you for about THREE POSTS now that I
do not accept your
assertion that consciousness is an abstract entity or thing. It doesn't matter how much you repeat that ASSERTION, until you get around to proving that consciousness IS an entity, I and neuroscience in general still have good reason to think that the consciousness is what the brain does. And what the brain does is
absolutely the perview of neuroscience.
It doesn't matter if
you say neurologists don't study consciousness. They absolutely do.
Quote
An engineer that build the vehicle obviously is not interested in understanding much about a driver that is why you fail once again.
Once again, I do no submit to your ASSERTION that consciousness is like the driver of a brain car. If you've seen Bay's Transformers, think Barricade â€" the Decepticon police cruiser. The "driver" you see "operating" Barricade is not the driver, but a hologram projected by Barricade to help in its disguise. Barricade is moving himself.
Consciousness is similar. Consciousness is not in any way analogous to the driver of the car, but more analogous to Barricade's driver hologram: the "driver" appears to be in control, but it's actually the car in control of the "driver." The consciousness appears to be in control of the brain, but the brain is fully in control and projecting the illusion of a consciousness as a controlling entity.
Quote
Is not by calling me with names that you will be able to score any points.
If you want to score any point in front of an impartial jury you will have to come up with something that make sense which is something that so far you have failed to do.
We are not in court. I'll call you whatever I want. Someone who cannot understand simple english has no right to tell me that anything I've said doesn't "make sense."
Quote
And now to answer your question.
Death to me and to all who had a real NDE is when the consciousness leave the body regardless whether the nerve cells are not dead yet.
I don't care about your definition. You cannot prove that your consciousness "went anywhere," any more than my consciousness "goes anywhere" when I dream of Narnia.
Quote
According to medical science however a person is dead when the heart stop and doesn't send any more blood-oxygen into the brain.
To some other is when the brain cells are all dead.
There is no "to some, to others" nonsense. They are different types of death that someone can go through. Clinical death (heart stopping) is more properly called cardiac arrest, and it is recoverable. There's a distinct correleation between the brain dying and the person never recovering consciousness.
Quote
To me the word NDE is not correct.
Too bad. People who verifiably go through NDEs always have quite intact brains. People whose brains are verifiably destroyed, don't have any verifiable NDE experiences.
Quote
In most cases the brain cells die within about 3 minutes after the blood-oxygen stop flowing but in some rare cases they last up to ten minutes so after that time the death is real death.
The funny thing Haku is that most of the real NDEs last well over 10 minutes which means that the body and the brain cells are totally lifeless that is why all your excuses to prove that the person is not real dead are all a bunch of nonsense.
FAIL AGAIN HAKU.
No, YOU fail. When these people wake up and convey their experiences, are their brains silent and dead? No? Then their episode was
obviously reversible. Remember that the ten minutes cited here is an
empirical observation. It's the point where you
start seeing progressive brain damage when you restore blood flow and revive the person. As the apoxia continues, the brain will deteriorate to the point where you can restore blood flow but the patient never exhibits brain function. THAT's brain death. If he's restored from apoxia and recovers some function, he's not brain dead, by definition.
So, you have not established that a brain is ever "totally lifeless." Dormant and in extremis? Yes. Dead? By definition, no.
Furthermore, even if you restore blood flow, it can take hours, even days, to regain consciousness. This is where you get NDEs lasting well over 10 minutes. Blood flow is restored, but the patient doesn't regain consciousness immediately like turning on a light. The brain is definitely working, albeit in a disorganized way, and only when that organizaion is restored is consciousness restored along with it.
So, no, you have not demonstrated that NDEs are anything other than what I say they are.
Quote
There are several cases in which these people who had a real NDE saw what was happening in the hospital while they were out their bodies.
Again, mere assertion. These same people tend to have access to what happened during their episode by ordinary means. People talk. The hospital ER is not a controlled environment where you can FORCE people not to gab about the episode. In fact, talking to a comatose patient is encouraged not only under the theory that the best treatment for a disabled brain is stimulation, but also good therapy for friends and family.
This is definitely a channel by which a patient can assimilate information without woo, in addition to people gabbing after the patient has regained consciousness. The flow of information to the patient is not under any sort of control, and uncontrolled conditions make for poor data. Too poor to support an extraordinary claim like OOB experiences.
That's why you use the playing cards.
It's a piece of completely irrelevant information that is placed exactly where NDEs are reported to float above to give them the best chance of being seen if they were actually there. And, of course, they never seem to see it, even to wonder why the heck it's there. Not one of them wakes up to ask, "Incidently, can anyone tell me why there's a jack of spades up on that top shelf?"
Quote
Evidence is there Haku but of course this evidence would shred in pieces all atheists beliefs that is why atheists cling to the idea that NDEs are all rubbish.
Again, poor controls make for poor data. The controls on these cases are exceedingly poor and highly anecdotal. That's why we performed the test. The test imposed controls on a particular piece of information that
only an OOBer would have access to. Yet, they fail on this very simple test. Are NDEs so incurious that
not one of them wonders why the heck there was a playing card on a shelf? Tosh.
Like every other form of paranormal, it fails under a simple test with modest controls. This is the track record of every other discarded hypothesis. I would be inconsistent to not dismiss this phenomenon that runs away from verification as I did every other.
Quote
Free will is there for all to be free to believe or not believe.
Why God would give the free will and then open the eyes of those who are not genuinely interested in Him?
Stop appealing to preserving my pweschous fwee will. We mere humans try to pursuade each other all the time, in exactly the way we're doing with each other now. Yet nobody thinks that we're undermining each other's free will. To think that a God couldn't contain himself in this manner is simply ridiculous.
Quote
We also have the engineer that create the vehicle that try to study how the drivers would react to the vehicle but how far do you think that study would go considering that the engineer is manly expert in building the vehicle?
You have yet to prove that consciousness is not under the perview of neuroscience; that it's not what the brain does, the same way Barricade presents the illusion of a car with a driver even though it's only the Decepticon.
Ponder that.
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)
Quote
Just answered that point. (see above)
You have not. You don't give ANY evidence at all that you have a genuine consciousness rather than a sham one. All you have done is asserted that you do. Sorry, a preprogrammed automaton can do that.
Quote from: Arik on June 15, 2019, 10:50:38 AM
Who told you that God suppose to give hints or experiences only to dead people under the NDEs?
Wouldn't God have an interest in using NDEs to try to prove both the supernatural and himself? Establishing that a channel of communication can be relied upon is step one of communication. A God that doesn't understand this... is dumb.
Quote
Meditation is one of the best way to experience God
You have yet to prove that there is a God to experience.
Quote
Unfortunately most materialists think that if something is true they should be able to experience it in a material-physical way.
These people don't get the fact that not everything come under the physical-material dimension.
A God should be perfectly capable of showing that there
is something beyond the material
to be considered in a complete wordview. So far, all the evidence has been found wanting. That's not our fault. A world with supernatural content that presents itself to every reliable means of verification as only material is indistinguishable from one that is only material, and a supernatural so unwilling to present itself to verification is also one that is irrelevant. Material concerns makes itself felt in every aspect in our lives. Immaterial ones, not so much.
Quote
Fail again Haku.
There is evidence that the high degree of consciousness is due to a lot of hard work through the evolution process.
There is no evolutionary advantage to a consciousness that is permanent after death. It doesn't help the differential survival of an organism's genes. Evolution has no handle on making a consciousness permanet and able to survive death.
Quote
That is very very silly of you Haku.
Just imagine when people are involved in a vehicle incident.
Obviously the driver get hurt so his consciousness can not work properly as before but this doesn't mean that the driver is part and parcel of the car.
Again, consider Barricade. Once more, you have yet to establish that consciousness is a separate thing from the brain. You need ot do that before your driver and car example will have any force.
Quote
Meaningless answer.
Of course a logical ignoramous like you would consider it meaningless.
Quote
The universe is also a body and a body need to be fed all the time.
Do
you need to be fed all the time, twenty-four/seven? I hope this answer is no.
Quote
The entropy theory go against this principle and other theories are not applicable so obviously someone is there all the time to feed this universe with energy and whatever is needed to be alive and well.
I know how entropy works, and it doesn't work this way. Entropy takes time to increase, and therefore it can take some time to reach equilibrium and heat death. Your proof is invalid.
Quote
Actually I saw several times in different forums that atheists think that both of them are the same thing when in reality the difference is astronomic.
Just because you think that the differences are astronomic doesn't mean that they are. They are in fact quite similar in one respect that is very important: they all contain unverifiable tripe.
Quote from: Arik on June 15, 2019, 11:20:24 AM
Usually the history is mainly written by the winner and Jesus did not fight for the winner so obviously not much evidence is there for Jesus.
Then your God is dumb. I can think of a dozen different ways right off the bat for hiding evidence that Jesus performed miracles, so I'm smarter than your God.
Quote
But again the free will make sure that people shell not be given easy evidence that God exist.
Like most of your tripe, mere assertion.
Quote
I already answer this question in previous posts.
You did not answer in any satisfactory way.
Quote
Evolution of the consciousness is all about getting more awareness of who you are and your relationship with the whole and this evolution of the consciousness is billion more important that the physical evolution.
Evolution is
purely a process founded in materialistic physics. There is no other evolution than physical. To assert that consciousness was evolved is to admit that consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not woo.
Quote
Physical science is only good for physical survival but man is after a lot more than that and this is something that you will find out when you will get tired of getting nowhere by relying on this material-physical dimension.
Yes, and I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus Christ. /sarcasm You have a hard time not making your spiel sound like a con. Either do better in making it sound actually intellectually respectable, or give up.
Quote
If you think that mental power is not necessary then let us go a bit further and see if you can poke in your flesh metal hooks without feeling any pain.
Do you think you can do that? :wink:
It's happened to me. I snipped into my left hand with a pair of scissors one time, and I didn't feel pain as such. It was a deep snip, too, into the subcutaneous. I washed it out and wrapped it well, and only then did the pain start. So don't tell me what I can and can't do.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 15, 2019, 09:57:14 PM
You are merely ASSERTING that consciousness is an entity at all, let alone an abstract one. Consciousness is a process, because a consciousness that does not engage in cognition is not a consciousness, but unconsciousness. By analogy, the running of a car cannot exist without a car, yet it is as much an "abstract entity" as consciousness.
Most people aren't very intelligent, and that's the difference. I've been telling you for about THREE POSTS now that I do not accept your assertion that consciousness is an abstract entity or thing. It doesn't matter how much you repeat that ASSERTION, until you get around to proving that consciousness IS an entity, I and neuroscience in general still have good reason to think that the consciousness is what the brain does. And what the brain does is absolutely the perview of neuroscience.
It doesn't matter if you say neurologists don't study consciousness. They absolutely do.
Once again, I do no submit to your ASSERTION that consciousness is like the driver of a brain car. If you've seen Bay's Transformers, think Barricade â€" the Decepticon police cruiser. The "driver" you see "operating" Barricade is not the driver, but a hologram projected by Barricade to help in its disguise. Barricade is moving himself.
Consciousness is similar. Consciousness is not in any way analogous to the driver of the car, but more analogous to Barricade's driver hologram: the "driver" appears to be in control, but it's actually the car in control of the "driver." The consciousness appears to be in control of the brain, but the brain is fully in control and projecting the illusion of a consciousness as a controlling entity.
We are not in court. I'll call you whatever I want. Someone who cannot understand simple english has no right to tell me that anything I've said doesn't "make sense."
I don't care about your definition. You cannot prove that your consciousness "went anywhere," any more than my consciousness "goes anywhere" when I dream of Narnia.
There is no "to some, to others" nonsense. They are different types of death that someone can go through. Clinical death (heart stopping) is more properly called cardiac arrest, and it is recoverable. There's a distinct correleation between the brain dying and the person never recovering consciousness.
Too bad. People who verifiably go through NDEs always have quite intact brains. People whose brains are verifiably destroyed, don't have any verifiable NDE experiences.
No, YOU fail. When these people wake up and convey their experiences, are their brains silent and dead? No? Then their episode was obviously reversible. Remember that the ten minutes cited here is an empirical observation. It's the point where you start seeing progressive brain damage when you restore blood flow and revive the person. As the apoxia continues, the brain will deteriorate to the point where you can restore blood flow but the patient never exhibits brain function. THAT's brain death. If he's restored from apoxia and recovers some function, he's not brain dead, by definition.
So, you have not established that a brain is ever "totally lifeless." Dormant and in extremis? Yes. Dead? By definition, no.
Furthermore, even if you restore blood flow, it can take hours, even days, to regain consciousness. This is where you get NDEs lasting well over 10 minutes. Blood flow is restored, but the patient doesn't regain consciousness immediately like turning on a light. The brain is definitely working, albeit in a disorganized way, and only when that organizaion is restored is consciousness restored along with it.
So, no, you have not demonstrated that NDEs are anything other than what I say they are.
Again, mere assertion. These same people tend to have access to what happened during their episode by ordinary means. People talk. The hospital ER is not a controlled environment where you can FORCE people not to gab about the episode. In fact, talking to a comatose patient is encouraged not only under the theory that the best treatment for a disabled brain is stimulation, but also good therapy for friends and family.
This is definitely a channel by which a patient can assimilate information without woo, in addition to people gabbing after the patient has regained consciousness. The flow of information to the patient is not under any sort of control, and uncontrolled conditions make for poor data. Too poor to support an extraordinary claim like OOB experiences.
That's why you use the playing cards.
It's a piece of completely irrelevant information that is placed exactly where NDEs are reported to float above to give them the best chance of being seen if they were actually there. And, of course, they never seem to see it, even to wonder why the heck it's there. Not one of them wakes up to ask, "Incidently, can anyone tell me why there's a jack of spades up on that top shelf?"
Again, poor controls make for poor data. The controls on these cases are exceedingly poor and highly anecdotal. That's why we performed the test. The test imposed controls on a particular piece of information that only an OOBer would have access to. Yet, they fail on this very simple test. Are NDEs so incurious that not one of them wonders why the heck there was a playing card on a shelf? Tosh.
Like every other form of paranormal, it fails under a simple test with modest controls. This is the track record of every other discarded hypothesis. I would be inconsistent to not dismiss this phenomenon that runs away from verification as I did every other.
Stop appealing to preserving my pweschous fwee will. We mere humans try to pursuade each other all the time, in exactly the way we're doing with each other now. Yet nobody thinks that we're undermining each other's free will. To think that a God couldn't contain himself in this manner is simply ridiculous.
You have yet to prove that consciousness is not under the perview of neuroscience; that it's not what the brain does, the same way Barricade presents the illusion of a car with a driver even though it's only the Decepticon.
Ponder that.
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)
You have not. You don't give ANY evidence at all that you have a genuine consciousness rather than a sham one. All you have done is asserted that you do. Sorry, a preprogrammed automaton can do that.
Wouldn't God have an interest in using NDEs to try to prove both the supernatural and himself? Establishing that a channel of communication can be relied upon is step one of communication. A God that doesn't understand this... is dumb.
You have yet to prove that there is a God to experience.
A God should be perfectly capable of showing that there is something beyond the material to be considered in a complete wordview. So far, all the evidence has been found wanting. That's not our fault. A world with supernatural content that presents itself to every reliable means of verification as only material is indistinguishable from one that is only material, and a supernatural so unwilling to present itself to verification is also one that is irrelevant. Material concerns makes itself felt in every aspect in our lives. Immaterial ones, not so much.
There is no evolutionary advantage to a consciousness that is permanent after death. It doesn't help the differential survival of an organism's genes. Evolution has no handle on making a consciousness permanet and able to survive death.
Again, consider Barricade. Once more, you have yet to establish that consciousness is a separate thing from the brain. You need ot do that before your driver and car example will have any force.
Of course a logical ignoramous like you would consider it meaningless.
Do you need to be fed all the time, twenty-four/seven? I hope this answer is no.
I know how entropy works, and it doesn't work this way. Entropy takes time to increase, and therefore it can take some time to reach equilibrium and heat death. Your proof is invalid.
Just because you think that the differences are astronomic doesn't mean that they are. They are in fact quite similar in one respect that is very important: they all contain unverifiable tripe.
Then your God is dumb. I can think of a dozen different ways right off the bat for hiding evidence that Jesus performed miracles, so I'm smarter than your God.
Like most of your tripe, mere assertion.
You did not answer in any satisfactory way.
Evolution is purely a process founded in materialistic physics. There is no other evolution than physical. To assert that consciousness was evolved is to admit that consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not woo.
Yes, and I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus Christ. /sarcasm You have a hard time not making your spiel sound like a con. Either do better in making it sound actually intellectually respectable, or give up.
It's happened to me. I snipped into my left hand with a pair of scissors one time, and I didn't feel pain as such. It was a deep snip, too, into the subcutaneous. I washed it out and wrapped it well, and only then did the pain start. So don't tell me what I can and can't do.
Since aitm told me to shut up or else I can not really reply to your post.
I will shut up but at least let me laugh when you say that............There is no other evolution than physical............
Have a good day anyway. :wink:
Quote from: Baruch on June 15, 2019, 08:07:32 PM
Worshipper of idols? Sounds like paganism to me. Magic letters? Sounds like Salem Mass.
Has been a pleasure to see you around.
I may see you again in some other place who knows.
Time to go because the people of letters don't like to be challenged and are upset.
Bye.
Quote from: Arik on June 16, 2019, 08:02:53 AM
Has been a pleasure to see you around.
I may see you again in some other place who knows.
Time to go because the people of letters don't like to be challenged and are upset.
Bye.
Yes, enjoy Australia, is it? Yes, a pleasure to have you visit. Don't be a stranger. I still have the links you shared, for further exploration.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 15, 2019, 09:57:14 PM
You are merely ASSERTING that consciousness is an entity at all, let alone an abstract one. Consciousness is a process, because a consciousness that does not engage in cognition is not a consciousness, but unconsciousness. By analogy, the running of a car cannot exist without a car, yet it is as much an "abstract entity" as consciousness.
Most people aren't very intelligent, and that's the difference. I've been telling you for about THREE POSTS now that I do not accept your assertion that consciousness is an abstract entity or thing. It doesn't matter how much you repeat that ASSERTION, until you get around to proving that consciousness IS an entity, I and neuroscience in general still have good reason to think that the consciousness is what the brain does. And what the brain does is absolutely the perview of neuroscience.
It doesn't matter if you say neurologists don't study consciousness. They absolutely do.
Once again, I do no submit to your ASSERTION that consciousness is like the driver of a brain car. If you've seen Bay's Transformers, think Barricade â€" the Decepticon police cruiser. The "driver" you see "operating" Barricade is not the driver, but a hologram projected by Barricade to help in its disguise. Barricade is moving himself.
Consciousness is similar. Consciousness is not in any way analogous to the driver of the car, but more analogous to Barricade's driver hologram: the "driver" appears to be in control, but it's actually the car in control of the "driver." The consciousness appears to be in control of the brain, but the brain is fully in control and projecting the illusion of a consciousness as a controlling entity.
We are not in court. I'll call you whatever I want. Someone who cannot understand simple english has no right to tell me that anything I've said doesn't "make sense."
I don't care about your definition. You cannot prove that your consciousness "went anywhere," any more than my consciousness "goes anywhere" when I dream of Narnia.
There is no "to some, to others" nonsense. They are different types of death that someone can go through. Clinical death (heart stopping) is more properly called cardiac arrest, and it is recoverable. There's a distinct correleation between the brain dying and the person never recovering consciousness.
Too bad. People who verifiably go through NDEs always have quite intact brains. People whose brains are verifiably destroyed, don't have any verifiable NDE experiences.
No, YOU fail. When these people wake up and convey their experiences, are their brains silent and dead? No? Then their episode was obviously reversible. Remember that the ten minutes cited here is an empirical observation. It's the point where you start seeing progressive brain damage when you restore blood flow and revive the person. As the apoxia continues, the brain will deteriorate to the point where you can restore blood flow but the patient never exhibits brain function. THAT's brain death. If he's restored from apoxia and recovers some function, he's not brain dead, by definition.
So, you have not established that a brain is ever "totally lifeless." Dormant and in extremis? Yes. Dead? By definition, no.
Furthermore, even if you restore blood flow, it can take hours, even days, to regain consciousness. This is where you get NDEs lasting well over 10 minutes. Blood flow is restored, but the patient doesn't regain consciousness immediately like turning on a light. The brain is definitely working, albeit in a disorganized way, and only when that organizaion is restored is consciousness restored along with it.
So, no, you have not demonstrated that NDEs are anything other than what I say they are.
Again, mere assertion. These same people tend to have access to what happened during their episode by ordinary means. People talk. The hospital ER is not a controlled environment where you can FORCE people not to gab about the episode. In fact, talking to a comatose patient is encouraged not only under the theory that the best treatment for a disabled brain is stimulation, but also good therapy for friends and family.
This is definitely a channel by which a patient can assimilate information without woo, in addition to people gabbing after the patient has regained consciousness. The flow of information to the patient is not under any sort of control, and uncontrolled conditions make for poor data. Too poor to support an extraordinary claim like OOB experiences.
That's why you use the playing cards.
It's a piece of completely irrelevant information that is placed exactly where NDEs are reported to float above to give them the best chance of being seen if they were actually there. And, of course, they never seem to see it, even to wonder why the heck it's there. Not one of them wakes up to ask, "Incidently, can anyone tell me why there's a jack of spades up on that top shelf?"
Again, poor controls make for poor data. The controls on these cases are exceedingly poor and highly anecdotal. That's why we performed the test. The test imposed controls on a particular piece of information that only an OOBer would have access to. Yet, they fail on this very simple test. Are NDEs so incurious that not one of them wonders why the heck there was a playing card on a shelf? Tosh.
Like every other form of paranormal, it fails under a simple test with modest controls. This is the track record of every other discarded hypothesis. I would be inconsistent to not dismiss this phenomenon that runs away from verification as I did every other.
Stop appealing to preserving my pweschous fwee will. We mere humans try to pursuade each other all the time, in exactly the way we're doing with each other now. Yet nobody thinks that we're undermining each other's free will. To think that a God couldn't contain himself in this manner is simply ridiculous.
You have yet to prove that consciousness is not under the perview of neuroscience; that it's not what the brain does, the same way Barricade presents the illusion of a car with a driver even though it's only the Decepticon.
Ponder that.
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)
You have not. You don't give ANY evidence at all that you have a genuine consciousness rather than a sham one. All you have done is asserted that you do. Sorry, a preprogrammed automaton can do that.
Wouldn't God have an interest in using NDEs to try to prove both the supernatural and himself? Establishing that a channel of communication can be relied upon is step one of communication. A God that doesn't understand this... is dumb.
You have yet to prove that there is a God to experience.
A God should be perfectly capable of showing that there is something beyond the material to be considered in a complete wordview. So far, all the evidence has been found wanting. That's not our fault. A world with supernatural content that presents itself to every reliable means of verification as only material is indistinguishable from one that is only material, and a supernatural so unwilling to present itself to verification is also one that is irrelevant. Material concerns makes itself felt in every aspect in our lives. Immaterial ones, not so much.
There is no evolutionary advantage to a consciousness that is permanent after death. It doesn't help the differential survival of an organism's genes. Evolution has no handle on making a consciousness permanet and able to survive death.
Again, consider Barricade. Once more, you have yet to establish that consciousness is a separate thing from the brain. You need ot do that before your driver and car example will have any force.
Of course a logical ignoramous like you would consider it meaningless.
Do you need to be fed all the time, twenty-four/seven? I hope this answer is no.
I know how entropy works, and it doesn't work this way. Entropy takes time to increase, and therefore it can take some time to reach equilibrium and heat death. Your proof is invalid.
Just because you think that the differences are astronomic doesn't mean that they are. They are in fact quite similar in one respect that is very important: they all contain unverifiable tripe.
Then your God is dumb. I can think of a dozen different ways right off the bat for hiding evidence that Jesus performed miracles, so I'm smarter than your God.
Like most of your tripe, mere assertion.
You did not answer in any satisfactory way.
Evolution is purely a process founded in materialistic physics. There is no other evolution than physical. To assert that consciousness was evolved is to admit that consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not woo.
Yes, and I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus Christ. /sarcasm You have a hard time not making your spiel sound like a con. Either do better in making it sound actually intellectually respectable, or give up.
It's happened to me. I snipped into my left hand with a pair of scissors one time, and I didn't feel pain as such. It was a deep snip, too, into the subcutaneous. I washed it out and wrapped it well, and only then did the pain start. So don't tell me what I can and can't do.
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world. Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness. This actually makes more sense to me. Can you prove otherwise?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 07:05:58 PM
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world. Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness. This actually makes more sense to me. Can you prove otherwise?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
That ... isn't quite what Hakurei is saying.
But anyways, even if we'd to entertain your interpretation, this is easy to show that we're bound by a physical reality (whatever that reality might be) by probing it.
If physical reality was merely an illusion generated by consciousness, then we should be able to affect reality with our consciousness alone. No amount of wishing things to become true is a good testament that this is indeed a reality that shapes us, than we shaping it. The first thing that springs to mind is how this proposed illusion is able to directly alter our perception when it damages the seat of our mind, the brain. If reality was just an illusion, this would not be possible, because consciousness somehow should be generating it.
I'd also argue that consciousness without a physical reality makes just as much sense as a wave without space to propagate in. We need a materia for our consciousness to manifest in. No amount of dualism is gonna escape that.
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.
Quote from: Arik on June 16, 2019, 07:51:12 AM
I will shut up but at least let me laugh when you say that............There is no other evolution than physical............
When you specifically described
biological evolution, yes, it's fucking physical.
See, when you describe things and assert things that we know aren't true with the absolute certainty as you have done, nobody's going to believe you. You didn't even think to fact-check the strength of bone and concrete to make sure you weren't talking out your ass when you asserted that bone was softer therefore it would break against concrete. Meanwhile, actual mechanical engineers, who know a thing or two about how things break, have done biomechanical studies on the physics of breaking blocks, and have calculated that it's not actually out of the realm of possibility for the human body with no woo involved.
As to your insipid car analogy, it fails because the driver has a verifiable physical reality beyond the car. When the driver steps out of the car, you can see him, hear him, smell him, touch him and taste him... though very few will let you get that far. Not so with consciousness. Not only does when consciousness "detach," there's no verifiable object that leaves, when it comes back, there is no reliable indication that it actually went anywhere. Again, NDE OOB experiences happen under very uncontrolled conditions (and it would be unethical to induce one purposefully) and as such cannot be taken except with a huge grain of salt. We also have a huge literature concerning false memories. Humans just aren't reliable observers.
And remember, you described consciousness as an abstract entity; it's silly to think that reasoning that applies to physical entities like human drivers will carry over to abstract entities.
Without a verifiable separate existence, consciousness and the brain has a closer match to the hologram driver and the Decepticon Barricade than they do with an ordinary human driver and car.
The way to get back into our good graces is to stop
asserting and start
supporting. We do not agree to your assertions about the nature of consciousness. You have been told multiple times that your assertions are not shared, and all argumentation using disputed assertions are DOA. You need to start supporting those assertions. When you're told a line of evidence isn't good enough, you need to find better evidence, not repeat the same evidence over and over again as if repetition makes it true. Even saying that you're sorry for being a butthead will go a long way to mending fences.
But you'll do what you'll do.
------
Now, Mr. Absolute...
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 07:05:58 PM
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world. Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness. This actually makes more sense to me. Can you prove otherwise?
Yeah. Like Sal said, to me the illusion of consciousness is not that it's not there in reality, but rather that it appears to be a thing when it is not. Consciousness is a process, and displays all of the signs of being a process. Change and assimilation of new information and experiences is what defines a person being conscious. Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves and what its capabilities are. When the brain ceases to function, consciousness disappears and does not return until brain function is restored. From this and other evidence, we conclude that consciousness is what the brain does. But of course, it's absurd to consider a process without something that the process is operating on. Hence, reality is real.
All my statements have to be evaluated on the basis that consciousness is a process and not an entity. No argument based on consciousness's being an entity will work unless and until you disabuse me of that notion.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 16, 2019, 08:44:53 PM
That ... isn't quite what Hakurei is saying.
But anyways, even if we'd to entertain your interpretation, this is easy to show that we're bound by a physical reality (whatever that reality might be) by probing it.
If physical reality was merely an illusion generated by consciousness, then we should be able to affect reality with our consciousness alone. No amount of wishing things to become true is a good testament that this is indeed a reality that shapes us, than we shaping it. The first thing that springs to mind is how this proposed illusion is able to directly alter our perception when it damages the seat of our mind, the brain. If reality was just an illusion, this would not be possible, because consciousness somehow should be generating it.
I'd also argue that consciousness without a physical reality makes just as much sense as a wave without space to propagate in. We need a materia for our consciousness to manifest in. No amount of dualism is gonna escape that.
Our interpretation of reality, our sense of reality is an illusion generated by consciousness. Assuming there is a reality (implies objectivity outside of humanity) and that there is a consciousness (again, this usually implies something objective/subjective not delusion).
The usual Enlightenment interpretation going back to Condillac etc ... "Étienne Bonnot de Condillac was a French philosopher and epistemologist, who studied in such areas as psychology and the philosophy of the mind." Is there is an objective physical reality, that by physical processes our sense organs more or less provide an impression of this objective physical reality (we are excluding delusions etc). What has developed in psychology over the last 200 years, is that our experience of our external senses is not free of intermediation (see gestalt). There is a whole bunch of processing in the eye, in the optic nerve, and in the portion of the brain for reconstructing a virtual world experience, that we naively take for what is real. And on top of that there is all sorts of cognitive processing ... "is that a cat or a dog?".
The normal POV, by ordinary people, is a naive realism. We are not usually aware of all this physics and physiology and psychology that goes on between whatever is happening on my computer CRT, and what I am actually experiencing as I type this. No primitive life form (humans for example) could survive without naive realism. If you are a cave man, and a cheetah is about to eat you, you need to think ... "run" ... though of course given a cheetah you are too late and will be eaten. And running just attracts a predatory response. Only modern geeks would sit there contemplating their navel, and trying to decide the mysteries of metaphysics. This is a good thing, it means that when we return to a "state of nature" all the eggheads get eaten first ;-)
In philosophy, this is called the "qualia" problem. What is actually out there? Versus all this poorly understood processing that we know, scientifically, happens, just to get a fight/flight response. There was a good short story sci-fi once, about a virtual reality machine. A man's family wandered into a 3d simulation of the Serengti (hence my example). But they didn't return. So the problem was, if there is no separation between subjective/objective experience, had his family fallen prey to predators or not? What would happen if you simply turned off the machine. Hence the thought experiment we are talking about. IMHO, a virtual reality and ordinary reality are different. If you turned off the machine (holodesk) his family would still be there, though perhaps worse for wear, because having not eating, drank etc in ordinary reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 07:05:58 PM
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world. Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness. This actually makes more sense to me. Can you prove otherwise?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Hello Aki...err...Absolute Agent, who has valiantly tasked our Hakurei with proving that the universe isn't some sort of dream (gee, I sure hope that's falsifiable!) with the supporting evidence that it just makes more sense to you (argument from personal credulity? Regardless, that's hella convincing). You have an oddly similar debating style as Arik here, how fortunate that you joined up as soon as he (allegedly) departed. Very interesting...
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 16, 2019, 11:38:02 PM
Hello Aki...err...Absolute Agent, who has valiantly tasked our Hakurei with proving that the universe isn't some sort of dream (gee, I sure hope that's falsifiable!) with the supporting evidence that it just makes more sense to you (argument from personal credulity? Regardless, that's hella convincing). You have an oddly similar debating style as Arik here, how fortunate that you joined up as soon as he (allegedly) departed. Very interesting...
Too much paranoia. He seems immediately a different personality to me. But some people have multiple-personality syndrome. In fact, you can view humanity as a multiple-personality syndrome of the human archetype ;-)
Absolute Agent isn't a yogi. Not clear yet what kind of Muslim he is.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 16, 2019, 09:03:00 PM
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.
When you specifically described biological evolution, yes, it's fucking physical.
See, when you describe things and assert things that we know aren't true with the absolute certainty as you have done, nobody's going to believe you. You didn't even think to fact-check the strength of bone and concrete to make sure you weren't talking out your ass when you asserted that bone was softer therefore it would break against concrete. Meanwhile, actual mechanical engineers, who know a thing or two about how things break, have done biomechanical studies on the physics of breaking blocks, and have calculated that it's not actually out of the realm of possibility for the human body with no woo involved.
As to your insipid car analogy, it fails because the driver has a verifiable physical reality beyond the car. When the driver steps out of the car, you can see him, hear him, smell him, touch him and taste him... though very few will let you get that far. Not so with consciousness. Not only does when consciousness "detach," there's no verifiable object that leaves, when it comes back, there is no reliable indication that it actually went anywhere. Again, NDE OOB experiences happen under very uncontrolled conditions (and it would be unethical to induce one purposefully) and as such cannot be taken except with a huge grain of salt. We also have a huge literature concerning false memories. Humans just aren't reliable observers.
And remember, you described consciousness as an abstract entity; it's silly to think that reasoning that applies to physical entities like human drivers will carry over to abstract entities.
Without a verifiable separate existence, consciousness and the brain has a closer match to the hologram driver and the Decepticon Barricade than they do with an ordinary human driver and car.
The way to get back into our good graces is to stop asserting and start supporting. We do not agree to your assertions about the nature of consciousness. You have been told multiple times that your assertions are not shared, and all argumentation using disputed assertions are DOA. You need to start supporting those assertions. When you're told a line of evidence isn't good enough, you need to find better evidence, not repeat the same evidence over and over again as if repetition makes it true. Even saying that you're sorry for being a butthead will go a long way to mending fences.
But you'll do what you'll do.
------
Now, Mr. Absolute...
Yeah. Like Sal said, to me the illusion of consciousness is not that it's not there in reality, but rather that it appears to be a thing when it is not. Consciousness is a process, and displays all of the signs of being a process. Change and assimilation of new information and experiences is what defines a person being conscious. Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves and what its capabilities are. When the brain ceases to function, consciousness disappears and does not return until brain function is restored. From this and other evidence, we conclude that consciousness is what the brain does. But of course, it's absurd to consider a process without something that the process is operating on. Hence, reality is real.
All my statements have to be evaluated on the basis that consciousness is a process and not an entity. No argument based on consciousness's being an entity will work unless and until you disabuse me of that notion.
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory. For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity. For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity). We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?
Furthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process. Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine. Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported. Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter. The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.
Which then is more real dear Hakurei? Are not all "things" defined by a particular process, without which they are meaningless, and in very truth, lose their "thing-ness", their ability to be identified and distinguished as such?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 16, 2019, 11:38:02 PM
Hello Aki...err...Absolute Agent, who has valiantly tasked our Hakurei with proving that the universe isn't some sort of dream (gee, I sure hope that's falsifiable!) with the supporting evidence that it just makes more sense to you (argument from personal credulity? Regardless, that's hella convincing). You have an oddly similar debating style as Arik here, how fortunate that you joined up as soon as he (allegedly) departed. Very interesting...
And Hello to you. How cheering it is to know you view my arrival as fortunate and my arguments as convincing. Hakurei, if anyone, would be capable of this feat.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 12:42:10 AM
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory. For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity. For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity). We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?
Furthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process. Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine. Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported. Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter. The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.
Which then is more real dear Hakurei? Are not all "things" defined by a particular process, without which they are meaningless, and in very truth, lose their "thing-ness", their ability to be identified and distinguished as such?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
About Hakurei ... you have to break it up, refute or agree point by point, sometimes letter by letter ;-)
And then he will explain how every point where you differ from him ... is wrong ;-)
Materialists don't think in terms of entities. There are just atoms, moving randomly about. It is an arbitrary choice to divide one set of atoms from another, to divide me from the keyboard I am typing from. There is no difference between a rock and a person ... because life and consciousness as commonly understood by the great unwashed, is naive. And to avoid Hylozoism and Panpsychism ... (everything is alive and conscious) there can be nothing that is alive or conscious in conventional terms. This is why robots and AIs are so popular with these people. They see no essential difference between a biological system and a mechanical or computer system. We have seen this particular rhetoric many times before, when this particular psychopathology first occurred in Greece primarily (and also in India about the same time). It was never popular until modern European science happened in the 1600s. At that point it became much more plausible. With modern astronomy, it was no longer plausible that the Moon causes lunacy. They were no longer seen as just a bunch of Oxford dons drunk in their cups.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 16, 2019, 09:03:00 PM
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.
Ok. then.
Any suggestion?
Shell I continue the way I use to do, shell I wait until aitm decide something or shell I get lost?
Quote from: Arik on June 17, 2019, 04:04:56 AM
Ok. then.
Any suggestion?
Shell I continue the way I use to do, shell I wait until aitm decide something or shell I get lost?
Welcome back. Hakurei is a challenge.
Bringing forward from another string ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Zr7eaE9AUtg
Thats fits here ...
Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 05:30:00 AM
Bringing forward from another string ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Zr7eaE9AUtg
Thats fits here ...
Here is the story of a neurosurgeon who had an NDE and is not a skeptic anymore.
(long story however 1:38:57 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbkgj5J91hE
Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 04:11:34 AM
Welcome back.
While waiting for aitm to decide something I keep on posting.
If God want me dead (in this forum) then let us die. :smiley:
QuoteHakurei is a challenge.
Our friend Haku fool himself thinking that he (she?) got some strong argument in order to knockdown my points but he doesn't.
I give you just one example.
He kept on saying that the brain during an NDE is still able to put together that experience on the ground that the brain cells are not dead yet and therefore is some sort of hallucination rather than a real experience with God.
The reality is that once the heart stop sending blood-oxygen into the brain the brain cells die within 3 minutes and in very rare case within ten minutes.
Now considering that most of the NDEs last over ten minutes is quite impossible for the brain to put together an NDE that is why it is the consciousness that is able to experience that NDE.
Now our friend Haku find more and more excuses and that I consider dishonesty so to me what Haku do is not a challenge but a folly to prevent defeat.
Wake up people. Arik is a troll. And now he's being followed by another troll Absolute_Agent.
Coincidence???
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 17, 2019, 09:11:59 AM
Wake up people. Arik is a troll. And now he's being followed by another troll Absolute_Agent.
Coincidence???
In the past the masses though that the planet earth was flat.
From the ground it look flat so anyone that challenge that view was taken for a nut.
Today when people see a person that just die they think that it is all over and anyone who challenge that view is also taken for a nut.
The time goes on but idiots never change.
They keep on coming back again and again with similar dogmas and anyone who challenge their view is a troll or a nut but again after sometime the truth become clear and the previous trolls become heroes while the previous smart people become trolls.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 16, 2019, 09:03:00 PM
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.
When you specifically described biological evolution, yes, it's fucking physical.
The so called biological evolution is but a physical change that allow a specie to survive.
That's all Haku so rather that say real evolution it would better to say a biological change that allow physical survival in a particular environment.
Real evolution is a total different story.
That involve a real progress that allow an entity to improve his-her consciousness.
Evolution is a word that imply progress a progress that stay with you as you climb the ladder of human emancipation and that can only be an evolution of the consciousness.
A change in the body can not do that that is why there is no real evolution in biological changes although biological changes can help to build a body that can better house a more developed consciousness so the body is there to serve the consciousness not the other way around.
QuoteSee, when you describe things and assert things that we know aren't true with the absolute certainty as you have done, nobody's going to believe you.
Are you kidding me?
None of you has been able to bring an inch of evidence to support the atheists claims that I present in my 10 points and you have the audacity to say that is me that assert things without evidence?
QuoteYou didn't even think to fact-check the strength of bone and concrete to make sure you weren't talking out your ass when you asserted that bone was softer therefore it would break against concrete. Meanwhile, actual mechanical engineers, who know a thing or two about how things break, have done biomechanical studies on the physics of breaking blocks, and have calculated that it's not actually out of the realm of possibility for the human body with no woo involved.
If you think that that is the case then why don't you brake 10 concrete slabs in one go with your head like those people in the video.
Are you ready Haku? :wink:
QuoteAs to your insipid car analogy, it fails because the driver has a verifiable physical reality beyond the car. When the driver steps out of the car, you can see him, hear him, smell him, touch him and taste him... though very few will let you get that far. Not so with consciousness. Not only does when consciousness "detach," there's no verifiable object that leaves, when it comes back, there is no reliable indication that it actually went anywhere. Again, NDE OOB experiences happen under very uncontrolled conditions (and it would be unethical to induce one purposefully) and as such cannot be taken except with a huge grain of salt. We also have a huge literature concerning false memories. Humans just aren't reliable observers.
And remember, you described consciousness as an abstract entity; it's silly to think that reasoning that applies to physical entities like human drivers will carry over to abstract entities.
Without a verifiable separate existence, consciousness and the brain has a closer match to the hologram driver and the Decepticon Barricade than they do with an ordinary human driver and car.
Fail again Haku.
Right now you are reading and writing posts in this forum.
Your hands type what your consciousness-mind tell them to write.
Your mind can not be seen, touch, smell and so on yet it is there.
Who else order your finger to type a post?
Obviously the consciousness is an abstract entity otherwise you would be able to see, smell, taste and so on.
QuoteThe way to get back into our good graces is to stop asserting and start supporting. We do not agree to your assertions about the nature of consciousness. You have been told multiple times that your assertions are not shared, and all argumentation using disputed assertions are DOA. You need to start supporting those assertions. When you're told a line of evidence isn't good enough, you need to find better evidence, not repeat the same evidence over and over again as if repetition makes it true. Even saying that you're sorry for being a butthead will go a long way to mending fences.
But you'll do what you'll do.
I just show you that the consciousness is an abstract entity.
You can not touch, taste, smell and so on but it exist so my assertions are fully supported.
QuoteNow, Mr. Absolute...
Yeah. Like Sal said, to me the illusion of consciousness is not that it's not there in reality, but rather that it appears to be a thing when it is not. Consciousness is a process, and displays all of the signs of being a process. Change and assimilation of new information and experiences is what defines a person being conscious. Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves and what its capabilities are. When the brain ceases to function, consciousness disappears and does not return until brain function is restored. From this and other evidence, we conclude that consciousness is what the brain does. But of course, it's absurd to consider a process without something that the process is operating on. Hence, reality is real.
All my statements have to be evaluated on the basis that consciousness is a process and not an entity. No argument based on consciousness's being an entity will work unless and until you disabuse me of that notion.
That is a very very silly point Haku.
It is quite natural that when...................Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves...............why not Haku considering that the consciousness during this life reside inside the brain.
Wouldn't you get hurt when you have and accident in your car and wouldn't your consciousness be affected by it?
Quote from: Arik on June 17, 2019, 09:56:15 AM
In the past the masses though that the planet earth was flat.
From the ground it look flat so anyone that challenge that view was taken for a nut.
Today when people see a person that just die they think that it is all over and anyone who challenge that view is also taken for a nut.
The time goes on but idiots never change.
They keep on coming back again and again with similar dogmas and anyone who challenge their view is a troll or a nut but again after sometime the truth become clear and the previous trolls become heroes while the previous smart people become trolls.
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 17, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Or as Abraham Lincoln once said, "You can't believe everything you read on the internet, but vampires are real."
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 12:42:10 AM
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory. For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity. For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity). We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?
That's just naming conventions, or are you so steeped into idealism that you think that the concept of numbers exist apart from reality? And I reject the notion that we are defined by our consciousness, because for me consciousness is merely the name-tag of the function of the brain we give it that we, individually, experience as our own novel self.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 12:42:10 AMFurthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process. Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine. Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported. Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter. The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.
Your analogy of the brain to a computer is more apt than you realize. The software, with an user interface,
is part of the machine just as much as the RAM, the SSD, the CPU, etc., particularly, it's a virtual machine that the representation of the ones and zeros on the SSD represent and which the CPU is able to generate much like how our novel configuration of the individual brain of the neurons in it and how they're connected. So no, the software isn't "immaterial", it's part and parcel of the computer - it's just transcribed from
physical ones and zeros (on a SSD) to a virtual machine.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 17, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Hello Joe, what a wonderful surprise to see your nick again. I hope all is well with you.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 17, 2019, 01:03:47 PM
That's just naming conventions, or are you so steeped into idealism that you think that the concept of numbers exist apart from reality? And I reject the notion that we are defined by our consciousness, because for me consciousness is merely the name-tag of the function of the brain we give it that we, individually, experience as our own novel self.
Your analogy of the brain to a computer is more apt than you realize. The software, with an user interface, is part of the machine just as much as the RAM, the SSD, the CPU, etc., particularly, it's a virtual machine that the representation of the ones and zeros on the SSD represent and which the CPU is able to generate much like how our novel configuration of the individual brain of the neurons in it and how they're connected. So no, the software isn't "immaterial", it's part and parcel of the computer - it's just transcribed from physical ones and zeros (on a SSD) to a virtual machine.
The software itself is not a material thing, but rather an entirely immaterial pattern. Otherwise it could not migrate between machines and media. It cannot be contained or defined by a single or any number of computers, even a billion computers. The physical manifestation of such software, what is transcribed into electronic signals, is merely a material record of something that does not exist in material reality. And despite not existing in material reality, it is assuredly a thing, an entity--having a beginning and end, and defined characteristics.
Similarly consciousness, while not existing as material, undoubtedly comprises an entity. For instance, my consciousness in this forum is named "Absolute Agent". I am my own self and not another: for instance I am not Baruch. Therefore since I can be identified as something apart from other things, and have identity--ergo, I am am entity.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 03:15:05 PM
The software itself is not a material thing, but rather an entirely immaterial pattern. Otherwise it could not migrate between machines and media. It cannot be contained or defined by a single or any number of computers, even a billion computers. The physical manifestation of such software, what is transcribed into electronic signals, is merely a material record of something that does not exist in material reality. And despite not existing in material reality, it is assuredly a thing, an entity--having a beginning and end, and defined characteristics.
Similarly consciousness, while not existing as material, undoubtedly comprises an entity. For instance, my consciousness in this forum is named "Absolute Agent". I am my own self and not another: for instance I am not Baruch. Therefore since I can be identified as something apart from other things, and have identity--ergo, I am am entity.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I'm not you sure realize this, but you're arguing against your own point. If you believe in an immaterial soul that exists independently from the body, then software is not a good example. I have pictures saved on my phone. Where do those pictures go if I smash my phone into a million pieces? Nowhere, because the software depends on the hardware to exist. Even if my phone were connected to the cloud, and I was able to recover my pictures that way, those files still only exist because they were shared to a physical computer out there somewhere. So unless we develop the ability to interface with technology and we upload our consciousness to the internet, our consciousness will not continue to exist after our brains cease to function.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 03:48:44 PM
I'm not you sure realize this, but you're arguing against your own point. If you believe in an immaterial soul that exists independently from the body, then software is not a good example. I have pictures saved on my phone. Where do those pictures go if I smash my phone into a million pieces? Nowhere, because the software depends on the hardware to exist. Even if my phone were connected to the cloud, and I was able to recover my pictures that way, those files still only exist because they were shared to a physical computer out there somewhere. So unless we develop the ability to interface with technology and we upload our consciousness to the internet, our consciousness will not continue to exist after our brains cease to function.
Saying the software cannot exist without the computer is like saying the gas in the car can't exist without a car to be contained in. Granted, when you crash a car, the gas may spill into the street and no longer be useful to human vehicular requirements. But this does not negate it's existence. How about this? Where was the software before it's inventor wrote it down? Was it not existent when it was forming in her mind to be transcribed into the relevant medium?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 12:42:10 AM
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory. For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity.
The "nature of consciousness" is very much the matter under dispute. You don't get to declare it as an entity by declaring it to be "its nature."
Quote
For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity).
Yeah, we are manifestly distinct bodies, which are entities. Don't see how you get from here to "consciousness is an entity," though.
Quote
We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?
Consciousness being a process does not preclude that they are proceding in a different way for each entity. I still don't see how this proves that consciousness is a thing. If you run a game, it will play out a different way from my instance of that game. The programs are exactly the same, but because they are in different states and responding to a different player, it will behave in a distinct way.
So, I still don't see how this proves that consciousness is a thing.
Quote
Furthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process.
Well, yeah. A process is defined by the action of particular things. The running of a car is in a distinct philosophical category from the car itself, yet it is defined by the car.
Quote
Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine. Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported. Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter. The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.
Nonsense. A piece of software defines the majority of the
action of the computer. Even a computer that has no software on it will try to look for some instruction in its memory; indeed, the fact that the first thing a CPU does when it first turns on is to look for instructions in a particular part of its nonvolitile memory is the reason why bootstrap loaders work (aka, why computers boot up). If the computer without a program was truly the mere pile of metal and plastic you characterize it, then it couldn't do
anything, even look for its bootstrap loader. The computer must be capable of doing at least one thing on its own in order for it to boot up: look for its bootstrap loader.
A computer is mostly useless without a program because to run programs is the entirety of its purpose. The goal of an organism is to survive. That's a different goal and that's where the analogy breaks. It is equipped with reflexes and automatic procedure to accomplish its purpose, accomplished through purely mechanical means. In us, one of the thing the zygote does is to build a brain which has automatic means to boot up a consciousness.
That said, if consciousness should be compared with anything in computer science, it is not software that consciousness should be compared with, but rather the process execution. The only way you know someone is conscious/has consciousness is by observing what they
do. Quote
Which then is more real dear Hakurei? Are not all "things" defined by a particular process, without which they are meaningless, and in very truth, lose their "thing-ness", their ability to be identified and distinguished as such?
The two should not be conflated. Proper things, like the brain or a car, should not be conflated with the processes they are performing, like consciousness or internal combustion. Furthermore, you seem to have retreated from consciousness as a thing to that it is what defines the brain. I'm fine with that, but that still doesn't make consciousness an entity with a separate existence from the brain. Indeed, it makes consciousness inseparably contingent on the existence of a brain.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 17, 2019, 05:39:31 PM
The "nature of consciousness" is very much the matter under dispute. You don't get to declare it as an entity by declaring it to be "its nature."
Yeah, we are manifestly distinct bodies, which are entities. Don't see how you get from here to "consciousness is an entity," though.
Consciousness being a process does not preclude that they are proceding in a different way for each entity. I still don't see how this proves that consciousness is a thing. If you run a game, it will play out a different way from my instance of that game. The programs are exactly the same, but because they are in different states and responding to a different player, it will behave in a distinct way.
So, I still don't see how this proves that consciousness is a thing.
Well, yeah. A process is defined by the action of particular things. The running of a car is in a distinct philosophical category from the car itself, yet it is defined by the car.
Nonsense. A piece of software defines the majority of the action of the computer. Even a computer that has no software on it will try to look for some instruction in its memory; indeed, the fact that the first thing a CPU does when it first turns on is to look for instructions in a particular part of its nonvolitile memory is the reason why bootstrap loaders work (aka, why computers boot up). If the computer without a program was truly the mere pile of metal and plastic you characterize it, then it couldn't do anything, even look for its bootstrap loader. The computer must be capable of doing at least one thing on its own in order for it to boot up: look for its bootstrap loader.
A computer is mostly useless without a program because to run programs is the entirety of its purpose. The goal of an organism is to survive. That's a different goal and that's where the analogy breaks. It is equipped with reflexes and automatic procedure to accomplish its purpose, accomplished through purely mechanical means. In us, one of the thing the zygote does is to build a brain which has automatic means to boot up a consciousness.
That said, if consciousness should be compared with anything in computer science, it is not software that consciousness should be compared with, but rather the process execution. The only way you know someone is conscious/has consciousness is by observing what they do.
The two should not be conflated. Proper things, like the brain or a car, should not be conflated with the processes they are performing, like consciousness or internal combustion. Furthermore, you seem to have retreated from consciousness as a thing to that it is what defines the brain. I'm fine with that, but that still doesn't make consciousness an entity with a separate existence from the brain. Indeed, it makes consciousness inseparably contingent on the existence of a brain.
Consciousness defines the brain because the brain exists as a translator of consciousness. If the brain stops translating consciousness it is no longer properly a brain. It is just a assortment of matter and chemicals.
"Furthermore, you seem to have retreated from consciousness as a thing to that it is what defines the brain."
If as you confirm that by "thing" you mean a material object, then your saying consciousness is not a thing only equates to saying that consciousness is not material--which I likewise assert. My disagreement, a minor one, is on your definition of a thing necessarily being material. For instance, isn't logic a thing, and doesn't logic exist entirely in the realm of consciousness, having no material existence?
Granted, no one of us has successfully defined what consciousness is, yet in common parlance "entity" denotes a conscious being.
The root question is whether consciousness can exist without a material form. I would say yes. However, once consciousness leaves a material body it will naturally no longer be identified with a body and thus no longer be constrained by the illusion of material, individualized, existence. This will soon be established fact in the scientific community. Just as gas leaking from the gas tank is no longer "car-gas"-- but still gas nonetheless. It could go into another car or may become a pollutant in a stream. It's label is determined by its function; likewise form and function are not divorced but intrinsic to one another.
Your explanation of consciousness is less adequate since there are many processes which are not conscious, like combustion. Therefore consciousness is not properly defined as merely a process--it's something much more.
A computer without the boot function (a process) could not properly be called a computer. Thus my analogy holds in demonstrating that you cannot reasonably divorce "things" from processes--one is inherent to the other. Therefore, even if consciousness is only seen as a process, then it is still a thing and still an entity.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Arik on June 17, 2019, 08:17:46 AM
Our friend Haku fool himself thinking that he (she?) got some strong argument in order to knockdown my points but he doesn't.
Dearheart, a knockdown doll gets knocked down all the time. Just because you get right back up for more punishment doesn't mean you're not getting knocked down.
Quote
I give you just one example.
He kept on saying that the brain during an NDE is still able to put together that experience on the ground that the brain cells are not dead yet and therefore is some sort of hallucination rather than a real experience with God.
The reality is that once the heart stop sending blood-oxygen into the brain the brain cells die within 3 minutes and in very rare case within ten minutes.
So, in 3-10 minutes after getting blood flow cut off, the brain just up and dies, all together? In perfect synch, like some kind of Palestinian Suicide Squad? Nonsense. Even in these cases, there are differences in the conditions of the individual cells that means that some brain cells will last longer than others. The damage starts setting in at three minutes, and by ten minutes, the damage is usually so severe that consciousness never returns. If you're revived after four minutes, you'll be mostly okay, with some long-term effects. If you're revived after twelve minutes, you'll be a vegetable.
We know this because we have patients who run the spectrum. There is a clear progression of deterioration.
The other thing is in these episodes, you pretend that the healthcare providers are sitting around on their thumbs. Not so. They're doing stuff like CPR and other means to try to keep the heart pumping. That keeps the blood moving, even in a reduced capacity, and as such, while the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to continue functioning, it does get enough oxygen to survive much longer than it would were there no blood flow at all.
The other thing is that, being uncontrolled experiments as they are, you don't know where the information in NDEs are coming from. Again, we only get accounts of these NDEs after patients are brought back from the brink and spend some time convalescing.
Quote
Now considering that most of the NDEs last over ten minutes is quite impossible for the brain to put together an NDE that is why it is the consciousness that is able to experience that NDE.
NDEs are not experienced as they happen. They are reconstructed after full blood flow is restored, and the brain is getting enough oxygen to start returning to full function. That and the fact that healthcare providers are administering healthcare to the patient to keep some form of blood flow going to the brain easily explains how NDEs can last more than ten minutes. Also, recollected time is kind of fluid.
Quote
Now our friend Haku find more and more excuses and that I consider dishonesty so to me what Haku do is not a challenge but a folly to prevent defeat.
You wish, Arik Idle. It is in the nature of idiots to think they're ahead when they are actually far behind. When you can't even describe the biology of brain death and health care in the case of cardiac arrest accurately, you're not in any position to say what happens in those cases.
-
Quote from: Arik on June 17, 2019, 10:48:00 AM
The so called biological evolution is but a physical change that allow a specie to survive.
That's all Haku so rather that say real evolution it would better to say a biological change that allow physical survival in a particular environment.
Real evolution is a total different story.
Things described as "evolution" in the sciences describe quite particular things and I would thank you for not appropriating vocabulary you don't know how to apply correctly.
Quote
That involve a real progress that allow an entity to improve his-her consciousness.
We usually call this "developement" and "learning."
Quote
Evolution is a word that imply progress a progress that stay with you as you climb the ladder of human emancipation and that can only be an evolution of the consciousness.
Only when non-science idiots like you use it. Etymologically, it means "to roll out" and as such is used to describe a progression of stages or states, like the stages in the life cycle of a star, or a population. There is no implication of progression up a ladder of betterment. Part of the evolution of a star, for instance, is its inevitable death. The process of an organ or limb withering into a vestigial is a part of biological evolution, so this notion that evolution involves betterment is a myth perpetuated by those people who don't study the relevant fields.
Quote
A change in the body can not do that that is why there is no real evolution in biological changes although biological changes can help to build a body that can better house a more developed consciousness so the body is there to serve the consciousness not the other way around.
No, you're just using the word "evolution" in a way not recognized by science. You don't get to say what is "real" evolution. Only scientists get to do that.
Quote
Are you kidding me?
None of you has been able to bring an inch of evidence to support the atheists claims that I present in my 10 points and you have the audacity to say that is me that assert things without evidence?
You are the only one here who has not brought evidence. I already outlined the problems with your NDE canard, the most glaring of which is the completely uncontrolled manner of any scenario in which it shows up, and the only piece of information that has ever been introduced in a controlled way fails to show up in ANY NDE. This, analogies, and bald-faced assertions without support are the only things you have brought to the table. None of these things are evidence.
On the other hand, we have brought you hard-won knowledge from the only group of people who have ever brought
evidence to bear on your questions. So, pot, stop calling the silverware black.
Quote
If you think that that is the case then why don't you brake 10 concrete slabs in one go with your head like those people in the video.
Are you ready Haku? :wink:
I already stated that you require
physical conditioning to break the blocks, and physical conditioning in this area is something I very much lack. Have one of your spindly gurus break those blocks, and you'll be talking, because
then you'd have proven that physical conditioning is unnecessary.
Seriously, how does my failing to break blocks with my mind power (without the relevant physical training) somehow prove that mind power is what breaks these bricks?
Quote
Fail again Haku.
Right now you are reading and writing posts in this forum.
Your hands type what your consciousness-mind tell them to write.
Your mind can not be seen, touch, smell and so on yet it is there.
Who else order your finger to type a post?
Obviously the consciousness is an abstract entity otherwise you would be able to see, smell, taste and so on.
Another bald-faced assertion. Look, the reason why I said that you can see, hear, smell, etc. the driver was to underline the point that the driver has physically verifiable properties. Well, your brain in action also has the same thing: hook up your brain to an EEG, or use a fMRI, and you can see the brain lighting up as I type these words. Particularly my motor cortex, my Broca's and Wernicke's areas, my prefrontal cortex, and my visual cortex. These are exactly the places where if disruption occurs I will lose my reasoning, vision, ability to move, or ability to process language. My consciousness is a physical process that can be measured and observed at work, but it is not separate from my brain.
We've
seen people thinking with fMRI and EEGs, Mr. Idle. That
is evidence, and it points towards consciousness as a physical process, not an abstract entity.
Quote
I just show you that the consciousness is an abstract entity.
You can not touch, taste, smell and so on but it exist so my assertions are fully supported.
No, you haven't. That list was not intended to be exhaustive. You can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste hydrogen gas either. Yet it is as physically real as your body is, particularly if it ignites and blows you the fuck up.
Quote
That is a very very silly point Haku.
It is quite natural that when...................Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves...............why not Haku considering that the consciousness during this life reside inside the brain.
Yet, apparently, when separated from the body as you contend with NDE OOB experiences, your consciousness functions just fine without any brain matter involved, regardless of its state of operation. It's able to eavesdrop on people, see people do their work, etc, in the absence of any physical substrate, yet when inside a body, damage and drugs disable these abilities utterly.
Do these abilities lie in the consciousness or in the brain, Mr. Idle? If they're in the consciousness, why does damaging the brain in the relevant region destroy the ability? If they're in the brain, why does the consciousness still have them when separated from the body? If they're in both, then why doesn't your consciousness act as backup? After all, all your consciousness needs to do is manipulate your motor cortex, and you're golden.
Quote
Wouldn't you get hurt when you have and accident in your car and wouldn't your consciousness be affected by it?
Injuries are not created equal. If you break your leg, you won't be able to walk on it, even in an OOB experience. That implies that the function of walking is bound to your legs. If you break your brain, you won't be able to think with it. That implies that the functions of cognition are bound to your brain.
For every faculty of the mind, we have a specific brain injury that impairs it, and the list of impairments is long indeed. This implies that these faculties are bound to the brain, and not a part of any abstract consciousness. So what does the consciousness
do, Mr. Idle?
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 06:47:28 PM
Consciousness defines the brain because the brain exists as a translator of consciousness. If the brain stops translating consciousness it is no longer properly a brain. It is just a assortment of matter and chemicals.
Bald-faced assertion. As if there is anything "just" about an assortment of matter and chemicals. Have you
seen chemicals react? They can do some fucking amazing shit, even with a handful of them, never mind the hundreds of thousands of them in the cell alone.
Quote
"Furthermore, you seem to have retreated from consciousness as a thing to that it is what defines the brain."
If as you confirm that by "thing" you mean a material object, then your saying consciousness is not a thing only equates to saying that consciousness is not material--which I likewise assert.
No, I mean, "not a thing," meaning as opposed to the action of the brain which I contend consciousness's true nature. I acknowledge the category of abstract things, which means that thing and material object to me are not equivalent.
Quote
My disagreement, a minor one, is on your definition of a thing necessarily being material. For instance, isn't logic a thing, and doesn't logic exist entirely in the realm of consciousness, having no material existence?
Logic isn't a physical thing, nor is it a process. In fact, it's not even a single distinct philosophical category that logic as an entirety belongs to. The logical statements in a logical discourse are abstract things, but are manipulated according to the rules of logic.
Consciousness is not a thing, but it is very much physical. You can see it at work in fMRIs. Arik thinks that consciousness is a thing, but not material in nature (immaterial). I think it is material in nature, but not a thing. "Thingness" is an orthogonal category to being material.
Quote
Granted, no one of us has successfully defined what consciousness is, yet in common parlance "entity" denotes a conscious being.
This is why you don't use common parlance in technical subjects. It uses precise definitions, and categorizes things differently from what common parlance does, because it has to represent the subject matter in a precise way and according to the best knowledge in the field.
Quote
The root question is whether consciousness can exist without a material form. I would say yes. However, once consciousness leaves a material body it will naturally no longer be identified with a body and thus no longer be constrained by the illusion of material, individualized, existence. This will soon be established fact in the scientific community. Just as gas leaking from the gas tank is no longer "car-gas"-- but still gas nonetheless. It could go into another car or may become a pollutant in a stream. It's label is determined by its function; likewise form and function are not divorced but intrinsic to one another.
Meanwhile, the above description as it stands is completely indistinguishable from consciousness being a process of the brain and when the brain goes south, consciousness
ceases and doesn't "go" anywhere â€" that when you die, you cease to exist utterly. Now, if you were to bring some evidence that consciousness survives death, then you would have something to talk about, but otherwise, Occam's razor cuts off the extraneous, unproved assertion.
Quote
Your explanation of consciousness is less adequate since there are many processes which are not conscious, like combustion. Therefore consciousness is not properly defined as merely a process--it's something much more.
And combustion is something much more than merely a process, too. That doesn't make it not a process.
At no point have I characterized conscousness as "merely" a process, or knowing it is a process is the end all and be all of it. It's simply a counter to one particular point about how it's catagorized. There is a lot more to consciousness than the bare fact that it is a process, but it's still a process, and a separate philosophical category from an entity.
Quote
A computer without the boot function (a process) could not properly be called a computer. Thus my analogy holds in demonstrating that you cannot reasonably divorce "things" from processes--one is inherent to the other. Therefore, even if consciousness is only seen as a process, then it is still a thing and still an entity.
Non-sequitor. You can, in fact, reasonably divorce the concept of a process from its bound entity as categories, the same way that the running of a computer program can be divorced from the computer itself. In fact, you
must be able to do this to have abstract entities in the first place.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 17, 2019, 01:03:47 PM
That's just naming conventions, or are you so steeped into idealism that you think that the concept of numbers exist apart from reality? And I reject the notion that we are defined by our consciousness, because for me consciousness is merely the name-tag of the function of the brain we give it that we, individually, experience as our own novel self.
Your analogy of the brain to a computer is more apt than you realize. The software, with an user interface, is part of the machine just as much as the RAM, the SSD, the CPU, etc., particularly, it's a virtual machine that the representation of the ones and zeros on the SSD represent and which the CPU is able to generate much like how our novel configuration of the individual brain of the neurons in it and how they're connected. So no, the software isn't "immaterial", it's part and parcel of the computer - it's just transcribed from physical ones and zeros (on a SSD) to a virtual machine.
The electricity is part of the wire. But the pattern of electricity has nothing to do with that, since if comes from a "will" not "random". These people will invoke Pythagoras, Democritus and Plato ... then claim ... I don't do philosophy (because then it wouldn't be science) and that I am totally autonomous from history and present context ... my ideas aren't just a meme from 2500 years ago.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 03:57:15 PM
Saying the software cannot exist without the computer is like saying the gas in the car can't exist without a car to be contained in. Granted, when you crash a car, the gas may spill into the street and no longer be useful to human vehicular requirements. But this does not negate it's existence. How about this? Where was the software before it's inventor wrote it down? Was it not existent when it was forming in her mind to be transcribed into the relevant medium?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
AI/Robot religion says, giant Japanese speaking robots, with or without people in them (it is immaterial which, to these people, because people are meat-ware) are real, because we saw it on the silver screen. ;-) These are smart people, but as monkeys we are all easily taken in by our own cleverness. Scientism says that scientists are the high priests of this godless religion ;-))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh5G6RUgjiM
Scifi isn't mythology, isn't it?
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 03:48:44 PM
I'm not you sure realize this, but you're arguing against your own point. If you believe in an immaterial soul that exists independently from the body, then software is not a good example. I have pictures saved on my phone. Where do those pictures go if I smash my phone into a million pieces? Nowhere, because the software depends on the hardware to exist. Even if my phone were connected to the cloud, and I was able to recover my pictures that way, those files still only exist because they were shared to a physical computer out there somewhere. So unless we develop the ability to interface with technology and we upload our consciousness to the internet, our consciousness will not continue to exist after our brains cease to function.
Does the thing you took a picture of ... disappear if you smash your phone? The picture is merely an image of what it was taken of, not the thing itself. Just as the paper listing of a program doesn't disappear, or my memory of it in my head, disappear, when your HD crashes.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 17, 2019, 07:44:27 PM
You can, in fact, reasonably divorce the concept of a process from its bound entity as categories, the same way that the running of a computer program can be divorced from the computer itself. In fact, you must be able to do this to have abstract entities in the first place.
If I'm not mistaken you have just contradicted yourself to your own face:
If
1) Consciousness is a material process analagous to processes in a computer, and
2) Processes such as software execution CAN be divorced from their material "things"
Then consciousness can be divorced from the brain, can exist without the brain just as software can exist without a computer.
Note, what I am calling consciousness is analagous to software while what you call consciousness is analagous to software execution in a computer--one is a pattern of instructions while the other is a process of executing those instructions. The brain is like a computer which takes consciousness, or software, and executes it in material reality so to speak--which process you are calling consciousness is actually only the manifest influence of consciousness. There is plenty of evidence out there to support this model of consciousness if you cared to look. For instance the phenomena of multiple inventors in completely different locations working on the same inventions simultaneously, not having been previously aware of each other's existence. This suggests they were simply downloading the same information from a common immaterial source--an entity of consciousness independent of brains. Furthermore, you could also find that the brain is structured as a signal receptor, somewhat like a radio receiver. Your radio doesn't produce radio stations--it merely downloads and translates preexisting entities--radio waves. IMO my model of consciousness is much more sensible. Apparently you cannot refute it except to call on Occams razor, which is simply an easy way of saying you don't want to test my model.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:29:42 PM
AI/Robot religion says, giant Japanese speaking robots, with or without people in them (it is immaterial which, to these people, because people are meat-ware) are real, because we saw it on the silver screen. ;-) These are smart people, but as monkeys we are all easily taken in by our own cleverness. Scientism says that scientists are the high priests of this godless religion ;-))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh5G6RUgjiM
Scifi isn't mythology, isn't it?
I don't discount the possibility of machine intelligence. Science is useful when circumscribed by moral values, and religion is benevolent when tempered by pragmatic rationality. Science fiction is myth--yet as past myths often point to a historical reality, so myths of the future often become fulfilled prophecies in hindsight. This is related to the way that consciousness forms our material reality.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 09:38:03 PM
If I'm not mistaken you have just contradicted yourself to your own face:
If
1) Consciousness is a material process analagous to processes in a computer, and
2) Processes such as software execution CAN be divorced from their material "things"
Then consciousness can be divorced from the brain, can exist without the brain just as software can exist without a computer.
Divorced on a
conceptual level; you can make the
distinction between a process and objects carrying out/undergoing that process, without separating the two in the slightest. The distinction boils down to that you can usually stop a process from occurring in an object without obviating the object, but you can't destroy the object without the process going along with it.
There is no contradiction here. It's only you making "divorce" out to be more than I described.
Software can exist (to a degree) from the computer that normally runs it, such as being written to media, but a process cannot be so meaningfully separated. Nothing can happen to software that exists on DVD. It takes a computer to run it.
Quote
Note, what I am calling consciousness is analagous to software while what you call conscious is analagous to software execution in a computer--one is a pattern of instructions while the other is a process of executing those instructions.
Yes, that difference is the whole point of contention. I have seen nowhere where you have convincingly supported yours. Every time you try to draw the argument to your side, there is a specific aspect of the difference between software and consciousness that destroys the point.
Quote
The brain is like a computer which takes consciousness, or software, and executes it in material reality so to speak--which process you are calling consciousness is actually only the manifest influence of consciousness. There is plenty of evidence out there to support this model of consciousness if you cared to look. For instance the phenomena of multiple inventors in completely different locations donated withing in the same inventions simultaneously, not having been previously aware of each other's existence. This suggests they were simply downloading the same information from a common immaterial source--an entity of consciousness independent of brains.
Or that the prevailing technological and scientific development makes the time ripe for the invention to be necessary and possible, and usually only a few permutations will work. The telephone was invented nearly simultaneously by Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray, but neither invention would have been possible prior to Östed's discovery of the connection between electricity and magnetism, and subsequent investigation to how magnetism and electicity interact. Not only that, there were the discoveries in the connection between sound and mechanical motion, and as such the little bits came together in Bell and Gray. Furthermore, Antonio Meucci filed a caveat (intention to invent) something similar five years earlier. It's not impossible that the fragments of the idea were bopping around for that time.
I don't think that you can show that any "independent" invention can be entirely independent. All invention builds upon the work of antecedents, which is quite definitely shared material.
Quote
Furthermore, you could also find that the brain is structured as a signal receptor, somewhat like a radio receiver. Your radio doesn't produce radio stations--it merely downloads and translates preexisting entities--radio waves.
You "could" find? Then this is not actually evident. Things that are not evident aren't counted as evidence, boyo.
If you have a means of independently verifying this signal, by all means go out and find it. Otherwise, it's just a story you tell.
Quote
IMO my model of consciousness is much more sensible. Apparently you cannot refute it except to call on Occams razor, which is simply an easy way of saying you don't want to test my model.
I am not interested in your opinion of what sounds "sensible," as the universe owes you no such explanation. (Quantum theory is the ultimate "fuck you" here.) Occam's razor is an epistemological device which imposes discipline onto our speculations, but it is also mathematically justified. Multiplying assumptions tends to spread out your range of possible fitting data, and turn out to be more vague and dissipated. It takes much more data to prove and disprove one of these hypotheses than one with fewer assumptions.
Furthermore, it's not as if verified phenomena cease to exist if the more complicated model is true. Even in a world with genuine out-of-body experiences, there will still be people who lie, exaggerate, and are the victims of false memories brought about by limited anoxia to the brain and suggestion.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 17, 2019, 11:04:36 PM
Divorced on a conceptual level; you can make the distinction between a process and objects carrying out/undergoing that process, without separating the two in the slightest. The distinction boils down to that you can usually stop a process from occurring in an object without obviating the object, but you can't destroy the object without the process going along with it.
If you then concede that a process is inseparable in actuality from its host "thing" you have then confirmed my point that a process is integral to things generally. Which leads to consciousness being an entity, because by your admission it is in actuality part of a "thing". The conceptual distinction then being illusory and referential only.
Now you claim that a process must stop when it's host "thing" is destroyed, yet a process can end without the host"thing" ceasing to exist. But what kind of "existence" is that? When consciousness stops, the body is buried. When software execution ceases the computer is scrapped. But it's still a computer you say? What good is it? It's still a brain you say? What good is a brain without consciousness? What good are all those fantastic chemical acrobatics? It's just empty fireworks. The stove is on but no one's home. Functionally, pragmatically, the process is more real than the material form in which it operates. The software continues to exist long after the thousands of computers on which it operated are scrapped.
You haven't really explained why software did not apply as an analogy for consciousness, except that you claim consciousness must be an observable process in physical matter.
Consciousness is more than a material process, it has its origins in a non-material reality. The processes you see when you think you are observing consciousness are only the effects of consciousness as it impinges on the physical brain structure.
It follows logically that if you observe a material process in the brain analogous to software execution, you should expect that there is a body of instructions directing that process, analagous to the software itself--an immaterial entity. Occam's razor indeed...
There is plenty of scientific evidence for consciousness existing independent of a material body. You just aren't interested in looking at it. Schools of fish acting in perfect synchronicity is a good example, and there are many more if you wanted to find them.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 17, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Good point Jos.
Now let us see if you can bring any evidence to these beliefs which most atheists are so keen to bring up so often so we don't have to say that these beliefs are asserted without evidence and therefore they will have to be dismissed without evidence.
Are you ready Jos?
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
Quote from: Arik on June 18, 2019, 09:14:32 AM
Good point Jos.
Now let us see if you can bring any evidence to these beliefs which most atheists are so keen to bring up so often so we don't have to say that these beliefs are asserted without evidence and therefore they will have to be dismissed without evidence.
Are you ready Jos?
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
1. Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts. Sorry for you to hear this, but it is over once you're death.
2. If some one cracks your brain with an ax there won't be an Arik spewing nonesense on the internet. If you believe otherwise you are naive and gullible. i dare you to try it. Plunge an ax through your brain, and if you come back, I'll apologize. Deal?
3. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?
4. I don't believe in God, and I see no need to believe in one. If you want to believe in God, it's your choice, and I don't give a fuck.
5. Yes, there are both figment of the imagination.
6. Don't know, don't care.
7. NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains. In the USA, patients have visions of their beliefs in Christianity. In India, those patients ave visions of idols in their own culture. Ditto in othe countries. Those are facts. deal with it.
8. Unless you have a PhD in biology, I strongly suggest you stay off the topic of evolution. My expertise is in physics, and most likely i know ten times more than you do in evolution, but you will find a rare occasion that I have come on this forum to talk about evolution because I know I'm not an expert in that field. That's a major difference between a troll like you and I. I know where my expertise lies, and where it doesn't. You don't even know that much.
9. Yes, and I would include philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning that can enlarge your understanding.
10. ...or become the president of the USA - ever heard of Donald Trump?!?
Ok troll, enough of your nonsense. Do not expect me to answer you in the future. I have a policy not to waste time with gullible, naive and ignorant assholes like you.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 17, 2019, 06:59:42 PM
Dearheart, a knockdown doll gets knocked down all the time. Just because you get right back up for more punishment doesn't mean you're not getting knocked down.
Gee, this must be a very deep kind of philosophy.
Congratulation Haku.
QuoteSo, in 3-10 minutes after getting blood flow cut off, the brain just up and dies, all together? In perfect synch, like some kind of Palestinian Suicide Squad? Nonsense. Even in these cases, there are differences in the conditions of the individual cells that means that some brain cells will last longer than others. The damage starts setting in at three minutes, and by ten minutes, the damage is usually so severe that consciousness never returns. If you're revived after four minutes, you'll be mostly okay, with some long-term effects. If you're revived after twelve minutes, you'll be a vegetable.
We know this because we have patients who run the spectrum. There is a clear progression of deterioration.
The other thing is in these episodes, you pretend that the healthcare providers are sitting around on their thumbs. Not so. They're doing stuff like CPR and other means to try to keep the heart pumping. That keeps the blood moving, even in a reduced capacity, and as such, while the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to continue functioning, it does get enough oxygen to survive much longer than it would were there no blood flow at all.
More excuses Haku.
The reality is that after 3 to 10 minutes that your heart stop sending blood-oxygen to the brain you are gone so the brain can not possibly put together any experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after many years.
Doctors declare a person dead after they do their very best to revive a person including the CPR so your argument is bankrupt.
QuoteThe other thing is that, being uncontrolled experiments as they are, you don't know where the information in NDEs are coming from. Again, we only get accounts of these NDEs after patients are brought back from the brink and spend some time convalescing.
Wrong again Haku.
If you bother to read these NDEs you will find that the patient is able to describe his-her experience immediately not after convalescing.
QuoteNDEs are not experienced as they happen. They are reconstructed after full blood flow is restored, and the brain is getting enough oxygen to start returning to full function. That and the fact that healthcare providers are administering healthcare to the patient to keep some form of blood flow going to the brain easily explains how NDEs can last more than ten minutes. Also, recollected time is kind of fluid.
Wrong again Haku.
NDEs are experienced as they happen out the body by the consciousness and remembered also after when the consciousness is back into the body-brain.
It is a dogma to believe that you can only experience an NDE when your brain is on.
QuoteYou wish, Arik Idle. It is in the nature of idiots to think they're ahead when they are actually far behind. When you can't even describe the biology of brain death and health care in the case of cardiac arrest accurately, you're not in any position to say what happens in those cases.
It is also in the nature of fools to think that they can score points by insulting opponents.
As far as knowing or not as the body works I confess that I am an expert as a doctor is but that is why I listen to what these experts say which is something that you fail to do.
QuoteThings described as "evolution" in the sciences describe quite particular things and I would thank you for not appropriating vocabulary you don't know how to apply correctly.
We usually call this "developement" and "learning."
Only when non-science idiots like you use it. Etymologically, it means "to roll out" and as such is used to describe a progression of stages or states, like the stages in the life cycle of a star, or a population. There is no implication of progression up a ladder of betterment. Part of the evolution of a star, for instance, is its inevitable death. The process of an organ or limb withering into a vestigial is a part of biological evolution, so this notion that evolution involves betterment is a myth perpetuated by those people who don't study the relevant fields.
No, you're just using the word "evolution" in a way not recognized by science. You don't get to say what is "real" evolution. Only scientists get to do that.
Apparently the word evolution had nothing to do with Darwin and also existed before his theories.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/47424/did-the-word-evolution-exist-before-darwinism
Probably come from the Latin to mean the gradual development of something advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding, transformation and so on that is why your stubbornness in believing that is only about biological changes make you a total dreamer.
QuoteYou are the only one here who has not brought evidence. I already outlined the problems with your NDE canard, the most glaring of which is the completely uncontrolled manner of any scenario in which it shows up, and the only piece of information that has ever been introduced in a controlled way fails to show up in ANY NDE. This, analogies, and bald-faced assertions without support are the only things you have brought to the table. None of these things are evidence.
So real people, real casualty situation, real doctors and real hospitals are not evidence?
Better go back to sleep Haku.
QuoteOn the other hand, we have brought you hard-won knowledge from the only group of people who have ever brought evidence to bear on your questions. So, pot, stop calling the silverware black.
I already stated that you require physical conditioning to break the blocks, and physical conditioning in this area is something I very much lack. Have one of your spindly gurus break those blocks, and you'll be talking, because then you'd have proven that physical conditioning is unnecessary.
Oh, I see.
So you are not prepared to insert hooks in your flesh Haku, are you?
QuoteSeriously, how does my failing to break blocks with my mind power (without the relevant physical training) somehow prove that mind power is what breaks these bricks?
Those guys that insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain never had any physical training so how you explain that?
QuoteAnother bald-faced assertion. Look, the reason why I said that you can see, hear, smell, etc. the driver was to underline the point that the driver has physically verifiable properties. Well, your brain in action also has the same thing: hook up your brain to an EEG, or use a fMRI, and you can see the brain lighting up as I type these words. Particularly my motor cortex, my Broca's and Wernicke's areas, my prefrontal cortex, and my visual cortex. These are exactly the places where if disruption occurs I will lose my reasoning, vision, ability to move, or ability to process language. My consciousness is a physical process that can be measured and observed at work, but it is not separate from my brain.
The same thing apply when you travel in your car.
As far as the two go hand in hand together one need the other to do things.
That doesn't mean that the two are inseparable because sooner or later the driver will leave the car same same as the consciousness leave the body when physical dead occur.
QuoteWe've seen people thinking with fMRI and EEGs, Mr. Idle. That is evidence, and it points towards consciousness as a physical process, not an abstract entity.
No, you haven't. That list was not intended to be exhaustive. You can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste hydrogen gas either. Yet it is as physically real as your body is, particularly if it ignites and blows you the fuck up.
Yet, apparently, when separated from the body as you contend with NDE OOB experiences, your consciousness functions just fine without any brain matter involved, regardless of its state of operation. It's able to eavesdrop on people, see people do their work, etc, in the absence of any physical substrate, yet when inside a body, damage and drugs disable these abilities utterly.
You could have not chosen a more stupid example-analogy then this.
Being constrain inside a body involve that you are dependent on that body to do things.
And if that body doesn't work properly for some reasons then you are stuck unable to do anything.
There are people that refuse to live inside a body so they kill themselves.
This show how being inside a body can be so so bad for some.
QuoteDo these abilities lie in the consciousness or in the brain, Mr. Idle? If they're in the consciousness, why does damaging the brain in the relevant region destroy the ability? If they're in the brain, why does the consciousness still have them when separated from the body? If they're in both, then why doesn't your consciousness act as backup? After all, all your consciousness needs to do is manipulate your motor cortex, and you're golden.
One more stupid point.
When you are stuck inside a body is like when you are stuck inside a car.
When something bad happen to your body or to your vehicle you also suffer.
What else you suppose to do?
However the consciousness unlike a physical driver is an abstract entity and therefore it is immune to physical death.
QuoteInjuries are not created equal. If you break your leg, you won't be able to walk on it, even in an OOB experience. That implies that the function of walking is bound to your legs. If you break your brain, you won't be able to think with it. That implies that the functions of cognition are bound to your brain.
Obviously if you are stuck inside a smashed car after an incident you can not do much, do you?
That is why until physical death occur you are dependent on your body-brain to do anything.
That doesn't mean that when this constrain is over you are still in that situation.
QuoteFor every faculty of the mind, we have a specific brain injury that impairs it, and the list of impairments is long indeed. This implies that these faculties are bound to the brain, and not a part of any abstract consciousness. So what does the consciousness do, Mr. Idle?
As I just explain above you are stuck until this constrain end with the physical death.
After that you are free.
But free only if your karma let you free otherwise the music of reincarnations goes on and on especially for those so called smart people that still don't understand how the whole system works.
Arik here acting like he's a genius, while the rest of us see him as the babbling idiot he is. No evidence, no arguments worth a damn, no expertise on the subject, like a child thinking he knows better than his parents. If I were you guys, I wouldn't waste my time.
Quote from: Arik on June 18, 2019, 09:14:32 AM
Good point Jos.
Now let us see if you can bring any evidence to these beliefs which most atheists are so keen to bring up so often so we don't have to say that these beliefs are asserted without evidence and therefore they will have to be dismissed without evidence.
Are you ready Jos?
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
You do not seem to be able to differentiate between a claim, and not being convinced of a claim.
You are passing the burden of proof. You and your ilk are making the claims for: afterlives, NDE's, gods, 'spirituality', etc. It is up to you to support your claims. The burden of proof is not up to those that do not believe your claims, it is up to those making the claims.
Quote1) When we die is all over.
Very few atheists make the claim, with absolute certainty, that there is no life after death. Most take the position, that theists claims that there
is life after death has not met its burden of proof, therefore, there is no warrant to believe it is true.
Quote2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
Please point to one verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable example of a consciousness that exists absent a brain.
All evidence points to consciousness being a result of physical brain processes. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that consciousness is not a product of a physical brain.
Quote3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that I have never lived before or will not live again. My position is, that those of you that claim this is true, have not met your burden of proof. Therefore, I have no warrant to believe it is true.
Quote4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
There is no evidence that a god
is needed to create or run the universe. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that a god is necessary.
Again, you are the one making the claim that a god is necessary, therefore, you have the burden of proof.
As soon as theists are able to meet their burden of proof, I will be forced to accept it is true.
It is interesting, however, that the majority of physicists and cosmologists, are non-believers. Doesn't mean they are correct, only that the people that understand the evidence well beyond you are I do, do not see evidence of gods.
Quote5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
There is at least one obvious difference, religion is pretty easy to define, spirituality is not. For every single person I've ever heard use the term 'spirituality', I get just as many different definitions.
Quote6) Jesus never existed.
Very few atheists make this claim. Even guys like Robert Price or Richard Carrier, 2 of the most vocal mythicists, do not claim to be absolutely certain that Jesus did not exist. Their position is that there is not enough evidence to prove that he
did exist.
But here's the thing, even if a historical Jesus did exist, that offers zero evidence that any of the miracle god claims attributed to him occured. After all, the evidence for a historical Mohamed is stronger than for a historical Jesus, but I'll bet you don't believe Mohamed flew to Heaven on a winged creature.
Quote7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
Even if they are hallucinations, that doesn't mean that they are lies. The person experiencing a NDE, may be having a completely natural (but nonstandard) brain state, that they are misinterpreting. They might completely believe their experience is real, without lying about it.
Quote9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
Science is the single best and most reliable method ever developed by humanity to explain reality. Please name another method that is as successful and reliable.
Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:26:50 PM
The electricity is part of the wire. But the pattern of electricity has nothing to do with that, since if comes from a "will" not "random". These people will invoke Pythagoras, Democritus and Plato ... then claim ... I don't do philosophy (because then it wouldn't be science) and that I am totally autonomous from history and present context ... my ideas aren't just a meme from 2500 years ago.
Pythagoras was a pretty funny guy - he invented a prank cup that, when over-filled, would drain the contents out through the base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_cup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmOvA5VlO8U
:-P
"You are passing the burden of proof." ... that is a political act aka courtroom strategy. In IRS, you have the burden of proof. In regular court, the government has the burden of proof. Rhetoric is commonly the conceptual system in which parliamentary debate occurs.
So what politics is one doing when one says "You are passing the burden of proof". In the case of my hand, proof is irrelevant, I know my hand is on my arm. In the case of love, proof -> demonstration. Does she demonstrate that she loves me or not? in the case of love, if I play the courtroom gambit of "you are passing the burden of proof" what I am saying is, she has asked me to demonstrate that I love her, rather than her responding with a demonstration that she loves me.
In the case of abstractions like free will or G-d ... other than dialectical sparring, what does "you are passing the burden of proof" get us? Well something more than the fallacy of ad hominem "that poster is stupid". In rationality, one has axioms that all agree on, and one follows a valid sequence of deduction (except nobody does this in practice, because either we don't agree on the axioms or nobody has the ability to do the logical deduction correctly in practice). In empiricism, we rely on objective evidence (it is confirmed that the victims blood was on the glove of O J ... or it is confirmed by independent witnesses that OJ threatened the victim verbally). But empirical evidence for anything, if ruled out in advance (do we accept the evidence or not), we go into a rhetorical chain of evidentiary rules (the bloody glove wasn't obtained per legal evidentiary rules, it could have been tampered with). With people, it isn't unusual that we can't come to an agreement, it is unusual, even if we are following the same rules, that we can ... come to an agreement.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:02:32 AM
If you then concede that a process is inseparable in actuality from its host "thing" you have then confirmed my point that a process is integral to things generally. Which leads to consciousness being an entity, because by your admission it is in actuality part of a "thing". The conceptual distinction then being illusory and referential only.
No, again, that doesn't follow. It only follows if you consider processes themselves entities, which given your and Mr. Idle's umbrage to my characterization of conscousness as processes, you do not.
When I say that a process cannot be separated from its contigent thing, I mean that to talk about a process as if it were not happening to that thing is absurd. The running of a car in the absence of a car is absurd. The same is not generally true of entities like cars. A car can be not running.
So, there's an asymmetry between entities and processes. A given process is contingent on an entity, but an entity is not contingent on the process. It may be an entity that is not doing it's job, but it's still there. You ask what good are bodies and computers without consciousness and software execution, and to that I asnwer â€"
irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is not an argument about utility, functionality, teleology, pragmatics or any other higher-order purpose, but just to the existence and the nature thereof of brains and consciousness. A dead, silent brain is still clearly a brain, and a broken computer is still clearly a computer. Whether or not there's a point to them is a red herring.
Even if I were to admit that consciousness is an entity, it doesn't change the fact that it's still contingent upon a brain. It's
still a fact that we have never observed a consciousness outside of a brain, or other matter substrate. A consciousness without a brain to operate on is just as pointless and functionless as a brain without a consciousness, especially given how much of your mental faculties are verifiably linked to your brain.
Quote
The software continues to exist long after the thousands of computers on which it operated are scrapped.
And given that we're talking about the execution thereof, the continued existence of the software outside the computer is not really gerund to the discussion.
Quote
You haven't really explained why software did not apply as an analogy for consciousness, except that you claim consciousness must be an observable process in physical matter.
Software can be observed to be in a state where it is not doing anything and does not affect to cause change in any object, like when it is stored on a DVD. Consciousness is defined by changes in state, particularly awareness. Awareness requires the assimilation of new information. Ergo, equating consciousness to software is a bad analogy.
Besides, reasoning by analogy is an actual fallacy. You use analogies in clarification, not in reasoning.
Quote
Consciousness is more than a material process, it has its origins in a non-material reality. The processes you see when you think you are observing consciousness are only the effects of consciousness as it impinges on the physical brain structure.
And here's the mere assertion. The claim that consciousnes is more than a material process has to be substantiated, and you have not done so. Indeed, everything we know about the brain indicates that, if consciousness is a separate thing, it would have prescious little to do. The only thing it seems to actually do is to have a sense of being in control, and not actually be in control.
Quote
It follows logically that if you observe a material process in the brain analogous to software execution, you should expect that there is a body of instructions directing that process, analagous to the software itself--an immaterial entity. Occam's razor indeed...
The
correct application of Occam's razor applies to hypotheses that explain the data equally well. The notion of consciousness as a separate entity does NOT explain what we see at all, unless you make consciousness an impotent rider in the brain with no purpose or function. Fallacious hypotheses are killed long before they get to Occam's razor.
Quote
There is plenty of scientific evidence for consciousness existing independent of a material body. You just aren't interested in looking at it. Schools of fish acting in perfect synchronicity is a good example, and there are many more if you wanted to find them.
And here's the accusation that I'm "not interested" in things that don't fit my worldview. No, that's the pot calling the silverware black. I'm not interested in
fallacious reasoning, and yours is very fallacious. You have brought no evidence at all, only analogies, which is a fallacious form of argument. You have no way of explaining why every mental faculty has a specific brain injury that disables it, if the consciousness is the seat of any of those faculties. You have no demonstration of consciousness being observed outside of the brain, a necessary condition for it to survive death or make OOB experiences a thing, except for the hellish possibility of your consciousness being trapped in an unresponsive body in perpetuity after death. The only thing you have brought that might have been evidence was your inventions malarkey, and there you can't separate the extraordinary hypothesis of an all-consciousness communicating ideas to inventors from the complex but very ordinary interaction between the prevailing technology and human need â€" that things were invented because the time was ripe. It is not evidence for separate consciousness because it is not indicative of that hypothesis to the exclusion of other explanations.
Quote from: Arik on June 18, 2019, 11:17:57 AM
More excuses Haku.
An observed fact is never an "excuse."
Quote
The reality is that after 3 to 10 minutes that your heart stop sending blood-oxygen to the brain you are gone so the brain can not possibly put together any experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after many years.
Then you have no way to explain the progressive deterioration of patients after anoxia. Furthermore, you have no assurance that the
memories of what these patients experience came at the time or after normal blood flow is restored. But we know false memories exist, because we have experiments that have created them. Furthermore, these
completely fabricated memories are as clear and sharp as any NDE. Clarity and sharpness are not guarantees of accuracy.
Quote
Doctors declare a person dead after they do their very best to revive a person including the CPR so your argument is bankrupt.
All that means is that the person is beyond medical help. Their declaration is just not detailed enough to allow them to say that any part of the body is definitively dead. A person who is not revived... doesn't come back to relate a NDE. They're dead. There's a quite definite bias to who we hear NDE's from.
Quote
Wrong again Haku.
If you bother to read these NDEs you will find that the patient is able to describe his-her experience immediately not after convalescing.
Waking up from a coma doesn't take place immediately, you idiot. A person waking up immediately after normal sinus rhythm and blood flow is restored
just doesn't happen. Those medical dramas telling you otherwise are lying to you. The brain takes a while to get itself back into order, and during that time its still receiving information. Hence, "convalescing."
Quote
Wrong again Haku.
NDEs are experienced as they happen out the body by the consciousness and remembered also after when the consciousness is back into the body-brain.
It is a dogma to believe that you can only experience an NDE when your brain is on.
You have
no assurance that the memory of that experience was formed
at the time that the NDE patient claims. It's all related hours after the fact, even if the patient relates the memory immediately after waking up, because the waking up doesn't take place immediately after but hours later at best. Sometimes waking up from a coma takes days. You have hours unaccounted for. And before you say otherwise, episodes severe enough to require the heroic intervention required are the kind of comas it takes hours to wake up from.
Furthermore, while a patient may relate an experience immediately after waking up, there's no guarantee that the original related experience matches that of the experience related even days later. Again, we have demonstrations and evidence that episodic memory is altered every single time it is recalled. Unless someone was sitting at the bedside recording audio at the time, it's not going to be an original account, but filtered by time and experience.
Quote
It is also in the nature of fools to think that they can score points by insulting opponents.
I insult you for my pleasure, not to score any points. Everyone else can see that you're an idiot. I'm just calling a spade a spade.
Quote
As far as knowing or not as the body works I confess that I am an expert as a doctor is but that is why I listen to what these experts say which is something that you fail to do.
I do. Except I listen
directly to the doctors and try to understand what they say on their own terms. I also take specializations into account. The people
most qualified to comment about NDE are psychologists and neurophysiologists.
Those experts say that there are quite organic reasons to believe that NDE's are not evidence of actual OOB experiences or evidence of a separate consciousness, and they have access to the
full medical histories of the patients involved (you and I don't).
None of them think that any of your excuses are noteworthy, so I don't either.
Quote
Apparently the word evolution had nothing to do with Darwin and also existed before his theories.
Irrelevant as I've never made that point. The way it is used now is what matters, and while some evolution involve advancement as we would consider it, what we call regressions are
also parts of the theories.
Quote
Probably come from the Latin to mean the gradual development of something advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding, transformation and so on that is why your stubbornness in believing that is only about biological changes make you a total dreamer.
There is no field of study called "mental evolution." It's just you applying the word "evolution" to the mind and making up whatever definition suits you. Sorry, I'm not playing that game.
Quote
So real people, real casualty situation, real doctors and real hospitals are not evidence?
Not evidence for OOB experiences, just like the existence of real chocolate bars are not evidence for OOBs. You have not shown anything beyond "your brain thinks up funny things after a coma."
Quote
Oh, I see.
So you are not prepared to insert hooks in your flesh Haku, are you?
No. Again, I don't see how demonstrating my
lack of ability to use mental powers to nullify pain demonstrates the power of the mind to nullify pain. We've already been over the hooked gurus thing and what I would consider a proper experiment and examination, and we will not go over it again.
Quote
Those guys that insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain never had any physical training so how you explain that?
Don't change the subject! I was talking about your spindly gurus' ability to break blocks like the karate masters! They can feel all the pain they want doing that, they just have to break the blocks.
And we've already been over the hooked gurus.
Quote
The same thing apply when you travel in your car.
As far as the two go hand in hand together one need the other to do things.
That doesn't mean that the two are inseparable because sooner or later the driver will leave the car same same as the consciousness leave the body when physical dead occur.
Again, find a consciousness that is actually observable outside the body, when it is outside the body, and you'll be miles ahead of where you are now. Until then, your driver analogy is just that, an analogy and an inappropriate one.
Quote
You could have not chosen a more stupid example-analogy then this.
Being constrain inside a body involve that you are dependent on that body to do things.
And if that body doesn't work properly for some reasons then you are stuck unable to do anything.
There are people that refuse to live inside a body so they kill themselves.
This show how being inside a body can be so so bad for some.
Then what of your OOB's then? Aren't those "experiences" happening outside your body, and not contingent on your body? The point about your analogy to a driver in the car was that the driver was NOT dependent on the car; he could get out of the car and walk the distance himself if need be. Sorry, but at this point your claim has devolved into absurdity.
Quote
One more stupid point.
When you are stuck inside a body is like when you are stuck inside a car.
Your entire point is that you're
not stuck inside the proverbial car.
Quote
When something bad happen to your body or to your vehicle you also suffer.
I doubt that I would suffer as much in a car's protective body as I would if I suffered a collision at 60 mph with a multi-ton car on my actual person. And why would an immaterial consciousness need protection from the material world anyway?
Quote
What else you suppose to do?
Get out and walk.
Quote
However the consciousness unlike a physical driver is an abstract entity and therefore it is immune to physical death.
Why would an entity not immune to physical injury then be immune to physical death? You want me to stop calling you an idiot? Stop saying stupid shit like this.
Quote
Obviously if you are stuck inside a smashed car after an incident you can not do much, do you?
That is why until physical death occur you are dependent on your body-brain to do anything.
So inside the brain, the consciousness is a completely impotent existence completely dependent on its brain to do all the thinking for it. What a useless NEET consciousness is!
Quote
That doesn't mean that when this constrain is over you are still in that situation.
Even trapped in a car, you still have the ability to call for help. You can use a cell phone, or just shout very loud. You still have the ability to kick at the windshield to try to break it so you can crawl out. Indeed, in NDEs, this seems to be exactly what happens, even though the body is still in a condition that is recoverable â€" because
all NDEs are related by just such people.
Sorry, Mr. Idle, none of your spiel dismisses the fact that, unlike drivers of cars, consciousness is never detected outside the body and is never seen acting independently of a brain.
Quote
As I just explain above you are stuck until this constrain end with the physical death.
Your "constraint of the body" canard doesn't wash, and indeed undermines your entire point.
Quote
After that you are free.
Unless your body is revived, and it's back in the lamp with you, Jafar!
Quote
But free only if your karma let you free otherwise the music of reincarnations goes on and on especially for those so called smart people that still don't understand how the whole system works.
If you're right, then I have literally infinite time to reconsider. If you're wrong, then I will have wasted my one and only shot at life. Unless you bring me better... well,
any evidence, the smart choice is to not believe you. You are definitely no bodhisattva.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 09:10:26 AM
No, again, that doesn't follow. It only follows if you consider processes themselves entities, which given your and Mr. Idle's umbrage to my characterization of conscousness as processes, you do not.
Correct. I do not consider consciousness as a material process. There is no logical reason to. It is an unbounded immaterial complex of intelligent, likely geometric structure which generates the illusion of material reality. In practice a materialist is necessarily capable of denying all evidence for this understanding of conscious since it by definition does not exist in a material form. However, I adopt this model because it is the most rational, logical and useful. The assumption that there can be no reality other than material reality is irrational, akin to the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe of old. The material process you label consciousness is only an expression of one or more aspects of consciousness in the material realm through physical entities designed as receptors of consciousness.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:27:33 PM
Correct. I do not consider consciousness as a material process. There is no logical reason to.
As I've said in the past, logic without grounding is barren. There may be no "logical reason" to consider it a material process, but there's also no logical reason to not consider it such. That's when you turn to evidence, and the evidence that the world presents us is that consciousness
is a material process.
Quote
It is an unbounded immaterial complex of intelligent, likely geometric structure which generates the illusion of material reality.
See, everything above you just said? That's mere supposition. What shows ANY of this above is actually the case? That's where speculation ends and investigation begins.
Quote
In practice a materialist is necessarily capable of denying all evidence for this understanding of conscious since it by definition does not exist in a material form.
What "evidence"? The reason why I discount your drivel is because it's
not evidence. It doesn't discriminate between the two cases. The only thing you've presented that even might count as evidence is easily explainable by the fact that most invention really only takes ideas that are already out there and finding a new use for the parts â€" the solution space is actually rather restrictive, and there are many people seeking solutions to the same problem, so of course you occasionally come up with inventions being hit upon at the same time independently. You present nothing else, so no matter how convincing your rhetoric sounds to you, to me it sounds like someone with nothing to show and less to tell.
Quote
However, I adopt this model because it is the most rational, logical and useful.
Yes, that's why people turn to you to solve their issues with brain damage. Oh wait. They go to neurologists and psychologists. Sorry, buddy, your "logic" is ungrounded and flapping in the breeze, it's not rational in the slightest to attribute effects to things you can't observe when there are plenty of things you can observe to attribute them to, and people are helped more by the hard-nosed, materialistic sciences than have ever been helped by your philosophy.
Quote
The assumption that there can be no reality other than material reality is irrational, akin to the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe of old.
We think that because the immaterial
actually doesn't seem to exist. If you lot found a way to reliably demonstrate the immaterial, then you would have a case that the material is not all that exists. But you can't; whenever anyone tries to find these immaterial components of the universe you seem to think exist, it vanishes into smoke, just like every other fucking time we've looked.
In case you haven't noticed, the assumption that there is something beyond the material and that consciousness is a special thing is what the self-centered belief that was later discarded, like the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe.
You can't rely on the unreliable. Well, you can, but you'll be disappointed.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 12:59:07 PM
As I've said in the past, logic without grounding is barren. There may be no "logical reason" to consider it a material process, but there's also no logical reason to not consider it such. That's when you turn to evidence, and the evidence that the world presents us is that consciousness is a material process.
See, everything above you just said? That's mere supposition. What shows ANY of this above is actually the case? That's where speculation ends and investigation begins.
What "evidence"? The reason why I discount your drivel is because it's not evidence. It doesn't discriminate between the two cases. The only thing you've presented that even might count as evidence is easily explainable by the fact that most invention really only takes ideas that are already out there and finding a new use for the parts â€" the solution space is actually rather restrictive, and there are many people seeking solutions to the same problem, so of course you occasionally come up with inventions being hit upon at the same time independently. You present nothing else, so no matter how convincing your rhetoric sounds to you, to me it sounds like someone with nothing to show and less to tell.
Yes, that's why people turn to you to solve their issues with brain damage. Oh wait. They go to neurologists and psychologists. Sorry, buddy, your "logic" is ungrounded and flapping in the breeze, it's not rational in the slightest to attribute effects to things you can't observe when there are plenty of things you can observe to attribute them to, and people are helped more by the hard-nosed, materialistic sciences than have ever been helped by your philosophy.
We think that because the immaterial actually doesn't seem to exist. If you lot found a way to reliably demonstrate the immaterial, then you would have a case that the material is not all that exists. But you can't; whenever anyone tries to find these immaterial components of the universe you seem to think exist, it vanishes into smoke, just like every other fucking time we've looked.
In case you haven't noticed, the assumption that there is something beyond the material and that consciousness is a special thing is what the self-centered belief that was later discarded, like the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe.
You can't rely on the unreliable. Well, you can, but you'll be disappointed.
People also turn to faith healers, shamans and the like, but your selective focus only allows you to see what you want to see. And there are many things I observe that cannot be attributed to material causes; in fact I conclude that causality itself is an illusion: thus the need for an immaterial point of view. You concede that simultaneous inventions might be evidence for an immaterial reality, yet explain it away in purely material terms. So what use would it be for me to pile on more evidence only to be"explained away"? The nature of consciousness is the ability to shut out information we don't wish or have time to see.
So whatever the reasons, you shut out information that does not support a materialistic world view. However, unlike many materialists and atheists, you do adhere to a self-consistent logical methodology apparently free from prejudice and discrimination. As such, our interaction could be productive despite not coming to agreement.
I propose that we examine the case of simultaneous inventions more closely and break it down into a more finely-tuned logical discussion, then see where that leads. What is your opinion?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Odd how Arik seems to fall out of of coverage just in time for this very similar nut job to chime in.
I have it on good authority that there's one born every minute.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 01:46:59 PM
People also turn to faith healers, shamans and the like, but your selective focus only allows you to see what you want to see.
But the only people who actually are
helped past the placebo effect are those who go to real doctors. That's because the methodology doctors employ are tested under controlled conditions. You know, to see if they actually are
effective in and of themselves.
We've tested witch doctors, faith healers, shamans and the like, and they don't work. In fact, when they seem effective, they turn out to be scammers. This is not a good track record. The reason why we don't go to you for real help is because you have given us no indication that you can do what you say and every reason to doubt what you say.
Quote
And there are many things I observe that cannot be attributed to material causes;
Like Mr. Idle, I don't think you know enough about the material world to say what can and cannot be attributed to material causes. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of your claims.
Quote
in fact I conclude that causality itself is an illusion: thus the need for an immaterial point of view. You concede that simultaneous inventions might be evidence for an immaterial reality, yet explain it away in purely material terms.
The purely material terms are the ones we know for certain are in force, and even in a world where the immaterial exists, material terms for these phenomenon
still need serious consideration. You have given me no cause to think that the immaterial even behaves the way you describe. It's simply an assumption on your part. While I do acknowledge that it COULD be the case, you have given me no reason to consider it a serious possibility.
That's the difference. We know about material reality and it is something you can work with. We know how people behave and how they think, regardless of the origin of those thoughts. The material world does indeed seem to follow very rigid and universal rules. The immaterial is anybody's guess and will continue to be anybody's guess unless and until it yields to scientific investigation. An immaterial that refuses to be replicated by some means is too fickle to be usable or reliable as an explanation, and indeed in its extreme is indistinguishable from random noise.
Quote
So what use would it be for me to pile on more evidence only to be"explained away"? The nature of consciousness is the ability to shut out information we don't wish or have time to see.
In my case, its because it's automatically filtering out low-quality and inconclusive data. It's not
my fault that your evidence is too weak to support your claim. You need to get better evidence. If you could reliably detect a disembodied consciousness, then you would blast open the field, because even if you could only detect their presence, then all the consciousness has to do to communicate is leave the detection area and come back in a modulated way.
Quote
So whatever the reasons, you shut out information that does not support a materialistic world view.
I refuse to accept the responsibility for
your poor data. No scientist whines like you do when their data is rejected as inconclusive, and peer review is a lot rougher than than what you're currently getting. A scientist understands that the most extraordinary of claims requires serious quality evidence. The difference between your posts and a serious research paper is as plain as night and day. The only people who complain about worldviews are people whose own worldview had been smacked down by hard-nosed skeptics. You barely get two answers in before resorting to it, even though I'm bending over backwards telling you exactly what you need to prove your point.
Real research takes
work, boyo. It also will result in failure. Piles and piles of failure. Most of your ideas are trash. The secret to success in research is to fail faster â€" learn to quickly recognize and test ideas for quality, for once you recognize a trash idea, you can discard it and move on to the next idea. Once in a while, it won't be complete trash and those result in the actual papers. And when colleagues say your idea is trash after all, accept it and move on. Fail faster.
The bottom line is that you need to be your own worst critic. Each and every one of my held principles has been through the wringer of scrutiny literally hundreds of times. They're not going to yield to just any philosophical casual.
Quote
However, unlike many materialists and atheists, you do adhere to a self-consistent logical methodology apparently free from prejudice and discrimination. As such, our interaction could be productive despite not coming to agreement.
There will be no productive discussion unless you acknowledge that, however good you think your arguments and evidence is, that they might not actually be that good and may well be terrible. I acknowledge that I might be wrong in thinking that the immaterial doesn't exist, so the least you could do is acknowledge that you might be wrong in thinking the immaterial does. You'll also be well served by asking yourself and researching why the experts of the field don't think as you do, even though they have your evidence and more. There'll be no discussion with an unsinkable rubber duck.
Quote
I propose that we examine the case of simultaneous inventions more closely and break it down into a more finely-tuned logical discussion, then see where that leads. What is your opinion?
The problem I see is that I don't see how simultaneous inventions are even a problem for materialism. In the end, you're trying to advance a statistical argument that there are two many simultaneous inventions for materialism to support. That raises the question of how many simultaneous inventions would you expect in a solely materialistic world? Do you have an answer for that? I don't, and I'm a statistician, and without that control rate, we're nowhere. Until you determine normal, you can't recognize the anomalous.
Instead, I think you need to find a means to detect disembodied consciousnesses. Your theory of consciousness speaks to the very core of reality, and is too much for soft sciences like history and sociology to support. Even if your purported consciousnesses turn out to be not the case, discovering a new phenomenon is always interesting.
Out of body experiences can now be induced in a laboratory setting, but it's only an illusion:
First Out-of-body Experience Induced In Laboratory Setting (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm)
Affecting the brain with drugs can induce NDEs:
Drug-Induced Near Death Experience (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/drug-induced-near-death-experience/)
Then, of course, there's the God helmet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet)
Quote from: aitm on June 19, 2019, 02:02:02 PM
Odd how Arik seems to fall out of of coverage just in time for this very similar nut job to chime in.
Agent may be a nut, but Arik is a whole fruitcake.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
But the only people who actually are helped past the placebo effect are those who go to real doctors. That's because the methodology doctors employ are tested under controlled conditions. You know, to see if they actually are effective in and of themselves.
We've tested witch doctors, faith healers, shamans and the like, and they don't work. In fact, when they seem effective, they turn out to be scammers. This is not a good track record. The reason why we don't go to you for real help is because you have given us no indication that you can do what you say and every reason to doubt what you say.
Like Mr. Idle, I don't think you know enough about the material world to say what can and cannot be attributed to material causes. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of your claims.
The purely material terms are the ones we know for certain are in force, and even in a world where the immaterial exists, material terms for these phenomenon still need serious consideration. You have given me no cause to think that the immaterial even behaves the way you describe. It's simply an assumption on your part. While I do acknowledge that it COULD be the case, you have given me no reason to consider it a serious possibility.
That's the difference. We know about material reality and it is something you can work with. We know how people behave and how they think, regardless of the origin of those thoughts. The material world does indeed seem to follow very rigid and universal rules. The immaterial is anybody's guess and will continue to be anybody's guess unless and until it yields to scientific investigation. An immaterial that refuses to be replicated by some means is too fickle to be usable or reliable as an explanation, and indeed in its extreme is indistinguishable from random noise.
In my case, its because it's automatically filtering out low-quality and inconclusive data. It's not my fault that your evidence is too weak to support your claim. You need to get better evidence. If you could reliably detect a disembodied consciousness, then you would blast open the field, because even if you could only detect their presence, then all the consciousness has to do to communicate is leave the detection area and come back in a modulated way.
I refuse to accept the responsibility for your poor data. No scientist whines like you do when their data is rejected as inconclusive, and peer review is a lot rougher than than what you're currently getting. A scientist understands that the most extraordinary of claims requires serious quality evidence. The difference between your posts and a serious research paper is as plain as night and day. The only people who complain about worldviews are people whose own worldview had been smacked down by hard-nosed skeptics. You barely get two answers in before resorting to it, even though I'm bending over backwards telling you exactly what you need to prove your point.
Real research takes work, boyo. It also will result in failure. Piles and piles of failure. Most of your ideas are trash. The secret to success in research is to fail faster â€" learn to quickly recognize and test ideas for quality, for once you recognize a trash idea, you can discard it and move on to the next idea. Once in a while, it won't be complete trash and those result in the actual papers. And when colleagues say your idea is trash after all, accept it and move on. Fail faster.
The bottom line is that you need to be your own worst critic. Each and every one of my held principles has been through the wringer of scrutiny literally hundreds of times. They're not going to yield to just any philosophical casual.
There will be no productive discussion unless you acknowledge that, however good you think your arguments and evidence is, that they might not actually be that good and may well be terrible. I acknowledge that I might be wrong in thinking that the immaterial doesn't exist, so the least you could do is acknowledge that you might be wrong in thinking the immaterial does. You'll also be well served by asking yourself and researching why the experts of the field don't think as you do, even though they have your evidence and more. There'll be no discussion with an unsinkable rubber duck.
The problem I see is that I don't see how simultaneous inventions are even a problem for materialism. In the end, you're trying to advance a statistical argument that there are two many simultaneous inventions for materialism to support. That raises the question of how many simultaneous inventions would you expect in a solely materialistic world? Do you have an answer for that? I don't, and I'm a statistician, and without that control rate, we're nowhere. Until you determine normal, you can't recognize the anomalous.
Instead, I think you need to find a means to detect disembodied consciousnesses. Your theory of consciousness speaks to the very core of reality, and is too much for soft sciences like history and sociology to support. Even if your purported consciousnesses turn out to be not the case, discovering a new phenomenon is always interesting.
I wasn't aware we were in a research forum; I thought it was general discussion. Nonetheless I thank you for taking the time to systematically explain your positions.
The possibility of my being wrong about everything is always a given in my thought process, but it is of little practical value to include this in one's discussions with others. For your reassurance though: "I could be wrong, there may not in fact exist a separate immaterial reality." However this is unlikely and therefore I don't ordinarily represent what seems unlikely to me. Note: the recognition of one's own ignorance is a fundamental prerequisite for spirituality.
"But the only people who actually are helped past the placebo effect are those who go to real doctors." = an urban legend bandied about the scientific/medical establishment for the sole purpose of reinforcing their own legitimacy and self-importance.
"An immaterial that refuses to be replicated by some means is too fickle to be usable or reliable as an explanation, and indeed in its extreme is indistinguishable from random noise."
If an immaterial reality exists (it does), then it would by definition be imperceptible in the material realm except through the most delicate of instruments--the brain being a primary example of such. This would give the illusion of fickleness and uselessness; yet the immaterial reality could be much more solid and permanent in it's own right (it is). It is the instruments themselves which are fickle, in terms of the material realm, not the reality they connect to. Thus you sweepingly dismiss evidence from the internal perception of the brain (the subjective, anecdotal as you refer to it), evidence which you claim is unreliable of that very reality the brain is equipped to tap into. Of course it would seem absurd and unreliable to a materially-focused individuation of consciousness since it functions in a completely different set of rules. But this is only a matter of perception: that immaterial reality could be (and is by all observations) more "solid" and persistent than the material. In fact, it generates our material reality.
"If you could reliably detect a disembodied consciousness, then you would blast open the field"
This is already occurring on a mass scale and soon the force of its impact will rock the scientific establishment to the core. The reason you don't know about it yet is the research findings are being suppressed (including physicists being taken out). Why? Like all revolutionary ideas, the existing establishment correctly perceives their livelihoods threatened. But like all revolutionary ideas, it's advent is inevitable. Consider dark matter. It cannot be directly perceived (hence the term "dark"), yet astrophysicists know it must exist, because of its observed effects. Similarly, we are approaching a threshold of universal awareness in which it will become widely accepted that a unified immaterial super-conscious source field not only exists, but powers our collective material reality. This will be established through the observation of its effects in material reality.
If [material] causality were a real law, and not a figment of materially focused consciousness, the entire universe would have reached entropic equilibrium long ago--if there had been any energy to begin with. It would be an indescript mass of static nothingness. In a purely material world, even one invention would be an anomaly, let alone multiple simultaneous ones. You see the problem is not getting data and evidence, my focus is on achieving a truly rational evaluation of the existing data. If we don't understand our data we're just so many rats in a maze blindly looking for cheese.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
On NDE ... per conventional epistemology, it is non-scientific. But that can never be the last word, since it is an assumption, though a good working one, that we need to pay closer attention to the scientific (objective). The non-scientific is alway at best, subjective. And that beggars the question regarding what to do with subjectivity.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 07:08:34 PM
I wasn't aware we were in a research forum; I thought it was general discussion. Nonetheless I thank you for taking the time to systematically explain your positions.
It's not a research forum, but when dealing with the extraordinary claims of the immaterial, unless you are adhering to the scientific consensus, or presenting evidence of quality equal to the claim, you're talking out of your ass.
Quote
The possibility of my being wrong about everything is always a given in my thought process, but it is of little practical value to include this in one's discussions with others. For your reassurance though: "I could be wrong, there may not in fact exist a separate immaterial reality." However this is unlikely and therefore I don't ordinarily represent what seems unlikely to me. Note: the recognition of one's own ignorance is a fundamental prerequisite for spirituality.
I note that the recognition of one's own ignorance is general good advice, spirituality or no. The problem is that ignorance is just that: ignorance. It is not a substitute for knowledge.
Quote
"But the only people who actually are helped past the placebo effect are those who go to real doctors." = an urban legend bandied about the scientific/medical establishment for the sole purpose of reinforcing their own legitimacy and self-importance.
You are talking out of your ass. When alternative medicine proves itself to actually be effective, it becomes medicine, unqualified. Techniques and medicines that prove themselves to be effective are taken in and added to the whole of medical knowledge. That's the strength of the scientific method, and science-based medicine.
This notion that mainstream medicine doesn't want to cure people is itself an urban legend bandied about by alternative woo, and they milk it so much that any ethical person ought to be ashamed of himself. I personally wouldn't care if good medicines were powered by woo, because I want to get well. But I
do care about getting a real, effective treatment instead of being taken for a ride. As it turns out, the real, effective treatments
do turn out to be based on materialistic principles.
And yes, the placebo effect does in fact exist. We see it all the time in placebo controlled studies, where you split up the patents into the control group (no treatment), a placebo group (a sham treatment), and a treatment group (the real deal). You very often find that the placebo group does better than the control group. If your treatment works, then the treatment group will do best of all.
Administering a placebo instead of real treatment in hopes of eliciting a placebo effect is fraud, by the way. If we could deliberately leverage the mechanisms of the placebo effect to consistent effect, then it would be very interesting and powerful, but we can't. The placebo effect is quite delicate and just suspecting that you're getting a placebo ruins the effect â€" hence, double blinding.
Quote
"An immaterial that refuses to be replicated by some means is too fickle to be usable or reliable as an explanation, and indeed in its extreme is indistinguishable from random noise."
If an immaterial reality exists (it does), then it would by definition be imperceptible in the material realm except through the most delicate of instruments--the brain being a primary example of such.
The brain?
The most delicate of instruments?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!
Oh, no! The brain is not a delicate instrument at all! You just have to attach EEG probes to see that the brain is a noisy place. Any given signal is actually driven by dozens if not hundreds of individual neurons firing. The propagation of an action potential is driven mostly by heat; the ion channels in the membrane of a neuron work by harnessing thermodynamic noise. A transcranial magnetic stimulation coil takes about half a joule to get a response from the cortex. That may not mean anything to you, except what I would call "a most delicate of instruments" has a sensitivity on the order of femtojoules (10^-15 J) â€" to such an instrument, half a joule would be a sledgehammer.
This notion that the immaterial is something that only the brain could pick up on is simply nonsensical, given that stimulating that kind of action by other means reveals quite the opposite: as a sensor, the brain is rather poor. Then again, its job isn't to sense, but to process, and as such it would need to be robust to outside interference.
So, yes, I do "sweepingly dismiss" the notion that the brain is some sort of antenna for the immaterial, given it's complete insensitivity in other respects. If you knock a neuron hard enough to fire, it's gonna fire, regardless of the source. Any immaterial that could affect the brain in such a way would easily be detectable by some means by our instruments, given what the immaterial would have to overcome. That, and the brain will cheerfully work without a hitch even in an MRI scanner, which has a magnet capable of attracting a gas cylinder to respectable speed from a few meters away (such an accident caused the death of a 6 year old boy). And all this is not even touching upon the intricacies of signal theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BBx8BwLhqg
YIKES!
No, ignorance will
not serve you in this discussion. It is simply not credible to characterize the brain as a "most sensitive of instruments."
Quote
But this is only a matter of perception: that immaterial reality could be (and is by all observations) more "solid" and persistent than the material. In fact, it generates our material reality.
Supposition. You've already made an error characterizing the brain as a "sensitive instrument" (it's not), and the above contention is based upon no evidence put forward. "By all observations?"
What observations? Name the observations, and what about them leads you to believe that the immaterial is more solid and persistent, and generates our reality? The reasoning is important, Absolute.
Quote
"If you could reliably detect a disembodied consciousness, then you would blast open the field"
This is already occurring on a mass scale and soon the force of its impact will rock the scientific establishment to the core.
Promises, promises. Your camp has been trying to prove the immaterial for centuries, and you're actually further from your goal now than you've ever been. Science still chips away at the hiding spots for the immaterial.
Quote
The reason you don't know about it yet is the research findings are being suppressed (including physicists being taken out). Why? Like all revolutionary ideas, the existing establishment correctly perceives their livelihoods threatened. But like all revolutionary ideas, it's advent is inevitable.
No, I'm not going to buy any grand conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment bullshit. It is anathema to the entire dicipline to suppress knowledge like this. And the notion that their "livelihoods" would be "threatened?" Total poppycock! On the contrary, it would represent a whole new superfield of science where a scientist could make a name for himself, and there would be many, many Nobel prizes waiting for significant discoveries. Grants couldn't be issued fast enough to keep up with demand of new research proposals.
Nah, I think your papers are rejected for the same reason all other scientific papers are rejected: flawed methodology, sloppy experiments, inadequate controls, studies too small, and questionable analysis, among other ills.
Quote
Consider dark matter. It cannot be directly perceived (hence the term "dark"), yet astrophysicists know it must exist, because of its observed effects.
It's the observed and well-documented effects that separates it from woo. The evidence is plain and clear, unfiltered by human folley. Even so, it took a lot of work and much more than anecdotes to establish.
Quote
Similarly, we are approaching a threshold of universal awareness in which it will become widely accepted that a unified immaterial super-conscious source field not only exists, but powers our collective material reality. This will be established through the observation of its effects in material reality.
Or it'll be more N-rays. Confidence is fine and all, but I wouldn't be so boastful about finding something that has turned out to be smoke when men smarter than you tried to find it. Most people, even most scientists, are doomed to relative obscurity with only the most minor accomplishments to their name. Even the ones that are as starry eyed as you.
You seriously sound like every apocalyptic preacher,
ever. They have a poor track record for predicting the end of the world.
Quote
If [material] causality were a real law, and not a figment of materially focused consciousness, the entire universe would have reached entropic equilibrium long ago--
Nonsense. Do you even know how to perform an entropy calculation? So long as there are stars shining, the universe will not be in thermal equilibrium, and the red dwarf stars will burn for trillions of years.
Seriously,
who taught you this, because whoever it is taught you wrong.
Quote
if there had been any energy to begin with.
The total energy content of the universe is actually very close to zero. The positive forms of energy are balanced out to great precision by the negative forms.
Quote
It would be an indescript mass of static nothingness.
Supposition born of ignorance. The laws of physics are such that the universe
cannot be static. Full stop. Einstein tried to enforce a global static-ness, but failed.
Quote
In a purely material world, even one invention would be an anomaly, let alone multiple simultaneous ones.
Supposition born of ignorance. Inventions are created to fulfill needs, and humans are clever little monkeys.
Quote
You see the problem is not getting data and evidence, my focus is on achieving a truly rational evaluation of the existing data. If we don't understand our data we're just so many rats in a maze blindly looking for cheese.
Well, they do say that it takes competence to recognize competence. The problem is not not understanding data, it's thinking you understand the data when in fact you don't. Being that this is what I do, I think I have a better grasp on how to do that than you do.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 09:59:08 PM
It's not a research forum, but when dealing with the extraordinary claims of the immaterial, unless you are adhering to the scientific consensus, or presenting evidence of quality equal to the claim, you're talking out of your ass.
I note that the recognition of one's own ignorance is general good advice, spirituality or no. The problem is that ignorance is just that: ignorance. It is not a substitute for knowledge.
You are talking out of your ass. When alternative medicine proves itself to actually be effective, it becomes medicine, unqualified. Techniques and medicines that prove themselves to be effective are taken in and added to the whole of medical knowledge. That's the strength of the scientific method, and science-based medicine.
This notion that mainstream medicine doesn't want to cure people is itself an urban legend bandied about by alternative woo, and they milk it so much that any ethical person ought to be ashamed of himself. I personally wouldn't care if good medicines were powered by woo, because I want to get well. But I do care about getting a real, effective treatment instead of being taken for a ride. As it turns out, the real, effective treatments do turn out to be based on materialistic principles.
And yes, the placebo effect does in fact exist. We see it all the time in placebo controlled studies, where you split up the patents into the control group (no treatment), a placebo group (a sham treatment), and a treatment group (the real deal). You very often find that the placebo group does better than the control group. If your treatment works, then the treatment group will do best of all.
Administering a placebo instead of real treatment in hopes of eliciting a placebo effect is fraud, by the way. If we could deliberately leverage the mechanisms of the placebo effect to consistent effect, then it would be very interesting and powerful, but we can't. The placebo effect is quite delicate and just suspecting that you're getting a placebo ruins the effect â€" hence, double blinding.
The brain?
The most delicate of instruments?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!
Oh, no! The brain is not a delicate instrument at all! You just have to attach EEG probes to see that the brain is a noisy place. Any given signal is actually driven by dozens if not hundreds of individual neurons firing. The propagation of an action potential is driven mostly by heat; the ion channels in the membrane of a neuron work by harnessing thermodynamic noise. A transcranial magnetic stimulation coil takes about half a joule to get a response from the cortex. That may not mean anything to you, except what I would call "a most delicate of instruments" has a sensitivity on the order of femtojoules (10^-15 J) â€" to such an instrument, half a joule would be a sledgehammer.
This notion that the immaterial is something that only the brain could pick up on is simply nonsensical, given that stimulating that kind of action by other means reveals quite the opposite: as a sensor, the brain is rather poor. Then again, its job isn't to sense, but to process, and as such it would need to be robust to outside interference.
So, yes, I do "sweepingly dismiss" the notion that the brain is some sort of antenna for the immaterial, given it's complete insensitivity in other respects. If you knock a neuron hard enough to fire, it's gonna fire, regardless of the source. Any immaterial that could affect the brain in such a way would easily be detectable by some means by our instruments, given what the immaterial would have to overcome. That, and the brain will cheerfully work without a hitch even in an MRI scanner, which has a magnet capable of attracting a gas cylinder to respectable speed from a few meters away (such an accident caused the death of a 6 year old boy). And all this is not even touching upon the intricacies of signal theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BBx8BwLhqg
YIKES!
No, ignorance will not serve you in this discussion. It is simply not credible to characterize the brain as a "most sensitive of instruments."
Supposition. You've already made an error characterizing the brain as a "sensitive instrument" (it's not), and the above contention is based upon no evidence put forward. "By all observations?" What observations? Name the observations, and what about them leads you to believe that the immaterial is more solid and persistent, and generates our reality? The reasoning is important, Absolute.
Promises, promises. Your camp has been trying to prove the immaterial for centuries, and you're actually further from your goal now than you've ever been. Science still chips away at the hiding spots for the immaterial.
No, I'm not going to buy any grand conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment bullshit. It is anathema to the entire dicipline to suppress knowledge like this. And the notion that their "livelihoods" would be "threatened?" Total poppycock! On the contrary, it would represent a whole new superfield of science where a scientist could make a name for himself, and there would be many, many Nobel prizes waiting for significant discoveries. Grants couldn't be issued fast enough to keep up with demand of new research proposals.
Nah, I think your papers are rejected for the same reason all other scientific papers are rejected: flawed methodology, sloppy experiments, inadequate controls, studies too small, and questionable analysis, among other ills.
It's the observed and well-documented effects that separates it from woo. The evidence is plain and clear, unfiltered by human folley. Even so, it took a lot of work and much more than anecdotes to establish.
Or it'll be more N-rays. Confidence is fine and all, but I wouldn't be so boastful about finding something that has turned out to be smoke when men smarter than you tried to find it. Most people, even most scientists, are doomed to relative obscurity with only the most minor accomplishments to their name. Even the ones that are as starry eyed as you.
You seriously sound like every apocalyptic preacher, ever. They have a poor track record for predicting the end of the world.
Nonsense. Do you even know how to perform an entropy calculation? So long as there are stars shining, the universe will not be in thermal equilibrium, and the red dwarf stars will burn for trillions of years.
Seriously, who taught you this, because whoever it is taught you wrong.
The total energy content of the universe is actually very close to zero. The positive forms of energy are balanced out to great precision by the negative forms.
Supposition born of ignorance. The laws of physics are such that the universe cannot be static. Full stop. Einstein tried to enforce a global static-ness, but failed.
Supposition born of ignorance. Inventions are created to fulfill needs, and humans are clever little monkeys.
Well, they do say that it takes competence to recognize competence. The problem is not not understanding data, it's thinking you understand the data when in fact you don't. Being that this is what I do, I think I have a better grasp on how to do that than you do.
I don't doubt you are skilled at analyzing data; if that weren't the case I wouldn't have invested the time bouncing my ideas off you. My suggestion is take a step back and look at the big picture. Just think about it: if the total energy in the universe is near zero, what exactly was it that initiated the huge differentials creating all these stars that burn for ages? The intricate life forms? Was it just a poof random event? Why is there so much order in the midst of chaos? It simply can't be explained by mere material causality. Ignorance is not a virtue but recognizing it is the foundation of true knowledge.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Hakurei is a professional statistician. But I don't trust facile manipulation of statistics either.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 04:03:24 PM
Affecting the brain with drugs can induce NDEs:
Drug-Induced Near Death Experience (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/drug-induced-near-death-experience/)
Also a masturbation induce an ejaculation so what?
Would you be so frivolous to compare a masturbation with making love?
A chemical masturbation with drugs also open to a certain degree what is inside the pineal gland which lies at the border between the finite and the infinity but there is a limit how far a chemical masturbation can go.
With drugs you force your consciousness to get closer to the infinity but the consequences are dreadful because it seem obvious to me that God doesn't like to be forced to give bliss so what you get are only sparks of bliss and the price that people pay is very very high indeed and this exercise has very little to do with a real experience with God such as a real NDE.
Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 12:56:31 AM
Hakurei is a professional statistician. But I don't trust facile manipulation of statistics either.
Unfortunately Hakurei doesn't have the big picture in his mind.
All his picture is confined to the corral of the finite dimension and he is quite happy with that little.
One day he too like everybody else will realize that the big picture involve the infinity.
All the best to him anyway.
Quote from: Arik on June 20, 2019, 10:16:17 AM
Unfortunately Hakurei doesn't have the big picture in his mind.
All his picture is confined to the corral of the finite dimension and he is quite happy with that little.
One day he too like everybody else will realize that the big picture involve the infinity.
All the best to him anyway.
"'Tis too narrow for your mind. That must be because you're so ambitious. It's too small for your large mind. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." ... Hamlet Reimu.
Tell us plainly, Arik ... you are or are not the same guy as Absolute_Agent.
Quote from: Simon Moon on June 18, 2019, 01:19:16 PM
You do not seem to be able to differentiate between a claim, and not being convinced of a claim.
You are passing the burden of proof. You and your ilk are making the claims for: afterlives, NDE's, gods, 'spirituality', etc. It is up to you to support your claims. The burden of proof is not up to those that do not believe your claims, it is up to those making the claims.
I beg your pardon?
These are atheists claims Simon not mine so it is up to those who make these claims to back them up with evidence.
QuoteVery few atheists make the claim, with absolute certainty, that there is no life after death. Most take the position, that theists claims that there is life after death has not met its burden of proof, therefore, there is no warrant to believe it is true.
Again Simon.
I have seen (read) many many times atheists that claim that when you are dead is all over so it is up to them to back their claim.
QuotePlease point to one verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable example of a consciousness that exists absent a brain.
All evidence points to consciousness being a result of physical brain processes. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that consciousness is not a product of a physical brain.
1) NDEs are clear evidence because the people who had these NDEs described what was happening while physically dead in the casualty room and witness confirmed the events.
2) There is no evidence that the consciousness being a result of physical brain processes.
None of whatsoever. All there are are all guesses.
QuoteI do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that I have never lived before or will not live again. My position is, that those of you that claim this is true, have not met your burden of proof. Therefore, I have no warrant to believe it is true.
Let us forget for a minute that NDEs are not prove that life exist after death and let us instead think how the human consciousness is so much evolved compare to animals or even plants.
Why is that so Simon?
Do you really think that our INDIVIDUAL consciousness come as per magic and we never build it up in previous lives?
Are you that fool to believe in magic?
QuoteThere is no evidence that a god is needed to create or run the universe. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that a god is necessary.
Again, you are the one making the claim that a god is necessary, therefore, you have the burden of proof.
As soon as theists are able to meet their burden of proof, I will be forced to accept it is true.
This is an atheist claim Simon so atheists should really provide evidence.
As far as it concern me the universe is like a body and as all the bodies need to be fed by the one who created in the first place.
Energy in different forms is needed all the time or the universe would cease to exist.
QuoteIt is interesting, however, that the majority of physicists and cosmologists, are non-believers. Doesn't mean they are correct, only that the people that understand the evidence well beyond you are I do, do not see evidence of gods.
I do not have the statistics of how many are believer or non believer but this has very little importance.
Also long time ago most people thought that the earth was flat but later on they were proven wrong.
QuoteThere is at least one obvious difference, religion is pretty easy to define, spirituality is not. For every single person I've ever heard use the term 'spirituality', I get just as many different definitions.
So let answer this question to all atheists that say that they are the same thing.
QuoteVery few atheists make this claim. Even guys like Robert Price or Richard Carrier, 2 of the most vocal mythicists, do not claim to be absolutely certain that Jesus did not exist. Their position is that there is not enough evidence to prove that he did exist.
History is written by the winners and Jesus was not a winner.
QuoteBut here's the thing, even if a historical Jesus did exist, that offers zero evidence that any of the miracle god claims attributed to him occured. After all, the evidence for a historical Mohamed is stronger than for a historical Jesus, but I'll bet you don't believe Mohamed flew to Heaven on a winged creature.
I don't believe in miracles.
To me to walk on the water is not a miracle but something natural for anyone who understand that this dimension is an illusion.
Same thing for those who insert hooks in their flesh without experience any pain and having the hole close as soon as the hook is removed.
QuoteEven if they are hallucinations, that doesn't mean that they are lies. The person experiencing a NDE, may be having a completely natural (but nonstandard) brain state, that they are misinterpreting. They might completely believe their experience is real, without lying about it.
Science is the single best and most reliable method ever developed by humanity to explain reality. Please name another method that is as successful and reliable.
Intuitional science.
Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 10:30:51 AM
"'Tis too narrow for your mind. That must be because you're so ambitious. It's too small for your large mind. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." ... Hamlet Reimu.
Tell us plainly, Arik ... you are or are not the same guy as Absolute_Agent.
I know an absolute cosmic consciousness but I don't really know an Absolute Agent.
Sleep time mate.
Quote from: Arik on June 20, 2019, 11:06:43 AM
Sleep time mate.
Ok since you refuse to answer my post, here's a question for you: do you believe in the after life?
Quote from: Arik on June 20, 2019, 11:02:25 AM
Energy in different forms is needed all the time or the universe would cease to exist.
The universe (probably) doesn't use any energy at all: it contains zero net energy, because the positive energy of the matter/radiation is balanced by the negative energy of gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Quote from: Arik
Intuitional science.
intuitional "science" photo side by side with a photo of guesswork and unjustified opinions.
(https://i.imgur.com/XFqHtXE_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 20, 2019, 01:27:23 PM
The universe (probably) doesn't use any energy at all: it contains zero net energy, because the positive energy of the matter/radiation is balanced by the negative energy of gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Slacker universe ;-) Principle of least action, regardless of the net-net value of the whole universe ... has been a valid principle for over 300 years now.
Quote from: Arik on June 20, 2019, 11:05:09 AM
I know an absolute cosmic consciousness but I don't really know an Absolute Agent.
Not the first time this community demonstrates xenophobia and paranoia ;-) What can one do?
Continue to talk as long as you can, unless something else becomes more immediate.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:45:48 PM
I don't doubt you are skilled at analyzing data; if that weren't the case I wouldn't have invested the time bouncing my ideas off you. My suggestion is take a step back and look at the big picture. Just think about it: if the total energy in the universe is near zero, what exactly was it that initiated the huge differentials creating all these stars that burn for ages?
Well, that is a difficult question, but we actually have an embarassment of hypotheses awaiting evidence to discriminate between them. The first thing to realize is that the time that you're familiar with and the time against which you formed your conception of causality doesn't exist apart from the universe. The universe is not an object that exists in time, but rather it is time that exists within the universe.
It's also not a differential. The mass energy of the universe and gravitational potential are two different types of energy. Furthermore, most people have this conception that energy is a substance that is exchanged between parts of a system like a fluid. This is not so. Energy is a number, a so-called state variable, associated with the state of a system. If a system is in a particular state, there is exactly one energy associated with that state.
Now that's out of the way, let's take a closer look at that event typically referred to as the beginning of the universe. This is, according to our best theories, simply the event at which there is no event prior in time â€" to whit, the first instant. We do know that all the matter in the universe was crammed into an itty-bitty volume smaller than a proton. Now, you can't put that many particles (particularly fermions) into that small a space and not have your average fermion have a tremendous amount of energy. Furthermore, that matter being in one place with that energy demands a particular curvature from spacetime, one that is either expanding or contracting, and we know that the universe wasn't contracting at that point. Ergo, it expands, and you have the Big Bang.
After that, the expanding universe cools (to around 2 K) to the point where gas can coalesce into stars. These stars are heated by the gravitational contraction about them (remember gravitational potential?), and ignite in nuclear fusion. Now there are hot spots in the universe and temperature differentials where interesting things can happen.
Why there was a bunch of particles crammed together in a small volume is not something that is known at this point. It may be a quantum fluctuation (likely, given that the energy content of the early universe was not different from zero), but at this point, "Nobody rightly knows," is the only honest answer that anyone can give. Yes, that includes you, because at this point you're just speculating using intuition in a regime we know intuition breaks down.
So, yeah.
Quote
The intricate life forms? Was it just a poof random event?
There are intriguing calculations that show that the fastest way for a system to increase entropy is for a replicator to do its business within it. Whatever else life is, it is a replicator. As such, systems that create replicators tend to increase energy the fastest. As such, primitive replication would tend to be entropically favored. In short, creationists may have it completely backwards: that life generates far more entropy than their creation reduces.
Quote
Why is there so much order in the midst of chaos?
Because you can only get chaos in complex systems. Also, chaos also organizes itself into an order. You look at any real complex system and there is a hidden order somewhere in it. In short, creations may have it exactly backwards: that the natural tendency of the universe is to fall into order, not chaos.
Quote
It simply can't be explained by mere material causality.
Knowledge of "mere material causality" reveals this to be mere ignorance. Again, you do not know enough about the mere material causality you live in to make this kind of statement.
Quote
Ignorance is not a virtue but recognizing it is the foundation of true knowledge.
And scientists recognize the limits of their knowledge. That's
why they investigate.
But proclaiming you know that the material is not all there is without evidentiary support is, in fact, ignorance. It's ignorance merely disguised as knowledge. Ignorance disguised as knowledge is the most dangerous kind of ignorance of all.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 20, 2019, 10:05:23 PM
Well, that is a difficult question, but we actually have an embarassment of hypotheses awaiting evidence to discriminate between them. The first thing to realize is that the time that you're familiar with and the time against which you formed your conception of causality doesn't exist apart from the universe. The universe is not an object that exists in time, but rather it is time that exists within the universe.
It's also not a differential. The mass energy of the universe and gravitational potential are two different types of energy. Furthermore, most people have this conception that energy is a substance that is exchanged between parts of a system like a fluid. This is not so. Energy is a number, a so-called state variable, associated with the state of a system. If a system is in a particular state, there is exactly one energy associated with that state.
Now that's out of the way, let's take a closer look at that event typically referred to as the beginning of the universe. This is, according to our best theories, simply the event at which there is no event prior in time â€" to whit, the first instant. We do know that all the matter in the universe was crammed into an itty-bitty volume smaller than a proton. Now, you can't put that many particles (particularly fermions) into that small a space and not have your average fermion have a tremendous amount of energy. Furthermore, that matter being in one place with that energy demands a particular curvature from spacetime, one that is either expanding or contracting, and we know that the universe wasn't contracting at that point. Ergo, it expands, and you have the Big Bang.
After that, the expanding universe cools (to around 2 K) to the point where gas can coalesce into stars. These stars are heated by the gravitational contraction about them (remember gravitational potential?), and ignite in nuclear fusion. Now there are hot spots in the universe and temperature differentials where interesting things can happen.
Why there was a bunch of particles crammed together in a small volume is not something that is known at this point. It may be a quantum fluctuation (likely, given that the energy content of the early universe was not different from zero), but at this point, "Nobody rightly knows," is the only honest answer that anyone can give. Yes, that includes you, because at this point you're just speculating using intuition in a regime we know intuition breaks down.
So, yeah.
There are intriguing calculations that show that the fastest way for a system to increase entropy is for a replicator to do its business within it. Whatever else life is, it is a replicator. As such, systems that create replicators tend to increase energy the fastest. As such, primitive replication would tend to be entropically favored. In short, creationists may have it completely backwards: that life generates far more entropy than their creation reduces.
Because you can only get chaos in complex systems. Also, chaos also organizes itself into an order. You look at any real complex system and there is a hidden order somewhere in it. In short, creations may have it exactly backwards: that the natural tendency of the universe is to fall into order, not chaos.
Knowledge of "mere material causality" reveals this to be mere ignorance. Again, you do not know enough about the mere material causality you live in to make this kind of statement.
And scientists recognize the limits of their knowledge. That's why they investigate.
But proclaiming you know that the material is not all there is without evidentiary support is, in fact, ignorance. It's ignorance merely disguised as knowledge. Ignorance disguised as knowledge is the most dangerous kind of ignorance of all.
Impressive. Much of that was over my head. Do you run across this material in your job or is it a hobby? I like your approach.
Now, what I gather is:
1) You don't have the answer to what got everything started.
2) You don't think I know the answer.
3) You think I am making a claim of knowledge without evidence.
4) You think what is known, subverts the concept of creationism.
My response:
1) I don't know the answer.
2) I have a theory based on personal experiential evidence that cannot meet a scientific standard, in conjunction with additional scientific evidence which is not widely published, that I am unable to disclose.
3) I have beliefs that logically explain all the ultimate answers, although they cannot be proven, yet which have been consistently and abundantly confirmed in personal subjective experience.
4) I do not see the information you shared invalidating my theory that immaterial consciousness generates reality, or my belief that Allah created everything. This does not mean I believe that Allah is consciousness itself, since Allah cannot be conceived.
5) It is possible that the manner in which Allah created, and Allah Himself, are completely different from what humans including myself have thus far conceived.
6) My beliefs are not just made up. They are based on evidence, the scriptures. I consider them convincing evidence, even though you do not.
7) I find your statement that time exists in matter and not matter in time, intriguing and plausible. I hypothesize that time itself is an illusion. All moments past, present and future, exist simultaneously, in reality.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 20, 2019, 10:05:23 PMAlso, chaos also organizes itself into an order. You look at any real complex system and there is a hidden order somewhere in it. In short, creations may have it exactly backwards: that the natural tendency of the universe is to fall into order, not chaos.
Knowledge of "mere material causality" reveals this to be mere ignorance. Again, you do not know enough about the mere material causality you live in to make this kind of statement.
What I understand is that material causality is the assumption that all phenomena in the material world are caused by other material things, as opposed to divine intervention. This is what you refer to as the discarding of spiritual briefs in science. Prima facie, this is an illogical belief similar to if I were to believe that steel molds itself into cars and bicycles. No, I would logically assume that a conscious intelligent agent is acting upon the materials to bring about a design. Likewise it is more logical to assume that all material forms are a product of consciousness, than that all consciousness is a product of those material forms.
Chaos "organizes itself into order?" This is ultimate the logical conclusion of the belief in material causality, a pinnacle of absurdity. Its just you all are so engrossed in the multitudinous details of your trip down the rabbit hole you don't realize how deep into confusion you have fallen.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 21, 2019, 10:25:55 AM
What I understand is that material causality is the assumption that all phenomena in the material world are caused by other material things, as opposed to divine intervention. This is what you refer to as the discarding of spiritual briefs in science. Prima facie, this is an illogical belief similar to if I were to believe that steel molds itself into cars and bicycles. No, I must logically believe that an agent is acting upon the materials to bring about a design. Am I missing something?
Chaos "organizes itself into order?" This is ultimate the logical conclusion of the belief in material causality, a pinnacle of absurdity. Its just you all are so engrossed in the multitudinous details of your trip down the rabbit hole you don't realize how deep into confusion you have fallen.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
There is local order arising in chaos, happens all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 20, 2019, 11:19:25 AM
Ok since you refuse to answer my post, here's a question for you: do you believe in the after life?
What sort of deranged psycho are you?
First you accuse me to be a troll and that you have a policy not to waste time with gullible, naive and ignorant assholes like me.
Now you ask me why I didn't answer your post.
Are you under the influence of something?
Never mind Joe, I am getting used to get insulted so I pretend that nothing happen and answer your questions.
1) You probably mean after this physical life.
Yes of course.
In reality we never died and we will never die.
Energy and consciousness that are the two sides of the same sheet are immortal.
Even science say that energy can not be destroyed.
Now let me answer your question from the previous post.
Quote1. Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts. Sorry for you to hear this, but it is over once you're death.
Sorry for you to hear this but your facts are load of garbage.
In fact there is no evidence that anybody ever did died but there is plenty of evidence that life goes on and on after the physical death.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
Quote2. If some one cracks your brain with an ax there won't be an Arik spewing nonesense on the internet. If you believe otherwise you are naive and gullible. i dare you to try it. Plunge an ax through your brain, and if you come back, I'll apologize. Deal?
Have you ever seen a dead consciousness next to a dead body?
Body dead does not means dead consciousness and because you are the consciousness that is clear that you can not die.
A physical-material blow is unable to penetrate and kill something abstract like the consciousness.
Materialists are stuck with the notion that you are the body-brain when in fact body-brain are the vehicles that you use to live this physical life.
Get real Joe. (svegliati Giuseppe)
Quote3. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?
Since most atheists say that we only live once they should really provide evidence that this is the case.
As far as it concern me I already provided evidence that this is not the case with the NDEs.
Quote4. I don't believe in God, and I see no need to believe in one. If you want to believe in God, it's your choice, and I don't give a fuck.
I never asked you whether you believe or not in God.
That is your choice which has nothing to do with the point that I made.
The point was that most atheists say that there is no need for a God to create and run this universe so the thing was for atheists to provide evidence that nobody ever created and nobody run this universe.
Quote5. Yes, there are both figment of the imagination.
Obviously you haven't got the slightest clue.
Quote6. Don't know, don't care.
Your answer is much better than the answer that many atheists give which is that Jesus never existed despite there is so much history behind it.
Quote7. NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains. In the USA, patients have visions of their beliefs in Christianity. In India, those patients ave visions of idols in their own culture. Ditto in othe countries. Those are facts. deal with it.
1) How can a dead brain be able to dream?
You too haven't got the slightest clue of what you are talking about.
2) It is natural that different culture-upbringing have different visions after all God is not a physical entity and will show to the person as it is most natural to him-her according to his-her culture.
Quote8. Unless you have a PhD in biology, I strongly suggest you stay off the topic of evolution. My expertise is in physics, and most likely i know ten times more than you do in evolution, but you will find a rare occasion that I have come on this forum to talk about evolution because I know I'm not an expert in that field. That's a major difference between a troll like you and I. I know where my expertise lies, and where it doesn't. You don't even know that much.
For God'sake Giuseppe stop talking garbage.
Darwin never talk about evolution.
He was only interested in biological changes which have little to do with evolution.
The word evolution existed well before him and it stand for PROGRESS.
It Latin UNFOLD means explain, unravel, expound, disentangle, unroll so by this we come to a progress and a progress in consciousness equal to evolution.
Obviously there is evolution also in many fields such as medical science in rocket science and in all other field of science.
In unravel more consciousness a science is also needed so even in this field we can have a progress that cause a change for the better that is why we say that progress stand for evolution and evolution is progress.
Quote9. Yes, and I would include philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning that can enlarge your understanding.
All these factors are quite important to stay afloat in this material-physical dimension but all this does not equal to progress.
Progress is a total different thing.
Progress is when you add one positive to zero so 0 + 1 give you 1.
When instead you add 1 to -1 you get 0 and that is what happen when you struggle to stay afloat.
Life is a continuous struggle to stay afloat so real progress is just a dream because the positive and the negative ALWAYS balance each other.
The only progress exist in the spiritual arena where the negative does not exist.
Quote10. ...or become the president of the USA - ever heard of Donald Trump?!?
If that guy would have to wear a military uniform and face the enemy he probably would poo in his pants but as all politician he let other people to fight his wars for him and die for him.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 21, 2019, 10:43:40 AM
There is local order arising in chaos, happens all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
This is what order arising out of chaos would look like:
1) Put a thousand monkeys in a room with an infinite supply of paint buckets. Have them throw the buckets of paint at the walls, making sure to feed them and replace them with fresh monkeys when dead or exhausted.
Materialist argument: Eventually after some time, a painting of the Mona Lisa will definitely emerge, complete with enigmatic smile. It could be thousands or millions of years, or trillions... But eventually it will happen.
2) Drop atomic bombs on an unlimited number of junk yards across the known universe.
Materialist argument: Eventually, a Rolls Royce will emerge, complete with keys and power seating. It may be billions or even quadrillions of light years--but eventually, it will happen; guaranteed.
Who wants to try these experiments? Any volunteers?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 21, 2019, 11:50:54 AM
This is what order arising out of chaos would look like:
1) Put a thousand monkeys in a room with an infinite supply of paint buckets. Have them throw the buckets of paint at the walls, making sure to feed them and replace them with fresh monkeys when dead or exhausted.
Materialist argument: Eventually after some time, a painting of the Mona Lisa will definitely emerge, complete with enigmatic smile. It could be thousands or millions of years, or trillions... But eventually it will happen.
2) Drop atomic bombs on an unlimited number of junk yards across the known universe.
Materialist argument: Eventually, a Rolls Royce will emerge, complete with keys and power seating. It may be billions or even quadrillions of light years--but eventually, it will happen; guaranteed.
Who wants to try these experiments? Any volunteers?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
What a hopelessly broken analogy.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 21, 2019, 10:43:40 AM
There is local order arising in chaos, happens all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
An example of ice making. To achieve ice, you have to lower the temperature of the liquid water. This can happen with net energy transfer in the overall system (electricity to cooler). When insulated, no external power transfers, the temperature rises/lowers to average. If the average was lower (ice already in drink), it is possible for more drink to freeze, if the overall average is less than the freezing point.
But the appearance of local order arising, only happens with sloppy accounting. Only by borrowing entropy. Either you get entropy from the larger environment, or you simply ignored the irregular distribution of entropy in your insulted thermos. There is no free lunch, or free order.
Suppose you had a sealed container of water on the dark side of the Moon. Won't it freeze? Yes it will. But that is because of radiative energy transfer from the water to outer space. There isn't anyway to prevent the average temperature in the water container going to 3.5K aka very cold.
Quote from: Arik on June 21, 2019, 10:52:48 AM
In reality we never died and we will never die.
Energy and consciousness that are the two sides of the same sheet are immortal.
As I wrote before: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Absolute_Agent ... as a demi-god I can compose or modify sacred scripture; per Jesus, man wasn't made for scripture, scripture was made for man ...
Quote
ܦܪÜܙܼÜܦÜÜÜ¡ÜܬÜ
ܗܪÜÜ•ÜÜܼÜ
ܣܘܼܬܪÜÜ¢
ÜܪÜܼÜ
ÜܘÜÜ Ü˜Ü¿ÜŸÜܬܥܫܘÜܪܘܿ
Ü'ܘܿܕܿÜÜ£Üܬܘܘܿ
Ü"ÜÜ¡Ü'Ü¿ÜܪÜÜ¢
ܦܪÜܙܼÜܦÜܪÜÜ¡ÜܬÜ
ÜšÜܪÜܼÜÜ¢
ÜšÜܪÜÜ¡Üܢܘܿ܀
Of course it helps to put it into a strange language and a strange writing system ... more mysterious that way. And yes, the Devil made me do it.
Quote from: Baruch on June 21, 2019, 02:15:16 PM
Absolute_Agent ... as a demi-god I can compose or modify sacred scripture; per Jesus, man wasn't made for scripture, scripture was made for man ...
You almost got that right. '.....scripture was made "by" man........'
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 21, 2019, 03:06:20 PM
You almost got that right. '.....scripture was made "by" man........'
Some people's scribbles are more equal than others. I don't think Absolute_Agent will reply, if I admit Iblis is my wingman.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 21, 2019, 12:16:11 AM
Impressive. Much of that was over my head. Do you run across this material in your job or is it a hobby? I like your approach.
A little of both.
Quote
1) I don't know the answer.
Good.
Quote
2) I have a theory based on personal experiential evidence that cannot meet a scientific standard, in conjunction with additional scientific evidence which is not widely published, that I am unable to disclose.
The only reason why you would not be able to disclose "scientific evidence" is precisely because it isn't published anywhere. While technically that counts as "not widely published," your wording is deceptive. Furthermore, there may be a reason for that. Anyway, once published in a journal, there is literally no advantage to keeping such evidence under wraps.
As to your personal experimental evidence, I very much doubt that you have done experiments that have any significant power. If the effects of the immaterial are as subtle as you claim, the equipment costs alone would bankrupt your typical Joe Everybody.
Quote
3) I have beliefs that logically explain all the ultimate answers, although they cannot be proven, yet which have been consistently and abundantly confirmed in personal subjective experience.
Correction: You
think that your beliefs logically explain all the ultimate answers. However, from what I have seen of your logical ability, with repeated appeals to known fallacies, I don't think that your logic would hold up under scrutiny. For instance, there is a very real possibility that what you are seeing your personal subjective experience is the result of cherry picking and confirmation bias.
Quote
4) I do not see the information you shared invalidating my theory that immaterial consciousness generates reality, or my belief that Allah created everything. This does not mean I believe that Allah is consciousness itself, since Allah cannot be conceived.
Since you have been very cagey about how the immaterial supposedly generates reality, I'm not surprised. Fighting vapors is always difficult. You don't have anything specific enough to attack. If you're content to let your contention remain forever vague, then good for you. However, nobody will take your word for it or even credit you with the idea should they actually find the immaterial. The "theory" you have presented thus far doesn't really take any actual
work. If I decided I believe you, develop and test a hypothesis of the immaterial, and publish my findings, and eventually it takes its place among the great ideas of science,
I'm going to be the one having the Nobel prize coming to me. There'll be nothing for you.
Quote
5) It is possible that the manner in which Allah created, and Allah Himself, are completely different from what humans including myself have thus far conceived.
So? Humans are quite clever little monkeys. Cheeky, too.
Quote
6) My beliefs are not just made up. They are based on evidence, the scriptures. I consider them convincing evidence, even though you do not.
The scriptures are not evidence. The scriptures are the claims. There is nothing in them that could not have been written by the humans who wrote them. They also don't really distinguish themselves as different from every other mythology out there.
Quote
7) I find your statement that time exists in matter and not matter in time, intriguing and plausible. I hypothesize that time itself is an illusion. All moments past, present and future, exist simultaneously, in reality.
I said that time is part of the
universe, not part of matter
per se. That's a different statement. As to time being an illusion, it's complicated. Time itself is definitely real in that not everything happens all at once. It's a very real dimension on par with the other dimensions of space, and freely mixes with them. Time passing is in part an illusion, because eternalism (past, present, and future exist all at once) is the only way relativity makes sense. However, in most situations it can be treated exactly as it appears to us, where it passes inevitably into the past. We need to be cautious as we deal with the edges of that domain, like at the beginning of the universe.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 21, 2019, 03:06:20 PM
You almost got that right. '.....scripture was made "by" man........'
Blasphemy!
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 21, 2019, 02:10:05 PM
As I wrote before: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Ok. then.
That means that the 10 points related to atheists claims must be dismissed because they are void of any evidence.
Thank Joe, that was what I was waiting for.
(https://listimg.pinclipart.com/picdir/s/53-533218_3-arden-tundra-tues-copy-clapping-hands-animation.png)
Quote from: Arik on June 22, 2019, 10:34:17 AM
Ok. then.
That means that the 10 points related to atheists claims must be dismissed because they are void of any evidence.
Thank Joe, that was what I was waiting for.
You've got it wrong. If you claim something exists, the burden is on you to prove that existence. Example: there is a ghost in the basement of my house. Making that claim would require that I provide proof. But stating that there is no ghost does NOT require a proof. Example: my neighbor killed someone - proof is required; my neighbor didn't kill anyone - no proof required. There is no afterlife - no proof required; there is an afterlife - proof required. There is a God - proof required; there is no god - no proof required. There are fire-breathing dragons - proof required; there are no fire-breathing dragons - no proof required.
IF YOU CLAIM THAT "ANY THING EXISTS" THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THIS THING DOES EXIST.
GET IT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E
What is actual science history, not Sagan sound bite? "Billions and billions" is what humanity has spent of time,
effort and treasure, to get a better model (which has indirect economic consequences). Next entry shows that.
Sagan is philosopher and poet, not as scientist ... as proponent of "scientism" not science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECuarAmpK00
I make no hypotheses - Newton, regarding what gravity is. Galileo, earlier dismissed "force at a distance"
regarding tides, as being occult nonsense. Force can only happen on contact. Descartes agrees with him.
1. Things fall down - common observation, clarified by Galileo (disproving Aristotle)
2. i can model that with an equation - provided by Galileo (first quantitative mechanics)
3. Surprisingly, I can use that same equation to describe the motion of the Moon
4. Therefore, the Moon is falling down to Earth, same as an apple off a tree
5. Generalize to "universal gravitation" ... everything attracts everything else, gravitationally
6. "fundamental mechanical laws" of motion, derived by generalizing Galileo (see #2)
7. Further analysis (calculus which Newton co-invented) shows that the overall pattern of planetary motion
that was hypothesized by Kepler, based on the careful measurements of Tycho ... can be derived from
"universal gravitation" plus "fundamental mechanical laws".
8. Therefore law of falling of apple, of Moon ... is model for whole Solar system.
Everything since, regarding gravitation, makes no hypothesis as to what gravity is, just how to model it.
Einstein's first improvement on Newton, came about because Newtonian mechanics is not correct at
high speed (special theory of relativity). Einstein's second improvement on Newton, came about
because Newtonian gravity is inconsistent special theory of relativity. It can be restored to consistency
thru a new model (general theory of relativity).
9. Turns out that small deviations from Newtonian gravity can be modeled with general theory of relativity
10. Bonus ... new equation also models whole universe, not just Solar system
General Relativity ... has its own problems. Dark Matter and Dark Energy hypotheses brought in in attempt
to correct. Results inconclusive.
Meanwhile, microscopic matter is assumed to gravitate. Too small to measure. Higgs boson hypothesis
created in QFT, to attempt to model masses microscopic matter. Results inconclusive.
So we will don't know what gravity or mass is. But we can more or less model it mathematically at all scales.
Only took 400 years ;-) It took over 13 billion (LHC) to find that Higgs boson.
I match your Sagan and raise you an Al-Khalili. Sagan is good, if a bit bombastic and Al-Khalili is more recent.
The story is incomplete, and always will be. And in call cases, science doesn't tell us what gravity or mass is
just provides us with a mostly useful mathematical model of it (as per Pythagoras).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_p2ELD7npw
Including up to date on gravity waves ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qGucb958rI
We can measure space and time very accurately. But I make no hypothesis as to what space or time is.
Black holes aren't new, dark stars were predicted by Laplace based on Newton in 1799 ...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2009JAHH...12...90M
Of course Einstein's version is more accurate, because it takes account of general relativity.
I worked with a geophysics exploration company, for a year. Our clients were concerned with geology in Mongolia and off shore New Guinea. They would develop detailed gravitational and magnetic maps at the Earth's surface. Which tells us indirectly, what kind of rocks exist underground. A useful petroleum exploration tool for general surveys. Detailed surveys are done by seismic survey. The classic example are salt domes on the Texas Gulf coast. Salt domes are less dense than regular rocks. So a salt dome underground makes a local low gravity feature. Oil and gas are found at the margins of the salt dome (the dome is shaped like a mushroom, the cap of the mushroom captures oil and gas, that would otherwise leak out over time).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbSg9dhb3fM
I also worked briefly in oil exploration ... downhole geophysics. You have a deep hole in the ground, and you drop a set of instruments down the hole to analyze the rock layers. That is a direct observation (someone had to speculate a lot of money to drill that hole) compared to indirect geophysics. Of course this just demonstrates Pythagoras, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein had ever more empirical methods. All of them assumed rationality (things have to be mathematically consistent). It doesn't answer "what things are" or "why things are". Only philosophy and theology do that.
Scientism as human arrogance ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY
The Nazis were rational and scientific (Zyklon B came from chemistry).
Math and science cannot save mankind from itself. Voltaire and Rousseau are optimists.
We are today being turned into numbers ... not by tattoos as prisoners ...
but on the comprehensive electronic tracking and evaluation of human beings.
As micromanaged prisoners without walls. Shenzhen China.
Science doesn't prove or disprove theism. The assumption that it does, is scientism, a form of secularism, which is a philosophy. Of course neither secularism nor religion will prevent humans from murdering each other. That is modeled by psychology and sociology. But I make no hypothesis as to why people are the way they are. "Why" is a subjective question, not an objective one. Science can only handle the objective (and quantitative).
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 22, 2019, 01:19:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E)
Nice video.
There is also another dimension not mentioned in that video. That is, we make an hypothesis - there is a dragon in my garage- but then we must make a prediction based on that hypothesis. Example: the dragon occupies a certain volume of space, or makes wind when it moves around, etc. If the prediction is observed then the hypothesis acquires a certain credibility. But if the same predicted observation can be explained by a better hypothesis, then "there is a dragon in my garage" might not reach a consensus. OTOH, if prediction fails, or the hypothesis cannot generate a testable prediction, then the hypothesis is useless. This is the problem with String Theory - nice hypothesis, but it cannot make any testable prediction. Until then, it shouldn't even qualify as a "theory."
But, but ... scifi is real, because Jules Verne was always right.
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2019, 09:45:34 PM
I worked with a geophysics exploration company, for a year. Our clients were concerned with geology in Mongolia and off shore New Guinea. They would develop detailed gravitational and magnetic maps at the Earth's surface. Which tells us indirectly, what kind of rocks exist underground. A useful petroleum exploration tool for general surveys. Detailed surveys are done by seismic survey. The classic example are salt domes on the Texas Gulf coast. Salt domes are less dense than regular rocks. So a salt dome underground makes a local low gravity feature. Oil and gas are found at the margins of the salt dome (the dome is shaped like a mushroom, the cap of the mushroom captures oil and gas, that would otherwise leak out over time).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbSg9dhb3fM
I also worked briefly in oil exploration ... downhole geophysics. You have a deep hole in the ground, and you drop a set of instruments down the hole to analyze the rock layers. That is a direct observation (someone had to speculate a lot of money to drill that hole) compared to indirect geophysics. Of course this just demonstrates Pythagoras, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein had ever more empirical methods. All of them assumed rationality (things have to be mathematically consistent). It doesn't answer "what things are" or "why things are". Only philosophy and theology do that.
To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.
I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside. :shocked:
Quote from: Arik on June 23, 2019, 09:05:36 AM
To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.
I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside. :shocked:
And therein lies the problem. For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'. I don't really see a real difference. The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way. The universe consists of all of the elements it contains, but has no awareness. I do have awareness but of and related to myself. I see and feel the universe as my species has evolved and since we are still here is a species, it has succeeded so far. Other species see and feel the universe differently. In any case, the universe does not care, for it cannot care. It is and always has been and always will be neutral. As a species we will thrive--or not. The universe does not care. I am what I am (Kudos to Popeye) because of the the evolution of my species from all the materials generated by this universe. I, and I alone, can care; I determine how I feel (to some extent, at least) ; I chose (to some extent) how I act. And the universe does not care and is not aware.
That is how I understand it--and you see it another way. That's not good---that's not bad; it just is.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 22, 2019, 11:23:16 AM
You've got it wrong. If you claim something exists, the burden is on you to prove that existence. Example: there is a ghost in the basement of my house. Making that claim would require that I provide proof. But stating that there is no ghost does NOT require a proof. Example: my neighbor killed someone - proof is required; my neighbor didn't kill anyone - no proof required. There is no afterlife - no proof required; there is an afterlife - proof required. There is a God - proof required; there is no god - no proof required. There are fire-breathing dragons - proof required; there are no fire-breathing dragons - no proof required.
IF YOU CLAIM THAT "ANY THING EXISTS" THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THIS THING DOES EXIST.
GET IT.
Wrong again Joe.
To say that something exist or not exist are affirmations in both cases no matter how you put it and affirmation are nothing unless they are back by evidence.
If you go to court and you say to the judge.........that thing does not exist........ the judge will ask you to give evidence that that is the case and if you say that you do not have to give evidence you will get in real trouble with the judge.
You may well have dozen and dozen of degrees in every subject but that doesn't help you much because your naivety is a real concern.
You live in a cocoon of fantasy thinking that everything revolve around the physical reality beside I already gave evidence that the 10 atheists points are all bankrupt.
You even had the audacity to say that the brain which was dead had the capability to put together an NDE.
Total disaster Joe. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 23, 2019, 09:31:18 AM
And therein lies the problem. For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'. I don't really see a real difference. The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way. The universe consists of all of the elements it contains, but has no awareness. I do have awareness but of and related to myself. I see and feel the universe as my species has evolved and since we are still here is a species, it has succeeded so far. Other species see and feel the universe differently. In any case, the universe does not care, for it cannot care. It is and always has been and always will be neutral. As a species we will thrive--or not. The universe does not care. I am what I am (Kudos to Popeye) because of the the evolution of my species from all the materials generated by this universe. I, and I alone, can care; I determine how I feel (to some extent, at least) ; I chose (to some extent) how I act. And the universe does not care and is not aware.
That is how I understand it--and you see it another way. That's not good---that's not bad; it just is.
Good post Mike. The problem with arik and his post
"To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.
I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside."
It is just another cry of "in my heart of heart I know the truth", which you get time after time from Christian apologists. Therefore there's no need to justify my beliefs with evidence. It's a perverted and insidious way to escape accountability.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 23, 2019, 09:31:18 AM
And therein lies the problem. For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'. I don't really see a real difference. The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way. The universe consists of all of the elements it contains, but has no awareness. I do have awareness but of and related to myself. I see and feel the universe as my species has evolved and since we are still here is a species, it has succeeded so far. Other species see and feel the universe differently. In any case, the universe does not care, for it cannot care. It is and always has been and always will be neutral. As a species we will thrive--or not. The universe does not care. I am what I am (Kudos to Popeye) because of the the evolution of my species from all the materials generated by this universe. I, and I alone, can care; I determine how I feel (to some extent, at least) ; I chose (to some extent) how I act. And the universe does not care and is not aware.
That is how I understand it--and you see it another way. That's not good---that's not bad; it just is.
You are running too fast with your mind Mike.
Who said that the universe care or not care?
What I said instead was that everything is made of consciousness.
That doesn't mean that the universe has enough consciousness to know things.
Evolution is there to evolve and that means that there are degree of progress in this evolution.
The universe is made of matter and matter is the lowest form of evolution so it is impossible for the lowest form of evolution to have any concern about one of the most form of evolution such as the human stage of evolution.
The concern with the whole universe and all forms of life within can not lie with the universe itself but with the creator of this universe.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 23, 2019, 10:00:44 AM
Good post Mike. The problem with arik and his post
"To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.
I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside."
It is just another cry of "in my heart of heart I know the truth", which you get time after time from Christian apologists. Therefore there's no need to justify my beliefs with evidence. It's a perverted and insidious way to escape accountability.
How on earth can you mention the word .....accountability.........when you even refuse to back your affirmations with solid evidence?
Get real Joe.
Quote from: Arik on June 23, 2019, 10:16:32 AM
How on earth can you mention the word .....accountability.........when you even refuse to back your affirmations with solid evidence?
Get real Joe.
You're just a troll as you clearly refuse to read the other posts that have addressed your issues, and you come back with the same drivel over and over. I believe it's time to consider a ban on you.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 23, 2019, 10:23:04 AM
You're just a troll as you clearly refuse to read the other posts that have addressed your issues, and you come back with the same drivel over and over. I believe it's time to consider a ban on you.
You are a liar Joe.
All you said is that you do not have to give any evidence to your affirmations and now you are begging the administration to ban me.
How sick you are.
Grow up Joe.
Quote from: Arik on June 23, 2019, 11:05:12 AM
You are a liar Joe.
All you said is that you do not have to give any evidence to your affirmations and now you are begging the administration to ban me.
How sick you are.
Grow up Joe.
The evidence required is about "something that exists". That was established many posts ago. But you keep ignoring it with the same drivel over and over. That's why I'm asking for a ban. There is no dialogue possible with you.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 23, 2019, 11:16:40 AM
The evidence required is about "something that exists". That was established many posts ago. But you keep ignoring it with the same drivel over and over. That's why I'm asking for a ban. There is no dialogue possible with you.
How do you know that something does not exist?
The fact that a particular thing does not exist in your mind does not means that does not exist elsewhere.
To get a particular station in your radio you got to tune in, right?
Your problem is that you still do not know how to tune in and your are not interested in what may exist outside your understanding yet you claim that the reception is not possible therefore it does not exist.
Fail again Joe.
What you really need is not to try to ban somebody.
What you really need is to grow up and get out the cocoon of fantasy that so far give you so many false certainties.
Quote from: Arik on June 23, 2019, 11:30:35 AM
How do you know that something does not exist?
That's not the point. The statement "there is no dragon in my garage", requires no evidence. It's only if you make the statement that "there is a dragon in your garage", that you would need to provide evidence.Quote
The fact that a particular thing does not exist in your mind does not means that does not exist elsewhere.
To get a particular station in your radio you got to tune in, right?
But I can find out if that particular station exists. And that evidence is physical and can be accessible to anyone, just not restrict to you alone.
QuoteYour problem is that you still do not know how to tune in and your are not interested in what may exist outside your understanding yet you claim that the reception is not possible therefore it does not exist.
There is no tuning in what you are proposing- "consciouness is everywhere". The funny part is you use a radio analogy that requires physical evidence, but you are peddling something that is unphysical. Wrong analogy.
QuoteWhat you really need is not to try to ban somebody.
Prove to me that you can debate reasonably instead of ignoring what was said and repeating endlessly the same thing over and over.
QuoteWhat you really need is to grow up and get out the cocoon of fantasy that so far give you so many false certainties.
I'm old enough to be your grandfather. As to live in a cocoon of fantasy, that describes perfectly yourself as you clinch desperately to something no one on earth can prove.
Quote from: Arik on June 23, 2019, 10:09:53 AM
You are running too fast with your mind Mike.
Who said that the universe care or not care?
What I said instead was that everything is made of consciousness.
That doesn't mean that the universe has enough consciousness to know things.
Evolution is there to evolve and that means that there are degree of progress in this evolution.
The universe is made of matter and matter is the lowest form of evolution so it is impossible for the lowest form of evolution to have any concern about one of the most form of evolution such as the human stage of evolution.
The concern with the whole universe and all forms of life within can not lie with the universe itself but with the creator of this universe.
The crux of the matter---there is no 'creator'. The universe came with all the material and substances we now have. What happened, happened. Happenstance and math--that drives the universe. There is no 'plan' nor a 'creator of that plan'. There is probably something like a billion to one that life (any life) will occur. That seems to make it impossible that life would or could form; except that there are probably trillions of times the right combo of substances combined just right and so it makes the seemly impossible odds of a billion to one to one of certainty. Just impossible to tell exactly when or where. It see the probability much like when I first walk out into a rain storm. I will be hit by one specific first drop. The storm has trillions of drops, so predicting which one will be the first is impossible; but it is a total certainty that I will be hit by one; but it is impossible to know just exactly which would be the first. But I will get wet!
This idiot babbles on and on about nothingness...which is the immaterial he thinks is something...though it is nothing and has done nothing to any positive effect for human or animal while material has done everything. His babbling is old and tiresome and worn out. When you guys are tired of it just let me know.
"For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'. I don't really see a real difference. The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way."
"The universe came with all the material and substances we now have. What happened, happened. Happenstance and math--that drives the universe."
Exactly, a materialist. A philosophy ... and no philosophy is true, not yours, not mine. Because humans have no truth in them. Shit and piss, that we have in abundance ;-)
It is OK to be you. Ok to be a materialist. And I certainly wouldn't oppress anyone over their philosophy (but others might).
The universe is a materialistic self licking ice-cream cone. With a few Pythagorean rules. Like positive integers good, irrational numbers bad. Basically a pool game, without any pool game players. Nobody to create or set up the pool game. Nobody to play the game. Just balls moving all on their own, semi-randomly.
We are the life of the universe and the consciousness of the universe. All life and all consciousness are. Your atoms are not alive, yet you are alive. Your atoms are not conscious, yet you are conscious. This is too irrational a belief for me to accept. Please give me evidence for pool games that play by themselves, without any people involved. For me materialist philosophy, even rationalism, are dead things. The philosophy is implicitly anti-human.
Quote from: aitm on June 23, 2019, 02:22:30 PM
This idiot babbles on and on about nothingness...which is the immaterial he thinks is something...though it is nothing and has done nothing to any positive effect for human or animal while material has done everything. His babbling is old and tiresome and worn out. When you guys are tired of it just let me know.
Nothing is something. Vacuum and plenum aren't opposites. They are complements. There are no opposites, just over simplified arguments.
Every hear of QFT, that the vacuum between atoms, is infinitely full of spontaneous virtual particles?
Quote from: Baruch on June 23, 2019, 04:19:05 PM
There are no opposites, just over simplified arguments.
there are opposites...the composition of the atom perhaps. Occams razor vs self-aggrandizing arguments that suggest humans have any causality to the universe whatsoever. There is nothing....nothing that suggests the interaction of humanity can in anyway budge, nudge, prick, poke or make wince the universe....other than our arrogance.
Quote from: aitm on June 23, 2019, 05:24:09 PM
there are opposites...the composition of the atom perhaps. Occams razor vs self-aggrandizing arguments that suggest humans have any causality to the universe whatsoever. There is nothing....nothing that suggests the interaction of humanity can in anyway budge, nudge, prick, poke or make wince the universe....other than our arrogance.
And you are a Binary. There is only 1 and 0, no other numbers. BTW - 0 and 1 are not opposites either.
I can pick up my bottled water ... I am a demi-god. I have will and power. You have no will, no power. You are a rock rolling downhill gathering moss.
Quote from: Baruch on June 23, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
There is only 1 and 0, no other numbers.
right....sometimes you simply are and sometimes you are not.
Quote from: aitm on June 23, 2019, 07:46:22 PM
right....sometimes you simply are and sometimes you are not.
And sometimes none of the above or all of the above. Don't limit yourself to European prejudice.
oo took out another tree.....
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 23, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
That's not the point. The statement "there is no dragon in my garage", requires no evidence. It's only if you make the statement that "there is a dragon in your garage", that you would need to provide evidence.
QuoteBut I can find out if that particular station exists. And that evidence is physical and can be accessible to anyone, just not restrict to you alone.
There is no tuning in what you are proposing- "consciouness is everywhere". The funny part is you use a radio analogy that requires physical evidence, but you are peddling something that is unphysical. Wrong analogy.
Fail again Joe.
Within you got everything.
If you can not find something that is your problem.
All knowledge come from within from our own effort.
Even the theory of relativity pop up in Einstein mind from within.
You think and think and sooner or later you will get what you are looking for.
The main thing is to build a parallelism between external and internal consciousness mind.
That is the tune up that I was talking about.
Einstein did not find his theory on a shelf of a shop.
He got it from within.
Within his consciousness and the same thing happen to everybody who wish to discover something.
There is a mine of gold within but not everybody is able to get it out especially those like you that expect to get evidence of it without putting any effort in finding it.
QuoteProve to me that you can debate reasonably instead of ignoring what was said and repeating endlessly the same thing over and over.
I beg your pardon!
You have been talking nonsense since you started posting in this thread and now you have the audacity to tell me that I can not debate reasonably?
1) You said that NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains
Why don't you explain how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE?
2) You said Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts.
Where is the evidence Joe about your facts?
How would you know that you never lived before?
But after you say.............. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?
So before you say that none come back but after you say that ........Cannot proved or disproved.....
This show how your facts are non facts.
3) You say............. i know ten times more than you do in evolution.................but you show that you didn't even know that Darwin never talk about evolution and the word evolution stand for progress rather than a biological change.
4) You agree that physical science together with philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning are the real McCoy as most atheists agree but you fail to understand that all these sciences are related to the finite universe while human expectations are not finite.
That means that by concentrating on the finite arena or dimension you only strive for survival not for some permanent solution so at the end you get nowhere.
QuoteI'm old enough to be your grandfather. As to live in a cocoon of fantasy, that describes perfectly yourself as you clinch desperately to something no one on earth can prove.
How would you know how old I am?
One more foolish thinking is to put the knowledge on someone age.
Some kids are clever than old people.
See Beethoven and other that in very young age were already very very clever.
Quote from: Arik on June 24, 2019, 11:36:17 AM
How would you know how old I am?
It's the more charitable assumption. Because if you're peddling this hokum at any age over 13, you're either a con man or exceptionally deluded. Being young and foolish is a much less embarrassing flaw.
Quote from: Arik on June 24, 2019, 11:36:17 AM
Fail again Joe.
Within you got everything.
If you can not find something that is your problem.
All knowledge come from within from our own effort.
Even the theory of relativity pop up in Einstein mind from within.
You think and think and sooner or later you will get what you are looking for.
The main thing is to build a parallelism between external and internal consciousness mind.
That is the tune up that I was talking about.
Einstein did not find his theory on a shelf of a shop.
He got it from within.
Within his consciousness and the same thing happen to everybody who wish to discover something.
There is a mine of gold within but not everybody is able to get it out especially those like you that expect to get evidence of it without putting any effort in finding it.
I beg your pardon!
You have been talking nonsense since you started posting in this thread and now you have the audacity to tell me that I can not debate reasonably?
1) You said that NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains
Why don't you explain how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE?
2) You said Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts.
Where is the evidence Joe about your facts?
How would you know that you never lived before?
But after you say.............. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?
So before you say that none come back but after you say that ........Cannot proved or disproved.....
This show how your facts are non facts.
3) You say............. i know ten times more than you do in evolution.................but you show that you didn't even know that Darwin never talk about evolution and the word evolution stand for progress rather than a biological change.
4) You agree that physical science together with philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning are the real McCoy as most atheists agree but you fail to understand that all these sciences are related to the finite universe while human expectations are not finite.
That means that by concentrating on the finite arena or dimension you only strive for survival not for some permanent solution so at the end you get nowhere.
How would you know how old I am?
One more foolish thinking is to put the knowledge on someone age.
Some kids are clever than old people.
See Beethoven and other that in very young age were already very very clever.
You're repeating the same garbage over and over.
AFAIC, discussion over.
If you're banned, you will have only deserved it.
Quote from: Arik on June 24, 2019, 11:36:17 AM
Within you got everything.
If you can not find something that is your problem.
All knowledge come from within from our own effort.
Even the theory of relativity pop up in Einstein mind from within.
Without confirmation from evidence coming from outside, even Einstein's ideas would be just that: ideas. Furthermore, you have no clue on the history of how Einstein came up with relativity â€" the idea has its roots in Galileo Galilee and Ernst Mach. His mathematics came from Henri Poincaré, Bernhard Riemann, and Hendrik Lorentz â€" that's why the principle transformation in special relativity is called the
Lorentz transformation. Note that most of the mathematical framework of general relativity does not bear Einstein's name. I think only the Einstein field tensor and the Einstein summation convention bear his name, and the Einstein field tensor almost got called the Hilbert field tensor because David Hilbert was within days of scooping him. Hell, the complete static spherical solution to his equations, leading to the most famous consequence of GR (black holes), is called the
Schwarzschild solution. And of course, general relativity finds confirmation and therefore justification from
external experiments.
Despite your scientific myth, most of what is in relativity came definitively from OUTSIDE Einstein.
Getting anything from within is fine as long as the confirmation comes from without. That's the way science is done. If you're not doing that, you're not doing science. Simple as.
Quote
You think and think and sooner or later you will get what you are looking for.
The main thing is to build a parallelism between external and internal consciousness mind.
That is the tune up that I was talking about.
I like it how you think that this is something profound. It's not. It's mundane. It's just letting your thinking remain grounded in reality even as you have your head in the clouds.
Quote
Einstein did not find his theory on a shelf of a shop.
He got it from within.
Within his consciousness and the same thing happen to everybody who wish to discover something.
Einstein got most of the components of his theory from "a shop" â€" that is, learning from the real world and from other people. Special relativity was mostly not his. That's why the mathematical devices he uses don't bear his name.
Quote
There is a mine of gold within but not everybody is able to get it out especially those like you that expect to get evidence of it without putting any effort in finding it.
The example you are using to "prove" your point... doesn't prove your point at all. We know where most of the ideas that Einstein used came from. There were a shitton of people involved in the formation of Einstein's relativity, whether you like it or not. And, again, Einstein would not be a household name had his ideas failed in the experimental arena. We know for a damn fact that physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley, and had gotten close. It was just that Einstein had the final insight of turning the usual approach on its head. Instead of trying to make Maxwell's laws agree with Newton, he assumed the correctness of Maxwell and followed this to its bitter end. And even with this bizarre thing called relativity, it agreed with Newton to the regime where Newton was known to be correct.
See, when you derive stuff yourself, and are guided through the insights and ideas, you realize that
you could have come up with this stuff, had you come at the right time and with the right approach. When you consider the real history of relativity, you realize that Einstein's feat wasn't
that remarkable. Yeah, Einstein was smart, but he was absolutely cognizant of the fact that he was only a tiny bit ahead of his scientific peers. Had history gone another way, it would have been David Hilbert we credit general relativity to.
Quote
I beg your pardon!
You have been talking nonsense since you started posting in this thread and now you have the audacity to tell me that I can not debate reasonably?
It only sounds like nonsense to
you. And it's only audacity if it isn't as plain as the nose on your face that you cannot, in fact, debate reasonably. You never debated me reasonably. Hell, you couldn't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to check the ultimate strengths of bone and concrete... you know, to make sure you weren't talking out of your ass when you asserted that concrete was stronger than bone. If you can't even do these simple checks, then you're nowhere in a debate.
Quote
1) You said that NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains
Why don't you explain how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE?
Because it ain't dead yet. Ya been told this before, and you've never refuted this. You've never answered my rebuttal of the obvious fact that the only brains that we get NDEs from are ones that come out of the ER alive, and that we only know about the NDEs a few hours later, after the patent has woken up from their coma.
Next question.
Quote
2) You said Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts.
Where is the evidence Joe about your facts?
There is no verified incident of a person who has been able to come back from the dead. Exactly what you'd expect to happen, if nobody comes back from the dead.
Next question.
Quote
How would you know that you never lived before?
If you don't know, by some means, then it's a useless question to begin with. A slate that's blank because it's new, and one that's blank because it's erased... is still a blank slate.
Next question.
Quote
But after you say.............. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?
So before you say that none come back but after you say that ........Cannot proved or disproved.....
This show how your facts are non facts.
No, being philosophically undecidable is not the same as being scientifically undecidable. There are certain things we can reasonably expect out of a world with a persistent consciousness. We do not see these effects. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that such persistent conciousnesses do not exist. It is not unreasonable to conclude as fact that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the genetic and anatomical features of a duck is actually a genuine duck, instead of a duck-like alien.
Next question.
Quote
3) You say............. i know ten times more than you do in evolution.................but you show that you didn't even know that Darwin never talk about evolution and the word evolution stand for progress rather than a biological change.
Irrelevant. A pioneer in a field doesn't have any control over what the field is later called. Population dynamics in response to selection pressure is called "evolution," or if you're being specific, "biological evolution," and it doesn't matter what it was called before or what "evolution" meant before, that's what it means now.
Believe it or not, you are intruding on the scientific magisterium when you assert that consciousness is a real but immaterial thing and that NDE's are actual out of body experiences. When you then start using recognizable scientific words in non-scientific ways, people are going to complain. You are going to get clashes between what you mean by the word and what everyone else understands the word to mean. Avoiding those clashes is just good communication. It is incumbent upon you to define your terms so we know what the hell you're talking about.
Next... question? Point? Whatever. Next!
Quote
4) You agree that physical science together with philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning are the real McCoy as most atheists agree but you fail to understand that all these sciences are related to the finite universe while human expectations are not finite.
Untrue. Try listing out your expectations. I guarantee you will eventually run out.
Next.
Quote
That means that by concentrating on the finite arena or dimension you only strive for survival not for some permanent solution so at the end you get nowhere.
Prove that there is some permanent solution to find, and there is somewhere to go at all, or you're just wasting time.
Next.
Quote
How would you know how old I am?
One more foolish thinking is to put the knowledge on someone age.
Let me point out that you have every incentive to not confirm this age if he's right. The fact that you do not confirm this age is completely unremarkable and contains no information.
Quote
Some kids are clever than old people.
There is nothing in your responses that are in any way clever.
Quote
See Beethoven and other that in very young age were already very very clever.
Beethoven was "very very clever" because he was able to convey his vision such that even the rabble could recognize that his was great music, and his rivals had to recognize his skill and vision. So far, you have not proven yourself equal to the task of convincing us that you even have anything to offer.
See, even coached in eloquent language, a stupid idea is still stupid. Conversely, a smart idea is still smart, even conveyed in simple language. Yours is the former.
I think Arik is just teasing the Miko...and he got bitten! :-P
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 24, 2019, 06:37:23 PM
Without confirmation from evidence coming from outside, even Einstein's ideas would be just that: ideas. Furthermore, you have no clue on the history of how Einstein came up with relativity â€" the idea has its roots in Galileo Galilee and Ernst Mach. His mathematics came from Henri Poincaré, Bernhard Riemann, and Hendrik Lorentz â€" that's why the principle transformation in special relativity is called the Lorentz transformation. Note that most of the mathematical framework of general relativity does not bear Einstein's name. I think only the Einstein field tensor and the Einstein summation convention bear his name, and the Einstein field tensor almost got called the Hilbert field tensor because David Hilbert was within days of scooping him. Hell, the complete static spherical solution to his equations, leading to the most famous consequence of GR (black holes), is called the Schwarzschild solution. And of course, general relativity finds confirmation and therefore justification from external experiments.
Despite your scientific myth, most of what is in relativity came definitively from OUTSIDE Einstein.
Getting anything from within is fine as long as the confirmation comes from without. That's the way science is done. If you're not doing that, you're not doing science. Simple as.
I like it how you think that this is something profound. It's not. It's mundane. It's just letting your thinking remain grounded in reality even as you have your head in the clouds.
Einstein got most of the components of his theory from "a shop" â€" that is, learning from the real world and from other people. Special relativity was mostly not his. That's why the mathematical devices he uses don't bear his name.
The example you are using to "prove" your point... doesn't prove your point at all. We know where most of the ideas that Einstein used came from. There were a shitton of people involved in the formation of Einstein's relativity, whether you like it or not. And, again, Einstein would not be a household name had his ideas failed in the experimental arena. We know for a damn fact that physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley, and had gotten close. It was just that Einstein had the final insight of turning the usual approach on its head. Instead of trying to make Maxwell's laws agree with Newton, he assumed the correctness of Maxwell and followed this to its bitter end. And even with this bizarre thing called relativity, it agreed with Newton to the regime where Newton was known to be correct.
See, when you derive stuff yourself, and are guided through the insights and ideas, you realize that you could have come up with this stuff, had you come at the right time and with the right approach. When you consider the real history of relativity, you realize that Einstein's feat wasn't that remarkable. Yeah, Einstein was smart, but he was absolutely cognizant of the fact that he was only a tiny bit ahead of his scientific peers. Had history gone another way, it would have been David Hilbert we credit general relativity to.
What has got to do whether physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley or any other issue with what Einstein came up with?
Obviously a lot of people may think to similar things at the same time and obviously one will be the first to solve that problem.
So what?
Here I am talking about where the knowledge come from not whether a group of people were interested in the same thing or not.
As usual you twist my point in a way to show that you are smarter than anybody else and that is something that should concern your honesty.
QuoteIt only sounds like nonsense to you. And it's only audacity if it isn't as plain as the nose on your face that you cannot, in fact, debate reasonably. You never debated me reasonably. Hell, you couldn't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to check the ultimate strengths of bone and concrete... you know, to make sure you weren't talking out of your ass when you asserted that concrete was stronger than bone. If you can't even do these simple checks, then you're nowhere in a debate.
Because it ain't dead yet. Ya been told this before, and you've never refuted this. You've never answered my rebuttal of the obvious fact that the only brains that we get NDEs from are ones that come out of the ER alive, and that we only know about the NDEs a few hours later, after the patent has woken up from their coma.
The reason why I never refuted your point is because these guys in the video smashed not one slab of concrete but some of them even 10 together so ten concrete slabs together must be harder than a bone beside there is no injury in the skin that protect the skull.
Are you going to tell me that also the skin is harder than the concrete?
So how do you explain that the skin is intact after that?
QuoteNext question.
There is no verified incident of a person who has been able to come back from the dead. Exactly what you'd expect to happen, if nobody comes back from the dead.
Next question.
If you don't know, by some means, then it's a useless question to begin with. A slate that's blank because it's new, and one that's blank because it's erased... is still a blank slate.
Next question.
No, being philosophically undecidable is not the same as being scientifically undecidable. There are certain things we can reasonably expect out of a world with a persistent consciousness. We do not see these effects. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that such persistent conciousnesses do not exist. It is not unreasonable to conclude as fact that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the genetic and anatomical features of a duck is actually a genuine duck, instead of a duck-like alien.
Next question.
Irrelevant. A pioneer in a field doesn't have any control over what the field is later called. Population dynamics in response to selection pressure is called "evolution," or if you're being specific, "biological evolution," and it doesn't matter what it was called before or what "evolution" meant before, that's what it means now.
Believe it or not, you are intruding on the scientific magisterium when you assert that consciousness is a real but immaterial thing and that NDE's are actual out of body experiences. When you then start using recognizable scientific words in non-scientific ways, people are going to complain. You are going to get clashes between what you mean by the word and what everyone else understands the word to mean. Avoiding those clashes is just good communication. It is incumbent upon you to define your terms so we know what the hell you're talking about.
Next... question? Point? Whatever. Next!
Untrue. Try listing out your expectations. I guarantee you will eventually run out.
NDEs are documented facts.
Real people, real incidents, real hospitals, doctors and nurses and real death.
On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations.
QuoteNext.
Prove that there is some permanent solution to find, and there is somewhere to go at all, or you're just wasting time.
Materialists have the notion that evolution stop with humanity.
That notion is totally bankrupt because humans can not be satisfied with the finite.
Humans struggle to go up and up until peace of mind and unlimited bliss become a reality.
That simply means that evolution of the consciousness need to merge in the infinity.
Beside the consciousness that we got did not pop up as per magic but build up through the evolution process which means that the desire to advance is unstoppable.
QuoteNext.
Let me point out that you have every incentive to not confirm this age if he's right. The fact that you do not confirm this age is completely unremarkable and contains no information.
There is nothing in your responses that are in any way clever.
Beethoven was "very very clever" because he was able to convey his vision such that even the rabble could recognize that his was great music, and his rivals had to recognize his skill and vision. So far, you have not proven yourself equal to the task of convincing us that you even have anything to offer.
See, even coached in eloquent language, a stupid idea is still stupid. Conversely, a smart idea is still smart, even conveyed in simple language. Yours is the former.
I respect your personal opinion.
To me Beethoven was clever because he lived before and developed his art step by step through many lives.
Have a good day.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 24, 2019, 05:13:28 PM
You're repeating the same garbage over and over.
AFAIC, discussion over.
If you're banned, you will have only deserved it.
Oh, I see.
So you can not explain to me how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE, right?
Never mind Joe.
By the way do you know why roses and other flowers that are grown inside greenhouse do not smell like those grown outside and also the vegetable grown inside green houses do not taste as good as those grown out in the open?
Apparently those grown inside are protected from the elements and from pests so these plants do not need to be strong anymore to fight for survival.
The challenges have gone so these plants are getting used to live inside a cocoon that protect them.
Something similar happen to people like you that are not prepared to fight the challenge by trying to get rid of people that show your failings.
I may be gone from this forum Joe but for you it will be even worse because by trying to get rid of the challengers you become a parasite inside a cocoon of fantasy.
All the best anyway.
Quote from: Arik on June 25, 2019, 11:43:16 AM
NDEs are documented facts.
The only 'fact' is that people REPORT that they have had some sort of experience that their consciousness leaves their bodies. No one is disputing that some people, when they are close to death, have some mental experience. What is being refuted, is that this experience actually is their consciousness leaving their body and experiencing an afterlife.
It is up to those claiming that they are actually leaving their bodies, to prove that is what is actually happening. Instead of, say, that they are misinterpreting an unusual, but purely natural brainstate caused by the trauma of a dying brain.
QuoteReal people, real incidents, real hospitals, doctors and nurses and real death.
On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations
Yes, real people misinterpret natural brain states all the time. Does not prove they are actually leaving their physical body.
Yes, real doctors and nurses treat patients that get close to dying all the time. Does not prove their patients are actually leaving their physical body.
No, it is not
real death. You do understand the the "N" in the abbreviation stands for "NEAR" (as in NEAR DEATH), right?
QuoteOn the other hands your skepticism has no foundations.
Sure it does have foundations. You and your ilk, have not met your burden of proof. So, our disbelief in your claims are completely and rationally justified. As soon as you meet your burden of proof, I will be forced by my intellectual honesty, to believe your claims.
Quote from: Arik on June 25, 2019, 11:43:16 AM
That simply means that evolution of the consciousness need to merge in the infinity.
Beside the consciousness that we got did not pop up as per magic but build up through the evolution process which means that the desire to advance is unstoppable.
Lordy......you come up with some wacky ass bull-shit. You have tried real hard to put it on a wagon and paint it and then tell us its a parade....but we know it's still a wagon full of bull-shit.
"No, it is not real death." - actually living people don't know, only dead people do. Are you dead yet?
Quote from: Arik on June 25, 2019, 11:43:16 AM
What has got to do whether physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley or any other issue with what Einstein came up with?
Obviously a lot of people may think to similar things at the same time and obviously one will be the first to solve that problem.
So what?
Are you fucking dense? Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote that Einstein didn't "come up" with much. The mathematical tools he used to solve M-M using relativity came mostly from other people. Einstein wasn't some guru sitting atop a mountain, handing down truths from on high that he came up from his sheer genius. He was in the thick of things, fully engaged with his scientific peers.
Quote
Here I am talking about where the knowledge come from not whether a group of people were interested in the same thing or not.
You contended that Einstein's knowledge came from within, when I demonstrated that it came from without. Einstein built his house on the work of his predecessors, and he did so to
solve a problem that he saw in our understanding of physical reality. Very little of his thought process was actually unique to him, and what was can easily be explained by differences in his brain or differences in his experience.
Quote
As usual you twist my point in a way to show that you are smarter than anybody else and that is something that should concern your honesty.
And you obviously have no theory of mind, something that usually develops before the age of ten. You suppose that the only way I could distort your position is if I'm dishonestly doing so, instead of being a miscommunication. If you don't make yourself clear, then how in the world can I be expected to understand you properly?
So you are invited to fuck yourself with a totem pole.
Quote
The reason why I never refuted your point is because these guys in the video smashed not one slab of concrete but some of them even 10 together so ten concrete slabs together must be harder than a bone beside there is no injury in the skin that protect the skull.
Are you going to tell me that also the skin is harder than the concrete?
So how do you explain that the skin is intact after that?
Nonsense. Being on risers like that means that, mechanically, the guys are only smashing one block at a time, albeit in quick succession. By the time a slab above has bent enough to contact the slab below, it's already broken and not contributing any structural strength to the stack, and its inertia and weight means that it actually helps break slabs below. Also, these blocks probably had no time to cure, which is when concrete gets most of its strength â€" the blocks broken are probably not even a tenth as strong as structural concrete.
Also, skin is springy, and filled with water, which for the most part protects it from sudden shocks, water being incompressible and all.
The biomechanics of the breaking brick stacks is actually well-examined. I remember that there as a
Scientific American article examining karate feats back in the day. You would do well to go to the biomechanical literature first to figure out what is physically possible for the human body before going to the woo.
Quote
NDEs are documented facts.
But facts of what? Yes, they had experiences, but so what? I have experiences too.
Quote
Real people, real incidents, real hospitals, doctors and nurses and real death.
On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations.
Your accounts read more like urban legends than real accounts. I have yet to see a name attached to an account that even resembles your fairy tales, and real people tend to have names. Real accounts of NDEs, with actual documentation, reveal a much more mundane story â€" NDEs, as documented in reality, are quite materialistically plausible. And again, the difference between near death and real death is... well,
death. As in, people not coming back from it. We don't get accounts of people who don't come back, and all data concerning people that do come back reveal themselves to be not nearly as dire as you assert.
Quote
Materialists have the notion that evolution stop with humanity.
Don't tell me what materialists think. You don't know, and clearly so. Evolution doesn't stop with us because there's no end goal. Population dynamics will continue with us as surely as it did our ancestors. But here's the thing: there's nothing to say that we're actually
better, in an objective way, than our ancestors. Reproductive success is just a numbers game, but that's what biological adaptation is optimizing. Any other notion of advancement is simply irrelevant to biological evolution.
Quote
That notion is totally bankrupt because humans can not be satisfied with the finite.
Humans struggle to go up and up until peace of mind and unlimited bliss become a reality.
That simply means that evolution of the consciousness need to merge in the infinity.
Ambitions do not guarantee success. You have yet to prove that any human's satisfaction truly cannot be satisfied with the finite. The finite can be very very big, so you have yet to show that this notion that we "cannot be satisfied" with finite things is even true.
Furthermore, you never specify what "evolution of the consciousness" even means, and as such, I can only apply what I know, which requires consciousness to be material in order for population dynamics to apply.
Again, you ignore that everyone's idea of bliss is different. You treat everyone as if they're from the same cardboard cut-out and that this "peace of mind and unlimited bliss" will suit everyone. You don't even specify what "peace of mind and unlimited bliss" means, and right now that sounds to me like the evolved consciousness (whatever that means) just sits around being blissful and in peace of mind. Do you know what creature has this kind of "peace of mind and unlimited bliss"?
(https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/750x428p/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/110/71/86808034_XS.jpg)
SPONGES!
If that's the future of conscious evolution, you can keep it!
Quote
Beside the consciousness that we got did not pop up as per magic but build up through the evolution process which means that the desire to advance is unstoppable.
Non sequitor. You invoke "evolution" in context with consciousness. Either this is evolution we're familiar with, or one we're not familiar with. If it's the former, then all the caveats of material objects apply, and as such your conclusion does not follow because the forms of evolution we're familiar with are not goal-directed, and therefore NOTHING. If it's the latter, then you have failed to define your terms and thus your statement has no content unless and until you reveal what you think this "evolution process" constitutes and how it operates. Only upon revealing this can you be credited with having SAID anything.
Even now, I still credit you with a mediocrum of a
possibility that you might actually have some hidden knowledge, but that is rapidly vanishing and you are not helping matters by being cagey and obtuse.
Great intellectuals like Einstein, Kant, and Poincaré are great because they can explain their concepts in a clear manner to eager listeners. This is a skill you sorely and very obviously lack.
Quote
I respect your personal opinion.
To me Beethoven was clever because he lived before and developed his art step by step through many lives.
So now you seek to diminish Beethoven's intellect and artistic acumen by asserting that he developed it over an untold number of previous lives. My Beethoven is an artistic genius that in his short lifetime was a bright, prolific light that was extinguished all too soon. Your Beethoven is just a slow-witted recluse who spends untold millennia developing his work before presenting it all at once in a single lifetime to earn undue credit as a prolific genius.
I prefer my Beethoven. There's nothing your reincarnation bullshit offers that is appealing.
Put down that Beethoven!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROsbGWFltU0
What an amazing POS!
Quote from: Simon Moon on June 25, 2019, 01:33:15 PM
The only 'fact' is that people REPORT that they have had some sort of experience that their consciousness leaves their bodies. No one is disputing that some people, when they are close to death, have some mental experience. What is being refuted, is that this experience actually is their consciousness leaving their body and experiencing an afterlife.
It is up to those claiming that they are actually leaving their bodies, to prove that is what is actually happening. Instead of, say, that they are misinterpreting an unusual, but purely natural brainstate caused by the trauma of a dying brain.
Yes, real people misinterpret natural brain states all the time. Does not prove they are actually leaving their physical body.
Yes, real doctors and nurses treat patients that get close to dying all the time. Does not prove their patients are actually leaving their physical body.
No, it is not real death. You do understand the the "N" in the abbreviation stands for "NEAR" (as in NEAR DEATH), right?
Sure it does have foundations. You and your ilk, have not met your burden of proof. So, our disbelief in your claims are completely and rationally justified. As soon as you meet your burden of proof, I will be forced by my intellectual honesty, to believe your claims.
Your post is a total disaster SM.
1) Most Atheists believe in physical science, right?
So why they don't believe the doctors that declare a person dead?
Brain dead means that only the consciousness is able to experience something.
Who else can put together such experience with the brain dead?
Most of these NDEs demonstrate that the consciousness separate from the brain-body because it can see his-her dead body from above so all your skepticism is unfounded.
2) The reason why these experiences are called NDE and not permanent death is because it is a temporary death but death it is as the heart and the brain cells are dead.
Most people are unaware and would say that it is a miracle that dead people come back to life but for God it is not a miracle.
As you are the creator of your dreams and you can do what you like with them also God can do the same but in a scale that is quite difficult to understand by most.
I am afraid that it is your hypocrisy that prevent to find the burden of proof by not believing the doctors and at the same time believing in physical science.
Who on earth are the doctors?
Aren't they medical scientists?
Quote from: Arik on June 26, 2019, 10:29:56 AM
1) Most Atheists believe in physical science, right?
You inability to see what is right in front of your face is astounding! Atheists don't 'believe' in anything. Theists do that. For example, I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow. I think (know) it will for the simple reason is that science explains what that little phrase means. My knowledge of the 'sun rising' comes from facts. So, facts allow me to know the sun will rise--until one day in the far far future it will not. 'Belief' does not need proof other than what one feels. My knowledge comes from facts. And you and facts just don't know each other. I have met few who simply love to reveal their ignorance, and to revel in it to the extent you do. But if being blind gets you thru life, then that's what you have to do.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 25, 2019, 06:34:42 PM
Are you fucking dense? Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote that Einstein didn't "come up" with much. The mathematical tools he used to solve M-M using relativity came mostly from other people. Einstein wasn't some guru sitting atop a mountain, handing down truths from on high that he came up from his sheer genius. He was in the thick of things, fully engaged with his scientific peers.
You contended that Einstein's knowledge came from within, when I demonstrated that it came from without. Einstein built his house on the work of his predecessors, and he did so to solve a problem that he saw in our understanding of physical reality. Very little of his thought process was actually unique to him, and what was can easily be explained by differences in his brain or differences in his experience.
And you obviously have no theory of mind, something that usually develops before the age of ten. You suppose that the only way I could distort your position is if I'm dishonestly doing so, instead of being a miscommunication. If you don't make yourself clear, then how in the world can I be expected to understand you properly?
You are full of BS, are you?
Someone else knowledge obviously always help other people in their work but even in this case that so called external knowledge was in fact coming from within, within the consciousness of other people so every knowledge originate from within.
Even so Einstein had to do some work himself to put together that theory because all the so called external help was not sufficient to finish the work and again that final work could have been completed because the effort came from within.
Quote
So you are invited to fuck yourself with a totem pole.
Nonsense. Being on risers like that means that, mechanically, the guys are only smashing one block at a time, albeit in quick succession. By the time a slab above has bent enough to contact the slab below, it's already broken and not contributing any structural strength to the stack, and its inertia and weight means that it actually helps break slabs below. Also, these blocks probably had no time to cure, which is when concrete gets most of its strength â€" the blocks broken are probably not even a tenth as strong as structural concrete.
Now you play the expert engineer that know all the technical details about physical laws.
You already came up with some similar stories about the people who insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain and explain how the hole close as soon as the hook is removed.
Story after story after story in a never end to all your BS.
QuoteAlso, skin is springy, and filled with water, which for the most part protects it from sudden shocks, water being incompressible and all.
Oh, my God this one is a real pearl.
After braking hundred of concrete slabs with the head the skin on the head doesn't show any bruises just because the..........skin is springy, and filled with water...........oh, my God I must write this one for my friends to have a good laugh.....LOL
QuoteThe biomechanics of the breaking brick stacks is actually well-examined. I remember that there as a Scientific American article examining karate feats back in the day. You would do well to go to the biomechanical literature first to figure out what is physically possible for the human body before going to the woo.
But facts of what? Yes, they had experiences, but so what? I have experiences too.
Your accounts read more like urban legends than real accounts. I have yet to see a name attached to an account that even resembles your fairy tales, and real people tend to have names. Real accounts of NDEs, with actual documentation, reveal a much more mundane story â€" NDEs, as documented in reality, are quite materialistically plausible. And again, the difference between near death and real death is... well, death. As in, people not coming back from it. We don't get accounts of people who don't come back, and all data concerning people that do come back reveal themselves to be not nearly as dire as you assert.
There is a very good reason why in permanent body death the same people do not come back in the same body.
Life is hard enough as it is.
If we could remember even the past lives our life would be a real hell.
Just imagine to add our present trouble to our previous troubles from previous lives.
We just could not concentrate in a positive manner and be able to go ahead.
In this way we can because our burden of trouble is limited to this life.
QuoteDon't tell me what materialists think. You don't know, and clearly so. Evolution doesn't stop with us because there's no end goal. Population dynamics will continue with us as surely as it did our ancestors. But here's the thing: there's nothing to say that we're actually better, in an objective way, than our ancestors. Reproductive success is just a numbers game, but that's what biological adaptation is optimizing. Any other notion of advancement is simply irrelevant to biological evolution.
You are obsessed with biological evolution as the only evolution.
All your world unfortunately is still confined to the corral of physicality.
Outside it there is nothing.
Grow up son so one day you too can understand how the whole system works.
QuoteAmbitions do not guarantee success. You have yet to prove that any human's satisfaction truly cannot be satisfied with the finite. The finite can be very very big, so you have yet to show that this notion that we "cannot be satisfied" with finite things is even true.
I have never seen anyone who is totally happy with what they got.
Everyone strive to get more and more and this can only be achieved where the positive is not annulled by the negative.
Considering that in this physical reality the positive and the negative always go hand in hand then is easy to see the evidence that the finite is not able to satisfy anyone.
QuoteFurthermore, you never specify what "evolution of the consciousness" even means, and as such, I can only apply what I know, which requires consciousness to be material in order for population dynamics to apply.
People who in the past lived in the caves did not know who they were and why they exist at all.
These days we know a little bit more but not enough to understand the whole thing.
As we go further we will know more and more because our consciousness expand.
QuoteAgain, you ignore that everyone's idea of bliss is different. You treat everyone as if they're from the same cardboard cut-out and that this "peace of mind and unlimited bliss" will suit everyone. You don't even specify what "peace of mind and unlimited bliss" means, and right now that sounds to me like the evolved consciousness (whatever that means) just sits around being blissful and in peace of mind. Do you know what creature has this kind of "peace of mind and unlimited bliss"?
I know one thing man and that is that we are like seeds and the tree that generate these seed is the same for everyone.
QuoteSPONGES!
If that's the future of conscious evolution, you can keep it!
Non sequitor. You invoke "evolution" in context with consciousness. Either this is evolution we're familiar with, or one we're not familiar with. If it's the former, then all the caveats of material objects apply, and as such your conclusion does not follow because the forms of evolution we're familiar with are not goal-directed, and therefore NOTHING. If it's the latter, then you have failed to define your terms and thus your statement has no content unless and until you reveal what you think this "evolution process" constitutes and how it operates. Only upon revealing this can you be credited with having SAID anything.
Even now, I still credit you with a mediocrum of a possibility that you might actually have some hidden knowledge, but that is rapidly vanishing and you are not helping matters by being cagey and obtuse.
Great intellectuals like Einstein, Kant, and Poincaré are great because they can explain their concepts in a clear manner to eager listeners. This is a skill you sorely and very obviously lack.
So now you seek to diminish Beethoven's intellect and artistic acumen by asserting that he developed it over an untold number of previous lives. My Beethoven is an artistic genius that in his short lifetime was a bright, prolific light that was extinguished all too soon. Your Beethoven is just a slow-witted recluse who spends untold millennia developing his work before presenting it all at once in a single lifetime to earn undue credit as a prolific genius.
I prefer my Beethoven. There's nothing your reincarnation bullshit offers that is appealing.
Don't you worry man.
You too will get there sooner or later.
Quote from: Arik on June 26, 2019, 10:29:56 AM
Your post is a total disaster SM.
That's certainly something you'd like us to believe, though you seem to consistently have problems figuring out how to be convincing to people who don't already hold the same conclusions you do. You might want to take a sec and figure out why. That'd help you a lot around here.
Quote1) Most Atheists believe in physical science, right?
We place great value in science, yes. Shame that that isn't a more unversal stance. But we don't "believe" this stuff in the way that religious people believe.
QuoteSo why they don't believe the doctors that declare a person dead?
Declared clinically dead =/= actually dead. Hence the N in NDE.
QuoteBrain dead means that only the consciousness is able to experience something.
Ummm...no. wtf are you smoking?
QuoteThere is a very good reason why in permanent body death the same people do not come back in the same body.
Life is hard enough as it is.
Life is hard enough as it is......thats if folks!! The grand answer to all your questions. Life is hard enough as it is.
Write that one down. Arik wins!
Life is hard enough as it is.......sheeesh....what a twit.
Well, I think it was Mae West who said "A hard life is good to find."
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 26, 2019, 11:14:44 AM
You inability to see what is right in front of your face is astounding! Atheists don't 'believe' in anything. Theists do that. For example, I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow. I think (know) it will for the simple reason is that science explains what that little phrase means. My knowledge of the 'sun rising' comes from facts. So, facts allow me to know the sun will rise--until one day in the far far future it will not. 'Belief' does not need proof other than what one feels. My knowledge comes from facts. And you and facts just don't know each other. I have met few who simply love to reveal their ignorance, and to revel in it to the extent you do. But if being blind gets you thru life, then that's what you have to do.
Belief isn't about what is right in front of your face. By definition, it is something that is invisible (per Paul) ... hope for something not seen.
I agree, believe in nothing, unless it is right in front of you. That is why I take the existence of Trump with a lump of salt.
But belief isn't just about what one feels, that is an attempt to deny EQ vs IQ. Vulcan vs Human. Hope is a "feel". So is "fear". The future is a mix of emotions, that of "hope" and "fear". And therefore not a fact, until it is the present/past. Other reasons for belief is as a "thought experiment" ... the "as if". But not the same meaning as the other one. Other meanings are ... plausible hypothesis (not the same as thought experiment) aka probable cause. As in ... I looked at my cards, and I have two jacks, so I have some probability of winning the hand.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 26, 2019, 04:17:39 PM
Well, I think it was Mae West who said "A hard life is good to find."
She also said, "Is that a gun in your pants or are you just happy to see me?"
Yeah, and "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"
:-P
Quote from: Baruch on June 26, 2019, 04:42:29 PM
Belief isn't about what is right in front of your face. By definition, it is something that is invisible (per Paul) ... hope for something not seen.
I agree, believe in nothing, unless it is right in front of you. That is why I take the existence of Trump with a lump of salt.
But belief isn't just about what one feels, that is an attempt to deny EQ vs IQ. Vulcan vs Human. Hope is a "feel". So is "fear". The future is a mix of emotions, that of "hope" and "fear". And therefore not a fact, until it is the present/past. Other reasons for belief is as a "thought experiment" ... the "as if". But not the same meaning as the other one. Other meanings are ... plausible hypothesis (not the same as thought experiment) aka probably cause. As in ... I looked at my cards, and I have two jacks, so I have some probability of winning the hand.
I see myself as two people--one using reasoning and critical thinking and the other using feelings. I am at my best when the two of those sides work well together, with one supporting the other. But there are times when feelings win out and times when reasoning is all I use. That is the constant battle within me. But I do not equate EQ with belief or faith systems. EQ is not blind. Here is a down and dirty look at EQ:
For most people, emotional intelligence (EQ) is more important than one’s intelligence (IQ) in attaining success in their lives and careers. As individuals our success and the success of the profession today depend on our ability to read other people’s signals and react appropriately to them.
Therefore, each one of us must develop the mature emotional intelligence skills required to better understand, empathize and negotiate with other people â€" particularly as the economy has become more global. Otherwise, success will elude us in our lives and careers.
“Your EQ is the level of your ability to understand other people, what motivates them and how to work cooperatively with them,†says Howard Gardner, the influential Harvard theorist. Five major categories of emotional intelligence skills are recognized by researchers in this area.
Understanding the Five Categories of Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
1. Self-awareness. The ability to recognize an emotion as it “happens†is the key to your EQ. Developing self-awareness requires tuning in to your true feelings. If you evaluate your emotions, you can manage them. The major elements of self-awareness are:
Emotional awareness. Your ability to recognize your own emotions and their effects.
Self-confidence. Sureness about your self-worth and capabilities.
2. Self-regulation. You often have little control over when you experience emotions. You can, however, have some say in how long an emotion will last by using a number of techniques to alleviate negative emotions such as anger, anxiety or depression. A few of these techniques include recasting a situation in a more positive light, taking a long walk and meditation or prayer. Self-regulation involves
Self-control. Managing disruptive impulses.
Trustworthiness. Maintaining standards of honesty and integrity.
Conscientiousness. Taking responsibility for your own performance.
Adaptability. Handling change with flexibility.
Innovation. Being open to new ideas.
3. Motivation. To motivate yourself for any achievement requires clear goals and a positive attitude. Although you may have a predisposition to either a positive or a negative attitude, you can with effort and practice learn to think more positively. If you catch negative thoughts as they occur, you can reframe them in more positive terms â€" which will help you achieve your goals. Motivation is made up of:
Achievement drive. Your constant striving to improve or to meet a standard of excellence.
Commitment. Aligning with the goals of the group or organization.
Initiative. Readying yourself to act on opportunities.
Optimism. Pursuing goals persistently despite obstacles and setbacks.
4. Empathy. The ability to recognize how people feel is important to success in your life and career. The more skillful you are at discerning the feelings behind others’ signals the better you can control the signals you send them. An empathetic person excels at:
Service orientation. Anticipating, recognizing and meeting clients’ needs.
Developing others. Sensing what others need to progress and bolstering their abilities.
Leveraging diversity. Cultivating opportunities through diverse people.
Political awareness. Reading a group’s emotional currents and power relationships.
Understanding others. Discerning the feelings behind the needs and wants of others.
5. Social skills. The development of good interpersonal skills is tantamount to success in your life and career. In today’s always-connected world, everyone has immediate access to technical knowledge. Thus, “people skills†are even more important now because you must possess a high EQ to better understand, empathize and negotiate with others in a global economy. Among the most useful skills are:
Influence. Wielding effective persuasion tactics.
Communication. Sending clear messages.
Leadership. Inspiring and guiding groups and people.
Change catalyst. Initiating or managing change.
Conflict management. Understanding, negotiating and resolving disagreements.
Building bonds. Nurturing instrumental relationships.
Collaboration and cooperation. Working with others toward shared goals.
Team capabilities. Creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals.
None of those five categories focus on belief or faith. Reasoning and critical thinking are important to use in those five categories. Theists use blindness and willful ignorance and call it a virtue. Airk is a prime example--he calls his willful blindness a huge virtue and true sight. I don't see that he has any EQ and little IQ.
Trigger words don't help.
Democrat = Commie
Republican = Nazi
Theist = Nut Job
Atheist = Cool Dude
etc.
We each have our own list. With trigger words, we can't have a conversation on any topic, without throwing milkshake or battery acid in each others faces.
MikeCL - nice long post. Hard to say, if being of one mind, or of two minds, or many minds ... is right. Maybe all are, depending on who you are at the moment.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 26, 2019, 06:42:35 PM
None of those five categories focus on belief or faith. Reasoning and critical thinking are important to use in those five categories. Theists use blindness and willful ignorance and call it a virtue. Airk is a prime example--he calls his willful blindness a huge virtue and true sight. I don't see that he has any EQ and little IQ.
Nice post on EQ.
As to arik, his tactics have been denial, obfuscation, distortion, with sadistic lack of empathy - all the earmarks of a troll. His kicks is to upset you, and the best remedy is to ignore him - DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 26, 2019, 06:42:35 PM
I see myself as two people--one using reasoning and critical thinking and the other using feelings. I am at my best when the two of those sides work well together, with one supporting the other. But there are times when feelings win out and times when reasoning is all I use. That is the constant battle within me. But I do not equate EQ with belief or faith systems. EQ is not blind. Here is a down and dirty look at EQ:
For most people, emotional intelligence (EQ) is more important than one’s intelligence (IQ) in attaining success in their lives and careers. As individuals our success and the success of the profession today depend on our ability to read other people’s signals and react appropriately to them.
Therefore, each one of us must develop the mature emotional intelligence skills required to better understand, empathize and negotiate with other people â€" particularly as the economy has become more global. Otherwise, success will elude us in our lives and careers.
“Your EQ is the level of your ability to understand other people, what motivates them and how to work cooperatively with them,†says Howard Gardner, the influential Harvard theorist. Five major categories of emotional intelligence skills are recognized by researchers in this area.
Understanding the Five Categories of Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
1. Self-awareness. The ability to recognize an emotion as it “happens†is the key to your EQ. Developing self-awareness requires tuning in to your true feelings. If you evaluate your emotions, you can manage them. The major elements of self-awareness are:
Emotional awareness. Your ability to recognize your own emotions and their effects.
Self-confidence. Sureness about your self-worth and capabilities.
2. Self-regulation. You often have little control over when you experience emotions. You can, however, have some say in how long an emotion will last by using a number of techniques to alleviate negative emotions such as anger, anxiety or depression. A few of these techniques include recasting a situation in a more positive light, taking a long walk and meditation or prayer. Self-regulation involves
Self-control. Managing disruptive impulses.
Trustworthiness. Maintaining standards of honesty and integrity.
Conscientiousness. Taking responsibility for your own performance.
Adaptability. Handling change with flexibility.
Innovation. Being open to new ideas.
3. Motivation. To motivate yourself for any achievement requires clear goals and a positive attitude. Although you may have a predisposition to either a positive or a negative attitude, you can with effort and practice learn to think more positively. If you catch negative thoughts as they occur, you can reframe them in more positive terms â€" which will help you achieve your goals. Motivation is made up of:
Achievement drive. Your constant striving to improve or to meet a standard of excellence.
Commitment. Aligning with the goals of the group or organization.
Initiative. Readying yourself to act on opportunities.
Optimism. Pursuing goals persistently despite obstacles and setbacks.
4. Empathy. The ability to recognize how people feel is important to success in your life and career. The more skillful you are at discerning the feelings behind others’ signals the better you can control the signals you send them. An empathetic person excels at:
Service orientation. Anticipating, recognizing and meeting clients’ needs.
Developing others. Sensing what others need to progress and bolstering their abilities.
Leveraging diversity. Cultivating opportunities through diverse people.
Political awareness. Reading a group’s emotional currents and power relationships.
Understanding others. Discerning the feelings behind the needs and wants of others.
5. Social skills. The development of good interpersonal skills is tantamount to success in your life and career. In today’s always-connected world, everyone has immediate access to technical knowledge. Thus, “people skills†are even more important now because you must possess a high EQ to better understand, empathize and negotiate with others in a global economy. Among the most useful skills are:
Influence. Wielding effective persuasion tactics.
Communication. Sending clear messages.
Leadership. Inspiring and guiding groups and people.
Change catalyst. Initiating or managing change.
Conflict management. Understanding, negotiating and resolving disagreements.
Building bonds. Nurturing instrumental relationships.
Collaboration and cooperation. Working with others toward shared goals.
Team capabilities. Creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals.
None of those five categories focus on belief or faith. Reasoning and critical thinking are important to use in those five categories. Theists use blindness and willful ignorance and call it a virtue. Airk is a prime example--he calls his willful blindness a huge virtue and true sight. I don't see that he has any EQ and little IQ.
I do not say that most of your ideal are bad.
In fact they are good but unfortunately you miss the most important point.
In saying that these ideal would help someone in their lives and careers you only direct them towards a physical-material accomplishment and achievement.
Considering that success in this field does not equal to peace of mind and permanent happiness then at the end you get nowhere.
Just a waste of time.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 26, 2019, 11:14:44 AM
You inability to see what is right in front of your face is astounding! Atheists don't 'believe' in anything. Theists do that. For example, I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow. I think (know) it will for the simple reason is that science explains what that little phrase means. My knowledge of the 'sun rising' comes from facts. So, facts allow me to know the sun will rise--until one day in the far far future it will not. 'Belief' does not need proof other than what one feels. My knowledge comes from facts. And you and facts just don't know each other. I have met few who simply love to reveal their ignorance, and to revel in it to the extent you do. But if being blind gets you thru life, then that's what you have to do.
How can you say that Atheists do not believe in anything when in fact they go on and on in repeating the 10 points that I show in previous posts?
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
Are you kidding me?
Beside don't they believe in material objects that they use all the time and in many cases they worship them like a religious person would worship God?
Get real Mike.
The only people who do not believe in anything are those who commit suicide.
Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts ... because they have partly corroborated claims. Physics, chemistry all the materialist stuff. Like a defense attorney, who tries to get thrown out, any evidence that tends to incriminate his client. Like criminal law, these arguments are not dispassionate. They are deeply partisan.
Quote from: Baruch on June 27, 2019, 11:51:37 AM
Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts ... because they have partly corroborated claims. Physics, chemistry all the materialist stuff. Like a defense attorney, who tries to get thrown out, any evidence that tends to incriminate his client. Like criminal law, these arguments are not dispassionate. They are deeply partisan.
I define belief as "the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true". This is the way most cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind define belief.
So, yes, I have plenty of beliefs.
Yes, when it comes to existential claims, I
am partisan on what I will accept as the type and strength of evidence that would warrant belief.
When someone makes the claim that a god exists, why should I accept anything less than: demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic, to accept their claim as being true? After all, I care whether my beliefs are true or not.
I proportion the strength of my belief, to the strength of the evidence provided for the proposition.I am not making the claim, with absolute certainty, that theists are wrong, only that they continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, therefore, I have no warrant to accept their go claims as being true, or likely true.
If you tell me that you walked your dog this morning, I will believe you (accept your proposition as being true) with almost no further evidence. Why? Because I know dogs exist, I know people have them as pets, I know people take them for walks, etc. There is deconfirming evidence this belief, however, if I went to your house and did not see a dog, dog bowl, poop in your yard, a leash, etc.
But, if you told me that you walked you dog on Mars this morning, I would require an immense amount of further evidence, even if I knew you owned a dog.
When you say "Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts", this is untrue. A fact is a data point , that is accepted as being true. So, even facts are believed to be true.
When has anyone ever provided demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that gods exist, that I am "throwing out"?
All the arguments ever made (Kalam, teleological, ontological, TAG, presuppositional, etc) are fallacious. And zero of the evidence ever provided, is demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable.
Quotebecause they have partly corroborated claims. Physics, chemistry all the materialist stuff
We need none of this stuff in order to not accept theists claims. I do not need materialist explanations to reject your supernatural explanations. All I need is that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof.
Quote from: Simon Moon on June 27, 2019, 05:46:15 PM
I define belief as "the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true". This is the way most cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind define belief.
So, yes, I have plenty of beliefs.
Yes, when it comes to existential claims, I am partisan on what I will accept as the type and strength of evidence that would warrant belief.
When someone makes the claim that a god exists, why should I accept anything less than: demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic, to accept their claim as being true? After all, I care whether my beliefs are true or not.
I proportion the strength of my belief, to the strength of the evidence provided for the proposition.
I am not making the claim, with absolute certainty, that theists are wrong, only that they continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, therefore, I have no warrant to accept their go claims as being true, or likely true.
If you tell me that you walked your dog this morning, I will believe you (accept your proposition as being true) with almost no further evidence. Why? Because I know dogs exist, I know people have them as pets, I know people take them for walks, etc. There is deconfirming evidence this belief, however, if I went to your house and did not see a dog, dog bowl, poop in your yard, a leash, etc.
But, if you told me that you walked you dog on Mars this morning, I would require an immense amount of further evidence, even if I knew you owned a dog.
When you say "Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts", this is untrue. A fact is a data point , that is accepted as being true. So, even facts are believed to be true.
When has anyone ever provided demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that gods exist, that I am "throwing out"?
All the arguments ever made (Kalam, teleological, ontological, TAG, presuppositional, etc) are fallacious. And zero of the evidence ever provided, is demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable.
We need none of this stuff in order to not accept theists claims. I do not need materialist explanations to reject your supernatural explanations. All I need is that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof.
How dare you sir! ;-) How dare you believe anything not verified by academics or CNN? Those are totally reliable source of facts ;-) I accept no burden of proof placed on me ... by anyone. My right hand is connected to my right arm. No argument there, unless you want my fist ...
I don't argue. I know. It is a matter of how my perception works, as developed in a lifetime of human experience. Your milage may vary of course. It is called subjectivity. Megalomaniacs of course claim that they are different, that they uniquely have objectivity. Pish-Posh.
And yes, all arguments are false, because even if one used deduction correctly, all axioms are subject to BS claims. Thus no point in arguing. Either irrationality is in play, or shitty axioms or both. Your choice.
And as posted many times, I agree, supernatural (as defined by atheists) doesn't exist. Everything is natural (as defined by atheists). That is rhetoric for you. Heads I win, tails you lose. ;-)) I am not you. My use of English differs. My personal experience differs.
Philosophy = the egghead ignorant demonstrating their absurdity.
Quote from: Arik on June 27, 2019, 11:16:20 AM
Just a waste of time.
Yes, you are indeed, a total waste of time. And as Joe suggested, you are simply a troll--and not even a good one. I'll waste my time elsewhere.
Talking about natural I also believe in natural but there is huge difference between what I consider natural and the Atheists concept of natural.
An illusion can not possibly represent the natural so if this creation is just the mental projection of someone then is not natural but a huge illusion.
This physical dimension is real and natural only as far as we accept it as a reality but again what would you say if the creatures of your dreams say that they are real.
Isn't that foolish?
That is why I consider more natural the mind behind this creation than his creation itself.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 28, 2019, 10:07:01 AM
Yes, you are indeed, a total waste of time. And as Joe suggested, you are simply a troll--and not even a good one. I'll waste my time elsewhere.
Oh, well I suppose that Joe suggestions must be the real McCoy of intellect.
But please do me a favor Mike.
Do not disturb Joe for sometime.
At the moment he is quite busy trying to explain how a dead brain can put together an NDE.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Quote from: Arik on June 28, 2019, 10:13:02 AM
Talking about natural I also believe in natural but there is huge difference between what I consider natural and the Atheists concept of natural.
An illusion can not possibly represent the natural so if this creation is just the mental projection of someone then is not natural but a huge illusion.
This physical dimension is real and natural only as far as we accept it as a reality but again what would you say if the creatures of your dreams say that they are real.
Isn't that foolish?
That is why I consider more natural the mind behind this creation than his creation itself.
Artistic vs analytical definition. It is natural for a music prodigy to compose music ... we say it comes to them naturally, in a way it might not for you or me. The analytical definition presupposes no interest in art, and presupposes materialism.
Quote from: aitm on June 28, 2019, 10:54:31 AM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Hive mind much? ;-)
Quote from: Arik on June 28, 2019, 10:21:09 AM
At the moment he is quite busy trying to explain how a dead brain can put together an NDE.
I wonder if pigs can have NDEs?
QuoteUsing brains from animals killed for food, researchers have now restored some cellular functions in pig brains hours after death, potentially offering a new avenue for studying and treating brain diseases and disorders.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/
QuoteScientists have restored cellular function in 32 pig brains that had been dead for hours, opening up a new avenue in treating brain diseaseâ€"and shaking our definition of brain death to its core. Announced on Wednesday in the journal Nature, researchers at the Yale University School of Medicine devised a system roughly analogous to a dialysis machine, called BrainEx, that restores circulation and oxygen flow to a dead brain.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 28, 2019, 01:19:15 PM
I wonder if pigs can have NDEs?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/
Ha ... no pigs are reincarnated people, who ate bacon and ham. Justice.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 28, 2019, 01:19:15 PM
I wonder if pigs can have NDEs?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/
You still don't get it UB, do you?
Many body parts are used for transplant for quite sometime so what?
Is the consciousness left in these body parts?
Of course not that is why it is of little importance whether a brain can or can not have some possibilities to be revived or not.
As far as the consciousness is gone that matter a zilch because the entity in question can not re-enter the brain.
NDEs are a different story altogether.
Consciousness in these cases goes back in the brains due to a non material-physical intervention and that has only been done on humans with good reasons.
Quote from: Baruch on June 28, 2019, 11:03:03 AM
Artistic vs analytical definition. It is natural for a music prodigy to compose music ... we say it comes to them naturally, in a way it might not for you or me. The analytical definition presupposes no interest in art, and presupposes materialism.
Actually i think that everyone is an artist.
We all create something that eventually become an art.
Even the desperate guy that collect butts to make a cigarette out of them is an artist in his own.
I couldn't imitate his art.
Quote from: Arik on June 29, 2019, 09:37:02 AM
You still don't get it UB, do you?
Well, in the words of the great Lopan, "You are not brought upon this world to 'get it'."
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 29, 2019, 01:20:52 PM
Well, in the words of the great Lopan, "You are not brought upon this world to 'get it'."
Poor sexual hygiene and ... you will "get it".
https://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/big-trouble-in-little-china/character_373.html
I agree with "boil them until their flesh falls off" ... applied to Anti-fa in Portland.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 29, 2019, 01:20:52 PM
Well, in the words of the great Lopan, "You are not brought upon this world to 'get it'."
Lopan who?
The psycho nut that wanted to dominate the universe?
Quote from: Arik on June 30, 2019, 09:41:00 AM
Lopan who?
The psycho nut that wanted to dominate the universe?
Lo-Pan ... say it right or face bad things.
Quote from: Arik on June 30, 2019, 09:41:00 AM
Lopan who?
The psycho nut that wanted to dominate the universe?
David Lopan, a character in the movie Big Trouble in Little China. A great movie!
I don't know that he wanted to dominate the universe, he just wanted to live forever in a real human body, instead of the ephemeral ghost body he was having to tolerate.
Quote from: Baruch on June 30, 2019, 11:21:05 AM
Lo-Pan ... say it right or face bad things.
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/4b85163cb5eeac66433d0ff5259d0c0b/tumblr_ms14pm0oMP1r75rkko1_400.gif)
Gee, I didn't know that Lo-Pan was so so powerful.
Now I am all shaking and trembly.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 30, 2019, 05:38:51 PM
David Lopan, a character in the movie Big Trouble in Little China. A great movie!
I don't know that he wanted to dominate the universe, he just wanted to live forever in a real human body, instead of the ephemeral ghost body he was having to tolerate.
To be a ghost is not very good so I wouldn't blame a ghost for wishing to get a human body so one day through the evolution process he too will be able to reach the goal of life and end this life of struggle.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gu6UkVtKBoA/VrbRdlFwkaI/AAAAAAAAAMU/VQzy41y-Zc4/s1600/ngh.jpg)
In eastern culture, hungry ghosts ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_ghost
Think invisible zombie ...
Korean TV is really big on hungry ghosts ... since their culture is shamanistic. One of those shows my daughter loved (because it was a love story between two living people, but the young woman was a natural medium for all these needy ghosts).
Quote from: Arik on June 28, 2019, 10:13:02 AM
Talking about natural I also believe in natural but there is huge difference between what I consider natural and the Atheists concept of natural.
Yes. It's a flaw that you should correct.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 01, 2019, 12:20:42 PM
Yes. It's a flaw that you should correct.
The grammar Nazis strike again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIdPo-soklY
QuoteWhat if the universe is self-aware? Is there a cosmic superconsciousness? Could it be a giant brain? There is a short but lazy answer, and there is longer but more intriguing answer. The lazy answer goes something like this. We humans are made of pieces of the universe. We are conscious, so the universe is conscious through us.
This is the standard short answer to the question of a conscious universe. But could the universe have a consciousness separate from us or any other conscious being? Could it be a kind of super consciousness? This concept has a name. It is called panpsychism.
The concept of Panpsychism has been around for thousands of years. It is an essential aspect of many religions, from the Old Testament's omnipresent God to the Brahman of Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, in Buddhism, nothing exists except consciousness.
Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, the man who conceived of the Dyson sphere, embraced panpsychism and said that the universe not only operates through our consciousness but a consciousness of its own.
Could this be true?
First we have to establish what consciousness is. Neuroscientist and psychiatrist Giulio Tononi, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has proposed a way to measure how conscious a thing is. He proposes that consciousness has to do with how much control a being has over itself or things around it. He even invented a measurement unit called phi to label how conscious something is.
This theory separates intelligence from consciousness, which are two different things. Super computers for example, which are highly intelligent, can routinely out-think humans and beat them at chess and Jeopardy, but they don’t have a will of their own. The programmer controls it. So intelligence and consciousness are two different things.
Based on this line of thinking we can say that a tree is more conscious than a rock. A worm is more conscious than a tree. A cat is more conscious than a worm. A human is more conscious than a cat. And the ultimate consciousness could be the universe itself.
If this is the way consciousness works, then the complexity of an organism’s brain has something to do with its level of consciousness. And scientists do have good evidence that the seat consciousness resides in brains. If we are more conscious than all the other animals, as we appear to be, it surely is no coincidence that we also have the most complex brain.
Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of highly interconnected and communicating systems like the brain which is an interconnected network of neurons that can fire chemical and electronic signals. Consciousness is not a property of individual neurons but results from the interactions of many neurons.
And what are neurons? They are triggered by certain stimuli and can send signals to each other. And large complex networks of these neurons seem to emerge into consciousness. The more complex the network, the more conscious something appears to be.
So is there some kind of network such that a “communication†of sorts might be happening at the quantum level between entangled pairs of particles. There is a humongous network of galaxies in the universe, many hundreds of billions of galaxies. This is not dissimilar from the network of the billions of interconnected neurons in our brain. The difference appears to be that each of our brain cells can communicate or at least fire a signal to other brain cells. Do the galaxies have such a communication mechanism between them?
It doesn’t appear so, but you have to remember that at the center of almost all galaxies, there is a black hole. It’s like the nucleus of a brain cell. What’s happening inside a black hole? We have no idea…because all our physics equations break down at the event horizon of a black hole â€" this is the point where time and space cease to exist and Einstein’s equations don’t work.
Is it possible that something is happening here that we just don’t know about? The black hole could only be analogous to a brain cell if somehow they were connected to each other and could send signals to each other.
If that was the case, a vast network of communicating trillion black holes would act like a gigantic information processor, and indeed be intelligent and possibly conscious. This would truly be a kind of super consciousness that could theoretically control not only our universe, but perhaps time and space itself.
But I think I’m getting way too excited about a completely speculative possibility. Practically, we have to ask, does the universe need to be conscious in order to arrive at its present state. In other words, does what we see around us need a consciousness to direct the events that lead up to what we observe, that lead to life? Would what we see right now be any different if the universe was utterly without consciousness?
QuoteWe humans are made of pieces of the universe. We are conscious, so the universe is conscious through us.
Yep, that's how I see it.
So's a cricket for all we know.
Quote from: Arik on June 26, 2019, 11:51:33 AM
You are full of BS, are you?
Someone else knowledge obviously always help other people in their work but even in this case that so called external knowledge was in fact coming from within,
Stop.
Knowledge is
about things. Unless knowledge is about something external to itself, it ceases to be meaningful and as such is not knowledge. There is no such thing as knowledge that exists in a complete vacuum. Knowledge must refer to something to even be knowledge. Thus, it is a complete and utter absurdity for knowledge to come "from within" because the entire point of it is to refer to things without. If you have an idea that is unverified, it is not knowledge, period. It only becomes knowledge when you link that idea to some externality.
As such, knowledge can ONLY come from without because it is the external connection that makes an idea knowledge.
Einstein's General Relativity would only be a neat idea, and not knowledge, if it could never be linked to and verified by observing the universe that it is clearly about.
Quote
Now you play the expert engineer that know all the technical details about physical laws.
I don't need much engineering knowledge to be your superior in that account. You don't give the human body nearly enough credit. The human body is a thing honed through 3.5 billion years of evolution, since it's distant single celled ancestor. It has a lot of tricks up its sleeve. One of its tricks is being able to remodel itself in response to stress. I very much doubt that your breaking bricks videos are the very first time these martial artists have slammed their fists, feet and heads into something to break it. There was very much failed attempts to do so, resulting in injuries. But when the injuries healed, the body built it a bit tougher since it seemed to be getting unusually stressed.
Quote
You already came up with some similar stories about the people who insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain and explain how the hole close as soon as the hook is removed.
The pain bit is easy. Pain exists in the head. Your brain has natural chemicals that modulate the feeling of pain, called endorphins. It is not a great stretch to theorize that the gurus who do this are ignoring the pain through biofeedback. This is not "a story," but verified, real science.
Second, callus and scar tissue are not "a story." Again, if you insult a point on your body, it tends to respond by remodeling itself, and one of the characteristics of scar tissue is a relative derth of blood vessels. Your source would not be witnessing a green guru poking themselves for the first time. It would be a seasoned guru who already knows where and how to stab himself to do this trick. Furthermore, blood isn't just going to sit there and wait for the hooks to be pulled out. The clotting process starts immediately. So, if you leave the hooks in for long enough, all the severed blood vessels will be sealed off by the time you extract the hooks, explaining the lack of blood from the few blood vessels left.
As to "closing as soon as the hook is removed?" Unverified story. To my knowledge no medical examination has revealed that these holes actually close without a trace, and given the lack of sources to said medical examinations, you don't either. I don't need to explain what is not evident.
Quote
Story after story after story in a never end to all your BS.
Funny,
all you have are story after story and unverified BS.
Quote
Oh, my God this one is a real pearl.
After braking hundred of concrete slabs with the head the skin on the head doesn't show any bruises just because the..........skin is springy, and filled with water...........oh, my God I must write this one for my friends to have a good laugh.....LOL
Which shows just how much of an ignoramous you are. Water is incompressible. Thus, when you smack it down (as it would when your fist contacts a slab), that force is spread out over the entirety of its container instead of just in the direction of force. Skin being springy means that it will give a bit when stressed. But force over displacement is energy, which means that springy flesh will absorb more energy than brittle stone before breaking.
And again, instead of finding out the mechanical details, you simply shit on my explanation. But even if it is bogus, it's still an EXPLANATION, using verified physical principles. The dirty little secret of your immaterial is that it doesn't help you explain why martial artists can do their feats, nor how gurus are able to hook themselves without apparent pain, nor NDEs. You simply think it's an explanation.
Quote
There is a very good reason why in permanent body death the same people do not come back in the same body.
Life is hard enough as it is.
If we could remember even the past lives our life would be a real hell.
Just imagine to add our present trouble to our previous troubles from previous lives.
We just could not concentrate in a positive manner and be able to go ahead.
In this way we can because our burden of trouble is limited to this life.
For all you complain about my bullshit, you spew a lot of your own. This is all unverified bullshit and ad hoc explanation. It also contradicts your notion that Beethoven got gud from experiences from previous lives. Beethoven is brilliant because of experiences in his past lives; but now you have it that they can't remember their past lives. Well, if they can't remember their past lives, then as far as NDEing consciousness is concerned, this is still the only life they get, so there's no compelling reason for them to go to the hereafter.
There is no operational difference between your above tripe and the materialistic explanation that sometimes the brain is too far gone to recover. And being far gone is a concern in your immaterialistic world as well, given your car analogy.
Quote
You are obsessed with biological evolution as the only evolution.
You have steadfastly refused to define any other. Why should I even think your evolution is a thing if you're so cagey about it?
Do you have ANY direct evidence for your consciousness as a thing existing as a separate entity? And yes, there should be because your consciousness manifestly interferes with the real world according to you. You cannot see unless you are able to interact with photons. You cannot hear unless you are able to interact with air vibrations. And your NDE consciousnesses are able to see and hear.
Quote
I have never seen anyone who is totally happy with what they got.
So? Nobody has owned an entire planet, lock stock and barrel.
Quote
Everyone strive to get more and more and this can only be achieved where the positive is not annulled by the negative.
Considering that in this physical reality the positive and the negative always go hand in hand then is easy to see the evidence that the finite is not able to satisfy anyone.
Unverifiable bullshit. You have not excluded truly obscene amount of material wealth, and furthermore, you have not explained people who are, actually, perfectly comfortable with their life. Your "positive and negative" do not exist except in very restricted contexts unconnected with the satisfaction of human beings.
Quote
People who in the past lived in the caves did not know who they were and why they exist at all.
These days we know a little bit more but not enough to understand the whole thing.
As we go further we will know more and more because our consciousness expand.
That's perfectly explainable by the fact that there is a continuity of culture that is able to teach young people their past as to not repeat it.
Quote
I know one thing man and that is that we are like seeds and the tree that generate these seed is the same for everyone.
Unverified tripe, because if it weren't true, we would still be very similar to each other just through the fact that we're human and stem from the same ancestors.
Quote
Don't you worry man.
You too will get there sooner or later.
Usually, that's the line of someone with no case. "God will reveal himself to you!" Boy, haven't I heard that often enough before.
At the end, all you have is unverified tripe and empty rhetoric. Demonstrate your immaterial with some sort of direct measurement of a disembodied consciousness and you'd have an actual
case. So far, all I see is confidence. Well, that and a dollar will get you a Snickers ad the local K-mart.
Quote from: aitm on July 01, 2019, 09:44:19 PM
So's a cricket for all we know.
Which is smarter? Never met at cricket I didn't like.
Here are some crickets for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP6JGlv32nw
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 01, 2019, 04:00:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIdPo-soklY
Yep, that's how I see it.
The 5 fundamental elements that compose the universe (space, air, light-energy, water and matter are just the most primitive and rudimental factor so their consciousness is next to zero.
How can such a limited form of consciousness that by the way will take millions of years to evolve to our human level be able to have much influence on us humans?
If you really want to understand how the whole system works you should look a lot higher than that but I suppose that it will take some more time before you realize who really run the entire system.
Quote from: Arik on July 03, 2019, 08:44:01 AM
The 5 fundamental elements that compose the universe (space, air, light-energy, water and matter are just the most primitive and rudimental factor so their consciousness is next to zero.
How can such a limited form of consciousness that by the way will take millions of years to evolve to our human level be able to have much influence on us humans?
If you really want to understand how the whole system works you should look a lot higher than that but I suppose that it will take some more time before you realize who really run the entire system.
This should be posted everywhere and labeled for what it is: The credo of the stupid, willfully ignorant and blind; in other words, theists everywhere.
Quote from: Arik on July 03, 2019, 08:44:01 AM
The 5 fundamental elements that compose the universe (space, air, light-energy, water and matter are just the most primitive and rudimental factor so their consciousness is next to zero.
Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, and is not an element in any meaningful sense of the word. Air is composed of a mixture of chemcials, and is not an element either. Energy isn't a thing at all, let alone an element. Space isn't it's own thing, being intimately tangled with time, and matter is a catch-all for the material particles that makes up stuff we can hold.
It is statements like this that makes you look like an ignoramus. The twenty six elementary particles (12 fermions, 4 electroweak bosons, 8 gluons, the graviton and the Higgs boson) are the only ones we know so far to be truly indivisible. So far. You also present no reason why such things should have no consciousness except your say so.
Quote
How can such a limited form of consciousness that by the way will take millions of years to evolve to our human level be able to have much influence on us humans?
So far, the only reason you give for this is because of your say so.
Quote
If you really want to understand how the whole system works you should look a lot higher than that but I suppose that it will take some more time before you realize who really run the entire system.
Because obviously we should take the word of someone who is ignorant enough to tell us air and water are elements of the universe (even though they aren't to any experimental rigor). My philosophy professor always told us, "Science is true, even in philosophy class." The moral of the story, if science doesn't jive with your philosophy, then it's your philosophy that is at fault, not the science.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 01, 2019, 11:03:49 PM
Stop.
Knowledge is about things. Unless knowledge is about something external to itself, it ceases to be meaningful and as such is not knowledge. There is no such thing as knowledge that exists in a complete vacuum. Knowledge must refer to something to even be knowledge. Thus, it is a complete and utter absurdity for knowledge to come "from within" because the entire point of it is to refer to things without. If you have an idea that is unverified, it is not knowledge, period. It only becomes knowledge when you link that idea to some externality.
As such, knowledge can ONLY come from without because it is the external connection that makes an idea knowledge.
Einstein's General Relativity would only be a neat idea, and not knowledge, if it could never be linked to and verified by observing the universe that it is clearly about.
I don't need much engineering knowledge to be your superior in that account. You don't give the human body nearly enough credit. The human body is a thing honed through 3.5 billion years of evolution, since it's distant single celled ancestor. It has a lot of tricks up its sleeve. One of its tricks is being able to remodel itself in response to stress.
Stop there Haku.
All your limited knowledge (unfortunately for you) relate to this physical dimension and that is very sad.
Love is not only physical.
In fact the best form of love is mental and spiritual.
The fact that you never experience this form of love make you believe that love is mainly physical.
That is your problem Haku
So because the best form of love is not physical all your point that knowledge is external is just a load of rubbish.
QuoteI very much doubt that your breaking bricks videos are the very first time these martial artists have slammed their fists, feet and heads into something to break it. There was very much failed attempts to do so, resulting in injuries. But when the injuries healed, the body built it a bit tougher since it seemed to be getting unusually stressed.
The pain bit is easy. Pain exists in the head. Your brain has natural chemicals that modulate the feeling of pain, called endorphins. It is not a great stretch to theorize that the gurus who do this are ignoring the pain through biofeedback. This is not "a story," but verified, real science.
Second, callus and scar tissue are not "a story." Again, if you insult a point on your body, it tends to respond by remodeling itself, and one of the characteristics of scar tissue is a relative derth of blood vessels. Your source would not be witnessing a green guru poking themselves for the first time. It would be a seasoned guru who already knows where and how to stab himself to do this trick. Furthermore, blood isn't just going to sit there and wait for the hooks to be pulled out. The clotting process starts immediately. So, if you leave the hooks in for long enough, all the severed blood vessels will be sealed off by the time you extract the hooks, explaining the lack of blood from the few blood vessels left.
As to "closing as soon as the hook is removed?" Unverified story. To my knowledge no medical examination has revealed that these holes actually close without a trace, and given the lack of sources to said medical examinations, you don't either. I don't need to explain what is not evident.
Funny, all you have are story after story and unverified BS.
Which shows just how much of an ignoramous you are. Water is incompressible. Thus, when you smack it down (as it would when your fist contacts a slab), that force is spread out over the entirety of its container instead of just in the direction of force. Skin being springy means that it will give a bit when stressed. But force over displacement is energy, which means that springy flesh will absorb more energy than brittle stone before breaking.
And again, instead of finding out the mechanical details, you simply shit on my explanation. But even if it is bogus, it's still an EXPLANATION, using verified physical principles. The dirty little secret of your immaterial is that it doesn't help you explain why martial artists can do their feats, nor how gurus are able to hook themselves without apparent pain, nor NDEs. You simply think it's an explanation.
More garbage Haku.
New or old make no difference at all.
If you would see these Hindu festival in action you would see a lot of young people who never been to these festival and never insert hooks in their flesh before yet they do not feel any pain and the hole close as soon as the hooks are removed.
Just go and see like I did and then tell me.
QuoteFor all you complain about my bullshit, you spew a lot of your own. This is all unverified bullshit and ad hoc explanation. It also contradicts your notion that Beethoven got gud from experiences from previous lives. Beethoven is brilliant because of experiences in his past lives; but now you have it that they can't remember their past lives. Well, if they can't remember their past lives, then as far as NDEing consciousness is concerned, this is still the only life they get, so there's no compelling reason for them to go to the hereafter.
Life is not only made of good experiences.
Bad experiences are there as well.
In any case good or bad experiences should not be remembered for a good reason but what we achieved in previous lives can not be taken away from us that is why although we do not remember our good and bad experiences we still have the right to keep our baggage of progress or regress.
No wonder that someone born in a positive situation and other born in a bad one.
One born physically healthy and somebody else born weak or die soon after or is killed in terrible circumstances.
Someone else born looking good and other born looking ugly.
It is all about our previous lives.
About our desires and about our good or bad karma.
This is my belief but of course you can believe what you like.
QuoteThere is no operational difference between your above tripe and the materialistic explanation that sometimes the brain is too far gone to recover. And being far gone is a concern in your immaterialistic world as well, given your car analogy.
You have steadfastly refused to define any other. Why should I even think your evolution is a thing if you're so cagey about it?
It make sense that someone born in a positive situation while somebody else must experience the contrary.
Your view is only based on a materialist belief that doesn't make an inch of sense.
QuoteDo you have ANY direct evidence for your consciousness as a thing existing as a separate entity? And yes, there should be because your consciousness manifestly interferes with the real world according to you. You cannot see unless you are able to interact with photons. You cannot hear unless you are able to interact with air vibrations. And your NDE consciousnesses are able to see and hear.
When you are "CAGED" in a physical body there is a limit to what you can or can not do but when your consciousness (YOU) is free from such a constraint as seen in the thousand of NDEs then the music change.
By being caged you are stuck with your body and brain and obviously you rely on them to think and do things.
QuoteSo? Nobody has owned an entire planet, lock stock and barrel.
Unverifiable bullshit. You have not excluded truly obscene amount of material wealth, and furthermore, you have not explained people who are, actually, perfectly comfortable with their life. Your "positive and negative" do not exist except in very restricted contexts unconnected with the satisfaction of human beings.
That's perfectly explainable by the fact that there is a continuity of culture that is able to teach young people their past as to not repeat it.
Unverified tripe, because if it weren't true, we would still be very similar to each other just through the fact that we're human and stem from the same ancestors.
Usually, that's the line of someone with no case. "God will reveal himself to you!" Boy, haven't I heard that often enough before.
A lot of guessing and no substance.
As soon as you have reached up a particular material of physical goal in your life you feel quite satisfied and that is quite natural.
What is not natural however is that that satisfaction does not last very long indeed.
After a while new goals pop up in your mind and in a never end of goal to achieve and you find yourself once again not fully satisfied that is why I try to tell you that because the positive is ALWAYS annulled by the negative fully satisfaction in this physical dimension is a big big illusion.
QuoteAt the end, all you have is unverified tripe and empty rhetoric. Demonstrate your immaterial with some sort of direct measurement of a disembodied consciousness and you'd have an actual case. So far, all I see is confidence. Well, that and a dollar will get you a Snickers ad the local K-mart.
At least my beliefs make sense while yours do not.
If you can come up with a logical explanation why someone born in a positive situation while other can not or where our consciousness come from then I will bow to your superiority.
In the meantime I regard all your beliefs as a load of guessing of the worse kind.
Have a good day anyway.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 03, 2019, 09:21:42 AM
Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, and is not an element in any meaningful sense of the word. Air is composed of a mixture of chemcials, and is not an element either. Energy isn't a thing at all, let alone an element. Space isn't it's own thing, being intimately tangled with time, and matter is a catch-all for the material particles that makes up stuff we can hold.
It is statements like this that makes you look like an ignoramus. The twenty six elementary particles (12 fermions, 4 electroweak bosons, 8 gluons, the graviton and the Higgs boson) are the only ones we know so far to be truly indivisible.
So far. You also present no reason why such things should have no consciousness except your say so.
So far, the only reason you give for this is because of your say so.
Because obviously we should take the word of someone who is ignorant enough to tell us air and water are elements of the universe (even though they aren't to any experimental rigor). My philosophy professor always told us, "Science is true, even in philosophy class." The moral of the story, if science doesn't jive with your philosophy, then it's your philosophy that is at fault, not the science.
Element.
6)..........one of the substances, usually earth, water, air, and fire, formerly regarded as constituting the material universe.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/element
By the way I never said that.............. such things should have no consciousness ..............
I instead said that these ELEMENTS have a primitive and rudimental form of consciousness so consciousness is there anyway.
What is not there is a developed form of consciousness able to have much influence on us humans.
So...
39 pages, and 575 posts, and I still do not have any "gods".
Quote from: Arik on July 03, 2019, 09:50:48 AM
The fact that you never experience this form of love make you believe that love is mainly physical.
That is your problem Haku
So because the best form of love is not physical all your point that knowledge is external is just a load of rubbish.
No. That doesn't fly. You are now equivocating "physical" with "carnal." That's a fallacy. You still only know that someone loves you by their behavior towards you. If you have a partner who is raping you and causing you mental torture, it is quite evident that he doesn't love you. You didn't come by this knowledge from looking within, or any such rubbish; you came by it by observing his behavior towards you and finding it at odds with the proposition that he loves you. Knowledge of his lack of love for you still comes from without.
Fail.
Quote
More garbage Haku.
New or old make no difference at all.
If you would see these Hindu festival in action you would see a lot of young people who never been to these festival and never insert hooks in their flesh before yet they do not feel any pain and the hole close as soon as the hooks are removed.
Just go and see like I did and then tell me.
"Seasoned" doesn't mean "withered old prune," you moron. How would
you know that any of those young people have never had hooks inserted into them before? Did you track them all their life to determine that, like a creepy stalker? In fact, I believe that this above story you're telling is made up out of whole cloth. Show documentation for this, or STFU.
Quote
Life is not only made of good experiences.
Bad experiences are there as well.
No. Stop right there. The notion that an NDEing consciousness would not want to see their family again, even if they have to go through pain to do so, is simply unfathomable, and really doesn't say much for your lot in life.
Quote
In any case good or bad experiences should not be remembered for a good reason but what we achieved in previous lives can not be taken away from us that is why although we do not remember our good and bad experiences we still have the right to keep our baggage of progress or regress.
No wonder that someone born in a positive situation and other born in a bad one.
One born physically healthy and somebody else born weak or die soon after or is killed in terrible circumstances.
Someone else born looking good and other born looking ugly.
It is all about our previous lives.
About our desires and about our good or bad karma.
This is my belief but of course you can believe what you like.
Why
would I believe it? You still have yet to give any foundation for this belief other than, apparently, the alternative is too terrifying to contemplate. Good and bad karma must be a thing, else evil people who die well don't get their comeuppance and people born into a poor situation and health do not deserve anything for their suffering â€"
as if the universe owes you a fucking thing.See, the above story you tell yourself is not one you tell yourself because of some knowledge or evolution on a part of consciousness, but rather the satisfaction of your most primitive need to see that fairness is done in an unfair world. And even then,
it still doesn't work. What use is punishing a consciousness that doesn't remember what it did to deserve it? What's there to learn? How does that consciousness correct itself, without knowing what lead up to making a bad decision the first time around? And what use is teaching the moral lesson only to forget it the next time around? It doesn't make a lick of sense. The Buddhists at least identified that this scenario is just madness.
Furthermore, how do you know it's the GOOD consciousnesses that get the good hands in life? Maybe Beethoven outright stole all the ideas he used to use in his symphonies when he reincarnated. Maybe I should sue.
Quote
It make sense that someone born in a positive situation while somebody else must experience the contrary.
That sounds like randomness, not evolution. There's no experiences carried forward to give any of this positiveness or negativeness any sort of context. Reincarnation doesn't have any use unless you remember what happened the last time so you don't repeat your mistakes. Without experiences, we're not even sure that the right people are getting punished this time around.
For as long as man has existed on this planet, for countless generations, the great majority of us have wollowed around in the mud, living and dying terrible lives. You'd think that if this reincarnation shit had any use, then you would see continual improvement in the lot of people's lives without materialistic intervention. But you don't. The most improvement we see comes through education and easing the material needs of the most destitute.
Quote
Your view is only based on a materialist belief that doesn't make an inch of sense.
I like it how you blame my worldview and not yours. No, dearheart, you're failing to explain your worldview to me, because you don't understand it yourself.
Quote
When you are "CAGED" in a physical body there is a limit to what you can or can not do but when your consciousness (YOU) is free from such a constraint as seen in the thousand of NDEs then the music change.
By being caged you are stuck with your body and brain and obviously you rely on them to think and do things.
That doesn't answer my question. Manifestly, your NDEs (supposedly) see and hear outside their body. That's why they're (supposedly) able to share accounts other than being in darkness and silence. Sight IS photon information. Hearing IS air vibration information. That requires them to interact with photons and air vibrations, which means they would, in fact, have physical presence. There must be interactions with physical matter or consciousness couldn't be caged at all. Period.
So, again,
do you have ANY direct evidence for your consciousness as a thing existing as a separate entity? Otherwise, you are relying on the most unreliable form of evidence known to man to establish your NDEs, which barely works in a courtroom and
never in science.
Quote
A lot of guessing and no substance.
Like you're in any better position. Your position is all guessing and no substance. How do you know that your feelings of bliss condition is even possible for us, given that you have rejected my counterexample? How do you know we aren't playthings to the gods and it is our lot to suffer? How do you know that we aren't just fundamentally broken and we are simply incapable of the kind of bliss you are seeking?
Quote
As soon as you have reached up a particular material of physical goal in your life you feel quite satisfied and that is quite natural.
What is not natural however is that that satisfaction does not last very long indeed.
After a while new goals pop up in your mind and in a never end of goal to achieve and you find yourself once again not fully satisfied that is why I try to tell you that because the positive is ALWAYS annulled by the negative fully satisfaction in this physical dimension is a big big illusion.
Maybe... that satisfaction does not last very long, is in fact natural. Maybe we're just driven. That we can't stay in the same place very long. Maybe those of us who became complacent were weeded out, leaving only the perpetually ambitious, though it may not be the same ambitions as everyone else. The fact that what you claim is unnatural keeps happening may be an indication that it is natural despite your conviction otherwise, the same way that homosexuality is natural in the animal kingdom dispite the religious right's conviction otherwise.
Quote
At least my beliefs make sense while yours do not.
Every nutjob says that, sugarpuff. Even the insane ones.
Quote
If you can come up with a logical explanation why someone born in a positive situation while other can not
Have you not noticed that most people born into a positive situation tend to be the people who are born to parents in a positive situation, regardless of how they got that way? Or that people born in a negative situation tend to be the children of those in a negative situation? If you're born into a slum with disease and drug use, you're not going to have an easy time of it, and if you're born into luxury, you're going to have an easier time at making a success of yourself.
I can't believe I have to explain this to a grown person... but then I remember there are a lot of stupid people in this world.
Quote
or where our consciousness come from then I will bow to your superiority.
If you ask the wrong question, no answer will be the right one. I've told you before that consciousness bears all the signs that it starts, not that it comes from anywhere. You have yet to put together a cogent argument and gather evidence that demonstrates that consciousness is a thing that comes from anywhere and that there was anywhere to come from.
If by "logical explanation" you mean "explanation that emotionally satisfies you," you're not going to get one, for the universe doesn't owe you an explanation that emotionally satisfies you.
Quote
In the meantime I regard all your beliefs as a load of guessing of the worse kind.
Pot, meet kettle.
---
Quote from: Arik on July 03, 2019, 10:16:45 AM
Element.
6)..........one of the substances, usually earth, water, air, and fire, formerly regarded as constituting the material universe.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/element
*claps* Good, you can use a dictionary to look up archaic definitions of words that have fallen out scientific favor, and really only have use in literary works and metaphorical speech! Have a gold star!
Again, you can break every one of these "elements" up into subcomponents, which kind of demonstrates that they are not
elemental.Quote
By the way I never said that.............. such things should have no consciousness ..............
I instead said that these ELEMENTS have a primitive and rudimental form of consciousness so consciousness is there anyway.
I would like to see you demonstrate any of these "elements" demonstrates even that rudimentary consciousness. You know, the way you haven't done with demonstrating that consciousness is a thing in and of itself. Evidence or GTFO.
Quote
What is not there is a developed form of consciousness able to have much influence on us humans.
You have yet to demonstrate any form of concsiousness at all in these "elements," so you're technically right.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 03, 2019, 01:49:24 PM
So...
39 pages, and 575 posts, and I still do not have any "gods".
Have you checked for lint in your belly button? ;-) G-d might be hiding there.
Unbeliever - Don't diss crickets. They are good luck in China. Don't bring on the Chinese curse of "may you live in interesting times".
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 03, 2019, 01:49:24 PM
So...
39 pages, and 575 posts, and I still do not have any "gods".
I give you a tip how to find the real God SM.
Just go in front of a mirror.
What you see is God but the image is very much out of focus.
In fact is terribly out of focus but not all is lost brother.
In order to see God in full focus you got to perfect yourself so the image will be more and more in focus as the progress within goes on.
OK?
People who dismiss humanity, can't find G-d in a mirror. Sometimes they find it in the beauty of nature. Like when a feral dog eats a baby rabbit. I do find G-d in the mirror, but I can't say like him much ;-) But then I am too hard on humans.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 03, 2019, 07:53:22 PM
No. That doesn't fly. You are now equivocating "physical" with "carnal." That's a fallacy. You still only know that someone loves you by their behavior towards you. If you have a partner who is raping you and causing you mental torture, it is quite evident that he doesn't love you. You didn't come by this knowledge from looking within, or any such rubbish; you came by it by observing his behavior towards you and finding it at odds with the proposition that he loves you. Knowledge of his lack of love for you still comes from without.
Physical love got to be repeated time and time again because the positive and the negative always go hand in hand so is never all roses and permanent bliss.
Spiritual love on the other hand is void of the negative side that is why is not subject to the high and the low like physical love.
QuoteFail.
"Seasoned" doesn't mean "withered old prune," you moron. How would you know that any of those young people have never had hooks inserted into them before? Did you track them all their life to determine that, like a creepy stalker? In fact, I believe that this above story you're telling is made up out of whole cloth. Show documentation for this, or STFU.
Been there done that Haku.
You on the contrary live in your little cocoon of fantasy so.........been nowhere done nothing.
QuoteNo. Stop right there. The notion that an NDEing consciousness would not want to see their family again, even if they have to go through pain to do so, is simply unfathomable, and really doesn't say much for your lot in life.
Your problem is that you are still very much attached and fond of the little cocoon of materiality and physicality so your life is tied to it.
NDEs clearly show that in life nothing is stuck to anything else for long time.
As soon as the high tide come the sand is scattered all over the place so there can not be any attachment of whatsoever because we are like grain of sand in this vast universe.
From this any person with a tiny bit of brain would understand that the only attachment should only be directed to the master mind that created this universe.
That doesn't mean that we should disregard our family and the society as a whole as far as we live in this physical dimension.
QuoteWhy would I believe it? You still have yet to give any foundation for this belief other than, apparently, the alternative is too terrifying to contemplate. Good and bad karma must be a thing, else evil people who die well don't get their comeuppance and people born into a poor situation and health do not deserve anything for their suffering â€" as if the universe owes you a fucking thing.
Karma is justice not revenge and justice is the only way to restore the lost balance.
If you got a better way to sort out problems then tell us so we can ask God to change the karma system in favor of your smart system
QuoteSee, the above story you tell yourself is not one you tell yourself because of some knowledge or evolution on a part of consciousness, but rather the satisfaction of your most primitive need to see that fairness is done in an unfair world. And even then, it still doesn't work. What use is punishing a consciousness that doesn't remember what it did to deserve it? What's there to learn? How does that consciousness correct itself, without knowing what lead up to making a bad decision the first time around? And what use is teaching the moral lesson only to forget it the next time around? It doesn't make a lick of sense.
Good question Haku
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/happy-businessmen-pat-on-shoulder-260nw-1020928852.jpg)
but the answer is not that complicated at all.
As I already said in previous post the consequences of been able to see our previous lives would be detrimental.
Just imaging if in the previous life you were hanged for killing some people.
If that memory would carry on in this life you could not be at peace with yourself and your life would be a misery.
The same would happen to someone who were very good in previous lives.
That thought would make you think that you done enough so now in this life you don't have to do much at all.
QuoteThe Buddhists at least identified that this scenario is just madness.
Buddha was a good yogi but he had to deal with that particular people that lived in his age and his original teaching have very little to do with what Buddhists follow these days.
QuoteFurthermore, how do you know it's the GOOD consciousnesses that get the good hands in life? Maybe Beethoven outright stole all the ideas he used to use in his symphonies when he reincarnated. Maybe I should sue.
That sounds like randomness, not evolution. There's no experiences carried forward to give any of this positiveness or negativeness any sort of context. Reincarnation doesn't have any use unless you remember what happened the last time so you don't repeat your mistakes. Without experiences, we're not even sure that the right people are getting punished this time around.
Too much guessing Haku.
A smart person doesn't really need to know why he-she got problems.
He-She will do what is necessary to sort out the problem and if the problems are to big to be sorted out then he-she should ask for help to the very entity that run the universal dimension.
Nothing is ever lost because physical death is not the death of you.
QuoteFor as long as man has existed on this planet, for countless generations, the great majority of us have wollowed around in the mud, living and dying terrible lives. You'd think that if this reincarnation shit had any use, then you would see continual improvement in the lot of people's lives without materialistic intervention. But you don't. The most improvement we see comes through education and easing the material needs of the most destitute.
This is a really stupid question Haku.
(https://www.doctorramey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/StupidQuestions.2.jpg)
If education would be a solution then we shouldn't have any problem in those places where education is a reality.
Unfortunately education alone is not the solution.
Look in your country where education is possible.
You got more warmongers, gun lovers,materialism and hatred than in places where there is no education.
FAIL AGAIN HAKU.
QuoteI like it how you blame my worldview and not yours. No, dearheart, you're failing to explain your worldview to me, because you don't understand it yourself.
That doesn't answer my question. Manifestly, your NDEs (supposedly) see and hear outside their body. That's why they're (supposedly) able to share accounts other than being in darkness and silence. Sight IS photon information. Hearing IS air vibration information. That requires them to interact with photons and air vibrations, which means they would, in fact, have physical presence. There must be interactions with physical matter or consciousness couldn't be caged at all. Period.
You are thick Haku, do you?
How on hell can a dead brain and body be able to create an experience like an NDE?
QuoteSo, again, do you have ANY direct evidence for your consciousness as a thing existing as a separate entity? Otherwise, you are relying on the most unreliable form of evidence known to man to establish your NDEs, which barely works in a courtroom and never in science.
In a court room and in science obviously you need physical evidence so what?
Does that means that what is not physical is a load of rubbish just because physical science is unable to understand it?
Get real Haku.
QuoteLike you're in any better position. Your position is all guessing and no substance. How do you know that your feelings of bliss condition is even possible for us, given that you have rejected my counterexample? How do you know we aren't playthings to the gods and it is our lot to suffer? How do you know that we aren't just fundamentally broken and we are simply incapable of the kind of bliss you are seeking?
To know something you also got to be interested in that thing.
As far as your interest in this thing is zero than is quite obvious that for the time been your chances to understand are very very slim.
QuoteMaybe... that satisfaction does not last very long, is in fact natural. Maybe we're just driven. That we can't stay in the same place very long. Maybe those of us who became complacent were weeded out, leaving only the perpetually ambitious, though it may not be the same ambitions as everyone else. The fact that what you claim is unnatural keeps happening may be an indication that it is natural despite your conviction otherwise, the same way that homosexuality is natural in the animal kingdom dispite the religious right's conviction otherwise.
Every nutjob says that, sugarpuff. Even the insane ones.
Have you not noticed that most people born into a positive situation tend to be the people who are born to parents in a positive situation, regardless of how they got that way? Or that people born in a negative situation tend to be the children of those in a negative situation? If you're born into a slum with disease and drug use, you're not going to have an easy time of it, and if you're born into luxury, you're going to have an easier time at making a success of yourself.
Wherever you born is dictated by your good or bad karma.
You can not chose so if you born in the slum or in the golden cot that is due to your bad or good karma that you created in previous lives.
QuoteI can't believe I have to explain this to a grown person... but then I remember there are a lot of stupid people in this world.
If you ask the wrong question, no answer will be the right one. I've told you before that consciousness bears all the signs that it starts, not that it comes from anywhere. You have yet to put together a cogent argument and gather evidence that demonstrates that consciousness is a thing that comes from anywhere and that there was anywhere to come from.
NDEs are demonstrations good enough.
Everything and everyone are real and fully verifiable.
Hospitals in most cases keep the record of that person who was declared brain dead and lived to recount his-her experience.
QuoteIf by "logical explanation" you mean "explanation that emotionally satisfies you," you're not going to get one, for the universe doesn't owe you an explanation that emotionally satisfies you.
Pot, meet kettle.
Something is logical when it make sense and follow a system that works which is something that so far you haven't brought.
Quote*claps* Good, you can use a dictionary to look up archaic definitions of words that have fallen out scientific favor, and really only have use in literary works and metaphorical speech! Have a gold star!
Again, you can break every one of these "elements" up into subcomponents, which kind of demonstrates that they are not elemental.
When I was younger I did study some Latin so I do know where many of the English words originate from.
In this context you have very little to teach anyone.
Fail again Haku.
QuoteI would like to see you demonstrate any of these "elements" demonstrates even that rudimentary consciousness. You know, the way you haven't done with demonstrating that consciousness is a thing in and of itself. Evidence or GTFO.
You have yet to demonstrate any form of concsiousness at all in these "elements," so you're technically right.
Life without consciousness is not possible because everything is made of energy and energy and consciousness are the two sides of the same sheet.
That doesn't mean that a very rudimentary form of consciousness must have the same awareness as we humans have.
Consciousness goes in degree and evolution is the drive that allow consciousness to advance.
Quote from: Arik on July 04, 2019, 08:10:20 AM
I give you a tip how to find the real God SM.
Just go in front of a mirror.
What you see is God but the image is very much out of focus.
In fact is terribly out of focus but not all is lost brother.
In order to see God in full focus you got to perfect yourself so the image will be more and more in focus as the progress within goes on.
OK?
So, I looked in the mirror.
What I saw is:
Kingdom:Animalia
Phylum:Chordata
Class:Mammalia
Order:Primates
Suborder:Haplorhini
Infraorder:Simiiformes
Family:Hominidae
Subfamily:Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Just like the other 7.5 billion on planet earth. Maybe a bit higher intelligence than the average, with a heck of a lot of damn luck to be born in one of the most advanced societies in the world (albeit, with way too many theists trying their hardest to set us back to the Dark Ages). All evidence points to my existence, along with those other 7.5 billion, being of completely natural origin.
Nope, no evidence of being a god (although my girlfriend has yelled "god" from time to time in bed).
I find it interesting that the single most important indicator of one's religious beliefs is geography. Look at a map that uses colors for the concentrations of the major religions of the world. The map is not a brown because the various religions are found all over the place; no, it is multicolored because the various religions are found in their parts of the world. Our beliefs are based more on the luck of the draw where you were born--not because one religion is better than another.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 08, 2019, 11:38:56 AM
So, I looked in the mirror.
What I saw is:
Kingdom:Animalia
Phylum:Chordata
Class:Mammalia
Order:Primates
Suborder:Haplorhini
Infraorder:Simiiformes
Family:Hominidae
Subfamily:Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Just like the other 7.5 billion on planet earth. Maybe a bit higher intelligence than the average, with a heck of a lot of damn luck to be born in one of the most advanced societies in the world (albeit, with way too many theists trying their hardest to set us back to the Dark Ages). All evidence points to my existence, along with those other 7.5 billion, being of completely natural origin.
Nope, no evidence of being a god (although my girlfriend has yelled "god" from time to time in bed).
Homo? TMI ;-0
Definitely not Sapiens though. Stupidus.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 08, 2019, 12:00:41 PM
I find it interesting that the single most important indicator of one's religious beliefs is geography. Look at a map that uses colors for the concentrations of the major religions of the world. The map is not a brown because the various religions are found all over the place; no, it is multicolored because the various religions are found in their parts of the world. Our beliefs are based more on the luck of the draw where you were born--not because one religion is better than another.
More than that. Geography determines language/culture. But not personality type. In so far as a person is free to develop, they will deviate from their parents and community. A secondary effect, but there.
Actually, I think the human species is called homo sapiens sapiens - wise wise man. To distinguish us from other subspecies, like homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
Maybe not so wise as all that, though.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 08, 2019, 03:15:04 PM
Actually, I think the human species is called homo sapiens sapiens - wise wise man. To distinguish us from other subspecies, like homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
Maybe not so wise as all that, though.
Disputed position of Neanderthal vs Us. But in one version, you are right. Definitely not doubly wise.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 08, 2019, 11:38:56 AM
So, I looked in the mirror.
What I saw is:
Kingdom:Animalia
Phylum:Chordata
Class:Mammalia
Order:Primates
Suborder:Haplorhini
Infraorder:Simiiformes
Family:Hominidae
Subfamily:Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Just like the other 7.5 billion on planet earth. Maybe a bit higher intelligence than the average, with a heck of a lot of damn luck to be born in one of the most advanced societies in the world (albeit, with way too many theists trying their hardest to set us back to the Dark Ages). All evidence points to my existence, along with those other 7.5 billion, being of completely natural origin.
Nope, no evidence of being a god (although my girlfriend has yelled "god" from time to time in bed).
Congratulation SM.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/happy-men-pat-on-shoulder-260nw-1020928843.jpg)
You are almost on the right track my friend.
Please do not give up.
Let the evolution process to go ahead without any stoppage and you will get there.
Once you dump in the garbage the idea that man is the peak of evolution you will surely understand that God is the peak and obviously you will be able to see God when you stand in front of the mirror so these Animalia, Chordata and all the rest will only belong to your past where evolution was at the beginning.
OK?
Quote from: Baruch on July 08, 2019, 03:14:36 PM
More than that. Geography determines language/culture. But not personality type. In so far as a person is free to develop, they will deviate from their parents and community. A secondary effect, but there.
Right.
As you say.......... as a person is free to develop...........
Unfortunately if you born in a close society where you can not disagree very much at all you may have your head chopped up.
Quote from: Arik on July 09, 2019, 05:09:21 AM
Right.
As you say.......... as a person is free to develop...........
Unfortunately if you born in a close society where you can not disagree very much at all you may have your head chopped up.
But with secular political utopia, that will all be solved by Monday ...
Quote from: Baruch on July 08, 2019, 03:27:43 PM
Disputed position of Neanderthal vs Us. But in one version, you are right. Definitely not doubly wise.
I thought the reigning hypothesis was that we were a chimera of neanderthals and homo sapiens, called homo sapiens sapiens.
Quote from: Arik on July 09, 2019, 04:56:57 AM
Congratulation SM.
Let the evolution process to go ahead without any stoppage and you will get there.
The evolutionary process occurs in populations, not on individuals. I, just like you and every other homo sapien sapien on the planet, are done with the evolutionary process. Our offspring, and their offspring, and so on, are not done, AS A SPECIES, evolving.
Unless you have some other, nonstandard definition of the evolutionary process. If so, please define it.
Quote
Once you dump in the garbage the idea that man is the peak of evolution you will surely understand that God is the peak and obviously you will be able to see God when you stand in front of the mirror so these Animalia, Chordata and all the rest will only belong to your past where evolution was at the beginning.
OK?
I NEVER stated that man is the peak of the evolutionary process. I would never say that, because it is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process.
There is no "peak" of the evolutionary process. Evolution is only concerned with survival and reproductive success. Organisms that continue having reproductive and survival success, continue to survive as a species. There is no end goal, with some sort of ultimate being as the result. It is quite possible, that homo sapiens sapiens, is a dead end species, and we may go extinct in the near future ("near" when compared to the geological timeline of billions of years). Just like 99% of all species before us.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 09, 2019, 02:59:16 PM
The evolutionary process occurs in populations, not on individuals. I, just like you and every other homo sapien sapien on the planet, are done with the evolutionary process. Our offspring, and their offspring, and so on, are not done, AS A SPECIES, evolving.
Oh, my God SM.......
What a disaster..........
You say...........not on individuals............
Who told you that?
Certainly not Darwin which was mainly interested in studying animals and by the way animals unlike humans are driven by mother nature instinct not by free will like us.
Can't you get the notion that Darwin never made any serious study about human consciousness?
He studied fossils, craniums and other bodies parts but about consciousness which is the driving force of evolution in man next to nothing so how on earth can you say that evolution does not occurs in individual?
In 1859 Darwin said..........“light will be thrown on the origin of man and his historyâ€.......
That clearly show that Darwin knew next to nothing about how evolution works on humans during his life.
QuoteUnless you have some other, nonstandard definition of the evolutionary process. If so, please define it.
Evolution is the product of mother nature in animals and plants and a product of different type of works in humans thanks to their free will.
There is a huge difference of how it works among the two species which is something that neither you nor Darwin never ponder about so this evolution process need to be distinguished before you ask for the definition of the evolutionary process.
Just read above where I do distinguish among the two.
QuoteI NEVER stated that man is the peak of the evolutionary process. I would never say that, because it is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process.
What suppose to be the difference between not saying and instead say that when we die is all over?
Isn't clear enough that according to Atheists we get nowhere once we die so it isn't quite the same as to say that our evolution end up with our humanity?
QuoteThere is no "peak" of the evolutionary process. Evolution is only concerned with survival and reproductive success. Organisms that continue having reproductive and survival success, continue to survive as a species. There is no end goal, with some sort of ultimate being as the result. It is quite possible, that homo sapiens sapiens, is a dead end species, and we may go extinct in the near future ("near" when compared to the geological timeline of billions of years). Just like 99% of all species before us.
Guessing after guessing after guessing.
Who told you that............evolution is only concerned with survival and reproductive success..................
And who told you that the death of the body equal to no survival?
Have you ever seen a dead consciousness?
Obviously not so if you never seen one how can you claim that creatures do not survive to go on towards a peak?
In the end, it's all just shallowness. In the end, it's just assertions after assertions. In the end, it's all simplistic thinking.
(I've shuffled around parts of your response.)
Arik, you think that NDEs form at the time that the person remembers them being about â€" that if the person has a memory of a NDE with him in cardiac arrest, then the memory has to be formed at that time. Simplistic thinking, and contradicted by evidence from psychology. The entire satanic panic scare, with "recovered memories", is known to have come about from false memories about childhood abuse and rituals being planted during therapy sessions in adulthood. Memories don't come with timestamps. If counterfeit memories of one's childhood can have their origins in events
decades later, then why is it so difficult to believe that NDEs ostensibly about a time when their brain couldn't be working can too have their actual origin in a time mere hours later when full blood flow is restored and the brain begins sorting itself out? False memories about a time prior to their actual formation is a
known phenomenon. We
know that it happens. We've even induced false memories in experiments. I don't need any woo to explain NDEs; this explains everything we can actually observe about NDEs, including that they never seem to see the out-of-sight cards we hid.
Human memory is
terrible. It shows itself to be such every time we have tested it under controlled conditions. It is bizarre to think that it will suddenly become reliable when we enter regimes when we cannot verify it.
Quote
Everything and everyone are real and fully verifiable.
No they aren't. NDEs are only known after the fact, after which all the details of the episode are only remembered and all the psychology of faulty memory attaches. If the details of an NDE cannot be verified using a reliable source (like a CCTV recording), then the fact that they remember some detail is not actually indicative of anything.
Quote
Hospitals in most cases keep the record of that person who was declared brain dead and lived to recount his-her experience.
This is a lie, because the actual diagnosis of "brain death" is confirmed later, sometimes after days of testing and observation. It's not simply a single flatline on an EEG. That's simplistic thinking. You have to show an extended period of no electrical activity in the brain to be declared brain dead, sometimes confirmed with a wide battery of different tests, and we have
no instance of someone coming back from such a deep abyss.
Simplistic thinking also plagues your thinking about karatekas and hooked gurus. The defects in the former can be summed up with the simple observation that you can break someone's nose without breaking your own fist, when of course they're made of much the same stuff. Mechanics is more complicated than "stone beats fist." As for the hooked gurus, the body is very good at keeping blood where it belongs. It's also very good at healing superficial injuries. These gurus make very specific injuries to themselves; you will not see a single one stick a hook through their abdominal wall and rip through their rectus adominia (the "6-pack") to demonstrate their craft, and there's probably a good reason for that. Biofeedback doesn't take that long to learn, and given that biofeedback is being explored and (at this point) may be clinically used to treat chronic pain, the notion that it won't be able to blot out the pain of a couple of hooks in your skin is not credible.
Quote
Your problem is...
No. YOUR problem is that you assert a lot but don't do nearly enough to justify it. I am telling you a lot about what it would take to actually convince me of what you say, but instead of going out and getting the kind of evidence that I require to be convinced, you instead bull right ahead and present the same old bad evidence you've done since the start of this thread. You can pile up as much bad evidence as you want in front of me, but it won't stop being bad evidence because of its volume.
I told you exactly what I needed to consider those hooked gurus to having extraordinary powers, which was a medical examination to verify that what you claim about them are
actually medically impossible, but you never did it. And no, I'm not going to consider it a serious proposition until you present me evidence that indicates that there is something TO be serious about.
I don't need anything more than the vaguarities of human memory to explain NDEs, and as such, NDEs do not "clearly" show that there's a master mind that should be our only attachment. And nothing I appeal to is an ad hoc explanation either: we've induced all the needed components in experiments. We've implanted false details into memories of an incident experienced by a large group of people, and changed each and every one of those accounts to include those false details. We have implanted false childhood memories into adults. Certainty and clarity of a memory is not correlated to their accuracy. And so on, and because NDEs are explainable by material means, Occam's razor demands that I cut out the unevidenced elements including woo.
The rest are merely "just so" stories. Like the following:
Quote
As I already said in previous post the consequences of been able to see our previous lives would be detrimental.
Just imaging if in the previous life you were hanged for killing some people.
If that memory would carry on in this life you could not be at peace with yourself and your life would be a misery.
The same would happen to someone who were very good in previous lives.
That thought would make you think that you done enough so now in this life you don't have to do much at all.
This is a simplistic, "just so" answer. Why would your life be misery just because in a past life you killed another? It didn't seem to bother you last time around. Or if it did, it's something you can get past, just like almost every soldier fighting in every war ever. The human mind is nothing if not adaptable. Some trauma might need a reset (PTSD), but being able to remember your past lives and correlate them to your fortune in successive lives seems to me a useful thing.
You're presenting me a telos to forgetting, but the telos doesn't make sense.
Or what about this?
Quote
A smart person doesn't really need to know why he-she got problems.
He-She will do what is necessary to sort out the problem and if the problems are to big to be sorted out then he-she should ask for help to the very entity that run the universal dimension.
How can you keep from acquiring bad karma if you don't know what causes bad karma? How can you acquire good karma if you don't know what causes good karma? The fact that we don't choose correctly the first time, every time, is strong indication that such things would have to be learned. And if such things existed, I would be very surprised if good and bad karma always line up with what we consider good and bad deeds. Until you can point a karma meter at someone and observe the rise of good karma with a good deed, "getting good karma" means nothing more than doing good deeds.
Quote
Wherever you born is dictated by your good or bad karma.
You can not chose so if you born in the slum or in the golden cot that is due to your bad or good karma that you created in previous lives.
Something which you can't observe/measure. You still can't predict who gets the good fortune and who gets the shaft. Until you can point a karma meter at me and measure my good and bad karma, you are using nonsense to justify nonsense. It's a "just so" story.
Here's another "just so" story, that I'm closed minded:
Quote
In a court room and in science obviously you need physical evidence so what?
Does that means that what is not physical is a load of rubbish just because physical science is unable to understand it?
You suppose that but for the presence of an immaterial consciousness, the brain would be silent and dead, and it is under the direction of a consciousness that a living body is guided towards action. That
by definition is a physical effect. You've already given up the fight that what you are talking about is a physical effect, and if a phenomenon has some physical effects, it likely has others.
Quote
To know something you also got to be interested in that thing.
As far as your interest in this thing is zero than is quite obvious that for the time been your chances to understand are very very slim.
You have given no evidence that there is anything to be interested in. In fact, you've given no indication that you understand any of what you speak of.
You seem to think that I don't accept your "just so" stories because I'm somehow prejudiced against them because they're woo. Not so. I reject them because it's obvious that you haven't thought about them deeply enough. Like your "consciousness evolution" malarkey. I reject it not because it's not biological evolution, but rather you've given me NOTHING. You've given no mechanism of how it works to improve consciousness, why it selects out this avenue of improvement and not another, or what the mechanism is acting on in consciousness to improve it. I can use my understanding of biological evolution to look at a biological scenario and say, "Oh, yeah. It would do that." I can't do similarly with your "consciousness evolution." Instead, I just get vague assurances that it leads to an ill-defined improvement in consciousness â€" a "just so" story.
Quote
If education would be a solution then we shouldn't have any problem in those places where education is a reality.
Nirvana fallacy.
Quote
Look in your country where education is possible.
You got more warmongers, gun lovers,materialism and hatred than in places where there is no education.
FAIL AGAIN HAKU.
Wrong. We see their equivalents everywhere. It's bizarre to expect gun lovers in cultures without guns, but every human tribe has created weapons. Chieftains throughout history have used said weapons to increase their personal wealth. Career soldiers have existed in every large society, and hatred has been expressed by every culture. As to having more of these than in the past, you made that up.
Quote
When I was younger I did study some Latin so I do know where many of the English words originate from.
In this context you have very little to teach anyone.
Fail again Haku.
I'm not here to teach you. You have shown remarkable ability to employ that protective sloped forehead of yours. What I've shown is that you don't have anything to teach anyone. You didn't demonstrate what you wished to, that any of what you proposed as elemental was actually an elemental part of the universe, rather than emergent from other things. Hence, this is actually your failure.
Quote
Life without consciousness is not possible because everything is made of energy and energy and consciousness are the two sides of the same sheet.
Because you say so.
Quote
That doesn't mean that a very rudimentary form of consciousness must have the same awareness as we humans have.
You have not demonstrated any rudimentary consciousness at all. Demonstrate they do, and
then you get to say that they have rudimentary consciousness not the same as humans.
So, do you have anything at all, other than your bad evidence of NDEs, karatekas, or hooked gurus to present, or your "just so" stories without any grounding in anything we can measure?
Quote from: Arik on July 03, 2019, 10:16:45 AM
Element.
6)..........one of the substances, usually earth, water, air, and fire, formerly regarded as constituting the material universe.
Did you get your science education from Avatar the Last Airbender?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 11, 2019, 03:12:23 PM
In the end, it's all just shallowness. In the end, it's just assertions after assertions. In the end, it's all simplistic thinking.
Yep.
Arik is a poster child for muddled thinking.
QuoteArik, you think that NDEs form at the time that the person remembers them being about â€" that if the person has a memory of a NDE with him in cardiac arrest, then the memory has to be formed at that time. Simplistic thinking, and contradicted by evidence from psychology.
Indeed.
Human memory is not like replaying videos in their entirety. We build our memories on the fly, while retelling old stories.
What almost assuredly happens after an NDE, is that the mind is so confused and disoriented by the crises it just went through, and the missing time, it creates a memory
after the fact.
You'll never convince Arik of that. He's made up his mind (or someone made it up for him) and he will never admit he might not be right (or that his mentor may not be right).
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 11, 2019, 06:34:24 PM
You'll never convince Arik of that. He's made up his mind (or someone made it up for him) and he will never admit he might not be right (or that his mentor may not be right).
Which is why reasoning with a theist, especially one as thick headed as Arik, will never work.
Yeah, total waste of time and energy. I still wonder why they come here to try to convince us that their world view makes more sense than does ours'. If thay had any actual arguments instead of just argument by assertion it might be more interesting, at least.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 11, 2019, 07:04:46 PM
Yeah, total waste of time and energy. I still wonder why they come here to try to convince us that their world view makes more sense than does ours'. If thay had any actual arguments instead of just argument by assertion it might be more interesting, at least.
I wonder that as well.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 11, 2019, 06:50:34 PM
Which is why reasoning with a theist, especially one as thick headed as Arik, will never work.
I am a tough act to follow, but Arik is trying ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on July 11, 2019, 09:20:34 PM
I am a tough act to follow, but Arik is trying ;-)
Yeah, he is VERY trying. Basically because he is so stupid and he revels in his stupidity and thinks it is intelligence.
You, on the other hand, are familiar with facts and are not afraid of study. But you still believe in a fiction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 11, 2019, 09:25:01 PM
Yeah, he is VERY trying. Basically because he is so stupid and he revels in his stupidity and thinks it is intelligence.
You, on the other hand, are familiar with facts and are not afraid of study. But you still believe in a fiction.
You still think that Hillary won the election ;-) CIA/FBI say otherwise.
I wouldn't expect folks here to give credence to metaphysics. Well, physics is less fictional than metaphysics. But also less interesting.
Quote from: Baruch on July 11, 2019, 10:12:11 PM
You still think that Hillary won the election ;-) CIA/FBI say otherwise.
I wouldn't expect folks here to give credence to metaphysics. Well, physics is less fictional than metaphysics. But also less interesting.
I still think she got the most votes. The Electoral College gave it to trump. And I find actual, real physics to much more interesting than metaphysics.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 11, 2019, 11:08:58 PM
I still think she got the most votes. The Electoral College gave it to trump. And I find actual, real physics to much more interesting than metaphysics.
Typical materialist. Keep it up chucklehead (sincerely). No, if the CIA/FBI says you aren't the President, then you aren't. Rank and file CIA/FBI said Trump won, whereas their leadership said Hillary won. The leadership lost that argument around October 2016 as I recall (near revolt in NYC FBI office over Weiner laptop contents). Prove me wrong.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 11, 2019, 07:04:46 PM
Yeah, total waste of time and energy. I still wonder why they come here to try to convince us that their world view makes more sense than does ours'. If thay had any actual arguments instead of just argument by assertion it might be more interesting, at least.
1) I go in the atheists forums not because I try to convince people but rather because I do like the challenge.
If I would go in a yoga forum I wouldn't find any challenge because everybody would agree with me beside I do not try to teach religions.
2) As far as the assertion you should remember that for every assertion that I do make Atheists make 10 or more assertions.
Have you already forgot my 10 points with the Atheists assertions which of course are totally void of any evidence?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 11, 2019, 03:12:23 PM
In the end, it's all just shallowness. In the end, it's just assertions after assertions. In the end, it's all simplistic thinking.
(I've shuffled around parts of your response.)
Arik, you think that NDEs form at the time that the person remembers them being about â€" that if the person has a memory of a NDE with him in cardiac arrest, then the memory has to be formed at that time. Simplistic thinking, and contradicted by evidence from psychology. The entire satanic panic scare, with "recovered memories", is known to have come about from false memories about childhood abuse and rituals being planted during therapy sessions in adulthood. Memories don't come with timestamps. If counterfeit memories of one's childhood can have their origins in events decades later, then why is it so difficult to believe that NDEs ostensibly about a time when their brain couldn't be working can too have their actual origin in a time mere hours later when full blood flow is restored and the brain begins sorting itself out? False memories about a time prior to their actual formation is a known phenomenon. We know that it happens. We've even induced false memories in experiments. I don't need any woo to explain NDEs; this explains everything we can actually observe about NDEs, including that they never seem to see the out-of-sight cards we hid.
Human memory is terrible. It shows itself to be such every time we have tested it under controlled conditions. It is bizarre to think that it will suddenly become reliable when we enter regimes when we cannot verify it.
No they aren't. NDEs are only known after the fact, after which all the details of the episode are only remembered and all the psychology of faulty memory attaches. If the details of an NDE cannot be verified using a reliable source (like a CCTV recording), then the fact that they remember some detail is not actually indicative of anything.
This is a lie, because the actual diagnosis of "brain death" is confirmed later, sometimes after days of testing and observation. It's not simply a single flatline on an EEG. That's simplistic thinking. You have to show an extended period of no electrical activity in the brain to be declared brain dead, sometimes confirmed with a wide battery of different tests, and we have no instance of someone coming back from such a deep abyss.
How strange Haku that all these thousand of people experience God rather than father Christmas.
And what about doctors that are so ignorants that do not know anything about real death.
All those years studying medicine wasted.
They should have listen to you instead and your psychology that suppose to be the real McCoy. :shocked:
QuoteSimplistic thinking also plagues your thinking about karatekas and hooked gurus. The defects in the former can be summed up with the simple observation that you can break someone's nose without breaking your own fist, when of course they're made of much the same stuff. Mechanics is more complicated than "stone beats fist." As for the hooked gurus, the body is very good at keeping blood where it belongs. It's also very good at healing superficial injuries. These gurus make very specific injuries to themselves; you will not see a single one stick a hook through their abdominal wall and rip through their rectus adominia (the "6-pack") to demonstrate their craft, and there's probably a good reason for that. Biofeedback doesn't take that long to learn, and given that biofeedback is being explored and (at this point) may be clinically used to treat chronic pain, the notion that it won't be able to blot out the pain of a couple of hooks in your skin is not credible.
No. YOUR problem is that you assert a lot but don't do nearly enough to justify it. I am telling you a lot about what it would take to actually convince me of what you say, but instead of going out and getting the kind of evidence that I require to be convinced, you instead bull right ahead and present the same old bad evidence you've done since the start of this thread. You can pile up as much bad evidence as you want in front of me, but it won't stop being bad evidence because of its volume.
I told you exactly what I needed to consider those hooked gurus to having extraordinary powers, which was a medical examination to verify that what you claim about them are actually medically impossible, but you never did it. And no, I'm not going to consider it a serious proposition until you present me evidence that indicates that there is something TO be serious about.
Those gurus and those karatekas must be there to make money out of breaking slab of concrete with their head and inserting hooks in their flesh isn't it?
Gee, I never thought about that Haku.
QuoteI don't need anything more than the vaguarities of human memory to explain NDEs, and as such, NDEs do not "clearly" show that there's a master mind that should be our only attachment. And nothing I appeal to is an ad hoc explanation either: we've induced all the needed components in experiments. We've implanted false details into memories of an incident experienced by a large group of people, and changed each and every one of those accounts to include those false details. We have implanted false childhood memories into adults. Certainty and clarity of a memory is not correlated to their accuracy. And so on, and because NDEs are explainable by material means, Occam's razor demands that I cut out the unevidenced elements including woo.
Explainable by material means?
Where, when, how.............
So why God rather than father Christmas is involved?
QuoteThe rest are merely "just so" stories. Like the following:This is a simplistic, "just so" answer. Why would your life be misery just because in a past life you killed another? It didn't seem to bother you last time around. Or if it did, it's something you can get past, just like almost every soldier fighting in every war ever. The human mind is nothing if not adaptable. Some trauma might need a reset (PTSD), but being able to remember your past lives and correlate them to your fortune in successive lives seems to me a useful thing.
You're presenting me a telos to forgetting, but the telos doesn't make sense.
1) Oh, I see......
So according to you killing an enemy during a war is the same as to kill someone for hatred in a non war situation?
I can't believe how asinine you are.
2) The human mind is nothing if not adaptable?
Oh, sure that means that all mental institution are full of sane people isn't it Haku?
QuoteOr what about this?How can you keep from acquiring bad karma if you don't know what causes bad karma? How can you acquire good karma if you don't know what causes good karma? The fact that we don't choose correctly the first time, every time, is strong indication that such things would have to be learned. And if such things existed, I would be very surprised if good and bad karma always line up with what we consider good and bad deeds. Until you can point a karma meter at someone and observe the rise of good karma with a good deed, "getting good karma" means nothing more than doing good deeds.
Something which you can't observe/measure. You still can't predict who gets the good fortune and who gets the shaft. Until you can point a karma meter at me and measure my good and bad karma, you are using nonsense to justify nonsense. It's a "just so" story.
In the beginning when you (anyone) kill animals or even people you feel quite bad and remorse within but after sometime it come natural and the bad feeling is gone.
Humans get used to good or bad that however doesn't means that karma doesn't work on you just because to you doing certain things become normal.
Karma doesn't work on the physical level so there could not exist a physical meter to show you anything.
I personally wouldn't take any risk in gambling about actions that may give rise to the level of karma.
You of course are free to take risks that is your life and your choice.
QuoteHere's another "just so" story, that I'm closed minded:You suppose that but for the presence of an immaterial consciousness, the brain would be silent and dead, and it is under the direction of a consciousness that a living body is guided towards action. That by definition is a physical effect. You've already given up the fight that what you are talking about is a physical effect, and if a phenomenon has some physical effects, it likely has others.
You have given no evidence that there is anything to be interested in. In fact, you've given no indication that you understand any of what you speak of.
Are you that fool to believe that the vehicle is able to tell the driver what to do?
QuoteYou seem to think that I don't accept your "just so" stories because I'm somehow prejudiced against them because they're woo. Not so. I reject them because it's obvious that you haven't thought about them deeply enough. Like your "consciousness evolution" malarkey. I reject it not because it's not biological evolution, but rather you've given me NOTHING. You've given no mechanism of how it works to improve consciousness, why it selects out this avenue of improvement and not another, or what the mechanism is acting on in consciousness to improve it. I can use my understanding of biological evolution to look at a biological scenario and say, "Oh, yeah. It would do that." I can't do similarly with your "consciousness evolution." Instead, I just get vague assurances that it leads to an ill-defined improvement in consciousness â€" a "just so" story.
Again Haku.
This is similar to the previous comment in which you think that the vehicle is able to tell the driver what to do.
How can a biological change be able to change the consciousness in humans?
Are you that dumb that can't understand that is the other way around?
QuoteNirvana fallacy.
Fallacy?
I did prove that education has little impact on morality.
There are people with no education that have more morality than those with more education.
QuoteWrong. We see their equivalents everywhere. It's bizarre to expect gun lovers in cultures without guns, but every human tribe has created weapons. Chieftains throughout history have used said weapons to increase their personal wealth. Career soldiers have existed in every large society, and hatred has been expressed by every culture. As to having more of these than in the past, you made that up.
I never talk about the past or the present.
You do.
Killing for survival is not the same as to kill for hatred.
There is nothing wrong with carring a gun but there is a lot of wrong if you carry a gun in order to wish to kill for hatred or for killing animals for the so called sport.
QuoteI'm not here to teach you. You have shown remarkable ability to employ that protective sloped forehead of yours. What I've shown is that you don't have anything to teach anyone. You didn't demonstrate what you wished to, that any of what you proposed as elemental was actually an elemental part of the universe, rather than emergent from other things. Hence, this is actually your failure.
Because you say so.
Actually everything is emergent from the very initial form of creation but at the same time all those fundamental factors have their own status until they change.
Even physical science say that one form of energy change into a different form of energy, so what?
An element is such until it change.
QuoteYou have not demonstrated any rudimentary consciousness at all. Demonstrate they do, and then you get to say that they have rudimentary consciousness not the same as humans.
Science is coming up more and more with studies that say that even plants suffer when they are uprooted or damaged.
That clearly indicate that some form of consciousness is there regardless the lack of a nervous system.
QuoteSo, do you have anything at all, other than your bad evidence of NDEs, karatekas, or hooked gurus to present, or your "just so" stories without any grounding in anything we can measure?
Stories?
How can you talk about stories when you have still to provide real evidence about my 10 Atheists points?
Quote from: Arik on July 12, 2019, 10:12:47 AM
Have you already forgot my 10 points with the Atheists assertions which of course are totally void of any evidence?
Forgot about them? No, I didn't waste my time reading that drivel.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 12, 2019, 01:26:15 PM
Forgot about them? No, I didn't waste my time reading that drivel.
You need to spend more time, contemplating your navel ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK8lFuTszQk
Quote from: Baruch on July 12, 2019, 12:29:07 AM
Typical materialist. Keep it up chucklehead (sincerely). No, if the CIA/FBI says you aren't the President, then you aren't. Rank and file CIA/FBI said Trump won, whereas their leadership said Hillary won. The leadership lost that argument around October 2016 as I recall (near revolt in NYC FBI office over Weiner laptop contents). Prove me wrong.
Prove you wrong! :)) Not possible. As a confirmed believer in conspiracies you cannot be swayed by facts--unless you are dealing with ancient Jewish history; and as a theist you are a confirmed believer in all sorts of fantasies. You will persist in your muddled beliefs no matter what I say or how I say it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 12, 2019, 06:40:02 PM
Prove you wrong! :)) Not possible. As a confirmed believer in conspiracies you cannot be swayed by facts--unless you are dealing with ancient Jewish history; and as a theist you are a confirmed believer in all sorts of fantasies. You will persist in your muddled beliefs no matter what I say or how I say it.
Parties, candidates, elections, voters ... that is the conspiracy. And it isn't a theory.
Quote from: Baruch on July 13, 2019, 01:47:20 AM
Parties, candidates, elections, voters ... that is the conspiracy. And it isn't a theory.
I know it isn't a theory--your conspiracies are only a hypothesis (at best) with no proof at all--hence, not a theory; no proof.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 13, 2019, 09:10:16 AM
I know it isn't a theory--your conspiracies are only a hypothesis (at best) with no proof at all--hence, not a theory; no proof.
Your acceptance of the Narrative (aka BS) is a nothing-burger. That is what culture does to all of us. Total brainwashing is required to turn a baby into an adult.
Quote from: Baruch on July 13, 2019, 11:06:08 AM
Your acceptance of the Narrative (aka BS) is a nothing-burger. That is what culture does to all of us. Total brainwashing is required to turn a baby into an adult.
And now you have reverted to baby, it seems. You don't know what my 'narrative' is. But that doesn't matter to you since you use a constant line of drivel and babble. Nuance doesn't exist for you--you don't see any gray areas; it's all black or white. And it is always black in your view.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 13, 2019, 12:36:54 PM
And now you have reverted to baby, it seems. You don't know what my 'narrative' is. But that doesn't matter to you since you use a constant line of drivel and babble. Nuance doesn't exist for you--you don't see any gray areas; it's all black or white. And it is always black in your view.
Hey! You are older than me! Show me your "depends" and I will show you mine ;-))
Yes, I identify as Ms Rachel Dolezal. Black is Beautiful, baby!
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 13, 2019, 12:36:54 PM
it's all black or white.
No, with Baruch there is only black, no white in evidence.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2019, 01:20:49 PM
No, with Baruch there is only black, no white in evidence.
So, a perfect Progressive then. Wakanda y'all.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 15, 2019, 09:57:14 PM
You are merely ASSERTING that consciousness is an entity at all, let alone an abstract one. Consciousness is a process, because a consciousness that does not engage in cognition is not a consciousness, but unconsciousness. By analogy, the running of a car cannot exist without a car, yet it is as much an "abstract entity" as consciousness.
Most people aren't very intelligent, and that's the difference. I've been telling you for about THREE POSTS now that I do not accept your assertion that consciousness is an abstract entity or thing. It doesn't matter how much you repeat that ASSERTION, until you get around to proving that consciousness IS an entity, I and neuroscience in general still have good reason to think that the consciousness is what the brain does. And what the brain does is absolutely the perview of neuroscience.
It doesn't matter if you say neurologists don't study consciousness. They absolutely do.
Once again, I do no submit to your ASSERTION that consciousness is like the driver of a brain car. If you've seen Bay's Transformers, think Barricade â€" the Decepticon police cruiser. The "driver" you see "operating" Barricade is not the driver, but a hologram projected by Barricade to help in its disguise. Barricade is moving himself.
Consciousness is similar. Consciousness is not in any way analogous to the driver of the car, but more analogous to Barricade's driver hologram: the "driver" appears to be in control, but it's actually the car in control of the "driver." The consciousness appears to be in control of the brain, but the brain is fully in control and projecting the illusion of a consciousness as a controlling entity.
We are not in court. I'll call you whatever I want. Someone who cannot understand simple english has no right to tell me that anything I've said doesn't "make sense."
I don't care about your definition. You cannot prove that your consciousness "went anywhere," any more than my consciousness "goes anywhere" when I dream of Narnia.
There is no "to some, to others" nonsense. They are different types of death that someone can go through. Clinical death (heart stopping) is more properly called cardiac arrest, and it is recoverable. There's a distinct correleation between the brain dying and the person never recovering consciousness.
Too bad. People who verifiably go through NDEs always have quite intact brains. People whose brains are verifiably destroyed, don't have any verifiable NDE experiences.
No, YOU fail. When these people wake up and convey their experiences, are their brains silent and dead? No? Then their episode was obviously reversible. Remember that the ten minutes cited here is an empirical observation. It's the point where you start seeing progressive brain damage when you restore blood flow and revive the person. As the apoxia continues, the brain will deteriorate to the point where you can restore blood flow but the patient never exhibits brain function. THAT's brain death. If he's restored from apoxia and recovers some function, he's not brain dead, by definition.
So, you have not established that a brain is ever "totally lifeless." Dormant and in extremis? Yes. Dead? By definition, no.
Furthermore, even if you restore blood flow, it can take hours, even days, to regain consciousness. This is where you get NDEs lasting well over 10 minutes. Blood flow is restored, but the patient doesn't regain consciousness immediately like turning on a light. The brain is definitely working, albeit in a disorganized way, and only when that organizaion is restored is consciousness restored along with it.
So, no, you have not demonstrated that NDEs are anything other than what I say they are.
Again, mere assertion. These same people tend to have access to what happened during their episode by ordinary means. People talk. The hospital ER is not a controlled environment where you can FORCE people not to gab about the episode. In fact, talking to a comatose patient is encouraged not only under the theory that the best treatment for a disabled brain is stimulation, but also good therapy for friends and family.
This is definitely a channel by which a patient can assimilate information without woo, in addition to people gabbing after the patient has regained consciousness. The flow of information to the patient is not under any sort of control, and uncontrolled conditions make for poor data. Too poor to support an extraordinary claim like OOB experiences.
That's why you use the playing cards.
It's a piece of completely irrelevant information that is placed exactly where NDEs are reported to float above to give them the best chance of being seen if they were actually there. And, of course, they never seem to see it, even to wonder why the heck it's there. Not one of them wakes up to ask, "Incidently, can anyone tell me why there's a jack of spades up on that top shelf?"
Again, poor controls make for poor data. The controls on these cases are exceedingly poor and highly anecdotal. That's why we performed the test. The test imposed controls on a particular piece of information that only an OOBer would have access to. Yet, they fail on this very simple test. Are NDEs so incurious that not one of them wonders why the heck there was a playing card on a shelf? Tosh.
Like every other form of paranormal, it fails under a simple test with modest controls. This is the track record of every other discarded hypothesis. I would be inconsistent to not dismiss this phenomenon that runs away from verification as I did every other.
Stop appealing to preserving my pweschous fwee will. We mere humans try to pursuade each other all the time, in exactly the way we're doing with each other now. Yet nobody thinks that we're undermining each other's free will. To think that a God couldn't contain himself in this manner is simply ridiculous.
You have yet to prove that consciousness is not under the perview of neuroscience; that it's not what the brain does, the same way Barricade presents the illusion of a car with a driver even though it's only the Decepticon.
Ponder that.
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)
You have not. You don't give ANY evidence at all that you have a genuine consciousness rather than a sham one. All you have done is asserted that you do. Sorry, a preprogrammed automaton can do that.
Wouldn't God have an interest in using NDEs to try to prove both the supernatural and himself? Establishing that a channel of communication can be relied upon is step one of communication. A God that doesn't understand this... is dumb.
You have yet to prove that there is a God to experience.
A God should be perfectly capable of showing that there is something beyond the material to be considered in a complete wordview. So far, all the evidence has been found wanting. That's not our fault. A world with supernatural content that presents itself to every reliable means of verification as only material is indistinguishable from one that is only material, and a supernatural so unwilling to present itself to verification is also one that is irrelevant. Material concerns makes itself felt in every aspect in our lives. Immaterial ones, not so much.
There is no evolutionary advantage to a consciousness that is permanent after death. It doesn't help the differential survival of an organism's genes. Evolution has no handle on making a consciousness permanet and able to survive death.
Again, consider Barricade. Once more, you have yet to establish that consciousness is a separate thing from the brain. You need ot do that before your driver and car example will have any force.
Of course a logical ignoramous like you would consider it meaningless.
Do you need to be fed all the time, twenty-four/seven? I hope this answer is no.
I know how entropy works, and it doesn't work this way. Entropy takes time to increase, and therefore it can take some time to reach equilibrium and heat death. Your proof is invalid.
Just because you think that the differences are astronomic doesn't mean that they are. They are in fact quite similar in one respect that is very important: they all contain unverifiable tripe.
Then your God is dumb. I can think of a dozen different ways right off the bat for hiding evidence that Jesus performed miracles, so I'm smarter than your God.
Like most of your tripe, mere assertion.
You did not answer in any satisfactory way.
Evolution is purely a process founded in materialistic physics. There is no other evolution than physical. To assert that consciousness was evolved is to admit that consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not woo.
Yes, and I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus Christ. /sarcasm You have a hard time not making your spiel sound like a con. Either do better in making it sound actually intellectually respectable, or give up.
It's happened to me. I snipped into my left hand with a pair of scissors one time, and I didn't feel pain as such. It was a deep snip, too, into the subcutaneous. I washed it out and wrapped it well, and only then did the pain start. So don't tell me what I can and can't do.
Any one who can handle that many separate quotes gets my vote. And yes those were great arguments too...
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 13, 2019, 12:36:54 PM
And now you have reverted to baby, it seems. You don't know what my 'narrative' is. But that doesn't matter to you since you use a constant line of drivel and babble. Nuance doesn't exist for you--you don't see any gray areas; it's all black or white. And it is always black in your view.
In actuality, this is just my "rhetorical" form. As a demi-god, I have more than one manifestation. In person, as my "coffee klatch" form, I am rhetoric free. You would probably like that form better. Or be terrified. Heute dein Kaffeekuchen, morgen ... I scared a new friend once, while we shared supper. I got a new supernatural insight about a past experience, and told him about it ... must have been the eyes going round and round that upset him ...
Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2019, 11:05:53 AM
In actuality, this is just my "rhetorical" form. As a demi-god, I have more than one manifestation. In person, as my "coffee klatch" form, I am rhetoric free. You would probably like that form better. Or be terrified. Heute dein Kaffeekuchen, morgen ... I scared a new friend once, while we shared supper. I got a new supernatural insight about a past experience, and told him about it ... must have been the eyes going round and round that upset him ...
Most likely. Seems to me your 'demi-god' thing simply allows you to lie and spew fictions at your leisure. And it is a handy shield for the 'real' you to hide behind.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2019, 12:45:14 PM
Most likely. Seems to me your 'demi-god' thing simply allows you to lie and spew fictions at your leisure. And it is a handy shield for the 'real' you to hide behind.
The supernatural me is the real me. The natural me is the conventional me. Following convention isn't a fiction, it simply is avoiding misunderstanding. Like a nudist who wears regular clothes in polite society ;-0
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2019, 12:45:14 PM
Most likely. Seems to me your 'demi-god' thing simply allows you to lie and spew fictions at your leisure. And it is a handy shield for the 'real' you to hide behind.
"your '
demi-god' troll thing simply allows you to lie and spew fictions at your leisure."
Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2019, 02:43:25 PM
The supernatural me is the real me. The natural me is the conventional me. Following convention isn't a fiction, it simply is avoiding misunderstanding. Like a nudist who wears regular clothes in polite society ;-0
Since there is no supernatural you can claim it is the real you. It is a fiction that allows you use the 'supernatural' as a shield to hide behind. It is not like nudism at all; nudism is real and easily demonstrated, there is no fiction in it. You with clothes is the same as you without clothes, only with or without something covering your body.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on July 14, 2019, 04:13:18 PM
"your 'demi-god' troll thing simply allows you to lie and spew fictions at your leisure."
Meme is where it is at, grandpa ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2019, 05:04:18 PM
Since there is no supernatural you can claim it is the real you. It is a fiction that allows you use the 'supernatural' as a shield to hide behind. It is not like nudism at all; nudism is real and easily demonstrated, there is no fiction in it. You with clothes is the same as you without clothes, only with or without something covering your body.
Since there is no natural, you can claim it is the real you. So, you random cloud of atoms ... what justification can you make for your posts? Hmmm?
So, the usual outrage. No sense of humor on a Sunday evening?
Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2019, 11:04:28 PM
Since there is no natural, you can claim it is the real you. So, you random cloud of atoms ... what justification can you make for your posts? Hmmm?
So, the usual outrage. No sense of humor on a Sunday evening?
Outrage?? :)) Hardly--you give yourself too much credit. I merely make note of your typical crap.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2019, 11:31:16 PM
Outrage?? :)) Hardly--you give yourself too much credit. I merely make note of your typical crap.
And I take note, thru clairvoyance, of your elevated blood pressure. I hope you are seeing someone about that. Or go watch some comedy, to reacquire some balance.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2019, 04:31:41 PM
Any one who can handle that many separate quotes gets my vote. And yes those were great arguments too...
The quantity does not always equal to quality and this is a clear example of it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2019, 11:31:16 PM
Outrage?? :)) Hardly--you give yourself too much credit. I merely make note of your typical crap.
The forum is all about trying to make a point Mike and in order to make a point you need to knock down the opposite argument with something that make sense which is something that you often fail to do.
There is no point in saying that somebody else is crap unless you come up with a way to win the argument.
^ see, that's a poor way to approach a conversation, imho.
If you say you're here to 'win an argument', you see what could be an intellectually honest debate instead as a clash of sorts.
That changes your mindset and attitude going into the conversation. Rather than seeing it as an opportunity to learn and grow together, and to allow your view and understanding of the world to evolve, you become rigid and too self-certain of your own (beginning) stance. Close-minded and prone to dishonesty and fallacy, as you bind the argument to your perception of yourself and will do anything, bend into any shape, to protect it.
There is always for formal debate section, but I have never seen that work.
Quote from: Arik on July 16, 2019, 06:51:26 AM
The forum is all about trying to make a point Mike and in order to make a point you need to knock down the opposite argument with something that make sense which is something that you often fail to do.
There is no point in saying that somebody else is crap unless you come up with a way to win the argument.
I can say all you spew is crap--why? Because all you spew is crap--I would venture to say that that is all you know and every keystroke proves it--you are full of crap, spew that crap on this site and are too stupid to realize it--or even care. You can, of course, believe in any and all airy-fairy crap you want to--just don't expect me to pay any attention.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 16, 2019, 09:36:01 AM
I can say all you spew is crap--why? Because all you spew is crap--I would venture to say that that is all you know and every keystroke proves it--you are full of crap, spew that crap on this site and are too stupid to realize it--or even care. You can, of course, believe in any and all airy-fairy crap you want to--just don't expect me to pay any attention.
Look in the mirror. Hating humanity in general is rational. We suck. Hating me individually, is bigotry. But I am OK with that.
Y'all ignore anthropology and psychology of religion, because of prejudice (a common reason for hating humanity).
Arguing about philosophy in general or epistemology particular is a distraction. But then rhetoric is all about sharp knives in a dark alleyway.
Quote from: Baruch on July 16, 2019, 12:01:09 PM
Look in the mirror. Hating humanity in general is rational. We suck. Hating me individually, is bigotry. But I am OK with that.
Y'all ignore anthropology and psychology of religion, because of prejudice (a common reason for hating humanity).
Arguing about philosophy in general or epistemology particular is a distraction. But then rhetoric is all about sharp knives in a dark alleyway.
this is what you are so fond of--grabbing statements that come out of your ass and claim they are accurate or what was said. I look in the mirror every day....and...........??? I don't think hating humanity in general is rational. I think hate begets hate. Love (which is a catch-all for respect, mannerly, etc) begets love. Of course this is not 100%. And of course people do heinous acts of cruelty and destruction all the time. But that is not how people act generally. You say, "Y'all ignore anthropology and psychology of religion, because of prejudice (a common reason for hating humanity)." I don't know what you mean by that. I enjoy the study of anthropology and the psychology behind religion. Both give insights into why people turn into sheeple when religion is considered.
When have I indicated that I 'hate' you individually? It is the constant flow of comments like this (these days I only read a handful of them--I skip most of them) that leads me to think you are in a depressed state and have been for awhile. It seems that the longer you live the more depressed you become and the more you embrace hatred of people in general. You seem to live to be a shit disturber and you seem to believe more and more of the shit you spew. Too bad, for I used to really enjoy your banter and sense of humor; hate, in you, seems to be winning. No wonder you support trump more and more.
Sigh. We aren't seen by others, as we see ourselves. Have a good day.
Using sigh-chology? LOL
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 16, 2019, 01:15:11 PM
You say, "Y'all ignore anthropology and psychology of religion, because of prejudice (a common reason for hating humanity)." I don't know what you mean by that. I enjoy the study of anthropology and the psychology behind religion. Both give insights into why people turn into sheeple when religion is considered.
Yeah, I wish he'd explain this further.
QuoteIt is the constant flow of comments like this (these days I only read a handful of them--I skip most of them) that leads me to think you are in a depressed state and have been for awhile. It seems that the longer you live the more depressed you become and the more you embrace hatred of people in general. You seem to live to be a shit disturber and you seem to believe more and more of the shit you spew. Too bad, for I used to really enjoy your banter and sense of humor; hate, in you, seems to be winning. No wonder you support trump more and more.
As I stated a couple weeks ago, I went almost a year without posting here, but I also remember a much different Baruch.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 16, 2019, 06:12:32 PM
As I stated a couple weeks ago, I went almost a year without posting here, but I also remember a much different Baruch.
Do you suppose that he was so bummed out that you quit posting that he went into a deep funk???? :)))) See--this is your fault!
It is interesting that you noted what I was seeing. I think it was a gradual thing--but real, nonetheless.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 16, 2019, 06:12:32 PM
Yeah, I wish he'd explain this further.
As I stated a couple weeks ago, I went almost a year without posting here, but I also remember a much different Baruch.
I have seen the US devolve into civil war. The planet devolve into world war. And one faction wants revolution. Time to chose up sides. "Hokahey, today is a good day to die!" - Lakota chief Crazyhorse
I remember a much different America. But things must change, for better or worse.
What is anthropology or psychology? People here say ... its BS. But religions aren't going anywhere. I don't enjoy watching anti-theists piss up-wind. Smells ;-)
Philosophy and theology are more questionable. The "truth" content (assuming there is any truth) is an entirely different proposition.
It is a fact, that many Catholics believe that Jesus is really flesh and blood in the Eucharist. Others call it only a remembrance. It impacts strongly how Christians think and behave. Christians have no need to seek apology from anyone.
It is not true, that Jesus is really flesh and blood in the Eucharist, objectively. Calling it a remembrance, is purely subjective. Prove me wrong.
Quote from: Baruch on July 16, 2019, 11:36:59 PM
I remember a much different America. But things must change, for better or worse.
Put that sentence in all caps! THIS is not the US I thought I was growing up in--growing old in. But as I'm fond of saying--that's what I get for thinking. Am I disappointed??--deeply!
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 17, 2019, 12:28:13 AM
Put that sentence in all caps! THIS is not the US I thought I was growing up in--growing old in. But as I'm fond of saying--that's what I get for thinking. Am I disappointed??--deeply!
But, but ... it is because we have grown old ;-) The world has stayed the same, we have moved on. In the Stone Age, nothing ever changed, and life expectancy was 30-40 years.
I have changed ... improved actually, over the last 4 years. I measure progress individually, no socially.
Once upon a time ... an AI couldn't have handled this problem, only a human can
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvXqosqkls
I got to do a little participating in space projects. Not as much as I wanted, like when I sent that ion engine design to the Johnson White House in 1967. I was 11. Got a letter back in thanks. Don't think that would happen today.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 16, 2019, 07:05:01 AM
^ see, that's a poor way to approach a conversation, imho.
If you say you're here to 'win an argument', you see what could be an intellectually honest debate instead as a clash of sorts.
That changes your mindset and attitude going into the conversation. Rather than seeing it as an opportunity to learn and grow together, and to allow your view and understanding of the world to evolve, you become rigid and too self-certain of your own (beginning) stance. Close-minded and prone to dishonesty and fallacy, as you bind the argument to your perception of yourself and will do anything, bend into any shape, to protect it.
If I can not win an argument that may mean that my argument is a fail and the opposition is probably correct.
From here any intelligent person would understand that he-she would be better to change and learn.
How do you presume that I am not prepared to change and learn also considering that most of the Atheist beliefs are based on guessing and guessing only?
Since when Atheists ever came up with real evidence about the 10 points that I did show in previous posts?
Atheists are always quick to say that anything void of evidence is nothing but at the same time they keep on popping up with arguments void of any evidence so how I suppose to learn from it?
As soon as you come up with real evidence I will be more than prepared to admit my failing.
I promise MO.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 16, 2019, 09:36:01 AM
I can say all you spew is crap--why? Because all you spew is crap--I would venture to say that that is all you know and every keystroke proves it--you are full of crap, spew that crap on this site and are too stupid to realize it--or even care. You can, of course, believe in any and all airy-fairy crap you want to--just don't expect me to pay any attention.
Sure Mike.
And all this come from someone who can not even bring evidence on any of the 10 Atheists beliefs which I did point out in previous posts.
Alleluiah
Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2019, 12:43:41 AM
But, but ... it is because we have grown old ;-) The world has stayed the same, we have moved on. In the Stone Age, nothing ever changed, and life expectancy was 30-40 years.
I have changed ... improved actually, over the last 4 years. I measure progress individually, no socially.
Once upon a time ... an AI couldn't have handled this problem, only a human can
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvXqosqkls
I got to do a little participating in space projects. Not as much as I wanted, like when I sent that ion engine design to the Johnson White House in 1967. I was 11. Got a letter back in thanks. Don't think that would happen today.
I was with my grandparents quite a bit in my teens and therefore, interacted with their friends quite a bit. I noted what I thought was a normal aging thought process; they were more conservative than I was. Well, except for my grandfather, who stayed 'liberal' to the end. So, I became a little curious how I would age. Now that I've reached that age, I find I'm quite a bit like my grandfather--growing more liberal as I grow old. I do realize that nothing stays as it is--all things change. But I must admit, this current trend (or trends) in this country has caught me by surprise. But I don't chalk up these changes as normal. My normal was a flawed, but workable, country; one willing to fix wrongs in a way good republics do. Now I see the Republic slipping away, and while that is change, it is not a good one nor one that has to happen. But as part of the 99%, there is little to nothing I can do about it. I can only hope to keep my own emotions on an even keel and try not to go into a depression about it.
Yeah, the big changes in life can be downers. Birth, early adulthood, marriage, children, jobs, loss of jobs, loss of children, loss of marriage, second childhood and finally death. That is a big reason why there is religion. Buddhism/Hinduism has very good traditional answers to these problems.
So I suspect ... you were idealist/optimist to begin with, and are becoming more so? No wonder you are unhappy. You are like a Benjamin Button internally. Too bad your body isn't also getting younger ;-)) Yes, I think the normal thing (in most of the 16 Meyer-Briggs types) is to start out idealist/optimist if your childhood wasn't too shitty. Then as you accumulate all those life changing events, getting kneed in the groin, you move to a more cynical/pessimist view. That is where I am rhetorically. But really, outside the Internet, as a Radical Centrist .. I am moving toward a indifferent/neutral POV. I find "don't worry, be happy" to be wrong in both directions.
Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2019, 10:20:31 AM
Yeah, the big changes in life can be downers. Birth, early adulthood, marriage, children, jobs, loss of jobs, loss of children, loss of marriage, second childhood and finally death. That is a big reason why there is religion. Buddhism/Hinduism has very good traditional answers to these problems.
So I suspect ... you were idealist/optimist to begin with, and are becoming more so? No wonder you are unhappy. You are like a Benjamin Button internally. Too bad your body isn't also getting younger ;-)) Yes, I think the normal thing (in most of the 16 Meyer-Briggs types) is to start out idealist/optimist if your childhood wasn't too shitty. Then as you accumulate all those life changing events, getting kneed in the groin, you move to a more cynical/pessimist view. That is where I am rhetorically. But really, outside the Internet, as a Radical Centrist .. I am moving toward a indifferent/neutral POV. I find "don't worry, be happy" to be wrong in both directions.
I suppose I was an optimist from the beginning--I guess. What I remember most from my childhood to early adulthood was my rather steep emotional retardation. What I mean was I was so shy and withdrawn that a 'wall flower' would be an extreme extrovert. It took awhile for it to sink in that all people have flaws and fears. It was the Army that put me on that road in earnest. In the Army you either stood up for yourself or you got run over--again and again. But I did actually always think the future would be better--both personally and in society. As I studied history more and more, I came to realize that change does not happen on a smooth slope, either up or down, but in stutter steps up or down. It seems this country is now in one of those phases of two steps back, and it does not feel all that good.
My childhood deep insecurities forced me to do, when I entered the 'real' world was to become confident in my abilities and feelings or become paralyzed with fear and inaction. I now have fully embraced the realization that wherever I am, I have me, myself and I with me and we all get along very well. I don't really need others to 'fulfill' my life---but I find I do want others of my choosing to be in my life. So, as I age, I enjoy life. I'm still optimistic. And I see that this society is not what it says it is. At one time I thought this country really was the the land of the land of the brave, of freedom and aspired to have all partake. We are not that--but could be. We are now the land of the corporation and sound bites. That can change, but I don't think I'll live to see it. But, still, in my personal life I do embrace the 'don't worry be happy' ideal; I am still optimistic.
Yeah, childhood is bad enough. But being a geek or handicapped ... is worse. I had a stammer until I was 16, and wore glasses in 1-2 grade. And a total geek until after I got married (at 30 years old). My EQ continues to go up. My IQ is in slow decline. Not so good for technical now, only good for liberal arts ... sigh.
Quote from: Arik on July 17, 2019, 07:57:00 AM
Sure Mike.
And all this come from someone who can not even bring evidence on any of the 10 Atheists beliefs which I did point out in previous posts.
Alleluiah
OK, let's do this again, maybe some small bit of it might stick in your muddled brain, but I have no real hope of that.
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
1) You are the one making the claim that there is some sort of afterlife, you have the burden of proof. Those of us that do not believe your claim are not required to prove there is no afterlife. This is what is known as the null hypothesis.
Personally, I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that there is no afterlife. My position is, that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof to convince me that there
is an afterlife, therefore, you have not provided warrant for me to believe your claim.
2) All evidence points to consciousness being a product of the physical brain. Please point to one demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable example of consciousness existing absent a physical brain.
3) Besides a bunch of anecdotal accounts of people claiming they lived previous lives, proved some demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence to support your claim. Multiple anecdotal accounts do not add up good evidence.
4) The vast majority of physicists, the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of the universe, have not discovered any evidence for a universe creating god. All evidence points to purely natural processes in the expansion of the universe. Please, by all means, publish your findings that point to a god being necessary, and win your Noble prize, and change humanity.
5) I never stated anything like this. I completely agree that many people, who I know for a fact are not religious, call themselves spiritual. The real problem is, the word 'spiritual' is such a incoherent term. Everyone that I've ever heard describe themself as spiritual, has a different definition for the word. I've actually been described as spiritual by friends and family, because of the awe and beauty I see in the universe, my love for art and music.
LATE EDIT How could I forget my almost 2 decade Yoga practice, and regular meditation, as another reason I am called spiritual by friends and family.
6) This is a minority position held by atheists, they are called 'mythicists'. I have no problem with the idea that there was a historical Jesus. After all, Yeshua was a pretty common name back then, as were plenty of itinerant Messianic preachers in Jerusalem in those days. The problem for believers is, even if a historical Jesus/Yeshua existed, does not offer a single bit of evidence for any of the supernatural claims surrounding him.
7) Not my claim. But the problem is, you and your ilk have not been able to prove your case. It is not up to us to prove that all NDE's are lies or hallucination, it is up to you to prove that they are legitimate. It is not our problem that your evidence is weak.
8) You may need to define your term "progress of the consciousness". but, if you are using standard definitions, it is entirely possible that biological evolution has lead to advancing our consciousness. After all, it is evolution that is responsible for our more advanced consciousness as compared to chimps.
9) Of course physical science it the real McCoy. It is the single most reliable method ever conceived for examining the universe. Every demonstrable advancement in humanity ever, has come about via science. The computer you are working on, the car you drive, your 80 year lifespan, the smart phone in your pocket, etc, etc, etc....
10) If you are referring to the capability and power of humans to concentrate, to be determined and purposeful in their training, to have extreme focus, etc, in order to become proficient in a martial to enable them to break concrete slabs, I have no problem with that.
If you are referring to some other, 'force' being produced by the mind, that is something beyond the physical force of their hands, then you will have to provide demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim.
So, the bottom line is, you do not understand that is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to support your case. It is not our fault that you and your ilk have completely failed to meet your burden of proof.
I am opened to being convinced of your claims, but not without you providing a case that meets my requirements. It is not my fault that you are gullible.
Quote from: Arik on July 17, 2019, 07:47:04 AM
If I can not win an argument that may mean that my argument is a fail and the opposition is probably correct.
From here any intelligent person would understand that he-she would be better to change and learn.
And what if you don't understand that you are not even close to making, let alone winning an argument? Exactly because you are so invested in it, blinding yourself from the validity of the input of others, that might challenge your worldview and false sense of success?
What, Arik, if you are indeed not an intelligent person?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 17, 2019, 12:33:18 PM
And what if you don't understand that you are not even close to making, let alone winning an argument? Exactly because you are so invested in it, blinding yourself from the validity of the input of others, that might challenge your worldview and false sense of success?
What, Arik, if you are indeed not an intelligent person?
Indeed, he is not an intelligent person. It's easy to see when all he does is repost his old posts with not a single change or thought of a change.
Quote from: Baruch on July 16, 2019, 11:36:59 PM
"Hokahey, today is a good day to die!" - Lakota chief Crazyhorse
I thought it was Worf who said that...:-P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdnXKSV8ZSA
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 17, 2019, 12:16:14 PM
OK, let's do this again, maybe some small bit of it might stick in your muddled brain, but I have no real hope of that.
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.
1) You are the one making the claim that there is some sort of afterlife, you have the burden of proof. Those of us that do not believe your claim are not required to prove there is no afterlife. This is what is known as the null hypothesis.
Personally, I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that there is no afterlife. My position is, that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof to convince me that there is an afterlife, therefore, you have not provided warrant for me to believe your claim.
2) All evidence points to consciousness being a product of the physical brain. Please point to one demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable example of consciousness existing absent a physical brain.
3) Besides a bunch of anecdotal accounts of people claiming they lived previous lives, proved some demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence to support your claim. Multiple anecdotal accounts do not add up good evidence.
4) The vast majority of physicists, the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of the universe, have not discovered any evidence for a universe creating god. All evidence points to purely natural processes in the expansion of the universe. Please, by all means, publish your findings that point to a god being necessary, and win your Noble prize, and change humanity.
5) I never stated anything like this. I completely agree that many people, who I know for a fact are not religious, call themselves spiritual. The real problem is, the word 'spiritual' is such a incoherent term. Everyone that I've ever heard describe themself as spiritual, has a different definition for the word. I've actually been described as spiritual by friends and family, because of the awe and beauty I see in the universe, my love for art and music. LATE EDIT How could I forget my almost 2 decade Yoga practice, and regular meditation, as another reason I am called spiritual by friends and family.
6) This is a minority position held by atheists, they are called 'mythicists'. I have no problem with the idea that there was a historical Jesus. After all, Yeshua was a pretty common name back then, as were plenty of itinerant Messianic preachers in Jerusalem in those days. The problem for believers is, even if a historical Jesus/Yeshua existed, does not offer a single bit of evidence for any of the supernatural claims surrounding him.
7) Not my claim. But the problem is, you and your ilk have not been able to prove your case. It is not up to us to prove that all NDE's are lies or hallucination, it is up to you to prove that they are legitimate. It is not our problem that your evidence is weak.
8) You may need to define your term "progress of the consciousness". but, if you are using standard definitions, it is entirely possible that biological evolution has lead to advancing our consciousness. After all, it is evolution that is responsible for our more advanced consciousness as compared to chimps.
9) Of course physical science it the real McCoy. It is the single most reliable method ever conceived for examining the universe. Every demonstrable advancement in humanity ever, has come about via science. The computer you are working on, the car you drive, your 80 year lifespan, the smart phone in your pocket, etc, etc, etc....
10) If you are referring to the capability and power of humans to concentrate, to be determined and purposeful in their training, to have extreme focus, etc, in order to become proficient in a martial to enable them to break concrete slabs, I have no problem with that.
If you are referring to some other, 'force' being produced by the mind, that is something beyond the physical force of their hands, then you will have to provide demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim.
So, the bottom line is, you do not understand that is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to support your case. It is not our fault that you and your ilk have completely failed to meet your burden of proof.
I am opened to being convinced of your claims, but not without you providing a case that meets my requirements. It is not my fault that you are gullible.
Why are you shifting the burden of proof on me?
These 10 points are statements coming from Atheists.
Maybe not all from you in particular but surely coming from Atheists in general so are the Atheists those who have to bring evidence not me.
I didn't come in this forum to teach religion and to tell you that God exist for sure and all other points in discussion except the NDEs which carry clear evidence.
I simply said time and time again that it is my believe that God exist.
Can't you see the difference between stating something and instead saying that my belief is such and such?
Stating need evidence while saying that my believe is this does not so it is up to Atheists to bring evidence because most of them state things and make claims.
Thanks anyway for your answer to those 10 points in which you say that in some of them you never made those claims.
Unfortunately the rest carry no evidence of whatsoever.
Quote from: Arik on July 18, 2019, 10:28:12 AM
Why are you shifting the burden of proof on me?
Because this is logic 101. You are the one making the claims, the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the one MAKING THE CLAIMS.
I am not making any claims, I am responding to your claims.
Just like in a court of law. It is not up to the defense to prove their client innocent, it is up to the prosecutors to prove the accused is guilty.
So, we are not passing the burden of proof to you, you are saddled with the burden of proof by the fact that you are making the claims.
The default position, is not, to believe claims until they are proven false, the default position is to not accept the claim until it is proven true.
QuoteThese 10 points are statements coming from Atheists.
Yes, some atheists make these statements. But here's the thing you seem unable to grasp, the vast majority of atheists don't make these statements as claims of absolute truth or with absolute certainty. They make them as being their disbelief, based on the lack of demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support the claims. A disbelief in a claim does not require a burden of proof.
QuoteMaybe not all from you in particular but surely coming from Atheists in general so are the Atheists those who have to bring evidence not me.
If an atheist makes the claim, they do have the burden of proof. But I don't think you are understanding the what most atheists are actually saying.
If you claim that there is an afterlife, for example, and an atheist replies, "I don't believe you, please provide me with demonstrable evidence", the atheist does not have a burden of proof.
QuoteI didn't come in this forum to teach religion and to tell you that God exist for sure and all other points in discussion except the NDEs which carry clear evidence.
Then why are you here?
One of my main motivations in life, is to believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many false things as possible. If you have good, rational, and evidence based reasons for your god beliefs, I want to know. And BS on NDE's carrying good evidence. If you actually believe that there is clear evidence for NDE's, you have a very low bar for what you consider evidence, or you just don't understand what actually constitutes good evidence.
QuoteI simply said time and time again that it is my believe that God exist.
And the majority of atheists want to know why you have that belief. We all understand that many people believe gods exist, it is the "why" that is the important question.
Quote from: Arik on July 18, 2019, 10:28:12 AM
Why are you shifting the burden of proof on me?
These 10 points are statements coming from Atheists.
Maybe not all from you in particular but surely coming from Atheists in general so are the Atheists those who have to bring evidence not me.
I didn't come in this forum to teach religion and to tell you that God exist for sure and all other points in discussion except the NDEs which carry clear evidence.
I simply said time and time again that it is my believe that God exist.
Can't you see the difference between stating something and instead saying that my belief is such and such?
Stating need evidence while saying that my believe is this does not so it is up to Atheists to bring evidence because most of them state things and make claims.
Thanks anyway for your answer to those 10 points in which you say that in some of them you never made those claims.
Unfortunately the rest carry no evidence of whatsoever.
But existence doesn't exist. That concept is a human category applied over an ineffable reality. Bad enough dealing with the temporal. Impossible with the eternal. So no, G-d doesn't exist ... in the sense that the predicate, "exist" doesn't apply to G-d. It only partly applies to people (as demi-gods).
Logic 101? Really? Casual application of logic is like removing your own appendix.
All men are squids
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is a squid
Logic is helpless except in constrained sandboxes (like digital electronics). Correct answers colors beyond the sandbox ... what if Socrates is a relative of Squidward?
Yes, there is shifting of burden of proof. But in these categories (outside of maths) there is no proof. Like trying to count how many wings a squid has. That is rhetoric, not logic. Rhetoric is adversarial. It isn't interested in discovering true things, just establishing victory over your victim's semantic corpse. There is empirical demonstration. But if I categorize birds as dinosaurs, and you ask me, are there dinosaurs today, then I will demonstrate that there are. But if not, then not. That is how slippery axioms are. Euclid got away with a partially correct plane geometry, because points and lines and circles really are pretty simple (but deep also). Euclid wasn't corrected until 2300 years later by Hilbert (what is a good proof today, can be shown to be inadequate later).
Quote from: Arik on July 17, 2019, 07:47:04 AM
If I can not win an argument that may mean that my argument is a fail and the opposition is probably correct.
This "if" of yours does not exist.
QuoteAs soon as you come up with real evidence I will be more than prepared to admit my failing.
For the upteenth time, the burden of proof is on you, pal. Until you learn that basic fact, you'll always be relegated to the kiddie table with other charlatans, quacks, and morons.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 18, 2019, 01:00:16 PM
This "if" of yours does not exist.
For the upteenth time, the burden of proof is on you, pal. Until you learn that basic fact, you'll always be relegated to the kiddie table with other charlatans, quacks, and morons.
Rhetoric ... knife fight for people who don't even have knives.
Quote from: Arik on July 18, 2019, 10:28:12 AM
I didn't come in this forum to teach religion and to tell you that God exist for sure and all other points in discussion except the NDEs which carry clear evidence.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for NDE's, but then there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for Bigfoot, so should I believe in the existence of Bigfoot? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for flying saucers, so should I believe in flying saucers? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for ghosts and goblins, vampires and spontaneous human combustion, and the Lock Ness monster. So should I believe in all those things?
Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, hence it doesn't count as evidence.
Quote from: Arik on July 17, 2019, 07:47:04 AM
How do you presume that I am not prepared to change and learn also considering that most of the Atheist beliefs are based on guessing and guessing only?
The tell tale sign that you are not prepared to change your mind, is that you believe, until such time your beliefs are proved wrong. This is the exact opposite method for critical thinking. The best method is, to disbelieve claims until such times they are supported by demonstrable evidence.
Your method, if you wanted to stay consistent, and intellectually honest, would be to believe (as Unbeliever already stated) in the existence of: bigfoot, alien craft, ghosts, goblins, vampires, Loch Ness monster, etc, etc, etc. After all, those things have not been proven to not exist, right?
QuoteSince when Atheists ever came up with real evidence about the 10 points that I did show in previous posts?
Just to beat e dead horse, we do not require evidence to disbelieve your claims.
QuoteAtheists are always quick to say that anything void of evidence is nothing but at the same time they keep on popping up with arguments void of any evidence so how I suppose to learn from it?
All my existential beliefs are held due to evidence to support them. If there is insufficient evidence to support any claim, I will disbelieve said claim.
We do not need to provide evidence for the nonexistence of gods. Those that claim that gods exist, have the burden of proof.
QuoteAs soon as you come up with real evidence I will be more than prepared to admit my failing.
No you won't. Again, anyone that is waiting for evidence to prove their unsupported beliefs are wrong, has irrational beliefs.
The rational method is to withhold belief,
until such time, there is evidence to support the claim.
As philosopher David Hume has said:
“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidenceâ€â€¦and should “always reject the greater miracle.â€
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 18, 2019, 04:02:57 PM
The best method is, to disbelieve claims until such times they are supported by demonstrable evidence.
I suspect many theists are afraid of "demonstrable evidence" because it has the word "demon" in it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 18, 2019, 01:25:12 PM
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for NDE's, but then there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for Bigfoot, so should I believe in the existence of Bigfoot? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for flying saucers, so should I believe in flying saucers? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for ghosts and goblins, vampires and spontaneous human combustion, and the Lock Ness monster. So should I believe in all those things?
Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, hence it doesn't count as evidence.
Doesn't count for evidence in a court of law. Makes for good TV though.
@Simon Moon ... I like David Hume too. Much better man than Roussea or Voltaire.
Quote from: Baruch on July 18, 2019, 04:32:07 PM
Doesn't count for evidence in a court of law. Makes for good TV though.
What is eyewitness testimony but anecdotal evidence? It's finally becoming apparent that it can't be relied upon.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 18, 2019, 04:38:42 PM
What is eyewitness testimony but anecdotal evidence? It's finally becoming apparent that it can't be relied upon.
Correct, which is why most court cases should be thrown out. If eyewitness evidence is unreliable, how much more so dubious "circumstantial evidence" gathered by politically elected DAs? If you left your fingerprint behind ... you are a moron and should get the Chair.
Quote from: Baruch on July 18, 2019, 04:42:12 PM
Correct, which is why most court cases should be thrown out. If eyewitness evidence is unreliable, how much more so dubious "circumstantial evidence" gathered by politically elected DAs? If you left your fingerprint behind ... you are a moron and should get the Chair.
Because of personal experience I know that the court system (at least here in Australia) work in a very stupid way.
Many years ago when I was living in Sydney on weekend I was driving a taxi.
One night when I did pick up 3 women I had a lot of trouble when i found out that these 3 women were totally drunk and abusing me.
After they spit on my face I did stop the car and ask them to get out.
Instead of getting out they abuse me even more before they got out.
I thought that the thing end there but no.
After sometime the base ask me to contact Redfern police station.
When I got there I was charged for assaulting those 3 women.
I had to go to court and I lost the case.
The police and the judge thought that the witness of 3 people is better that the one of a sole person so the number rather than the truth win.
NDEs are not anecdotal evidence as according the dictionary anecdotal evidence come from an individual witness.
In the NDEs case the witness come from a group of people that were present there (doctors, nurses and other people) so it is wrong to call anecdotal in the first place.
Real evidence is evidence according to the truth regardless on how many people witness the truth.
In other word the truth is such if it is truth even if 100 people witness against a single person but this doesn't go well with people such as Atheists that confuse the term anecdotal with something build up in their fantasy world.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 18, 2019, 11:34:01 AM
Because this is logic 101. You are the one making the claims, the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the one MAKING THE CLAIMS.
I am not making any claims, I am responding to your claims.
Just like in a court of law. It is not up to the defense to prove their client innocent, it is up to the prosecutors to prove the accused is guilty.
So, we are not passing the burden of proof to you, you are saddled with the burden of proof by the fact that you are making the claims.
The default position, is not, to believe claims until they are proven false, the default position is to not accept the claim until it is proven true.
Yes, some atheists make these statements. But here's the thing you seem unable to grasp, the vast majority of atheists don't make these statements as claims of absolute truth or with absolute certainty. They make them as being their disbelief, based on the lack of demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support the claims. A disbelief in a claim does not require a burden of proof.
If an atheist makes the claim, they do have the burden of proof. But I don't think you are understanding the what most atheists are actually saying.
If you claim that there is an afterlife, for example, and an atheist replies, "I don't believe you, please provide me with demonstrable evidence", the atheist does not have a burden of proof.
Then why are you here?
One of my main motivations in life, is to believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many false things as possible. If you have good, rational, and evidence based reasons for your god beliefs, I want to know. And BS on NDE's carrying good evidence. If you actually believe that there is clear evidence for NDE's, you have a very low bar for what you consider evidence, or you just don't understand what actually constitutes good evidence.
And the majority of atheists want to know why you have that belief. We all understand that many people believe gods exist, it is the "why" that is the important question.
Fail again SM.
Most Atheists in most cases make the claim well before a theists say such and such thing that is why I did come up with those 10 points.
Some religious people come here and say that God exist so I do understand your point in saying that they got the burden of proof but that is not my case.
Why should I have the burden of proof when except the NDEs case I did not make any claims?
Since most Atheists made those claims they got the burden of proof which again and again is not coming.
Beside this burden of proof drama I just point out just one of your so called evidence when on point 4 you say...........
4) The vast majority of physicists, the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of the universe, have not discovered any evidence for a universe creating god. All evidence points to purely natural processes in the expansion of the universe. Please, by all means, publish your findings that point to a god being necessary, and win your Noble prize, and change humanity.
Here you talk about ALL EVIDENCE but since when this so called solid evidence is real evidence?
A study that point out to something can NOT be called evidence.
You see how confused you are?
You are confusing real evidence with guessing because guessing it is and then you have the audacity to say that I talk BS.
Actually, that is why originally, the materialists supported "steady state" cosmology. The "big bang" idea created too many problems for them, particularly when after 1965 it was proven correct. But since we have infinite universes with infinite dimensions (its a cult among physics profs) ... the "big bang" is easier for these people to accept. Like an oyster secreting nacre over a sand grain, making a pearl.
Not that I know what creation "ex nihilo" is, but I don't think it is any stranger than "cosmic inflation" or any other "saving appearances/rube goldberg" the academics come up with. For me, creation isn't an issue, since I don't accept the past or future, only the present. And at present, I am.
Quote from: Baruch on July 19, 2019, 07:01:05 AM
Actually, that is why originally, the materialists supported "steady state" cosmology. The "big bang" idea created too many problems for them, particularly when after 1965 it was proven correct. But since we have infinite universes with infinite dimensions (its a cult among physics profs) ... the "big bang" is easier for these people to accept. Like an oyster secreting nacre over a sand grain, making a pearl.
Not that I know what creation "ex nihilo" is, but I don't think it is any stranger than "cosmic inflation" or any other "saving appearances/rube goldberg" the academics come up with. For me, creation isn't an issue, since I don't accept the past or future, only the present. And at present, I am.
One little question for you Baruch.
You say that you do not believe in the past right?
Where according to you the consciousness that you got is coming from?
Quote from: Arik on July 19, 2019, 07:48:41 AM
One little question for you Baruch.
You say that you do not believe in the past right?
Where according to you the consciousness that you got is coming from?
I know that part of Buddhist polemic (one of several) is to claim cause/effect and then use that to demolish ordinary metaphysics. Usually ending up with radical discontinuity, which nullifies the notion of "self" (aka something with ongoing existence: pudgala/atman). I don't need to assume cause/effect as part of some rhetorical gambit.
Cause/effect is a rather primitive meme in ordinary metaphysics (materialist pool table reality). I just cut to the chase. There is only the Present, axiomatically. And not being a Buddhist, I don't need to draw the conclusion that there is no "self". The question of ongoing existence is moot in my mind. I am satisfied with "personalism" over "impersonalism".
So as most of us know, the mind is like a layer cake. The consciousness is the icing on the cake, the body of the cake is the unconscious. We call the boundary between those, the sub-conscious. That is a model simply describing something. The body of the cake doesn't cause the icing, the icing doesn't cause the body of the cake. They are distinct but connected.
So "where does the consciousness come from" is a moot question. Same as "where does the unconsciousness come from". "Come from" implies cause/effect, which I simply choose to treat as moot. They simply are, in the Present. The sense of time passing, the sense of cause/effect .. are from psychology. Secondary considerations.
We know that in local physics, the equations don't care which direction time is running. That is what one would expect from a locally a-temporal system (aka eternal). And the experimenter/observer changes the situation by interacting with it. We make time and space relevant (demi-gods).
There are many important insights from Buddhism however or from Yoga ... they are introspective psychology. But that means they are subjective. Being an immaterialist, the question of "how does the brain create thought" is irrelevant to me.
Quote from: Baruch on July 19, 2019, 01:04:13 PM
I know that part of Buddhist polemic (one of several) is to claim cause/effect and then use that to demolish ordinary metaphysics. Usually ending up with radical discontinuity, which nullifies the notion of "self" (aka something with ongoing existence: pudgala/atman). I don't need to assume cause/effect as part of some rhetorical gambit.
Cause/effect is a rather primitive meme in ordinary metaphysics (materialist pool table reality). I just cut to the chase. There is only the Present, axiomatically. And not being a Buddhist, I don't need to draw the conclusion that there is no "self". The question of ongoing existence is moot in my mind. I am satisfied with "personalism" over "impersonalism".
So as most of us know, the mind is like a layer cake. The consciousness is the icing on the cake, the body of the cake is the unconscious. We call the boundary between those, the sub-conscious. That is a model simply describing something. The body of the cake doesn't cause the icing, the icing doesn't cause the body of the cake. They are distinct but connected.
So "where does the consciousness come from" is a moot question. Same as "where does the unconsciousness come from". "Come from" implies cause/effect, which I simply choose to treat as moot. They simply are, in the Present. The sense of time passing, the sense of cause/effect .. are from psychology. Secondary considerations.
We know that in local physics, the equations don't care which direction time is running. That is what one would expect from a locally a-temporal system (aka eternal). And the experimenter/observer changes the situation by interacting with it. We make time and space relevant (demi-gods).
There are many important insights from Buddhism however or from Yoga ... they are introspective psychology. But that means they are subjective. Being an immaterialist, the question of "how does the brain create thought" is irrelevant to me.
Descartes say........... “I think therefore I am.â€
Yogic philosophy say......... “When I stop thinking, then I really am!â€
I may be wrong Baruch but it seem to me that you think that the mind or conscious mind is able to understand what is outside its limits.
Is a fact that when we do not know something we look within.
Within our subconsciousness mind and if we are able to get the knowledge that means that it is the subconsciousness mind that provide that knowledge and the conscious mind is secondary rather then the icing cake.
The ideas come from within and all the conscious mind can do is to try to understand and remember that.
Nothing else nothing more.
Sub stand like below not inferior like a subordinate.
A submarine stay below the water that doesn't mean that it is inferior to anything.
Our subconscious mind is the real ice cake because that is the place where all knowledge come from so when the conscious mind stop making us believe that we know everything or there is no need for anything else then the real cake of subconscious mind is able to take over and let us be aware of the real knowledge.
Quote from: Baruch on July 19, 2019, 01:04:13 PM
I know that part of Buddhist polemic (one of several) is to claim cause/effect and then use that to demolish ordinary metaphysics. Usually ending up with radical discontinuity, which nullifies the notion of "self" (aka something with ongoing existence: pudgala/atman). I don't need to assume cause/effect as part of some rhetorical gambit.
Cause/effect is a rather primitive meme in ordinary metaphysics (materialist pool table reality). I just cut to the chase. There is only the Present, axiomatically. And not being a Buddhist, I don't need to draw the conclusion that there is no "self". The question of ongoing existence is moot in my mind. I am satisfied with "personalism" over "impersonalism".
So as most of us know, the mind is like a layer cake. The consciousness is the icing on the cake, the body of the cake is the unconscious. We call the boundary between those, the sub-conscious. That is a model simply describing something. The body of the cake doesn't cause the icing, the icing doesn't cause the body of the cake. They are distinct but connected.
So "where does the consciousness come from" is a moot question. Same as "where does the unconsciousness come from". "Come from" implies cause/effect, which I simply choose to treat as moot. They simply are, in the Present. The sense of time passing, the sense of cause/effect .. are from psychology. Secondary considerations.
We know that in local physics, the equations don't care which direction time is running. That is what one would expect from a locally a-temporal system (aka eternal). And the experimenter/observer changes the situation by interacting with it. We make time and space relevant (demi-gods).
There are many important insights from Buddhism however or from Yoga ... they are introspective psychology. But that means they are subjective. Being an immaterialist, the question of "how does the brain create thought" is irrelevant to me.
Go dude!
Quote from: Arik on July 20, 2019, 10:22:21 AM
Descartes say........... “I think therefore I am.â€
Yogic philosophy say......... “When I stop thinking, then I really am!â€
A superior observation!
Quote
I may be wrong Baruch but it seem to me that you think that the mind or conscious mind is able to understand what is outside its limits.
You are wrong about my view. Like understands like. Consciousness understands consciousness. It can never understand unconsciousness. Thus consciousness cannot be the be all/end all of enlightenment.
Quote
Is a fact that when we do not know something we look within.
Within our subconsciousness mind and if we are able to get the knowledge that means that it is the subconsciousness mind that provide that knowledge and the conscious mind is secondary rather then the icing cake.
I presented a simpler model. And you are assuming a hierarchy that I didn't address.
Quote
The ideas come from within and all the conscious mind can do is to try to understand and remember that.
Nothing else nothing more.
I agree.
Quote
Sub stand like below not inferior like a subordinate.
A submarine stay below the water that doesn't mean that it is inferior to anything.
Our subconscious mind is the real ice cake because that is the place where all knowledge come from so when the conscious mind stop making us believe that we know everything or there is no need for anything else then the real cake of subconscious mind is able to take over and let us be aware of the real knowledge.
Let me analogize back to you ... the subconscious is like the "cambium" of thought. The "cambium" being the living part of the tree trunk, between the bark and the wood. The unconscious is like the wood, historical. The conscious is like the bark, superficial. It is all bark and no bite ;-)
Quote from: Arik on July 20, 2019, 10:22:21 AM
Descartes say........... “I think therefore I am.â€
Yogic philosophy say......... “When I stop thinking, then I really am!â€
I may be wrong Baruch but it seem to me that you think that the mind or conscious mind is able to understand what is outside its limits.
Is a fact that when we do not know something we look within.
Within our subconsciousness mind and if we are able to get the knowledge that means that it is the subconsciousness mind that provide that knowledge and the conscious mind is secondary rather then the icing cake.
The ideas come from within and all the conscious mind can do is to try to understand and remember that.
Nothing else nothing more.
Sub stand like below not inferior like a subordinate.
A submarine stay below the water that doesn't mean that it is inferior to anything.
Our subconscious mind is the real ice cake because that is the place where all knowledge come from so when the conscious mind stop making us believe that we know everything or there is no need for anything else then the real cake of subconscious mind is able to take over and let us be aware of the real knowledge.
I disagree. I think that we find the subjects we study in our conscious minds. We observe something and wonder "why" and go study it. My subconscious mind is where the dreams of the night reside and those are not rational. They are combinations of past offices, old problems, weird streets, etc.
I know my dreams well. Never has one provided any useful information. That may not be true for everyone.
Some people have nightmares. I don't have those unless you think walking down old streets are nightmares. My subconscious may be rather calm...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 10:56:13 AM
I disagree. I think that we find the subjects we study in our conscious minds. We observe something and wonder "why" and go study it. My subconscious mind is where the dreams of the night reside and those are not rational. They are combinations of past offices, old problems, weird streets, etc.
I know my dreams well. Never has one provided any useful information. That may not be true for everyone.
Some people have nightmares. I don't have those unless you think walking down old streets are nightmares. My subconscious may be rather calm...
The relationship between the unconscious and conscious is dialectical, not hierarchical. Thus thesis (conscious/unconscious) meets antithesis (unconscious/conscious) producing synthesis (subconscious). We get content from below and from above, and output in both directions also.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 10:47:44 AM
You are wrong about my view. Like understands like. Consciousness understands consciousness. It can never understand unconsciousness. Thus consciousness cannot be the be all/end all of enlightenment.
I simply put it in a different way Baruch.
The conscious mind is all about what our external mind is aware of while the unconscious mind it is all it is so far hidden to our external conscious mind.
In this way I avoid all philosophical mumbo-jumbo of intellectual extravaganza.
QuoteI presented a simpler model. And you are assuming a hierarchy that I didn't address.
Sorry about that.
QuoteLet me analogize back to you ... the subconscious is like the "cambium" of thought. The "cambium" being the living part of the tree trunk, between the bark and the wood. The unconscious is like the wood, historical. The conscious is like the bark, superficial. It is all bark and no bite ;-)
I stand on my previous understand about external conscious mind and subconscious.
To me it is a lot more simple way to explain how it all work.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 11:04:50 AM
The relationship between the unconscious and conscious is dialectical, not hierarchical. Thus thesis (conscious/unconscious) meets antithesis (unconscious/conscious) producing synthesis (subconscious). We get content from below and from above, and output in both directions also.
Gimme a break! I learned the thesis/antiithesis/synthesis crap back in the 60s and it was dumb then. Its just a pedantic way of arriving at "Duh".
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 11:14:23 AM
Gimme a break! I learned the thesis/antiithesis/synthesis crap back in the 60s and it was dumb then. Its just a pedantic way of arriving at "Duh".
Capitalists never get dialectic. Their particular language is a limited dialect ;-)
Quote from: Arik on July 20, 2019, 11:12:53 AM
I simply put it in a different way Baruch.
The conscious mind is all about what our external mind is aware of while the unconscious mind it is all it is so far hidden to our external conscious mind.
In this way I avoid all philosophical mumbo-jumbo of intellectual extravaganza.
Sorry about that.
I stand on my previous understand about external conscious mind and subconscious.
To me it is a lot more simple way to explain how it all work.
Thanks for clarifying. Your particular analogy is a good one. But not one size fit all.
Quote from: Arik on July 20, 2019, 11:12:53 AM
I simply put it in a different way Baruch.
The conscious mind is all about what our external mind is aware of while the unconscious mind it is all it is so far hidden to our external conscious mind.
In this way I avoid all philosophical mumbo-jumbo of intellectual extravaganza.
Sorry about that.
I stand on my previous understand about external conscious mind and subconscious.
To me it is a lot more simple way to explain how it all work.
I think conscious and sub-conscious mind theory is overblown except in aging new-age thought. At best "sub-conscious" mind is merely the brain organizing recent events and sometimes engaging a few old memories.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 11:18:38 AM
I think conscious and sub-conscious mind theory is overblown except in aging new-age thought. At best "sub-conscious" mind is merely the brain organizing recent events and sometimes engaging a few old memories.
No surprise you don't like "depth psychology". Cognitive psychology would be more your thing. People are computers, reprogram their habitual thinking patterns. Very Dr Nunian Sung.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 11:18:38 AM
I think conscious and sub-conscious mind theory is overblown except in aging new-age thought. At best "sub-conscious" mind is merely the brain organizing recent events and sometimes engaging a few old memories.
Inventors and scientists in all ages always look within for solving problems.
The ideas come from within and they come when we do an effort.
Subconscious mind can not possibly be the brain organizing anything.
Eventually it s the external mind that try to get knowledge from within, within the subconscious mind.
Organizing prematurely impedes creativity. But once the idea occurs, you need organizing to push it forward (hence he necessity of the conscious mind).
Quote from: Arik on July 20, 2019, 11:26:57 AM
Inventors and scientists in all ages always look within for solving problems.
The ideas come from within and they come when we do an effort.
Subconscious mind can not possibly be the brain organizing anything.
Eventually it s the external mind that try to get knowledge from within, within the subconscious mind.
I think what you are actually describing is the pre-self-conscious brain of some primates. Call it the "almost there".
Humans do develop ideas when not being aware they are thinking of the problem. I myself often suddenly realize a solution to a problem (usually mechanical in nature) but it is not my subconscious doing it. It is my conscious thought set on the back burner.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "subconscious". I consider my "subconscious" as what makes my dreams weird, dredging up unrelated old memories in no logical pattern.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 01:34:41 PM
I think what you are actually describing is the pre-self-conscious brain of some primates. Call it the "almost there".
Humans do develop ideas when not being aware they are thinking of the problem. I myself often suddenly realize a solution to a problem (usually mechanical in nature) but it is not my subconscious doing it. It is my conscious thought set on the back burner.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "subconscious". I consider my "subconscious" as what makes my dreams weird, dredging up unrelated old memories in no logical pattern.
Someone, somewhere, sometime ago said that the average human doesn't even have 1% of the available consciousness.
I believe that in full.
Most humans think they are very smart and intelligent but they are not because the more we learn and the more we realize that there is to learn and people are pushed to learn by a mysterious force.
A force that come from within.
This is my understanding of how the hidden consciousness try to prompt us.
What really come from outside, outside the external mind is something very very minute just like a drop of water in the vast ocean.
Quote from: Arik on July 22, 2019, 06:39:38 AM
Someone, somewhere, sometime ago said that the average human doesn't even have 1% of the available consciousness.
I believe that in full.
Most humans think they are very smart and intelligent but they are not because the more we learn and the more we realize that there is to learn and people are pushed to learn by a mysterious force.
A force that come from within.
This is my understanding of how the hidden consciousness try to prompt us.
What really come from outside, outside the external mind is something very very minute just like a drop of water in the vast ocean.
Don't know the percentages, but it is a necessary aspect of the mind, that is plastic/flexible/stretchable.
Quote from: Baruch on July 22, 2019, 07:32:20 AM
Don't know the percentages, but it is a necessary aspect of the mind, that is plastic/flexible/stretchable.
Sure Baruch..........as far as we do something to keep the mind in that way.
Unfortunately most people do the opposite so their mind get more and more non/flexible and non stretchable.
As far as it concern me I practice yoga that serve that purpose to keep the mind in top nick (at least I do my best).
I suppose that you too with your intellectual knowledge try your best to do something about it.
We all will get there although is a question of WHEN.
This is why I do mental gymnastics ... at my age I need it, but have been doing it all my life. If only I had treated my body like that ;-( I do "out of ideology", "out of culture" or "out of language projection.
Quote from: Baruch on July 22, 2019, 10:05:04 AM
This is why I do mental gymnastics ... at my age I need it, but have been doing it all my life. If only I had treated my body like that ;-( I do "out of ideology", "out of culture" or "out of language projection.
Yoga is all about a balance among body, mind and inner consciousness.
It is like a carriage pull by 3 horses.
It is by feeding and looking after all of them properly that the carriage will have a good chance to go straight and fast.
This is also my idea but again some people may have different ways to get there.
Quote from: Arik on July 19, 2019, 06:21:12 AMNDEs are not anecdotal evidence as according the dictionary anecdotal evidence come from an individual witness.
In the NDEs case the witness come from a group of people that were present there (doctors, nurses and other people) so it is wrong to call anecdotal in the first place.
So...if a single person claims to see Bigfoot and all you have to go on is that person's say so, that's ancedotal evidence, an extremely weak and unreliable form of evidence.
But if multiple people say they saw Bigfoot and all you have to go on is their say so, that's not ancedotal evidence and is a very strong and very reliable form of evidence.
Makes sense.
Quote from: Arik on July 22, 2019, 10:28:48 AM
Yoga is all about a balance among body, mind and inner consciousness.
It seems like you have done a bang-up job of balancing your cranium up your inter-gluteal cleft.
Quote from: Arik on July 22, 2019, 10:28:48 AM
Yoga is all about a balance among body, mind and inner consciousness.
It is like a carriage pull by 3 horses.
It is by feeding and looking after all of them properly that the carriage will have a good chance to go straight and fast.
This is also my idea but again some people may have different ways to get there.
Plato had a similar analogy, he considered a human to have a tripartite soul: that of the bodily appetites, that of the emotions, and that of the intellect. The driver of the coach was the intellect, and the horses were the emotions and the bodily appetites, each trying to pull in different directions.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 22, 2019, 01:32:35 PM
Plato had a similar analogy, he considered a human to have a tripartite soul: that of the bodily appetites, that of the emotions, and that of the intellect. The driver of the coach was the intellect, and the horses were the emotions and the bodily appetites, each trying to pull in different directions.
Same as Krishna's lecture to Arjuna in the Gita. A coincidence? I think not.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 22, 2019, 10:39:03 AM
So...if a single person claims to see Bigfoot and all you have to go on is that person's say so, that's ancedotal evidence, an extremely weak and unreliable form of evidence.
But if multiple people say they saw Bigfoot and all you have to go on is their say so, that's not ancedotal evidence and is a very strong and very reliable form of evidence.
Makes sense.
You are talking, acting and judging like a total fool.
Obviously you haven't read any of the NDEs and even if you did then you play the dishonest part.
The facts are very clear.
In most cases the person in question saw from above his dead body and all the medical staff in action.
Not only that but the person could even read their mind.
Once back in his-her body the person described what he-she saw to the amazement to all people present which confirmed that they really were doing that and thinking that.
This is pure and simple evidence Mister.
One more evidence (among the thousand in question).
An other person once out his body saw a nurse that drop a baby.
The baby hurt himself but the nurse in fear of getting in trouble pretend that nothing happen and put the baby back in his cot.
Once back into his body the person who had his NDE report the matter to the doctors which realized that that baby was really injured.
How all this could ever take place unless the consciousness of these people really left their dead bodies?
You are free to keep on being a total bigot-fool or change course and wake up to the reality.
Up to you Mister.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 22, 2019, 01:32:35 PM
Plato had a similar analogy, he considered a human to have a tripartite soul: that of the bodily appetites, that of the emotions, and that of the intellect. The driver of the coach was the intellect, and the horses were the emotions and the bodily appetites, each trying to pull in different directions.
Our free will is not one way good.
With the good also come the bad like everything in this universal dimension.
The positive always go hand in hand with the negative so people who don't get this point risk to go around and around in circle getting nowhere that is why it is important to balance our life in such a way that the horses don't drive our coach down the ditch.
You guys have given this whack-job 14 pages.....sheeesh....and still nothing of real substance....just more and more whacky ideas of granduer.
Quote from: aitm on July 23, 2019, 09:36:40 AM
You guys have given this whack-job 14 pages.....sheeesh....and still nothing of real substance....just more and more whacky ideas of granduer.
When you realize that the goal of life is full of splendor and grandeur then why shouldn't people keep a positive attitude?
Quote from: Arik on July 23, 2019, 10:53:35 AM
When you realize that the goal of life is full of splendor and grandeur then why shouldn't people keep a positive attitude?
... that's not very realistic. It's also full of misery and despair. I'd rather know the world as it really is, than entertain some fantasy.
Quote from: Arik on July 23, 2019, 10:53:35 AM
When you realize that the goal of life is full of splendor and grandeur then why shouldn't people keep a positive attitude?
Power of positive thinking they are not. Neither am I. But I soldier on. My theology though is very much splendor and grandeur ... though not the kind that people admire (coronation of a British monarch). The yawn of a satisfied baby ... is one of the greatest events.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 23, 2019, 06:51:45 PM
... that's not very realistic. It's also full of misery and despair. I'd rather know the world as it really is, than entertain some fantasy.
I did say......the goal of life Sal not this universal dimension.
This universal dimension is tough enough for the simple reason that the positive and the negative always go hand in hand so progress is impossible.
Spirituality on the other hand is totally free of the negative part and it is here that real progress is possible and the goal of life is achievable.
Even the toughest and hardened Atheist and materialist will one day come to this conclusion because there is no other nice place to go within this universe unless of course they decided to hang on in this suffering dimension for eternity which would be total madness.
Quote from: Baruch on July 23, 2019, 06:54:06 PM
Power of positive thinking they are not. Neither am I. But I soldier on. My theology though is very much splendor and grandeur ... though not the kind that people admire (coronation of a British monarch). The yawn of a satisfied baby ... is one of the greatest events.
New targets come as you go along Baruch.
When you realize that what you are doing is getting you nowhere then new ideas and targets pop up in a mysterious way.
It happen to me and will happen to everybody.
The main thing is to pick up the tip as it pop up rather than let it go to the dogs.
Good luck with that brother.
Dream on. The goal of life is mere hope of. The vastness of this world is misery. Kill and survive, kill or be killed, kill in order to eat, killed to be eaten, die and be eaten. Anyone who thinks this was the "design" is a fucking idiot. This is merely the course as it is now and has been, and may very well always be. But there are instances that things can change, be changed and accept change. The problem of course is that the people who recognize this possibility, cannot convince those intent of maintaining the current system, and those who cannot escape the current systems, do not have the luxury of time and safe haven to be able to hope that the system can be changed, let alone be given the opportunity of trying.
Quote from: aitm on July 24, 2019, 03:19:39 PM
Dream on. The goal of life is mere hope of. The vastness of this world is misery. Kill and survive, kill or be killed, kill in order to eat, killed to be eaten, die and be eaten. Anyone who thinks this was the "design" is a fucking idiot. This is merely the course as it is now and has been, and may very well always be. But there are instances that things can change, be changed and accept change. The problem of course is that the people who recognize this possibility, cannot convince those intent of maintaining the current system, and those who cannot escape the current systems, do not have the luxury of time and safe haven to be able to hope that the system can be changed, let alone be given the opportunity of trying.
Exactly why I don't support liberals. Crazy bastards.
you always have been one for concise thought.
Quote from: aitm on July 24, 2019, 07:41:19 PM
you always have been one for concise thought.
I also don't support conservatives. Crazy bastards.
Quote from: Arik on July 23, 2019, 08:52:33 AM
You are talking, acting and judging like a total fool.
Obviously you haven't read any of the NDEs and even if you did then you play the dishonest part.
The facts are very clear.
In most cases the person in question saw from above his dead body and all the medical staff in action.
Not only that but the person could even read their mind.
Once back in his-her body the person described what he-she saw to the amazement to all people present which confirmed that they really were doing that and thinking that.
This is pure and simple evidence Mister.
One more evidence (among the thousand in question).
An other person once out his body saw a nurse that drop a baby.
The baby hurt himself but the nurse in fear of getting in trouble pretend that nothing happen and put the baby back in his cot.
Once back into his body the person who had his NDE report the matter to the doctors which realized that that baby was really injured.
How all this could ever take place unless the consciousness of these people really left their dead bodies?
You are free to keep on being a total bigot-fool or change course and wake up to the reality.
Up to you Mister.
You typed an awful lot of words just to say Nuh uh and restate the same fallacious/weak argument.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 24, 2019, 09:05:34 PM
You typed an awful lot of words just to say Nuh uh and restate the same fallacious/weak argument.
I fully understand Hydra.
It must be quite hard to be unable to reply when the evidence is behind destruction.
Sad, isn't it Hydra?
Quote from: aitm on July 24, 2019, 03:19:39 PM
Dream on. The goal of life is mere hope of. The vastness of this world is misery. Kill and survive, kill or be killed, kill in order to eat, killed to be eaten, die and be eaten. Anyone who thinks this was the "design" is a fucking idiot. This is merely the course as it is now and has been, and may very well always be. But there are instances that things can change, be changed and accept change. The problem of course is that the people who recognize this possibility, cannot convince those intent of maintaining the current system, and those who cannot escape the current systems, do not have the luxury of time and safe haven to be able to hope that the system can be changed, let alone be given the opportunity of trying.
Materialists have the faulty idea that with the physical death is all over.
Where is the evidence for this?
Of course human may kill and be killed so what?
Who said that once you are killed you are gone for ever?
That is your problem Mister.
The reality is totally different.
If people have to suffer there is a reason for.
Without justice the whole universe would disintegrate in less than a second but this is a notion that will become more and more clear as you go along.
Good luck with that.
Quote from: Arik on July 25, 2019, 10:22:13 AM
Materialists have the faulty idea that with the physical death is all over.
Where is the evidence for this?
Again, we don't need to provide evidence for our disbelief in your claim that there
is an afterlife. We both agree that we share a reality where there is physical death. But you are the one claiming there is an afterlife. You are the one who needs to provide evidence for your claim.
Unless you provide evidence for your claim of an afterlife, what justification do I have to believe you?
I on, the other hand, am not claiming with absolute certainty, that there is no afterlife. But until you and your ilk are able to support you claim with demonstrable evidence, I will remain unconvinced. I am completely open to being convinced there is an afterlife. All I need to be convinced is demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support the claim.
QuoteOf course human may kill and be killed so what?
Who said that once you are killed you are gone for ever?
Insufficient evidence for the claim that there is an afterlife is all that is necessary to disbelieve in an afterlife.
Once again, I am not saying that I am absolutely certain that there is no afterlife. My position is that there is no evidential warrant to believe there is an afterlife.
You really have zero understanding of: critical thinking, skepticism, and what constitutes good evidence.
QuoteThat is your problem Mister.
The reality is totally different.
If people have to suffer there is a reason for.
Without justice the whole universe would disintegrate in less than a second but this is a notion that will become more and more clear as you go along.
Again with the unsupported bald assertions.
Please support, with demonstrable evidence, that:
1. There is a 'reason' for suffering
2. That the universe will disintegrate in less than a second if there is no ultimate justice.
Please tell us how you know any of this is true.
Arik doesn't seem to realize that he came to us here at our forum to tell us what he believes. We didn't come to him to tell him what we believe or don't believe. The burden, then, is not on us to agree with him just because he asserts something, the burden is on him to convince us that what he asserts is worthy of our belief.
But he doesn't seem to have any convincing arguments, only assertions that are unsupported.
Lack of metaphysics. Better than nihilism (no physics or metaphysics). A materialist has no metaphysics. Physics corresponds to externalities and objectivity. Metaphysics corresponds to internalizes and subjectivity. A full person has both. An fantasist has no physics. They are mentally handicapped/phobic. A materialist has no metaphysics. They are mentally handicapped/phobic.
So ... don't be afraid of anything. Don't be afraid of physics/metaphysics or objectivity/subjectivity or materialist/fantasist. Be all those things.
Quote from: Baruch on July 25, 2019, 02:41:25 PM
Lack of metaphysics. Better than nihilism (no physics or metaphysics). A materialist has no metaphysics. Physics corresponds to externalities and objectivity. Metaphysics corresponds to internalizes and subjectivity. A full person has both. An fantasist has no physics. They are mentally handicapped/phobic. A materialist has no metaphysics. They are mentally handicapped/phobic.
So ... don't be afraid of anything. Don't be afraid of physics/metaphysics or objectivity/subjectivity or materialist/fantasist. Be all those things.
Please let me know how this "Metaphysics corresponds to internalizes and subjectivity" would manifest in one's thoughts, actions and reality. The standard definition for metaphysics seems to be, "examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality". So, by that definition, I have metaphysics.
The other problem I see in your above statements, is that you seem to be conflating "philosophical materialism" with "methodological materialism".
Philosophical materialism holds that the physical is all that exists. I do not hold that position.
My position is, that, I am not convinced that the 'spiritual', supernatural, etc, exists, therefore I disbelieve it does. I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that the material is all that exists. I am just not convinced otherwise.
I hold that methodological materialism is the single best, most reliable, method devised to explore reality.
To me reality is that which can be explained via physical sciences, metaphysics is more or less a loose explanation about those physicalities, like philosophy or ideology. Objectivity and materialism (realism) come under physical sciences, while subjectivity and "fantasist" is just our personal take.
Quote from: Arik on July 25, 2019, 10:22:13 AM
The reality is totally different.
No, it's not. You're just supplanting a god with bullshit. 3 months here you haven't changed a single persons opinion of your bullshit. Not one. You are here because you can't find any other place that will tolerate your bullshit. Even you think it's bullshit, that's why you are here, trying desperately to get one.....just ONE human that won't laugh at you. Good luck with that here. You haven't got a "prayer". If your idea had any merit you would be in those nut job forums being praised as a mental giant...here you're just an babbling idiot.
Quote from: aitm on July 25, 2019, 06:00:42 PM
No, it's not. You're just supplanting a god with bullshit. 3 months here you haven't changed a single persons opinion of your bullshit. Not one. You are here because you can't find any other place that will tolerate your bullshit. Even you think it's bullshit, that's why you are here, trying desperately to get one.....just ONE human that won't laugh at you. Good luck with that here. You haven't got a "prayer". If your idea had any merit you would be in those nut job forums being praised as a mental giant...here you're just an babbling idiot.
HaHa!
Pretty much this 48 page thread in a nutshell.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 25, 2019, 03:23:07 PM
Please let me know how this "Metaphysics corresponds to internalizes and subjectivity" would manifest in one's thoughts, actions and reality. The standard definition for metaphysics seems to be, "examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality". So, by that definition, I have metaphysics.
The other problem I see in your above statements, is that you seem to be conflating "philosophical materialism" with "methodological materialism".
Philosophical materialism holds that the physical is all that exists. I do not hold that position.
My position is, that, I am not convinced that the 'spiritual', supernatural, etc, exists, therefore I disbelieve it does. I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that the material is all that exists. I am just not convinced otherwise.
I hold that methodological materialism is the single best, most reliable, method devised to explore reality.
You can disbelieve in pink elephants if you want. They may or may not exist. I suspect not. Like a coelacanth. But that isn't what metaphysics means. That is xeno-zoology. A speculative part of biology.
There may have been a second shooter at the JFK assassination. I showed evidence by someone who seems to know what they are doing, that there was another shooter. But not like any of the conspiracy theories presented before. Accidental kill shot by excited untrained Secret Service agent. Followed by a massive coverup. The evidence is there, but can be interpreted more than one way. And pretty much after this much time and the coverup, we will never know.
So for physics ... I can lift my hand and move my fingers and type out letters. Exactly what the thoughts are, behind what any person types, that is metaphysics. We can demonstrate that these letters were typed, and maybe demonstrate that I was the one who typed them. But the intentions and emotions behind them .. are subjective.
For someone, perhaps my emotions and intentions don't matter. Or autism prevents the necessary empathy which allows someone to imagine those. Just as blindness might prevent one from seeing them. But most of us, fortunately, are not blind or autistic.
Categories. For some, there is both natural and supernatural. Often these are misunderstood. If I associate physics with the natural and metaphysics with the supernatural (and I do), that isn't what most people use those words for. Most people consider everything natural, by definition. So both the objective and subjective (psychological) are natural. That is word game we often face with very abstract words.
So why can't we agree to terms? Only people who are very close to each other's position, already ... can agree to terms. Otherwise definition of terms is part of the rhetorical combat. So funny to see people here then appeal to authority, of a book. If that applies to a dictionary, why not a Bible?
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 25, 2019, 11:26:57 AM
Again, we don't need to provide evidence for our disbelief in your claim that there is an afterlife. We both agree that we share a reality where there is physical death. But you are the one claiming there is an afterlife. You are the one who needs to provide evidence for your claim.
Unless you provide evidence for your claim of an afterlife, what justification do I have to believe you?
I on, the other hand, am not claiming with absolute certainty, that there is no afterlife. But until you and your ilk are able to support you claim with demonstrable evidence, I will remain unconvinced. I am completely open to being convinced there is an afterlife. All I need to be convinced is demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support the claim.
Insufficient evidence for the claim that there is an afterlife is all that is necessary to disbelieve in an afterlife.
Once again, I am not saying that I am absolutely certain that there is no afterlife. My position is that there is no evidential warrant to believe there is an afterlife.
You really have zero understanding of: critical thinking, skepticism, and what constitutes good evidence.
Again with the unsupported bald assertions.
Please support, with demonstrable evidence, that:
1. There is a 'reason' for suffering
2. That the universe will disintegrate in less than a second if there is no ultimate justice.
Please tell us how you know any of this is true.
Try to touch an open wire where electricity run.
You probably die, don't you SM?
That is when energy has been disconnected from consciousness.
That is how the universal laws work.
As far as energy-consciousness that are the two sides of the same sheet stay together everything is fine but when that doesn't happen then trouble may start.
The atomic bomb when is discharged will kill millions but when the atom is left alone then nothing happen.
Negative and positive also must always go hand in hand within this material-physical universe and that involve that an action must have an equal and opposite reaction that is why we see a lot of bad things going on all the time.
We do not know why they happen but a cause must be there.
That is how the universal system works.
For every action there must be a reaction in everything and if that wouldn't be the case then all would collapse because this system is based on action and reaction.
As you would die if you touch an open wiring also the whole universal system could not survive if there wouldn't be reactions for our actions that is why justice always prevail.
Only when we do good use of our free will the rot will stop but that is something that most people forget too often.
Arik is your typical specimen of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 21, 2019, 10:39:01 PM
A little of both.
Good.
The only reason why you would not be able to disclose "scientific evidence" is precisely because it isn't published anywhere. While technically that counts as "not widely published," your wording is deceptive. Furthermore, there may be a reason for that. Anyway, once published in a journal, there is literally no advantage to keeping such evidence under wraps.
As to your personal experimental evidence, I very much doubt that you have done experiments that have any significant power. If the effects of the immaterial are as subtle as you claim, the equipment costs alone would bankrupt your typical Joe Everybody.
Correction: You think that your beliefs logically explain all the ultimate answers. However, from what I have seen of your logical ability, with repeated appeals to known fallacies, I don't think that your logic would hold up under scrutiny. For instance, there is a very real possibility that what you are seeing your personal subjective experience is the result of cherry picking and confirmation bias.
Since you have been very cagey about how the immaterial supposedly generates reality, I'm not surprised. Fighting vapors is always difficult. You don't have anything specific enough to attack. If you're content to let your contention remain forever vague, then good for you. However, nobody will take your word for it or even credit you with the idea should they actually find the immaterial. The "theory" you have presented thus far doesn't really take any actual work. If I decided I believe you, develop and test a hypothesis of the immaterial, and publish my findings, and eventually it takes its place among the great ideas of science, I'm going to be the one having the Nobel prize coming to me. There'll be nothing for you.
So? Humans are quite clever little monkeys. Cheeky, too.
The scriptures are not evidence. The scriptures are the claims. There is nothing in them that could not have been written by the humans who wrote them. They also don't really distinguish themselves as different from every other mythology out there.
I said that time is part of the universe, not part of matter per se. That's a different statement. As to time being an illusion, it's complicated. Time itself is definitely real in that not everything happens all at once. It's a very real dimension on par with the other dimensions of space, and freely mixes with them. Time passing is in part an illusion, because eternalism (past, present, and future exist all at once) is the only way relativity makes sense. However, in most situations it can be treated exactly as it appears to us, where it passes inevitably into the past. We need to be cautious as we deal with the edges of that domain, like at the beginning of the universe.
I'm glad we have found a point of agreement, i.e. the notion of eternalism. The idea that consciousness generates reality is not mine, but it meshes nicely with eternalism since I would think you agree that the illusion of time is generated by the mind. Since everything we perceive seems to occur as a sequence of interrelated events, it's not too much of a stretch to say that those events themselves and perhaps matter could also be an illusion of the mind. If you would take these ideas and scientifically pursue them I would be ever so grateful. I have no need or interest in such things as Nobel prizes and thus you would be welcome to that.
If you desire additional evidence I would be happy to do so, however this is of little value unless we first establish a mutual philosophical framework from which to interpret evidence. The understanding of time is a great step forward in this regard.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Eternity doesn't mean ... something that lasts a long time, like a certain band of batteries. Temporality and eternity are qualitative, not quantitative. Similarly consciousness is qualitatively different from the vegetative or mineral. Nobody knows how to drive mere quantity into a different quality. Consider beach sand ... all the grains have the same quality. Twice as much sand, and it is still a beach, not an elephant.
Raw reality is "Qualia". No amount of sensation or subsequent gestalt or conceptual perception allows us to know the Qualia. We can only form a sensual or conceptual simulacrum. A ship in a bottle, not a ship.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 27, 2019, 10:27:47 AM
The idea that consciousness generates reality is not mine, but it meshes nicely with eternalism since I would think you agree that the illusion of time is generated by the mind.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I am not sold humans create reality--in this respect. Let's take gravity--it is in effect on Earth. No matter what I think of it, no matter how I want to change or effect it with my mind, I can't. Gravity is a reality that is real no matter what I feel about it or think about it. Time, not so much. There is a 'real' time that is measurable. The Earth revolves around the Sun and it's axis in precise time frames. We measure it. But I know for a fact, that not all hours are of the same length in that some hours flash by and others crawl. But that is on me--it is my perception of time which is real to me. But not to those around me or anywhere else. So, I would say that my mind creates it's own reality out of the actual reality. My perception does that, but it does not impact the actual reality of the universe. That's why my 'reality' is not yours or anybody else.
Eternalism, as I see it, is simply wishful thinking. I can't prove eternity isn't real but the universe isn't eternal. It was created by the Big Bang at a precise point in time. Prior to that time, it did not exist. And we have no way of knowing if this universe will last forever; but probably not, since it had a beginning. To think we are eternal or the universe is eternal is simply wishful thinking at this point.
But Mike, the universe we live in may be just the latest iteration of an ongoing, recurring process, that has been cycling through aeon after aeon for "eternity." But that's only if one or another of the cyclic models turns out to be verifiable. Models like the "ekpyrotic cyclic cosmology" of Steinhardt and Turok (et al), or Penrose's "conformal cyclic cosmology" (CCC). They're aesthetically more pleasing to me, so I tend toward them. But they haven't been verified empirically yet, so the jury's still out.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 27, 2019, 12:45:06 PM
I am not sold humans create reality--in this respect. Let's take gravity--it is in effect on Earth. No matter what I think of it, no matter how I want to change or effect it with my mind, I can't. Gravity is a reality that is real no matter what I feel about it or think about it.
If you can fool yourself about the nature of time the same applies to anything else. If we are living in a holographic mind-generated illusion then gravity is no more real than anything else we seem to perceive. Without the Sun's and Moon's orbits how can you prove such a thing as time actually objectively exists?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Penrose postulates a time in the very far future, when the matter in the universe will be so widely dispersed that there will be no sort of "clocks," no processes left on-going for the passage of time to mean anything. And if time is meaningless, with nothing left that can measure the passage of time, then space also becomes meaningless. At this point, which he calls the future infinity, somehow things sort of flip, so that the very large becomes very small, and the expansion continues as another big bang. I can't say I really understand his model, but it's interesting.
It isn't that there isn't any objectivity, in spite of the disconnect with "qualia" .. but it is known neuroscience, that your apparent "visual reality" isn't ... it is a TV show projected on the backside of your own cerebrum. This has been visualized thru electronics. Necessary, because without post-pressing the retina data, we would experience everything upside down (eyes only have inverse images, because of the simple lens system).
Now it is a question of philosophy of science in general, how with this complex system, which impacts all sense data (and given the internal generation of conceptual data (snake vs rope)) produces anything worthwhile at all. Obviously the result of millions of years of evolution to promote and retard predation. Just as cockle shells (with 32 baby blue eyes convergently evolved to be similar to the human eye) have eyes, so they can flee slow moving starfish.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 27, 2019, 01:45:36 PM
If you can fool yourself about the nature of time the same applies to anything else. If we are living in a holographic mind-generated illusion then gravity is no more real than anything else we seem to perceive. Without the Sun's and Moon's orbits how can you prove such a thing as time actually objectively exists?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I don't understand it as I'm 'fooling' myself. If I am working on something for 4 hours and it seems only 15 min. has gone by, I am fully aware that 4 hrs. went by. It just did not seem like it. 'If' the sun and the moon did not exist? Well, they do and nothing can change that. Besides, we measure time as a convince--we could use anything that moves in a measurable pace. One can place 'if' in front of anything trying to change it. There is no 'if' in physics. It either is, is not, or not known. You can make millions of conjectures and use millions of 'ifs', but nothing would (or does) change. Your if-fictions stay just that--fictions. If I were living on The Big Rock Candy Mountain, I could have my favorite candy whenever I wanted. If god existed he would...................................fill-in the blanks--just as you already have. God is still a fiction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 27, 2019, 12:45:06 PM
I am not sold humans create reality--in this respect. Let's take gravity--it is in effect on Earth. No matter what I think of it, no matter how I want to change or effect it with my mind, I can't. Gravity is a reality that is real no matter what I feel about it or think about it. Time, not so much. There is a 'real' time that is measurable. The Earth revolves around the Sun and it's axis in precise time frames. We measure it. But I know for a fact, that not all hours are of the same length in that some hours flash by and others crawl. But that is on me--it is my perception of time which is real to me. But not to those around me or anywhere else. So, I would say that my mind creates it's own reality out of the actual reality. My perception does that, but it does not impact the actual reality of the universe. That's why my 'reality' is not yours or anybody else.
Eternalism, as I see it, is simply wishful thinking. I can't prove eternity isn't real but the universe isn't eternal. It was created by the Big Bang at a precise point in time. Prior to that time, it did not exist. And we have no way of knowing if this universe will last forever; but probably not, since it had a beginning. To think we are eternal or the universe is eternal is simply wishful thinking at this point.
Well, well, well...............
All I can see in the last day in this thread is tons and tons of guessing plus tons of statements void of any evidence and little substance.
How sad......
Where is the evidence that the universe started with the big bang or that it didn't exist before?
There is an old saying that goes...........IF YOU WANT TO KNOW ALL YOU MUST KNOW YOURSLF FIRST but how can you do that if you only look outside and deny the mine of gold within?
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 27, 2019, 06:43:12 PM
I don't understand it as I'm 'fooling' myself. If I am working on something for 4 hours and it seems only 15 min. has gone by, I am fully aware that 4 hrs. went by. It just did not seem like it. 'If' the sun and the moon did not exist? Well, they do and nothing can change that. Besides, we measure time as a convince--we could use anything that moves in a measurable pace. One can place 'if' in front of anything trying to change it. There is no 'if' in physics. It either is, is not, or not known. You can make millions of conjectures and use millions of 'ifs', but nothing would (or does) change. Your if-fictions stay just that--fictions. If I were living on The Big Rock Candy Mountain, I could have my favorite candy whenever I wanted. If god existed he would...................................fill-in the blanks--just as you already have. God is still a fiction.
It is mistake to assume that what you know is all there is to know. The progress of science relies on informed conjectures (hypotheses) and the realization of one's ignorance. The possibility that we are living in an illusion is not some wild hare-brained proposal, but is supported by recent discoveries in physics. For practical purposes we must act as if gravity were real, and that we are real, of course, but our belief in them does not prove their reality. The self naturally feels that what it does not know must be pure "fiction", yet under careful examination this position proves to be an irrational, unscientific assumption to live by.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Arik on July 28, 2019, 08:30:05 AM
Well, well, well...............
All I can see in the last day in this thread is tons and tons of guessing plus tons of statements void of any evidence and little substance.
How sad......
Yes, I agree, you are sad. Full of hot air and no substance. You make stuff up and then present that as evidence. You present 'arguments' like Arik--which means you a all huff and puff and nothing else. You just are not worthy of addressing.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 28, 2019, 09:24:35 AM
Yes, I agree, you are sad. Full of hot air and no substance. You make stuff up and then present that as evidence. You present 'arguments' like Arik--which means you a all huff and puff and nothing else. You just are not worthy of addressing.
Oh, I see........
That means that you are unable to provide evidence about the big bang that suppose to have started the life in the universe and all the rest?
Of course I am sad Mike, why shouldn't I?
Quote from: Arik on July 28, 2019, 10:18:55 AM
Oh, I see........
That means that you are unable to provide evidence about the big bang that suppose to have started the life in the universe and all the rest?
Of course I am sad Mike, why shouldn't I?
People here don't rely on the authority of Catholic priests saying Latin. They rely on scientists saying maths. The difference is less than they think.
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 10:37:02 AM
People here don't rely on the authority of Catholic priests saying Latin. They rely on scientists saying maths. The difference is less than they think.
The type of scientists that they rely on equal to scientists that study physical science.
Unfortunately these guys still haven't got the notion that there is a lot more than the physical aspect of the whole.
In fact the physical aspect lies on the very bottom of what exist so by rely on the crumbs they only get crumbs while the whole cake is left untouched.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 28, 2019, 09:24:35 AM
Yes, I agree, you are sad. Full of hot air and no substance. You make stuff up and then present that as evidence. You present 'arguments' like Arik--which means you a all huff and puff and nothing else. You just are not worthy of addressing.
731 posts and counting... quite a record for someone "not worth addressing" [emoji28]
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 28, 2019, 11:27:43 AM
731 posts and counting... quite a record for someone "not worth addressing" [emoji28]
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
You are not good at counting, either, I see..............'95 posts'. And all 95 spouting fictions and displaying an empty head with only beliefs and feelings--no facts or thinking. You would have to climb a ladder to get to 'dumb shit!'.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 28, 2019, 12:20:04 PM
You are not good at counting, either, I see..............'95 posts'. And all 95 spouting fictions and displaying an empty head with only beliefs and feelings--no facts or thinking. You would have to climb a ladder to get to 'dumb shit!'.
Only 95 out of a total of the 731 posts in this thread were written by Arik? Even better. For a village idiot he sure elicits a large volume of responses--nearly an 800% ratio! [emoji106]
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 28, 2019, 08:45:06 AM
It is mistake to assume that what you know is all there is to know. The progress of science relies on informed conjectures (hypotheses) and the realization of one's ignorance. The possibility that we are living in an illusion is not some wild hare-brained proposal, but is supported by recent discoveries in physics. For practical purposes we must act as if gravity were real, and that we are real, of course, but our belief in them does not prove their reality. The self naturally feels that what it does not know must be pure "fiction", yet under careful examination this position proves to be an irrational, unscientific assumption to live by.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Atheists are always proclaiming their god-hood, or at least as fan boys of particular scientists. Sophomoric really. On the other hand, I don't think the nihilism of complete skepticism is good either.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 28, 2019, 01:41:27 PM
Only 95 out of a total of the 731 posts in this thread were written by Arik? Even better. For a village idiot he sure elicits a large volume of responses--nearly an 800% ratio! [emoji106]
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Arik is a follower of Yoga (the religion). Do you have something better to offer? Please remind me. After a hundred posts by you, I have lost track.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ5YN1Idvjo
I don't endorse or follow any yogis, but this one is as real as one gets. I am my own yogi, and I accept no followers.
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 03:07:42 PM
Arik is a follower of Yoga (the religion). Do you have something better to offer? Please remind me. After a hundred posts by you, I have lost track.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ5YN1Idvjo
I don't endorse or follow any yogis, but this one is as real as one gets. I am my own yogi, and I accept no followers.
A hearty Shalom to you.
Jesus was also a yogi. https://youtu.be/Upj5U1jx_WA I highly recommend this discipline, although not a practioner as such. Islam is my religion, although I glean much from other traditions as well--which is consistent with my interpretation of the religion as being universalist and open-ended.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 03:06:08 PM
Atheists are always proclaiming their god-hood, or at least as fan boys of particular scientists. Sophomoric really. On the other hand, I don't think the nihilism of complete skepticism is good either.
Each atheist has a unique set of ideas and I wouldn't agree with the generalization, especially since they claim "no god exists." It is to be understood that in many cases this is more of a challenge than a genuine denial; an intellectual position rather than a belief. As Dr. Zakir Naik likes to say to atheists, "congratulations on saying the first half of the shahada"--the value being in their rejection of false gods. Many believers make the mistake of trying to prove God's existence when He's deliberately disguised Himself for wise purposes. Rather my focus is on demonstrating that religious belief is natural, logical and has practical value.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
The kid has been brainwashed pretty good. So much in love with his belief that he cannot see the simple nonsense of all religions. Problem with brainwashing is most the brain gets thrown out with the water.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 28, 2019, 04:30:14 PM
Each atheist has a unique set of ideas and I wouldn't agree with the generalization, especially since they claim "no god exists." It is to be understood that in many cases this is more of a challenge than a genuine denial; an intellectual position rather than a belief. As Dr. Zakir Naik likes to say to atheists, "congratulations on saying the first half of the shahada"--the value being in their rejection of false gods. Many believers make the mistake of trying to prove God's existence when He's deliberately disguised Himself for wise purposes. Rather my focus is on demonstrating that religious belief is natural, logical and has practical value.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I had forgot about you. So how do you feel about Sufis, and more dissidents groups like the Bahais?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 21, 2019, 10:39:01 PM
As to your personal experimental evidence, I very much doubt that you have done experiments that have any significant power. If the effects of the immaterial are as subtle as you claim, the equipment costs alone would bankrupt your typical Joe Everybody.
I have something much more powerful than experiments: experience. No intellectual or scientific information alone would ever satisfy the heart's longing for God. It must be experienced directly to be understood. I have that experience, and nothing you or anyone might say could rob me of it. It transcends all thought and material existence.
There's no need for expensive equipment, as every human body is equipped with the necessary instrumentality to perceive the reality of Allah. However it doesn't work unless you freely choose to exercise it. It's called "faith".
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 05:26:15 PM
I had forgot about you. So how do you feel about Sufis, and more dissidents groups like the Bahais?
I don't have any particular feelings about them. Islam is one religion. If you said la ilaha illa'allah, Muhammadar rasoulullah, then the rest is window dressing.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 03:07:42 PM
Arik is a follower of Yoga (the religion).
Ehmmm.........
What you mean Yoga the religion?
Quote from: Arik on July 29, 2019, 08:27:19 AM
Ehmmm.........
What you mean Yoga the religion?
As opposed to Yoga the Hatha the girls doing bending exercises. Yoga the religion technically being a part of orthodox Hinduism. Ignorant people in the US need to have things lined up for them.
Quote from: Baruch on July 29, 2019, 09:00:07 AM
As opposed to Yoga the Hatha the girls doing bending exercises. Yoga the religion technically being a part of orthodox Hinduism. Ignorant people in the US need to have things lined up for them.
There are always people who try their best to vandalize the good things in life.
That is how most spirituality turn into religion but not all people fall in the trap.
It only need a little bit of intelligence to sort out the good from the bad.
Unfortunately most people just don't get it.
Quote from: Arik on July 29, 2019, 10:18:22 AM
There are always people who try their best to vandalize the good things in life.
That is how most spirituality turn into religion but not all people fall in the trap.
It only need a little bit of intelligence to sort out the good from the bad.
Unfortunately most people just don't get it.
Don't know how things are where you live. But in the US, yoga is just Asana by beautiful young women (who are flexible enough). Thinking in terns of connecting Asana to the rest of the Yoga system is considered so advanced, it takes a PhD ;-) Though I hope the people who do Asana are getting something from it. Tai Chi is more appropriate for my daughter, because of her illness. I hope to do Tai Chi with her, when I finish moving. But in doing Tai Chi, that is actually part of Chinese folk religion. Ideally one should be thinking Chinese thoughts while doing Tai Chi, just as one should be thinking of Hindu thoughts while doing Asana.
Then there is the question of cultural appropriation. I think it is mind expanding, to be multicultural, as long as one doesn't lose sight that one cannot be Hindu or Chinese just because of physical or spiritual practices.
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 10:37:02 AM
People here don't rely on the authority of Catholic priests saying Latin. They rely on scientists saying maths. The difference is less than they think.
Oh, please...
If you are unable to detect the difference between what religious leaders say; based on ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor evidence, etc, with the kinds of scientists say, based on verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence, for their theories, then that's a big problem.
We rely on what scientists say, because, guess what? They are using a method that is
reliable. Demonstrable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic will beat whatever 'method' you or Arik are advocating, constantly.
Scientists do not speak in absolutes and certainty, unlike Catholic Priests. Scientists are capable of having their minds changes, if new evidence is presented, Catholic priests aren't. If you ever want to go hear some of the most humble people speak, go to a scientific conference. You will hear phrases like, "Others may know more than I do on this subject than I do", "These are our findings so far, if anyone has anything to add, please do", etc.
Ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor quality evidence, are not reliable. How could they be? They all lead to mutually exclusive beliefs. They lead Muslims to believe in Allah, Jews to believe in Yahweh, Christians to believe in Yeshua, Yogis to believe in NDE's, etc, etc.
The difference could not get any further. Just because you can't understand that others don't have a religious mindset like you have, doesn't mean we do have that mindset.
So, nice equivocation fallacy you have there.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 28, 2019, 05:46:18 PM
I have something much more powerful than experiments: experience. No intellectual or scientific information alone would ever satisfy the heart's longing for God. It must be experienced directly to be understood. I have that experience, and nothing you or anyone might say could rob me of it. It transcends all thought and material existence.
There's no need for expensive equipment, as every human body is equipped with the necessary instrumentality to perceive the reality of Allah. However it doesn't work unless you freely choose to exercise it. It's called "faith".
Personal experience can never be anything more than anecdotal evidence. It can be blindingly convincing to the person experiencing it, but it is by definition utterly meaningless to anyone who has
not had the exact same experience, and therefore is useless in any evidentiary manner.
Experimentsâ€"which are independently repeatable, with results that are independently verifiable (or not)â€"are always more powerful than any claim of personal enlightenment because they can demonstrate the probable truth, the definite falsity, and perhaps sometimes even the undecidability of a proposition to any independent observer's satisfaction.
Claiming that something has reality means you can demonstrate something's existence concretely and independently of opinion or belief. I will without debate accept that you
believe your god is real, but I reject your claim that your god
is real. You have a massive and unmet burden of proof laid upon your shoulders to make that statement, and saying 'you have to have faith' is an abdication of that responsibility.
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 10:37:02 AM
People here don't rely on the authority of Catholic priests saying Latin. They rely on scientists saying maths. The difference is less than they think.
Oh, please...
If you are unable to detect the difference between what religious leaders say; based on ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor evidence, etc, with the kinds of scientists say, based on verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence, for their theories, then that's a big problem.
We rely on what scientists say, because, guess what? They are using a method that is
reliable. Demonstrable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic will beat whatever 'method' you or Arik are advocating, always.
Scientists do not speak in absolutes and certainty, unlike Catholic Priests. Scientists are capable of having their minds changed, if new evidence is presented, Catholic priests aren't. If you ever want to go hear some of the most humble people speak, go to a scientific conference. You will hear phrases like, "Others may know more than I do on this subject than I do", "These are our findings so far, if anyone has anything to add, please do", etc.
Ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor quality evidence, are not reliable. How could they be? They all lead to mutually exclusive beliefs. They lead Muslims to believe in Allah, Jews to believe in Yahweh, Christians to believe in Yeshua, Yogis to believe in NDE's, etc, etc.
The difference could not get any further. Just because you can't understand that others don't have a religious mindset like you have, doesn't mean we do have that mindset.
So, nice equivocation fallacy you have there.
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 03:06:08 PM
Atheists are always proclaiming their god-hood, or at least as fan boys of particular scientists. Sophomoric really. On the other hand, I don't think the nihilism of complete skepticism is good either.
There may be
some atheists that think this way, but if so, they are most likely a small minority.
But to say "atheists are always proclaiming their god-hood, or at least as fan boys of particular scientists" is just plain wrong.
Please describe "complete skepticism", because that phrase does not really make sense to me.
When it comes to existential claims (gods, ghosts, bigfoot, supernatural, miracles, etc), I am extremely skeptical, always. I cannot understand the mindset that would allow one to believe in any of this category of claims, without requiring demonstrable and falsifiable evidence.
Am I a "complete skeptic", by your definition? If so, why have I not become a nihilist yet?
Nihilism ain't that bad anyways.
I'm a nihilist and never let it hold me back.
heres my gods.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a1/a9/5a/a1a95a0787ced4693499af6a39a83df2.jpg)
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTM2Mzk1ODYyNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTQ1OTA0NA@@._V1_.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UdOAgmWqfvM/XHSXS7lfc7I/AAAAAAAArZc/2BPGJq-GlfMBPw-GwJIA44sPZpdAvZcpACLcBGAs/s640/sergi_zeus.gif)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/1a/8d/031a8d6f6e2195ec9315e4830333bbc5.jpg)
or just men built like greek gods.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/06/aa/29/06aa2934fc4cc05cd9793d62f4db6e89.jpg)
Quote from: Munch on July 29, 2019, 08:05:22 PM
heres my gods.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a1/a9/5a/a1a95a0787ced4693499af6a39a83df2.jpg)
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTM2Mzk1ODYyNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTQ1OTA0NA@@._V1_.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UdOAgmWqfvM/XHSXS7lfc7I/AAAAAAAArZc/2BPGJq-GlfMBPw-GwJIA44sPZpdAvZcpACLcBGAs/s640/sergi_zeus.gif)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/1a/8d/031a8d6f6e2195ec9315e4830333bbc5.jpg)
or just men built like greek gods.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/06/aa/29/06aa2934fc4cc05cd9793d62f4db6e89.jpg)
Mr Sorbo and Hercules? Not bad if you are Spartan. This Is England!
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 29, 2019, 08:01:03 PM
Nihilism ain't that bad anyways.
I'm a nihilist and never let it hold me back.
I don't accept your self description. You might as well claim you are post-human. But carry on ...
Quote from: trdsf on July 29, 2019, 07:30:02 PM
Personal experience can never be anything more than anecdotal evidence. It can be blindingly convincing to the person experiencing it, but it is by definition utterly meaningless to anyone who has not had the exact same experience, and therefore is useless in any evidentiary manner.
Experimentsâ€"which are independently repeatable, with results that are independently verifiable (or not)â€"are always more powerful than any claim of personal enlightenment because they can demonstrate the probable truth, the definite falsity, and perhaps sometimes even the undecidability of a proposition to any independent observer's satisfaction.
Claiming that something has reality means you can demonstrate something's existence concretely and independently of opinion or belief. I will without debate accept that you believe your god is real, but I reject your claim that your god is real. You have a massive and unmet burden of proof laid upon your shoulders to make that statement, and saying 'you have to have faith' is an abdication of that responsibility.
I agree ... in that your existence, and not being a limited AI program, is questionable.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 29, 2019, 07:26:17 PM
Oh, please...
If you are unable to detect the difference between what religious leaders say; based on ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor evidence, etc, with the kinds of scientists say, based on verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence, for their theories, then that's a big problem.
We rely on what scientists say, because, guess what? They are using a method that is reliable. Demonstrable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic will beat whatever 'method' you or Arik are advocating, constantly.
Scientists do not speak in absolutes and certainty, unlike Catholic Priests. Scientists are capable of having their minds changes, if new evidence is presented, Catholic priests aren't. If you ever want to go hear some of the most humble people speak, go to a scientific conference. You will hear phrases like, "Others may know more than I do on this subject than I do", "These are our findings so far, if anyone has anything to add, please do", etc.
Ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor quality evidence, are not reliable. How could they be? They all lead to mutually exclusive beliefs. They lead Muslims to believe in Allah, Jews to believe in Yahweh, Christians to believe in Yeshua, Yogis to believe in NDE's, etc, etc.
The difference could not get any further. Just because you can't understand that others don't have a religious mindset like you have, doesn't mean we do have that mindset.
So, nice equivocation fallacy you have there.
You are projecting ... you are not a scientist, anymore than I am. You have to trust some "expert". Your ability to pick them is no better than mine. It is like being a sports fan .. such that when your team makes a good play, it is as if you made a good play. And if your team wins, it is as if you won. People do this in all social situations. Science isn't independent of psychology or sociology. This isn't about epistemology. It is about gullibility.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 29, 2019, 07:46:02 PM
There may be some atheists that think this way, but if so, they are most likely a small minority.
But to say "atheists are always proclaiming their god-hood, or at least as fan boys of particular scientists" is just plain wrong.
Please describe "complete skepticism", because that phrase does not really make sense to me.
When it comes to existential claims (gods, ghosts, bigfoot, supernatural, miracles, etc), I am extremely skeptical, always. I cannot understand the mindset that would allow one to believe in any of this category of claims, without requiring demonstrable and falsifiable evidence.
Am I a "complete skeptic", by your definition? If so, why have I not become a nihilist yet?
There are a few who have posted here in the last 4 years. Egomaniacs. Of course religious people are just as vulnerable to the full spectrum of the DSM-IV.
Epistemology is a red herring. Just as logic is. It isn't even clear, in reality, that "true"/"false" is even valid.
Quote from: trdsf on July 29, 2019, 07:30:02 PM
Personal experience can never be anything more than anecdotal evidence. It can be blindingly convincing to the person experiencing it, but it is by definition utterly meaningless to anyone who has not had the exact same experience, and therefore is useless in any evidentiary manner.
Experimentsâ€"which are independently repeatable, with results that are independently verifiable (or not)â€"are always more powerful than any claim of personal enlightenment because they can demonstrate the probable truth, the definite falsity, and perhaps sometimes even the undecidability of a proposition to any independent observer's satisfaction.
Scientists fail to see that there are certain assumptions they accept without question, because it feels completely true, indisputable--and yet those feelings are based on purely subjective reality.
Here is a simple repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God...
Proposal: God exists
Definition of God: Intelligent Omniscient Omnipotent Source of all material and non-material reality; a being existing primarily outside all perceived material reality, but capable of influencing, directing and even manifesting within perceived reality.
Method of Discovery: Prayer. That is, speaking directly to Source in the manner of submitting requests and petitions.
Results: Answers to prayers manifest to the supplicator in unique but unmistakable means, tailored to the individual's particular circumstances and disposition. I have tested this method and received consistently positive results.
Suggested Prayer Format: (there is no set format but certain applications produce more noticeable results)
Prerequisite: take a bath, fully immersing in water, and dress in plain modest clothing.
1. Enter a small enclosed quiet space where you are not seen and see no other person. A closet or attic are good examples.
2. Place forehead on the floor with palms and knees touching the floor.
3. Say audibly but softly, "O God, most exalted and perfect, manifest Yourself to me in such a way that I will know You are real, and make me your righteous devotee."
4. Pause, clearing the mind of all thoughts in the manner of patiently waiting for instruction, for about a minute or two.
5. Rise to a sitting position and wait another five minutes in silence and stillness.
This experiment will produce a variety of occurrences with the effect of manifesting the reality of God to anyone who performs it. Daily repetition will increase the frequency and favorability of results.
Quote from: trdsf on July 29, 2019, 07:30:02 PM
Claiming that something has reality means you can demonstrate something's existence concretely and independently of opinion or belief. I will without debate accept that you believe your god is real, but I reject your claim that your god is real. You have a massive and unmet burden of proof laid upon your shoulders to make that statement, and saying 'you have to have faith' is an abdication of that responsibility.
I don't expect you to accept my claim without using your own means to ascertain the truth of it. I have laid out a method by which you and anyone can, if you wish, test the veracity of my claim. It's not rocket science, and it's very easy and reliable. Good luck.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 29, 2019, 10:51:53 PM
Scientists fail to see that there are certain assumptions they accept without question, because it feels completely true, indisputable--and yet those feelings are based on purely subjective reality.
Here is a simple repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God...
Proposal: God exists
Definition of God: Intelligent Omniscient Omnipotent Source of all material and non-material reality; a being existing primarily outside all perceived material reality, but capable of influencing, directing and even manifesting within perceived reality.
Method of Discovery: Prayer. That is, speaking directly to Source in the manner of submitting requests and petitions.
Results: Answers to prayers manifest to the supplicator in unique but unmistakable means, tailored to the individual's particular circumstances and disposition. I have tested this method and received consistently positive results.
Suggested Prayer Format: (there is no set format but certain applications produce more noticeable results)
Prerequisite: take a bath, fully immersing in water, and dress in plain modest clothing.
1. Enter a small enclosed quiet space where you are not seen and see no other person. A closet or attic are good examples.
2. Place forehead on the floor with palms and knees touching the floor.
3. Say audibly but softly, "O God, most exalted and perfect, manifest Yourself to me in such a way that I will know You are real, and make me your righteous devotee."
4. Pause, clearing the mind of all thoughts in the manner of patiently waiting for instruction, for about a minute or two.
5. Rise to a sitting position and wait another five minutes in silence and stillness.
This experiment will produce a variety of occurrences with the effect of manifesting the reality of God to anyone who performs it. Daily repetition will increase the frequency and favorability of results.
I don't expect you to accept my claim without using your own means to ascertain the truth of it. I have laid out a method by which you and anyone can, if you wish, test the veracity of my claim. It's not rocket science, and it's very easy and reliable. Good luck.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
This, like your religion and beliefs, is a crock of crap. Clearly, you and your fictional god is simply folly. Wishful believing--clearly you are a sad, sad little man.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 29, 2019, 10:51:53 PM
Scientists fail to see that there are certain assumptions they accept without question, because it feels completely true, indisputable--and yet those feelings are based on purely subjective reality.
There actually are some starting assumptions with science, so you got that half right. Uniformitarianism comes to mind. All you have to do is prove that wrong and a nobel prize is yours for the taking...
QuoteHere is a simple repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God...
Oh, this is going to be rich.
QuoteProposal: God exists
Proposal rejected due to vagueness
QuoteDefinition of God: Intelligent Omniscient Omnipotent Source of all material and non-material reality; a being existing primarily outside all perceived material reality, but capable of influencing, directing and even manifesting within perceived reality.
Definition rests on several preconceived notions: that a non-material reality exists, that a being created this...somehow, that an entity exists outside of reality (how could anyone know that?), etc.
QuoteMethod of Discovery: Prayer. That is, speaking directly to Source in the manner of submitting requests and petitions.
First, it must be verified that "Source" is both listening to and responding to requests and that supplicant is one such person. Otherwise, we just have someone talking to the floor, which is both hilarious and sad, and not exactly helping your case.
And would it kill ya to create a control group? I know religious people aren't super up to date when it comes to science, but you guys do know what a control group is and why it's important, right?
QuoteResults: Answers to prayers manifest to the supplicator in unique but unmistakable means, tailored to the individual's particular circumstances and disposition. I have tested this method and received consistently positive results.
Conclusion seems suspiciously similar to premises.
QuoteSuggested Prayer Format: (there is no set format but certain applications produce more noticeable results)
Prerequisite: take a bath, fully immersing in water, and dress in plain modest clothing.
Instructions unclear, summoned satan with a lacy thong.
QuoteI don't expect you to accept my claim without using your own means to ascertain the truth of it. I have laid out a method by which you and anyone can, if you wish, test the veracity of my claim.
And, wouldntcha know it, your method seems to work only for people who already believe it does (and believe a lot of other stuff besides)
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 29, 2019, 10:51:53 PM
Scientists fail to see that there are certain assumptions they accept without question, because it feels completely true, indisputable--and yet those feelings are based on purely subjective reality.
Here is a simple repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God...
Proposal: God exists
Definition of God: Intelligent Omniscient Omnipotent Source of all material and non-material reality; a being existing primarily outside all perceived material reality, but capable of influencing, directing and even manifesting within perceived reality.
Method of Discovery: Prayer. That is, speaking directly to Source in the manner of submitting requests and petitions.
Emphasis added. Here's where your methodology fails. Prayer has been studied. It is of no efficacy whatsoever, especially with the apologetic that if you get what you want, your god willed it, and if you don't then your god works in mysterious ways.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 29, 2019, 10:51:53 PM
Results: Answers to prayers manifest to the supplicator in unique but unmistakable means, tailored to the individual's particular circumstances and disposition. I have tested this method and received consistently positive results.
Suggested Prayer Format: (there is no set format but certain applications produce more noticeable results)
Prerequisite: take a bath, fully immersing in water, and dress in plain modest clothing.
1. Enter a small enclosed quiet space where you are not seen and see no other person. A closet or attic are good examples.
2. Place forehead on the floor with palms and knees touching the floor.
3. Say audibly but softly, "O God, most exalted and perfect, manifest Yourself to me in such a way that I will know You are real, and make me your righteous devotee."
4. Pause, clearing the mind of all thoughts in the manner of patiently waiting for instruction, for about a minute or two.
5. Rise to a sitting position and wait another five minutes in silence and stillness.
This experiment will produce a variety of occurrences with the effect of manifesting the reality of God to anyone who performs it. Daily repetition will increase the frequency and favorability of results.
I don't expect you to accept my claim without using your own means to ascertain the truth of it. I have laid out a method by which you and anyone can, if you wish, test the veracity of my claim. It's not rocket science, and it's very easy and reliable. Good luck.
Rubbish.
In fact, I took a lovely and contemplative bath just this evening, lounging with lowered lights, candles, incense, an excellent book, and a lovely dry martini. What I got out of it was I felt great
for perfectly understandable and non-metaphysical reasons.
Any god that requires physical gyrations like that is no god, it's an asshole who wants to see how much stupid shit it can make people do.
I had an
incredibly profound religious experience 35 years ago, in the aftermath of which I would have sworn upon any oath you wish that I had personally encountered the god and goddess of Wicca. I spent the succeeding 20 years as quite a devout Wiccan. At no time during those 20 years did I once ever have the arrogance to ask someone to take my word as evidence, only to accept that I accepted it for
myself. Do you know what I finally realized what that experience was? I was giving myself permission to leave Catholicism.
Religious experiences come from within, and from nowhere else, and I have no reason to take any other explanation seriously until you can give me an explanation that doesn't depend on "feeling" or "intuition" or some bizarre calisthenics. I'm sure as shit not climbing into the bath fully clothed. There's a laundry room downstairs, I don't have to be that cheap.
Quote from: Baruch on July 29, 2019, 08:14:26 PM
I don't accept your self description. You might as well claim you are post-human. But carry on ...
Or a demi god?
I don't really care that you don't accept it Baruch. I don't need you to. It does show the futility of arguing with you, though.
Quote from: trdsf on July 30, 2019, 01:17:24 AM
Emphasis added. Here's where your methodology fails. Prayer has been studied. It is of no efficacy whatsoever, especially with the apologetic that if you get what you want, your god willed it, and if you don't then your god works in mysterious ways.
The proposed outcome of the experiment is not that one will receive what one asks for every time, but evidence for the existence of God. Every prayer will be answered, but not necessarily in the expected way.
Quote from: trdsf on July 30, 2019, 01:17:24 AM
In fact, I took a lovely and contemplative bath just this evening, lounging with lowered lights, candles, incense, an excellent book, and a lovely dry martini. What I got out of it was I felt great for perfectly understandable and non-metaphysical reasons.
Feeling good is not the objective of practicing religion, as many including religious people often assume.
Quote from: trdsf on July 30, 2019, 01:17:24 AM
I had an incredibly profound religious experience 35 years ago, in the aftermath of which I would have sworn upon any oath you wish that I had personally encountered the god and goddess of Wicca. I spent the succeeding 20 years as quite a devout Wiccan. At no time during those 20 years did I once ever have the arrogance to ask someone to take my word as evidence, only to accept that I accepted it for myself. Do you know what I finally realized what that experience was? I was giving myself permission to leave Catholicism.
Religious experiences come from within, and from nowhere else, and I have no reason to take any other explanation seriously until you can give me an explanation that doesn't depend on "feeling" or "intuition" or some bizarre calisthenics. I'm sure as shit not climbing into the bath fully clothed. There's a laundry room downstairs, I don't have to be that cheap.
You had a religious experience, but chose to discount its validity. In doing so you denied the reality of your inner senses in favor of the reality presented by your physical sense organs. The purpose of religion is to awaken the inner senses through which God can be perceived. I don't ask you to take my word as evidence, I only explain how you might discover the evidence for yourself. Religion is focused on that which is within the heart. To deny what is within is to deny the most important part of who you are. This is what we mean by being "lost".
Clarification on procedure: take a bath; and after bathing, dress in modest clothing.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 29, 2019, 11:40:29 PM
There actually are some starting assumptions with science, so you got that half right. Uniformitarianism comes to mind. All you have to do is prove that wrong and a nobel prize is yours for the taking...
Uniformitarianism was proven false a while ago, along with the theory of gravity.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 29, 2019, 10:51:53 PM
Results: Answers to prayers manifest to the supplicator in unique but unmistakable means, tailored to the individual's particular circumstances and disposition.
30 billion dead would call you a liar if they could.
QuoteI have tested this method and received consistently positive results.
Bullshit. I can fly and do it every day simply by wanting to. Top that liar.
Quote from: aitm on July 30, 2019, 08:40:19 AM
30 billion dead would call you a liar if they could.
Please see below explanation:
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 05:43:06 AM
The proposed outcome of the experiment is not that one will receive what one asks for every time, but evidence for the existence of God. Every prayer will be answered, but not necessarily in the expected way.
Quote from: aitm on July 30, 2019, 08:40:19 AM
Bullshit. I can fly and do it every day simply by wanting to. Top that liar.
Case in point: (see photo insert)
AITM definition: "Airbus Industries Test Method"
(Citation:
"AITM." Abbreviations.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2019. Web. 30 Jul 2019. <https://www.abbreviations.com/term/1667968>.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190730/e8f45c749b54129f594eea0cad223abb.jpg)
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 29, 2019, 07:33:25 PM
Oh, please...
If you are unable to detect the difference between what religious leaders say; based on ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor evidence, etc, with the kinds of scientists say, based on verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence, for their theories, then that's a big problem.
We rely on what scientists say, because, guess what? They are using a method that is reliable. Demonstrable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic will beat whatever 'method' you or Arik are advocating, always.
Scientists do not speak in absolutes and certainty, unlike Catholic Priests. Scientists are capable of having their minds changed, if new evidence is presented, Catholic priests aren't. If you ever want to go hear some of the most humble people speak, go to a scientific conference. You will hear phrases like, "Others may know more than I do on this subject than I do", "These are our findings so far, if anyone has anything to add, please do", etc.
Ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor quality evidence, are not reliable. How could they be? They all lead to mutually exclusive beliefs. They lead Muslims to believe in Allah, Jews to believe in Yahweh, Christians to believe in Yeshua, Yogis to believe in NDE's, etc, etc.
The difference could not get any further. Just because you can't understand that others don't have a religious mindset like you have, doesn't mean we do have that mindset.
So, nice equivocation fallacy you have there.
What the priests and the ancient texts say is quite irrelevant to me as that is all about an external projection same same as what these scientists that you love so much say which is all about the fresh bread still hot from the oven.
There is nothing wrong with that but don't forget that tomorrow that bread will be cold and also will be more hard to chew.
That is the problem with a dimension that move and change all the time so what is good and verifiable today may well be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow that is why this bread is only good when is fresh.
On the other hand we are dealing with something that is always fresh such as the spiritual dimension.
In this dimension there is no beginning and no end.
The time does not exist but the peace of mind and total bliss is there 24/7 so to speak in a timeless dimension.
Quote from: Baruch on July 29, 2019, 08:18:46 PM
You are projecting ... you are not a scientist, anymore than I am. You have to trust some "expert". Your ability to pick them is no better than mine.
Correct, I am not a scientists, but I do understand the scientific method.
Sorry, but if you are going to compare 'experts' (religious leaders) in gods, supernatural claims, miracles, etc, to experts in verifiable, testable, and falsifiable reality, then you have nothing to stand on.
Your 'experts' can't even demonstrate that what they are experts on, even exists. Scientists can demonstrate the things they are studying actually exist.
As an example, if a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian all measured the speed of light in a vacuum, they would all get the exact same answer. If they all appealed to experts in physics, all the experts in physics would give them the exact same answer. Not only will they all give the same answer, they will all list the various ways to test the speed of light. This is by definition, a reliable method.
Take the same Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian people and ask them to pray to their god, and ask for an answer to, lets say, what their god wants of them (or other theistic question), and you will most likely get drastically different answers from all of them. Not only will they give different answers, they can't even all agree on the 'method'. This is, by definition, an unreliable method.
So yes, if you are going to claim that your appeal to religious leaders as your choice in experts, is as good as mine, then you are just plain wrong. And provably so.
QuoteScience isn't independent of psychology or sociology. This isn't about epistemology. It is about gullibility.
Individual scientists are not independent of psychology or sociology, but the scientific method is. Unless you think those Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian scientists above, are all going to get Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian based results when they measure the speed of light?
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 08:23:06 AM
Uniformitarianism was proven false a while ago, along with the theory of gravity.
This is no fun if you don't even pretend that you aren't a troll.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 30, 2019, 11:22:53 AM
Correct, I am not a scientists, but I do understand the scientific method.
Sorry, but if you are going to compare 'experts' (religious leaders) in gods, supernatural claims, miracles, etc, to experts in verifiable, testable, and falsifiable reality, then you have nothing to stand on.
Your 'experts' can't even demonstrate that what they are experts on, even exists. Scientists can demonstrate the things they are studying actually exist.
As an example, if a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian all measured the speed of light in a vacuum, they would all get the exact same answer. If they all appealed to experts in physics, all the experts in physics would give them the exact same answer. Not only will they all give the same answer, they will all list the various ways to test the speed of light. This is by definition, a reliable method.
Take the same Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian people and ask them to pray to their god, and ask for an answer to, lets say, what their god wants of them (or other theistic question), and you will most likely get drastically different answers from all of them. Not only will they give different answers, they can't even all agree on the 'method'. This is, by definition, an unreliable method.
So yes, if you are going to claim that your appeal to religious leaders as your choice in experts, is as good as mine, then you are just plain wrong. And probably so.
Individual scientists are not independent of psychology or sociology, but the scientific method is. Unless you think those Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian scientists above, are all going to get Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian based results when they measure the speed of light?
You don't understand as much as you imagine. The speed of light has never been measured. It is assumed to be constant based on theory and then used to determine the length of a metre: in other words it is the basis for the measure of distance itself. Of course you will always get the same measurement, in theory at least. This observation is used in conjunction with the measure of time based on the rotation of the earth--assumed to be constant. Mutually reinforcing assumptions in a grand parade of circular logic. As long as everyone accepts these assertions, the apple cart goes it's merry way without being upset. So the authority of determining measurements is relegated to a select few, usually institutions with a bunch of intimidating acronyms which everyone assumes in turn are undisputed. Until they don't...
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 12:18:28 PMMutually reinforcing assumptions in a grand parade of circular logic.
Is that something you're in favor of or against? You said earlier that you're religious, so I would assume that you'd approve of that sort of thing...
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 30, 2019, 12:04:12 PM
This is no fun if you don't even pretend that you aren't a troll.
Why Hydra009... does a challenge to your assumptions make you uncomfortable? It's ok to admit if it does. We've all been through this, at least the innovative ones that is.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 30, 2019, 12:23:07 PM
Is that something you're in favor of or against? You said earlier that you're religious, so I would assume that you'd approve of that sort of thing...
It's an observation, not a judgement. We can't escape ignorance--that's the pinnacle of knowledge that can be attained in life.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 12:18:28 PM
You don't understand as much as you imagine. The speed of light has never been measured. It is assumed to be constant based on theory and then used to determine the length of a metre: in other words it is the basis for the measure of distance itself. Of course you will always get the same measurement, in theory at least. This observation is used in conjunction with the measure of time based on the rotation of the earth--assumed to be constant. Mutually reinforcing assumptions in a grand parade of circular logic. As long as everyone accepts these assertions, the apple cart goes it's merry way without being upset. So the authority of determining measurements is relegated to a select few, usually institutions with a bunch of intimidating acronyms which everyone assumes in turn are undisputed. Until they don't...
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Seriously?
We measured the speed of light in 1976 in an entry level electronic engineering course my first year of college, using a laser, a mirror, and an oscilloscope. We got within only a couple of percentage points of the most accurate measurements. And we only had about the mirror about 30 feet away.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 30, 2019, 12:33:56 PM
Seriously?
We measured the speed of light in 1976 in an entry level electronic engineering course my first year of college, using a laser, a mirror, and an oscilloscope. We got within only a couple of percentage points of the most accurate measurements. And we only had about the mirror about 30 feet away.
Of course you did.. but you used a standard derived from light's speed, namely, distance. So of course it appeared to confirm the hypothesis. It wasn't an actual measurement, but a repetition of that derivation in reverse. Light seems constant, like everything else--the Earth, the stars, America, your identity... but in actually everything is fluctuating, vibrating, advancing & decaying. The only real constant is change itself.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 12:30:21 PM
Why Hydra009... does a challenge to your assumptions make you uncomfortable? It's ok to admit if it does. We've all been through this, at least the innovative ones that is.
It's pretty rare and it tends to be closely associated with non-organized religion (one wonders why) but I actually have witnessed the ocassonal religious person who makes a strong effort to avoid unquestioned assumptions and conclusion-first thinking. Usually I eventually see them here or a similar site, lol.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 30, 2019, 12:53:23 PM
It's pretty rare and it tends to be closely associated with non-organized religion (one wonders why) but I actually have witnessed the ocassonal religious person who makes a strong effort to avoid unquestioned assumptions and conclusion-first thinking. Usually I eventually see them here or a similar site, lol.
Ok--so give me an example, I'm interested how that looks to you.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 30, 2019, 02:41:44 AM
Or a demi god?
I don't really care that you don't accept it Baruch. I don't need you to. It does show the futility of arguing with you, though.
Arguing with a Belgian ... Today the EU, tomorrow the world? (Sarc).
With me, conversion isn't on the agenda. I don't think it is on yours either.
Yes, you don't care what I think. But I do care about what you think. Not that I want to change it.
Ok, what kind of nihilist are you? I may have got lost in the cacophony ...
1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
2. extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.
3. the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 which found nothing to approve of in the established social order.
I assumed #2 ... in which case you shouldn't be posting.
#1 is common to posters here. Particularly MikeCL. Do you reject all moral principles, because life is meaningless?
#3 is common to the SJWs or New Left. I see all three as different forms of anarchism.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 01:03:14 PM
Ok--so give me an example, I'm interested how that looks to you.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Examples of people's spiritual journeys? Not the kind of thing I can sum up in a post and expect to do it justice.
Suffice it to say that the starting point was usually something non-mainstream (pantheism, paganism, deism, or some vague feeling of spirituality) and increasing exposure to both scientific skepticism and various secular perspectives tends to make an impression over time. They may keep some sense of spirituality, but our views on organized religion steadily come into agreement.
Btw, they avoid you god bots like the plague, and I can figure out why. Eventually, there might even be an "I used to be like that??!" reaction, which isn't really fair. They usually weren't that bad off lol.
@Absolute_Agent People's spiritual history summarized:
1. Former Christian, now anti-Christian
2. Religious tourist, retired from spiritual tourism
3. Never been religious, even as a child
4. Jewish theist - but I don't count
There aren't many posting here, and only as drive-by, who would count as former Muslim, currently Hindu etc.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 05:43:06 AM
The proposed outcome of the experiment is not that one will receive what one asks for every time, but evidence for the existence of God. Every prayer will be answered, but not necessarily in the expected way.
How convenient...
So anything at all that happens after prayer can be seen as an answer to the prayer? Here's what Peter O'Toole had to say about it: "When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself."
Isn't talking to yourself a sign of mental illness?
QuoteFeeling good is not the objective of practicing religion, as many including religious people often assume.
Then what is the objective?
QuoteReligion is focused on that which is within the heart.
So, religion is focused on blood? That's what is in
everyone's heart.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 30, 2019, 12:33:56 PM
Seriously?
We measured the speed of light in 1976 in an entry level electronic engineering course my first year of college, using a laser, a mirror, and an oscilloscope. We got within only a couple of percentage points of the most accurate measurements. And we only had about the mirror about 30 feet away.
All advanced scientific measurements are based on circular reasoning. Not based on metrology from first principles, but from secondary relationships. All empirical equations are semi-empirical ... they are based on unknown first principles (unified field theory). Since we don't have a valid unified field theory, all we have are temporary approximations that are good enough, for whatever particular purpose you set.
Ohm's Law => V=I*R ... not a law, not even correct, but used pragmatically every day. This is a pre-Maxwell, pre-Einstein, pre-Quantum semi-empirical equation. It is good enough for most engineering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
The speed of light, used to be measured using two independent standards. Today it is not, it is DEFINED to be constant (since 1983), with a conventional value. This conventional value is used in metrology to derive the definition of the meter from the standard second (which is taken from experiment).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Quote from: Baruch on July 30, 2019, 01:19:56 PM
@Absolute_Agent
People's spiritual history summarized:
1. Former Christian, now anti-Christian
2. Religious tourist, retired from spiritual tourism
3. Never been religious, even as a child
4. Jewish theist - but I don't count
There aren't many posting here, and only as drive-by, who would count as former Muslim, currently Hindu etc.
@Absolute_Agent i am the exception. I consider reality to be based on psychology, not theology nor physical science. I can change my mind. Posting here for 4 years (knife meets hone) has improved my theism.
Human psychology, which we operate within and thru for all human things, is inescapable, and the elephant in the room, with any human discussion. I see no alternative, after many years of thinking and living.
I dismiss all religions and scriptures mentally, but heart-value all of them, as great cultural and social expressions of our shared humanity. Religion is a branch of anthropology, which has to be based ... on psychology. Society is nothing without individuals. Individuals are nothing without society.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 12:18:28 PM
You don't understand as much as you imagine.
Said as you look in a mirror. You are simply bereft of any ability to think critically. Or simply think.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 30, 2019, 01:16:33 PM
Examples of people's spiritual journeys? Not the kind of thing I can sum up in a post and expect to do it justice.
Suffice it to say that the starting point was usually something non-mainstream (pantheism, paganism, deism, or some vague feeling of spirituality) and increasing exposure to both scientific skepticism and various secular perspectives tends to make an impression over time. They may keep some sense of spirituality, but our views on organized religion steadily come into agreement.
Btw, they avoid you god bots like the plague, and I can figure out why. Eventually, there might even be an "I used to be like that??!" reaction, which isn't really fair. They usually weren't that bad off lol.
In other words, once someone believes in God, it's generally impossible to go back to atheism with any conviction, giving the impression that it is something like an incurable virus, in your perspective-- which is why the uninitiated are repulsed? Yeah, makes sense. Lol... We don't talk about God because we need anyone to believe us, we do it for love of God and are convinced He is real, even more real than ourselves--the sincere believers that is.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on July 30, 2019, 01:35:55 PM
@Absolute_Agent
i am the exception. I consider reality to be based on psychology, not theology nor physical science. I can change my mind. Posting here for 4 years (knife meets hone) has improved my theism.
Human psychology, which we operate within and thru for all human things, is inescapable, and the elephant in the room, with any human discussion. I see no alternative, after many years of thinking and living.
I dismiss all religions and scriptures mentally, but heart-value all of them, as great cultural and social expressions of our shared humanity. Religion is a branch of anthropology, which has to be based ... on psychology. Society is nothing without individuals. Individuals are nothing without society.
You are the most sensible in the bunch. Consciousness IS reality, there is no objective reality, being as it is inherently subjective in substance. Your Jewish theism is like a cloak you wear purely for the pleasure of it, a memento of your former self you keep around for a sense of continuity and to appease your human need to identify as "something".
Is this accurate?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 30, 2019, 01:25:30 PM
How convenient...
So anything at all that happens after prayer can be seen as an answer to the prayer? Here's what Peter O'Toole had to say about it: "When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself."
Isn't talking to yourself a sign of mental illness?
Then what is the objective?
So, religion is focused on blood? That's what is in everyone's heart.
Not the heart of the body, but the heart of the psychological essence indwelling it. God, the Source, dwells within the self--this is where religion focuses. O'Toole wasn't far from the truth, yet perhaps the proposal seemed too outlandish, or made for a good joke. Harmonizing the outer with inner is the objective. It's rewarding, but not always fun or easy.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 03:55:29 PM
In other words, once someone believes in God, it's generally impossible to go back to atheism with any conviction
In other words is the operative part, because you know I never said anything like that. The "back to atheism" part is particularly baffling. Do you have some sort of learning disability that impairs your ability to read? Or do you just mentally replace words you don't like with words you do? Either would explain a lot.
Quotegiving the impression that it is something like an incurable virus, in your perspective
I actually made the opposite point, lol.
QuoteWe don't talk about God because we need anyone to believe us, we do it for love of God and are convinced He is real, even more real than ourselves--the sincere believers that is.
Really? Because it comes across as extremely insecure. In any case, being turned off by preachy people is a frequent theme in deconversion stories, so perhaps you're doing more good than you think.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 05:43:06 AM
In doing so you denied the reality of your inner senses in favor of the reality presented by your physical sense organs.
And you have just completely destroyed whatever point you thought you had.
One: It is not in any way possible for my religious experience and any you might have had to
both be valid. You cannot both have multiple gods and goddesses as I was led to believe by my experience, or the one judeo-christo-islamic monotheistic god you believe in. If you want to maintain your belief in your god, you are
required to deny any reality to my experience. If you accept my experience as real, then you are
required to surrender your belief in your god: if what I experienced was real, then there are multiple gods, both male and female, not one single male deity. It is
not possible to accept them both.
It
is, on the other hand, possible to
reject them both. In fact, given that no two "religious" experiences are anything more than only broadly comparable, that's evidence that they come from within, not from withoutâ€"that no supernatural cause is at work, but the workings of a complex but completely natural brain.
Two: The world as revealed by our physical senses is the only world upon which we not only can, but
must agree. You can pick and choose what you want to believe in, but you don't get to pick and choose what parts of physical reality apply to you. You want to convince me otherwise? Levitate at will. Walk through a solid wall at will. Show me a circle in Euclidean space that has a circumference to diameter ratio of phi rather than pi. Show me half a quark.
Meanwhile, your inner senses lie to you constantly. I frequently wake up and see a very real-looking spider walking away from my face, on the pillow. And then as I wake up further, it simply vanishes. It has no reality. I can't show it to you or anyone else. I can't trap it in a Mason jar and try to figure out what kind of species it is.
When you look up at a cloud and see a face or an animal or something, that's not because there's a face or an animal in the sky, that's because the human brain has evolved into such a spectacular pattern-matching machine that it can often "find" patterns where none exist.
Or, to paraphrase René Magritte,
ceci n'est pas un requin:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7290/10551470476_0a62595d29_c.jpg)
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 01:03:14 PM
Ok--so give me an example, I'm interested how that looks to you.
I can tell you how it looked to me. When I was a practicing Wiccan, I carefully examined any event that I thought might have a supernatural or paranormal element to it, because I didn't want to assume, I wanted to
know. I was
far more a critical thinker as a Wiccan than I had been as a Catholic.
I eventually noticed that I
never had an unequivocally paranormal experience; there was a plausible rational explanation for everything. And thus does superstition and magical thinking die.
Not really germane to this particular question, but I also noticed that the nature of my prayers changed when I transitioned from Catholic to Wiccan. As a Christian, I prayed for things to happen the way I wanted them to happen. As a Wiccan, I prayed for understanding as to why things happened the way they did.
I got the same number of answers either way: zero.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 30, 2019, 04:06:21 PM
You are the most sensible in the bunch. Consciousness IS reality, there is no objective reality, being as it is inherently subjective in substance. Your Jewish theism is like a cloak you wear purely for the pleasure of it, a memento of your former self you keep around for a sense of continuity and to appease your human need to identify as "something".
Is this accurate?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Partly correct. Do I value tradition more than you? I do consider consciousness more akin to mind/spirit, like Arik, perhaps a broader definition than yours perhaps? Yes, a problem with modernity, is that without some religion, you only have the civic "religion" to identify with. This is strong in America ... and most Americans, unlike Europeans, are theists. There are problems being solely identified with ideology/politics (see modern secular totalitarianism). Americans are strongly patriotic, again, unlike Europeans.
Identifying with a religion (I identify as Jewish by religious choice, not by ethnicity) is broader and deeper. Like many Americans, I have trouble identifying thru ethnicity, because my ancestry is many ethnicities, though all NW European. This is unlike a person born into a monoethnic, monoreligious society of modern or traditional type. For them, being anything else than a member of the predefined group is nearly unthinkable.
Having been raised mostly secular, and without strong ethnic reinforcement, I was pretty much a secular technocrat with a passing interest in religion, as a young adult. But I have always been interested in and mostly tolerant of, how people of all kinds live. Marriage changed all that. It became necessary to commit to a religion, and develop the seed that had been planted. In this case Protestant Christianity.
The other regulars consider me insensible ;-) But my hide is thick and my bitter-sweet interest in people is un-phased. I have the least negative view of Islam, on this board (seeing people who happen to be Muslim, not as soldiers in a cause). I am in favor of success and happiness, I choose to have no real enemies. In that frame, I consider Islam to be a highly important expression of human culture, language and society.
Quote from: Baruch on July 30, 2019, 07:54:22 PM
The other regulars consider me insensible ;-)
Well, not so much "insensible" as just often non-sensical.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 30, 2019, 08:12:06 PM
Well, not so much "insensible" as just often non-sensical.
All Greek to y'all ... Η απόδειξη είναι σÏ,,ο ποÏ...Ï,,ίγκα.
Quote from: trdsf on July 30, 2019, 07:38:49 PM
And you have just completely destroyed whatever point you thought you had.
One: It is not in any way possible for my religious experience and any you might have had to both be valid. You cannot both have multiple gods and goddesses as I was led to believe by my experience, or the one judeo-christo-islamic monotheistic god you believe in. If you want to maintain your belief in your god, you are required to deny any reality to my experience. If you accept my experience as real, then you are required to surrender your belief in your god: if what I experienced was real, then there are multiple gods, both male and female, not one single male deity. It is not possible to accept them both.
It is, on the other hand, possible to reject them both. In fact, given that no two "religious" experiences are anything more than only broadly comparable, that's evidence that they come from within, not from withoutâ€"that no supernatural cause is at work, but the workings of a complex but completely natural brain.
Two: The world as revealed by our physical senses is the only world upon which we not only can, but must agree. You can pick and choose what you want to believe in, but you don't get to pick and choose what parts of physical reality apply to you. You want to convince me otherwise? Levitate at will. Walk through a solid wall at will. Show me a circle in Euclidean space that has a circumference to diameter ratio of phi rather than pi. Show me half a quark.
Meanwhile, your inner senses lie to you constantly. I frequently wake up and see a very real-looking spider walking away from my face, on the pillow. And then as I wake up further, it simply vanishes. It has no reality. I can't show it to you or anyone else. I can't trap it in a Mason jar and try to figure out what kind of species it is.
When you look up at a cloud and see a face or an animal or something, that's not because there's a face or an animal in the sky, that's because the human brain has evolved into such a spectacular pattern-matching machine that it can often "find" patterns where none exist.
Or, to paraphrase René Magritte, ceci n'est pas un requin:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7290/10551470476_0a62595d29_c.jpg)
Everything in physical reality is not uniform either. People interpret the same historical events very differently. Yet you don't question that reality. If your measure of reality is the degree of consensus then there is much up for dispute here in the physical. There are people who can levitate, people who can move material with their minds. But even this is only by an advanced understanding of natural laws, not "paranormal". That can't prove the supernatural either. Nothing can. The only way to see it is first belief, and then the awareness enters the mind. You had experienced this, then found a way to explain it away.
Since everything experienced from higher realms must be filtered through the physical brain it is no surprise that people interpret things differently. Your mind can't perceive pure energy so it translates that into dreams and hallucinations that best symbolize the nature of that energy. The fact that I don't see the same spider you do is no bother--because each brain will translate non-material reality into its own unique set of symbols. Furthermore each individual is a world into themselves energetically speaking. No two fingerprints are the same and no two energy signatures are the same. Same goes for religions; each religion was tailored to the cultural norms into which it was revealed. But if you dig down, you find that for the most part all religions are pointing to the same goal. I have personally done this.
Also, pi and anything in Euclidean space are purely mental abstractions. I can guarantee you've never seen a Euclidean circle, or any other geometrical form because they don't exist in the physical world. Funny you had to resort to the immaterial to drive home your claim that only the material exists.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: trdsf on July 30, 2019, 07:51:27 PM
I can tell you how it looked to me. When I was a practicing Wiccan, I carefully examined any event that I thought might have a supernatural or paranormal element to it, because I didn't want to assume, I wanted to know. I was far more a critical thinker as a Wiccan than I had been as a Catholic.
I eventually noticed that I never had an unequivocally paranormal experience; there was a plausible rational explanation for everything. And thus does superstition and magical thinking die.
Not really germane to this particular question, but I also noticed that the nature of my prayers changed when I transitioned from Catholic to Wiccan. As a Christian, I prayed for things to happen the way I wanted them to happen. As a Wiccan, I prayed for understanding as to why things happened the way they did.
I got the same number of answers either way: zero.
Does that mean you still don't understand why things happen the way they do?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: trdsf on July 30, 2019, 07:51:27 PM
I can tell you how it looked to me. When I was a practicing Wiccan, I carefully examined any event that I thought might have a supernatural or paranormal element to it, because I didn't want to assume, I wanted to know. I was far more a critical thinker as a Wiccan than I had been as a Catholic.
I eventually noticed that I never had an unequivocally paranormal experience; there was a plausible rational explanation for everything. And thus does superstition and magical thinking die.
Not really germane to this particular question, but I also noticed that the nature of my prayers changed when I transitioned from Catholic to Wiccan. As a Christian, I prayed for things to happen the way I wanted them to happen. As a Wiccan, I prayed for understanding as to why things happened the way they did.
I got the same number of answers either way: zero.
Sometime when you drive you may see a sign that say.........WRONG WAY GO BACK.
The same thing may happen when you try to pray God the wrong way.
If you ask God for anything that is irrelevant to your spiritual development you get nothing but when you ask God for something that may help you in your spiritual development then you get all what is needed.
Many Christian in particular pray God for something material.
The paternoster pray is the typical example when it say........Our father
who is in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
As in the sky and on the ground.
Give us this day our daily bread,
And forgive us our debts;
As we
forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation:
but deliver us from evil.
As you can see it is all wrong.
First it ask for the daily bread which sound like a mockery.
Just imagine if your son would ask you for the daily food.
After it ask to forgive our debts and not to lead us into temptation.
Haven't we got our free will to do what is correct and in case we don't haven't we got our free will to sort out problems?
As you can see most religious people pray God the wrong way.
You also say that you did pray for understanding as to why things happened the way they did.
Even that is irrelevant to God which is only interested in helping people in their spiritual journey.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 30, 2019, 12:33:56 PM
Seriously?
We measured the speed of light in 1976 in an entry level electronic engineering course my first year of college, using a laser, a mirror, and an oscilloscope. We got within only a couple of percentage points of the most accurate measurements. And we only had about the mirror about 30 feet away.
Even if that speed of light would be correct then it would be a relative measurement.
Relative to this place in this universe.
If you would be living in an other star system the calculation would be different.
And if you would live in an other dimension then the calculation would also be very different without even mention if you would be in God's dimension where speed and time are non existent.
You guys just don't get it.
Our calculation are only good in the relative dimension in which we are living but offer nothing outside it that is why putting all our efforts in something that is relative make no sense.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 30, 2019, 05:57:17 PM
In other words is the operative part, because you know I never said anything like that. The "back to atheism" part is particularly baffling. Do you have some sort of learning disability that impairs your ability to read? Or do you just mentally replace words you don't like with words you do? Either would explain a lot.
Neither, I just didn't explain my reasoning sufficiently for you to follow--but it's immaterial.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 30, 2019, 05:57:17 PM
Really? Because it comes across as extremely insecure. In any case, being turned off by preachy people is a frequent theme in deconversion stories, so perhaps you're doing more good than you think.
As for me I enjoy the learning and mental toughness precipitated by having my basic assumptions challenged. It's boring always being around people who agree with you. Being secure in my belief enables me to share it in a figurative shark tank that a room full of atheists represents for a believer.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 06:51:22 AM
As for me I enjoy the learning and mental toughness precipitated by having my basic assumptions challenged. It's boring always being around people who agree with you. Being secure in my belief enables me to share it in a figurative shark tank that a room full of atheists represents for a believer.
I can't speak for any other atheist, but my may motivation for debating the existence of gods, is not specifically to put believers through a 'gauntlet', in order to prove they are wrong, so I can gloat or act superior.
One of my main motivations for debating the existence of gods (and other existential claims in similar categories), is because I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible. I come here (and in real life) to debate the existence of gods, because if someone can demonstrate that one or more gods exist, I want to know about it.
For me to be convinced that a god exists, I would require demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, to support that claim. My atheist position, is based on the fact that theists have failed to meet this burden of proof. Why should I accept anything less to convince me that a god exists?
My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.
For decades, and from 1000's of theists, I have been presented with the 'evidence' for the existence of their gods, and it does not meet scrutiny. I have been presented with all the so called, philosophical arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological,TAG, presuppositional arguments) and they are ALL flawed and fallacious. I have a bookshelf loaded with books from many of the major apologists (Plantinga, McDowell, Turek, Craig, Strobel, and others), and they all appeal to common fallacies.
So, I am also secure in my provisional atheist position, but I am fully open to being convinced that a god exists.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 31, 2019, 11:35:20 AM
I can't speak for any other atheist, but my may motivation for debating the existence of gods, is not specifically to put believers through a 'gauntlet', in order to prove they are wrong, so I can gloat or act superior.
One of my main motivations for debating the existence of gods (and other existential claims in similar categories), is because I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible. I come here (and in real life) to debate the existence of gods, because if someone can demonstrate that one or more gods exist, I want to know about it.
For me to be convinced that a god exists, I would require demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, to support that claim. My atheist position, is based on the fact that theists have failed to meet this burden of proof. Why should I accept anything less to convince me that a god exists?
My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.
For decades, and from 1000's of theists, I have been presented with the 'evidence' for the existence of their gods, and it does not meet scrutiny. I have been presented with all the so called, philosophical arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological,TAG, presuppositional arguments) and they are ALL flawed and fallacious. I have a bookshelf loaded with books from many of the major apologists (Plantinga, McDowell, Turek, Craig, Strobel, and others), and they all appeal to common fallacies.
So, I am also secure in my provisional atheist position, but I am fully open to being convinced that a god exists.
Since you are so well-versed in theist arguments, which is a complement on your part, what is a list of the most common fallacies used to prove the existence of God?
Secondly, imagine for a second that God exists, who wished to create a world where people wouldn't be forced to believe in Him. One object being to distinguish the average Joe's from the real go-getters so that He could reward the top performers accordingly. Another object being to provide tests of courage and character for their growth, independence and development (sort of like sending your kids away to college). Now does this scenario (hypothetical for you) seem logical, and why or why not?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Arik on July 31, 2019, 04:47:46 AM
Sometime when you drive you may see a sign that say.........WRONG WAY GO BACK.
The same thing may happen when you try to pray God the wrong way.
If you ask God for anything that is irrelevant to your spiritual development you get nothing but when you ask God for something that may help you in your spiritual development then you get all what is needed.
Many Christian in particular pray God for something material.
The paternoster pray is the typical example when it say........Our father
who is in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
As in the sky and on the ground.
Give us this day our daily bread,
And forgive us our debts;
As we
forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation:
but deliver us from evil.
As you can see it is all wrong.
First it ask for the daily bread which sound like a mockery.
Just imagine if your son would ask you for the daily food.
After it ask to forgive our debts and not to lead us into temptation.
Haven't we got our free will to do what is correct and in case we don't haven't we got our free will to sort out problems?
As you can see most religious people pray God the wrong way.
You also say that you did pray for understanding as to why things happened the way they did.
Even that is irrelevant to God which is only interested in helping people in their spiritual journey.
Bible verses make sense in cultural and historical context. A common fallacy of atheist or competing theist POV, is to remove them from context. It is typical as "Occidentalism" for Eastern people (Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist) to mangle Jewish/Christian religion, just as much as atheists do. But it doesn't do the Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists any credit to do so. "Occidentalism" is just as much bigotry and pseudo-intellectualism as "Orientalism". See Edward Said etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidentalism
Basically N vs S, or E vs W apologetics/polemics. But no truth seeking. A framework for universal bigotry.
Part of the joy I take from comparative religions study is that I am forced to assume an alien cultural/linguistic framework. That forces me to confront my hidden assumptions and prejudices. In the end, no matter how frustrating people are, our religions or atheisms are cultural artifacts are what makes us interesting and unique (see alien comment about people in the movie Contact). Other people may seem strange and repulsive, but I seem the same way to them.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 02:19:18 PM
Since you are so well-versed in theist arguments, which is a complement on your part, what is a list of the most common fallacies used to prove the existence of God?
This seems like a subject for another thread. Refutations of these arguments should be the focus of a different thread, not one with all these other subjects and hijacks already going on.
But I love talking about these things, so please open a thread on one or all of these arguments, and I will be happy to chime in!
QuoteSecondly, imagine for a second that God exists, who wished to create a world where people wouldn't be forced to believe in Him. One object being to distinguish the average Joe's from the real go-getters so that He could reward the top performers accordingly. Another object being to provide tests of courage and character for their growth, independence and development (sort of like sending your kids away to college). Now does this scenario (hypothetical for you) seem logical, and why or why not?
I guess you would have to define said god for me to determine if the hypothetical situation was logical or not.
For example, if you define your god as being omniscient, then he/she/it/they would already be aware (even before I was born) that I would be unable to believe he/she/it/they exist without evidence. So, the end result would be, that this god created me (and billions upon billions of others before and after me), knowing far in advance that I would not be rewarded by him. So no, this would not only be an irrational and illogical scenario for a god, it is patently immoral.
I could go on, and on (depending on your definition of god) on how and why this is an illogical scenario.
Quote from: Baruch on July 31, 2019, 02:47:30 PM
Bible verses make sense in cultural and historical context. A common fallacy of atheist or competing theist POV, is to remove them from context. It is typical as "Occidentalism" for Eastern people (Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist) to mangle Jewish/Christian religion, just as much as atheists do. But it doesn't do the Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists any credit to do so. "Occidentalism" is just as much bigotry and pseudo-intellectualism as "Orientalism". See Edward Said etc.
Here's the problem with the above.
According to most theists that believe in the Biblical god, said god is supposed to be the 4 omnis, or more modern theists use maximally instead of omni (to avoid logical contradictions).
So, why would a god, who supposedly has the most important message for all humanity, for all time, have his message recorded so they only make sense in cultural and historical context? Doesn't he care about those of us that are millenium removed from the actual events?
Why would he have said message recorded: in ancient languages that he would know would die out, be susceptible to misinterpretation, contextual and cultural idioms, copy errors, etc, etc, etc. And have it recorded on little pieces of parchment, that he should know could be lost, burned, edited, etc?
Why would he do this in such a small geographical area, to only a small percentage of the human population? Meanwhile, every other culture all over the world, went about their activities with zero knowledge of the 'most important message for all humanity', to invent their own 'false' gods and religions.
He had his choice and the ability to make sure his message was recorded in such a way, as to avoid all these (and many more) problems, yet he chose the same exact method that all those other 'man made' religions have for their false gods. What a coincidence, huh...
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 31, 2019, 11:35:20 AM
I can't speak for any other atheist, but my may motivation for debating the existence of gods, is not specifically to put believers through a 'gauntlet', in order to prove they are wrong, so I can gloat or act superior.
One of my main motivations for debating the existence of gods (and other existential claims in similar categories), is because I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible. I come here (and in real life) to debate the existence of gods, because if someone can demonstrate that one or more gods exist, I want to know about it.
For me to be convinced that a god exists, I would require demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, to support that claim. My atheist position, is based on the fact that theists have failed to meet this burden of proof. Why should I accept anything less to convince me that a god exists?
My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.
For decades, and from 1000's of theists, I have been presented with the 'evidence' for the existence of their gods, and it does not meet scrutiny. I have been presented with all the so called, philosophical arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological,TAG, presuppositional arguments) and they are ALL flawed and fallacious. I have a bookshelf loaded with books from many of the major apologists (Plantinga, McDowell, Turek, Craig, Strobel, and others), and they all appeal to common fallacies.
So, I am also secure in my provisional atheist position, but I am fully open to being convinced that a god exists.
I created a forum here:
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatheistforums%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D13597%2E0&share_tid=13597&share_fid=99594&share_type=t
Hopefully you will do me the honor of being the first poster.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 31, 2019, 04:23:46 PM
For example, if you define your god as being omniscient, then he/she/it/they would already be aware (even before I was born) that I would be unable to believe he/she/it/they exist without evidence. So, the end result would be, that this god created me (and billions upon billions of others before and after me), knowing far in advance that I would not be rewarded by him. So no, this would not only be an irrational and illogical scenario for a god, it is patently immoral.
I could go on, and on (depending on your definition of god) on how and why this is an illogical scenario.
Suppose instead of belief in the above scenario, the primary criteria is behavior--were you an ethical person, did you help old ladies across the street, did you take good care of your family, etc. Would that change your logical assessment?
God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, merciful, forgiving, generous, meticulous, and wise--but severe in punishing evil and oppression.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Well, the God depicted by the Bible was certainly not a very nice God:
What the Bible's God is really like (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,164.0.html)
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 06:09:19 PM
Well, the God depicted by the Bible was certainly not a very nice God:
What the Bible's God is really like (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,164.0.html)
What about as He is depicted in the Qur'an?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I haven't read the Quran, so I can't speak to his portrayal there. I've studied the Bible fairly well, so I can talk about that version of God. I've focused on the Christian view, since that's the culture in which I've lived, and that's the religion that may be threatening to turn America into a theocracy, not Islam.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 31, 2019, 05:15:12 PM
Here's the problem with the above.
According to most theists that believe in the Biblical god, said god is supposed to be the 4 omnis, or more modern theists use maximally instead of omni (to avoid logical contradictions).
So, why would a god, who supposedly has the most important message for all humanity, for all time, have his message recorded so they only make sense in cultural and historical context? Doesn't he care about those of us that are millenium removed from the actual events?
Why would he have said message recorded: in ancient languages that he would know would die out, be susceptible to misinterpretation, contextual and cultural idioms, copy errors, etc, etc, etc. And have it recorded on little pieces of parchment, that he should know could be lost, burned, edited, etc?
Why would he do this in such a small geographical area, to only a small percentage of the human population? Meanwhile, every other culture all over the world, went about their activities with zero knowledge of the 'most important message for all humanity', to invent their own 'false' gods and religions.
He had his choice and the ability to make sure his message was recorded in such a way, as to avoid all these (and many more) problems, yet he chose the same exact method that all those other 'man made' religions have for their false gods. What a coincidence, huh...
So that the body of revelations would be organic, thus ensuring maximum retention and relevance. Additionally, for variety, richness and depth of tradition and interpretation. God loves creativity, beauty and poignancy.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 06:26:47 PM
So that the body of revelations would be organic, thus ensuring maximum retention and relevance. Additionally, for variety, richness and depth of tradition and interpretation. God loves creativity, beauty and poignancy.
Nice post hoc rationalization you got there.
But then, where does that leave me, with my critical thinking and my skepticism, then?
If the above is true, and your god knows that some people, like me will be unable to believe he exists without good evidence, then as far as I can tell, he wants us to believe he exists for bad reasons.
That sure seems like he values gullibility more than critical thinking. Not interested.
It seems to me that "faith" is merely wishful thinking. How can faith be anything other than that? It certainly is no "evidence of things not seen."
Quote from: Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, 'Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!' If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 06:09:19 PM
Well, the God depicted by the Bible was certainly not a very nice God:
What the Bible's God is really like (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,164.0.html)
Yes, G-d is like Cthulhu ... G-d will destroy us all, and like it. G-d isn't your friend or your daddy or your pet. G-d is more like Kali than like Jesus.
So it might be a mistake to introduce religion to children.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 06:16:23 PM
What about as He is depicted in the Qur'an?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
More fair, more refined. The Qur'an is more refined than the Tanakh. But not as humane as the New Testament. Yes, I read and listen to the Qur'an. But I am very busy.
If anything, the Qur'an is a great work of art (as written) and an aural revelation (as declaimed). It helps to be a native Saudi Arab of course. I consider all great works of art, written or otherwise, to be revelatory.
Quote from: Baruch on July 31, 2019, 10:39:45 PM
Yes, G-d is like Cthulhu ... G-d will destroy us all, and like it. G-d isn't your friend or your daddy or your pet. G-d is more like Kali than like Jesus.
So it might be a mistake to introduce religion to children.
Lucky for us such a monster doesn't exist, huh?
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 31, 2019, 08:30:12 PM
Nice post hoc rationalization you got there.
But then, where does that leave me, with my critical thinking and my skepticism, then?
If the above is true, and your god knows that some people, like me will be unable to believe he exists without good evidence, then as far as I can tell, he wants us to believe he exists for bad reasons.
That sure seems like he values gullibility more than critical thinking. Not interested.
A seminary student could honestly tell you, that all theology is applied circular reasoning. If they were honest. This isn't as bad as it sounds. But not something I have any interest in.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 10:34:37 PM
It seems to me that "faith" is merely wishful thinking. How can faith be anything other than that? It certainly is no "evidence of things not seen."
And a Van Gogh is just paint.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 10:42:02 PM
Lucky for us such a monster doesn't exist, huh?
What is the God-Emperor? Donald Trump. He will eat me last, and you first ... oh one of little faith.
So you are saying Donald Trump (or other living exemplars of "angst") doesn't exist? There is more than one. For some people it is Hillary or Barak or Boris or Vladimir. There is a Great Satan for every taste.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 10:34:37 PM
It seems to me that "faith" is merely wishful thinking. How can faith be anything other than that? It certainly is no "evidence of things not seen."
Isn't "faith", by definition, a belief unsupported by fact? And deliberately intended to stay that way? It not something I understand well, but theists have (unendingly) explained that the non-evidential "trust" is sort of the whole point. I think they are nuts, but that's how they explain "faith" to me.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 12:32:34 AM
Isn't "faith", by definition, a belief unsupported by fact? And deliberately intended to stay that way? It not something I understand well, but theists have (unendingly) explained that the non-evidential "trust" is sort of the whole point. I think they are nuts, but that's how they explain "faith" to me.
Apostle Paul said so, but why do you, of all people, agree with Apostle Paul?
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 07:10:33 AM
Apostle Paul said so, but why do you, of all people, agree with Apostle Paul?
The definition of "faith" isn't really an atheist/theist dispute. I fully understand what faith means. I just don't agree it should be the primary determination of how to the understand the universe.
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 31, 2019, 08:30:12 PM
Nice post hoc rationalization you got there.
But then, where does that leave me, with my critical thinking and my skepticism, then?
If the above is true, and your god knows that some people, like me will be unable to believe he exists without good evidence, then as far as I can tell, he wants us to believe he exists for bad reasons.
That sure seems like he values gullibility more than critical thinking. Not interested.
God foresaw that many would reject His reality, what makes you so special? On your "I can't accept anything without proof" I call bluff!
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:15:28 AM
God foresaw that many would reject His reality, what makes you so special? On your "I can't accept anything without proof" I call bluff!
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Not to interject (who, me?) but I'm wondering when any deity proved to you, personally, that it foresaw my or anyone else's rejection of its reality specifically. Did you mean humankind in the whole, or just some portion of it? And who might they be? Is it all humans of some ethnicity or just all people of the general group? Or is it all people who don't believe your specif religious doctrine right down to crossing the Ts and dotting the Is. You have to be careful about that. If you get too detailed, you find yourself alone in perfection of faith. Religious wars have been fought over small matters.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 10:27:40 AM
Not to interject (who, me?) but I'm wondering when any deity proved to you, personally, that it foresaw my or anyone else's rejection of its reality specifically. Did you mean humankind in the whole, or just some portion of it? And who might they be? Is it all humans of some ethnicity or just all people of the general group? Or is it all people who don't believe your specif religious doctrine right down to crossing the Ts and dotting the Is. You have to be careful about that. If you get too detailed, you find yourself alone in perfection of faith. Religious wars have been fought over small matters.
At the moment the context is that we are discussing God as omniscient (hypothetical of course for Mr. Moon). And His question pertains to the logicality of the concept of God--not proof of existence. I personally don't view attempting to prove God's existence as a valid exercise to engage in. I'm focused on exploring it's logicality.
In my faith, I accept God as all knowing based on scriptural information. If He is all knowing it logically follows he foresaw each and every person who would reject Him. But I don't know who they are, except when, as in Mr. Moon's case, they state as much. Have I received personal evidence God is all-knowing? Yes, much.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:15:28 AM
God foresaw that many would reject His reality, what makes you so special? On your "I can't accept anything without proof" I call bluff!
OK, for argument's sake, I'll accept that there is a god, and he foresaw that many of his creation would reject his existence.
Then why did he even create those of us that find us in that position? I am not sure if you believe in eternal punishment, or annihilation theory, but either way, your god is still creating billions of people, knowing ahead of time that they are destined for punishment (or not being rewarded), all because he fails to provide us with evidence.
If there is a god, and he wants to punish me for not being gullible enough to believe he exists, I guess there's nothing I can do about it. But how does that not make him a moral thug?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 08:02:25 AM
The definition of "faith" isn't really an atheist/theist dispute. I fully understand what faith means. I just don't agree it should be the primary determination of how to the understand the universe.
You know a dictionary definition. Without having the theology of Paul, you can't understand what he was saying. And Paul may be wrong.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 11:19:16 AM
OK, for argument's sake, I'll accept that there is a god, and he foresaw that many of his creation would reject his existence.
Then why did he even create those of us that find us in that position? I am not sure if you believe in eternal punishment, or annihilation theory, but either way, your god is still creating billions of people, knowing ahead of time that they are destined for punishment (or not being rewarded), all because he fails to provide us with evidence.
If there is a god, and he wants to punish me for not being gullible enough to believe he exists, I guess there's nothing I can do about it. But how does that not make him a moral thug?
Because the primary criteria for judgement is not intellectual positions or beliefs, but conduct. All valid religions teach that doing good to others is a measure of faith, that God will judge our ACTIONS. You may go your whole life rejecting the intellectual notion of God, but if you spend your time taking care of your family, being courteous, magnanimous & generous, forgiving, encouraging the despairing and standing up for the poor... You are fulfilling the requirements of God, and will be rewarded richly. No good deed goes unrewarded, even so little as avoiding stepping on an ant on the sidewalk. A religious person could spend their life praying night and day, but it they were really mean to others they might end up in hell just the same.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:07:34 PM
Because the primary criteria for judgement is not intellectual positions or beliefs, but conduct. All valid religions teach that doing good to others is a measure of faith, that God will judge our ACTIONS. You may go your whole life rejecting the intellectual notion of God, but if you spend your time taking care of your family, being courteous, magnanimous & generous, forgiving, encouraging the despairing and standing up for the poor... You are fulfilling the requirements of God, and will be rewarded richly. No good deed goes unrewarded, even so little as avoiding stepping on an ant on the sidewalk. A religious person could spend their life praying night and day, but it they were really mean to others they might end up in hell just the same.
2 billion Christians would disagree with you. And so does the Bible.
The New Testament specifically states that, accepting Jesus as your savior, and repenting your sins, are the way to get into heaven.
“No one comes to the Father except through me†(John 14:6). “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved†(Acts 4:12).
Not only that, but the NT also says several times, that no one is good or does good works.
"Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Psalm 53:3, NIV)
"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." (Isaiah 64:6, NIV)
“Why do you call me good?†Jesus answered. “No one is goodâ€"except God alone." (Luke 18:19, NIV)
I see you use the phrase, "All valid religions", which sounds a lot like a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. In other words, it sounds like you are saying, that those Christians that believe the above passages, do no belong to a "valid religion".
Funny thing is, if I ask those Bible believing Christians that do follow the above passages, they will tell me that you, with your works/actions based criteria for being judged, is not a "valid religion".
How am I, a non believer in all religions and gods, supposed to tell which one of you is correct? If any of you?
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 11:17:09 AM
At the moment the context is that we are discussing God as omniscient (hypothetical of course for Mr. Moon). And His question pertains to the logicality of the concept of God--not proof of existence. I personally don't view attempting to prove God's existence as a valid exercise to engage in. I'm focused on exploring it's logicality.
In my faith, I accept God as all knowing based on scriptural information. If He is all knowing it logically follows he foresaw each and every person who would reject Him. But I don't know who they are, except when, as in Mr. Moon's case, they state as much. Have I received personal evidence God is all-knowing? Yes, much.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
OK. I didn't want to get into a discussion of the weeds in the religious beliefs, but since you and Simon (whom I agree with fully on this matter) are I will join.
In a logical sense, it would require a being without ethics or concern to create lesser beings possessed of logical reasoning and then punish them for being wrong in spite of their best efforts to understand the world they are born into. Granted, all religious texts may be wrong in spite of the best efforts of inspired writers dedicated to honoring the deity, so a deity may be quite beyond our comprehension. As may all atheist thoughts about science.
So, doesn't that mean that all humans are doomed to wherever bad humans go after mortal life?
But let's say that an all-good deity ignores that, understanding that all we humans are failing to understand It. Does It punish us for that? No.
Yet, if It forgives, what of our question about whether it exists or not. Does It single out non-believers for failure? What does It do presented with non-belief?
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 11:17:09 AM
In my faith, I accept God as all knowing based on scriptural information.
Which set of scriptures are you steeped in?
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:48:43 AM
You know a dictionary definition. Without having the theology of Paul, you can't understand what he was saying. And Paul may be wrong.
Of course he was wrong, if he even existed and wrote those letters. He had no idea what he was talking about, except that he knew what he imagined.
Here's the reference, for those not familiar with it:
Quote from: Hebrews 11:1
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I see reason as a lighthouse, and faith is the rocks below.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 01:32:07 PM
Of course he was wrong, if he even existed and wrote those letters. He had no idea what he was talking about, except that he knew what he imagined.
Here's the reference, for those not familiar with it:
I see reason as a lighthouse, and faith is the rocks below.
Paul was a Romantic, not a Rationalist. Those existed, they were called neo-Pythagoreans. Paul in terms of that time, was a Jewish Cynic. I don't consider any of those positions to be ignorant, even if they aren't yours or mine. People here are neo-Pythagoreans for the most part. The cat fight of philosophy continues after 2000 years.
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:26:55 PM
Paul was a Romantic, not a Rationalist. Those existed, they were called neo-Pythagoreans. Paul in terms of that time, was a Jewish Cynic. I don't consider any of those positions to be ignorant, even if they aren't yours or mine. People here are neo-Pythagoreans for the most part. The cat fight of philosophy continues after 2000 years.
Pythagoras was skilled but also a mystic. The neopythagoreans were worse. May all their triangles be on a sphere to boggle them forever...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:38:34 PM
Pythagoras was skilled but also a mystic. The neopythagoreans were worse. May all their triangles be on a sphere to boggle them forever...
Yes, and you are one of the most bigoted people I know (strong minded in other words). I can't see you completing a "paint by numbers" let alone a free painting.
But I wasn't speaking of his mysticism. But do you always turn to ad hominem?
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 12:57:45 PM
2 billion Christians would disagree with you. And so does the Bible.
Quite... So you're a Christian atheist?
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 12:57:45 PMHow am I, a non believer in all religions and gods, supposed to tell which one of you is correct? If any of you?
I should think it quite impossible. This is why I didn't come to you atheists until carefully studying religion to such a level that I am capable of distinguishing the correct and logical understanding of what God intended to convey in them. I have been working on this my whole life.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 02:54:12 PM
Quite... So you're a Christian atheist?
I should think it quite impossible. This is why I didn't come to you atheists until carefully studying religion to such a level that I am capable of distinguishing the correct and logical understanding of what God intended to convey in them. I have been working on this my whole life.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Atheists give one lessons in arrogance.
People can't avoid the "traces" of their previous belief systems. Only Cavebear is a pure atheist here. He had no religion at all, and still doesn't. He is virgin.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 01:23:45 PM
Which set of scriptures are you steeped in?
I read all scriptures, but mostly the Qur'an.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:42:50 PM
Yes, and you are one of the most bigoted people I know (strong minded in other words). I can't see you completing a "paint by numbers" let alone a free painting.
But I wasn't speaking of his mysticism. But do you always turn to ad hominem?
I spoke no ad hominem in that post. You are correct about the paint-by AND freeform. I couldn't draw a deer to save my life. Seriously, the time I tried, family thought it was a dog.
But what this about an ad hominem?
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:07:34 PM
.....conduct. All valid religions teach that doing good to others is a measure of faith, that God will judge our ACTIONS. You may go your whole life rejecting the intellectual notion of God, but if you spend your time taking care of your family, being courteous, magnanimous & generous, forgiving, encouraging the despairing and standing up for the poor... You are fulfilling the requirements of God, and will be rewarded richly. No good deed goes unrewarded, even so little as avoiding stepping on an ant on the sidewalk.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I do go along with the above and try to live my life in that manner. But I would remove the words: "You are fulfilling the requirements of God", because for me I don't see any evidence for any god. And if all could live like that, we would have world peace in my time.
I wonder if Absolute Agent even understands that atheists behave ethically. I've seen that error before. They usually claim that being religious is a necessary pre-condition for being "good.
What amazes me is that most of the ethic demands in the bible are plain ordinary sense of what a society needs to work. As far as I can tell, all religious texts FOLLOW general social understanding rather than lead it. If you are part of a emerging city, OF COURSE you should not steal. You need a book or preacher to tell you that? OF COURSE you should not covet (neighbors wife, cattle, goods, etc). THat just causes problems and was obvious to any society 40,000 years ago.
The books were written to codify what people already knew. Get over it theists...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 05:33:56 PM
I wonder if Absolute Agent even understands that atheists behave ethically. I've seen that error before. They usually claim that being religious is a necessary pre-condition for being "good.
What amazes me is that most of the ethic demands in the bible are plain ordinary sense of what a society needs to work. As far as I can tell, all religious texts FOLLOW general social understanding rather than lead it. If you are part of a emerging city, OF COURSE you should not steal. You need a book or preacher to tell you that? OF COURSE you should not covet (neighbors wife, cattle, goods, etc). THat just causes problems and was obvious to any society 40,000 years ago.
The books were written to codify what people already knew. Get over it theists...
I agree with that. and most seem to think that we are lacking in experience or have never considered in a very serious way, what being religious is about. They almost seem to be saying we are too empty headed to have struggled with the concept of god and what that means. Or that we have never been a member or any religion. They seem to assume all they will need to do is to spread their particular 'word' and we will simply swoon and utter, 'thank you'.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 04:57:26 PM
I spoke no ad hominem in that post. You are correct about the paint-by AND freeform. I couldn't draw a deer to save my life. Seriously, the time I tried, family thought it was a dog.
But what this about an ad hominem?
How will you go "paleo" if you can't paint? Can you even outline your hand on the cave walls? (sarc).
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 02:21:38 AM
Everything in physical reality is not uniform either. People interpret the same historical events very differently. Yet you don't question that reality. If your measure of reality is the degree of consensus then there is much up for dispute here in the physical. There are people who can levitate, people who can move material with their minds. But even this is only by an advanced understanding of natural laws, not "paranormal". That can't prove the supernatural either. Nothing can. The only way to see it is first belief, and then the awareness enters the mind. You had experienced this, then found a way to explain it away.
Apples and oranges. History is not a science.
Here's an experiment to try: give an equation to fifty mathematicians. You're going to get the same result fifty times. Now give your birth date, time and place to fifty astrologers. You're going to get fifty
different results. This is the difference between reality and woo.
And if the supernatural can't be proven, then I don't have to take it into account. Until it can be, I can discount it with complete legitimacy.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 02:21:38 AM
Since everything experienced from higher realms must be filtered through the physical brain it is no surprise that people interpret things differently. Your mind can't perceive pure energy so it translates that into dreams and hallucinations that best symbolize the nature of that energy. The fact that I don't see the same spider you do is no bother--because each brain will translate non-material reality into its own unique set of symbols. Furthermore each individual is a world into themselves energetically speaking. No two fingerprints are the same and no two energy signatures are the same. Same goes for religions; each religion was tailored to the cultural norms into which it was revealed. But if you dig down, you find that for the most part all religions are pointing to the same goal. I have personally done this.
If it can't be perceived the same by two people independently, it's by definition completely without merit as evidence. No two fingerprints are the same, but an unequivocal one-to-one match can be made between any fingerprint, and its possessor. It is rooted in physical reality, not mysticism, meditation, or the spasms of a brain in distress.
You still are dodging the fact that your religious experiences and mine are
mutually exclusive. You cannot assert the validity of yours without denying the validity of mine or
vice versa, nor can you assert the equivalent validity of both yours and mine.
If you want to claim my experience was a genuine encounter with the divine, you
must deny the god of the Qu'ran. If you assert the god of the Qu'ran, then you
must deny the validity of my experience. You can't have it both ways. It's like trying to assert that 1=2.
Also, if you think all religions are "pointing to the same goal", you clearly haven't actually studied world religions.
And. "higher realms" are only asserted, not demonstrated. You need to show that, not just state it. Everything that follows collapses without verifiable demonstration that "higher realms" exist.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 02:21:38 AM
Also, pi and anything in Euclidean space are purely mental abstractions. I can guarantee you've never seen a Euclidean circle, or any other geometrical form because they don't exist in the physical world. Funny you had to resort to the immaterial to drive home your claim that only the material exists.
Abstraction or not, pi has a very specific and precise meaning. Any circle I give you is going to have 3.1415926... as the ratio of the perimeter to the diameter. It can be measured to any precision you care to take it to. The paranormal doesn't have that reliable repeatability.
Also, I've never seen a perfect gas, but that doesn't stop the ideal gas law from working. There's nothing hinky about an abstraction rooted in reality that never gives anything but congruent answers.
You know, unlike religious experiences and prayer that almost always tell
different people
different things.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 11:19:16 AM
OK, for argument's sake, I'll accept that there is a god, and he foresaw that many of his creation would reject his existence.
Then why did he even create those of us that find us in that position? I am not sure if you believe in eternal punishment, or annihilation theory, but either way, your god is still creating billions of people, knowing ahead of time that they are destined for punishment (or not being rewarded), all because he fails to provide us with evidence.
If there is a god, and he wants to punish me for not being gullible enough to believe he exists, I guess there's nothing I can do about it. But how does that not make him a moral thug?
If anybody tell you that God create billions of people, knowing ahead of time that they are destined for punishment that is something very very silly to say.
Even the so called believers get punishment if they do the wrong thing.
Reactions to previous actions hit everybody regardless whether they are theists, atheists or materialists and the reactions that you may call them punishment are all about restoring the lost balance.
There is no permanent hell so the reactions to previous actions are of temporary nature.
The only permanent thing that exist is the nirvana all the rest come and goes as evolution take place.
Quote from: aitm on July 28, 2019, 05:02:54 PM
The kid has been brainwashed pretty good. So much in love with his belief that he cannot see the simple nonsense of all religions. Problem with brainwashing is most the brain gets thrown out with the water.
You're assuming there was a brain,
riiight...
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 01, 2019, 05:21:07 PM
I do go along with the above and try to live my life in that manner. But I would remove the words: "You are fulfilling the requirements of God", because for me I don't see any evidence for any god. And if all could live like that, we would have world peace in my time.
As do many atheists. Which is fascinating, really.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:58:38 AM
As do many atheists. Which is fascinating, really.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I find it fascinating that people need the concept of god in order to do good.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 10:19:08 AM
I find it fascinating that people need the concept of god in order to do good.
It was assumed that the masses need a perpetual carrot and stick system to synthesize morality. Stalin and Hitler are examples of how evil people can become when those constraints are removed. The case of genuinely ethical atheists is an anomaly worth investigating.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:58:38 AM
As do many atheists. Which is fascinating, really.
Are you saying it is fascinating that atheists live good, moral lives, just because we don't believe in gods?
Are you saying that there are no other good reasons to behave morally, other than because a god said so?
If not, please correct me if I am mistaking.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 10:19:08 AM
I find it fascinating that people need the concept of god in order to do good.
People are brainwashed to believe there is someone powerful watching you, so if you transgress, you will be punished. As a toddler, you have your parents watching over you. But as an adult, you need someone all present, all knowing to do that job of oversight. And God is the perfect prop for this - the Wizard of Oz is just a parable that has been going over for centuries.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:59:17 AM
It was assumed that the masses need a perpetual carrot and stick system to synthesize morality. Stalin and Hitler are examples of how evil people can become when those constraints are removed. The case of genuinely ethical atheists is an anomaly worth investigating.
What a load of BS.
First of all, Hitler wasn't an atheist. And under Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union was a quasi-religious government. He just replaced the bad dogma of an infallible god, with the bad dogma of an infallible State.
All one has to do is look at the most atheistic countries in the world today, to see that ethical atheists is the norm, not an anomaly. Sweden is about 80% atheist, Denmark is about 70%, Finland and Norway also about 70%. If ethical atheists are an anomaly, where are the mass murdering Swedish or Norwegian regimes?
Fact is, these countries, and a few others with a high percentage of atheist populations, have lower murder rates, rape rates, teen pregnancy rates, higher education rates, lower infant mortality, and almost every other measure of societal health is better.
You don't have the facts to back up your statements.
Quote from: trdsf on August 02, 2019, 03:28:00 AM
Apples and oranges. History is not a science.
Technically no; but what better way is there to study actual events that happen in the actual world? Anything you do in a lab that is termed science is in many respects, a mere simulation.
Quote from: trdsf on August 02, 2019, 03:28:00 AM
Here's an experiment to try: give an equation to fifty mathematicians. You're going to get the same result fifty times. Now give your birth date, time and place to fifty astrologers. You're going to get fifty different results. This is the difference between reality and woo.
Again, you can do all the equations you want, it's all abstract, a simulation of reality. Astrology is an art but there are rules and guiding principles. Somewhat like life.
Quote from: trdsf on August 02, 2019, 03:28:00 AM
And if the supernatural can't be proven, then I don't have to take it into account. Until it can be, I can discount it with complete legitimacy.
This is understood--and by design.
Quote from: trdsf on August 02, 2019, 03:28:00 AM
If it can't be perceived the same by two people independently, it's by definition completely without merit as evidence.
That's an exaggeration.
Quote from: trdsf on August 02, 2019, 03:28:00 AM
If you want to claim my experience was a genuine encounter with the divine, you must deny the god of the Qu'ran. If you assert the god of the Qu'ran, then you must deny the validity of my experience. You can't have it both ways. It's like trying to assert that 1=2.
Let's talk about this, since you are obviously big on mathematics. Do you accept the concept of infinity as valid mathematical construct?
Quote from: trdsf on August 02, 2019, 03:28:00 AM
And. "higher realms" are only asserted, not demonstrated. You need to show that, not just state it. Everything that follows collapses without verifiable demonstration that "higher realms" exist.
There is scientific evidence for the existence of higher realms. Check out Dr. Michael Newton's work on soul realms
Quote from: trdsf on August 02, 2019, 03:28:00 AM
Abstraction or not, pi has a very specific and precise meaning. Any circle I give you is going to have 3.1415926... as the ratio of the perimeter to the diameter. It can be measured to any precision you care to take it to. The paranormal doesn't have that reliable repeatability.
Neither does life. That's why pi is an abstraction.
Quote from: trdsf on August 02, 2019, 03:28:00 AM
Also, I've never seen a perfect gas, but that doesn't stop the ideal gas law from working. There's nothing hinky about an abstraction rooted in reality that never gives anything but congruent answers.
Religious beliefs in the supernatural work too.
Quote from: trdsf on August 02, 2019, 03:28:00 AM
You know, unlike religious experiences and prayer that almost always tell different people different things.
Answers to prayer are always tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the individual. We wouldn't logically expect them to be uniform.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 11:03:19 AM
Are you saying it is fascinating that atheists live good, moral lives, just because we don't believe in gods?
Are you saying that there are no other good reasons to behave morally, other than because a god said so?
If not, please correct me if I am mistaking.
Neither of those ideas were implied. I think this points to the reality of an innate goodness, undermining the distorted doctrine of "original sin" in Christianity.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 11:13:53 AM
What a load of BS.
First of all, Hitler wasn't an atheist. And under Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union was a quasi-religious government. He just replaced the bad dogma of an infallible god, with the bad dogma of an infallible State.
All one has to do is look at the most atheistic countries in the world today, to see that ethical atheists is the norm, not an anomaly. Sweden is about 80% atheist, Denmark is about 70%, Finland and Norway also about 70%. If ethical atheists are an anomaly, where are the mass murdering Swedish or Norwegian regimes?
Fact is, these countries, and a few others with a high percentage of atheist populations, have lower murder rates, rape rates, teen pregnancy rates, higher education rates, lower infant mortality, and almost every other measure of societal health is better.
You don't have the facts to back up your statements.
Well you're looking at modern civilization. I was more referring to ancient history. Your argument about Hitler and Stalin is mainly a matter of interpretation. Fact is they were both atheists.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:59:17 AM
It was assumed that the masses need a perpetual carrot and stick system to synthesize morality. Stalin and Hitler are examples of how evil people can become when those constraints are removed. The case of genuinely ethical atheists is an anomaly worth investigating.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I think the words and concepts of ethics and morality need to be defined. I don't find that any of the major religions are ethical nor moral. I'm not sure Stalin was an atheist--he was very close to being a priest when he quit the church. I don't think the Russian Orthodox church suffered an unusual amount under Stalin--could be wrong, but I think Stalin encouraged the church's growth. That being said, it is clear Stalin was an evil person--but the church did not denounce him. Hitler wasn't an atheist either, I don't think. In fact, he used religion to fuel his drive to wipe out the Jews--he especially liked Martin Luther's teachings on the subject of Jews. And while it is clear Hitler was an evil man, I don't think the Roman Catholic church officially was all that active in denouncing Hitler.
I find it worth investigating the anomaly of the very religious being ethical or moral--they have to be beaten over the head with threats of hell and damnation to do good.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:42:21 AM
I find it worth investigating the anomaly of the very religious being ethical or moral--they have to be beaten over the head with threats of hell and damnation to do good.
It's linked to the concept of original sin, an entrenched doctrine that people are intrinsically evil. I don't agree with this doctrine, but have experienced its impact personally due to growing up in a fundamentalist environment. When I detached from that environment, I found that internal impulses towards negative behavior subsided.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 10:19:08 AM
I find it fascinating that people need the concept of god in order to do good.
i find it fascinating that people need the concept of the DNC in order to do good (sarc).
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 11:04:09 AM
People are brainwashed to believe there is someone powerful watching you, so if you transgress, you will be punished. As a toddler, you have your parents watching over you. But as an adult, you need someone all present, all knowing to do that job of oversight. And God is the perfect prop for this - the Wizard of Oz is just a parable that has been going over for centuries.
Now you have personal assistants finking on you to Apple.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:59:17 AM
It was assumed that the masses need a perpetual carrot and stick system to synthesize morality. Stalin and Hitler are examples of how evil people can become when those constraints are removed. The case of genuinely ethical atheists is an anomaly worth investigating.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Atheists love politics, but claim it isn't a religion. It is an ideology however, and it kills more people than the Spanish Inquisition.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:33:23 AM
Fact is they were both atheists.
Fact is, by his words in public and private, Hitler believed in a god.
In fact, he was a creationist.
He also persecuted many atheist groups/
You are misinformed on this.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 12:47:58 PM
Fact is, by his words in public and private, Hitler believed in a god.
In fact, he was a creationist.
He also persecuted many atheist groups/
You are misinformed on this.
He also had a bit of a messiah complex.
And he was a vegeterian.
Ergo, vegetarians are evil.
Their belief in God is already absurd. That they also believe that atheists have no morals is just another absurdity added to their portfolio of absurd beliefs.
Quote from: Arik on August 02, 2019, 04:24:56 AM
If anybody tell you that God create billions of people, knowing ahead of time that they are destined for punishment that is something very very silly to say.
Even the so called believers get punishment if they do the wrong thing.
Reactions to previous actions hit everybody regardless whether they are theists, atheists or materialists and the reactions that you may call them punishment are all about restoring the lost balance.
There is no permanent hell so the reactions to previous actions are of temporary nature.
The only permanent thing that exist is the nirvana all the rest come and goes as evolution take place.
I don't think in terms of reward/punishment, or "karma," rather I just consider that there are good and bad consequences to our actions.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 10:19:08 AM
I find it fascinating that people need the concept of god in order to do good.
Yeah, as Abraham Lincoln said, "when I go good, I feel good, when I do bad I feel bad. And that's my religion."
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 12:47:58 PM
Fact is, by his words in public and private, Hitler believed in a god.
In fact, he was a creationist.
He also persecuted many atheist groups/
You are misinformed on this.
Funny how none of the Catholic Nazis were ever excommunicated by the RCC, huh?
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 12:47:58 PM
Fact is, by his words in public and private, Hitler believed in a god.
In fact, he was a creationist.
He also persecuted many atheist groups/
You are misinformed on this.
If anything your view is supported by only a minority of historians, and regardless of his beliefs, his objective was the obliteration of all religion in favor of scientism.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 01:11:45 PM
Their belief in God is already absurd. That they also believe that atheists have no morals is just another absurdity added to their portfolio of absurd beliefs.
I am of the firm opinion that the masses do require some external structure reinforcing morality. Religion is an effective component of a system of social order that includes secular laws. If we didn't need external reinforcement, then there wouldn't be anything like law enforcement in society. Ethical atheists are a good example of an exception to the need for religious reinforcement. But how they would function in an environment without religion or secular laws is a different question. I don't know if it's ever been studied.
I'm curious, are you and or many atheists on the Marxist or Anarchist end of the political spectrum?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:53:52 AM
It's linked to the concept of original sin, an entrenched doctrine that people are intrinsically evil. I don't agree with this doctrine, but have experienced its impact personally due to growing up in a fundamentalist environment. When I detached from that environment, I found that internal impulses towards negative behavior subsided.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
That was a good insight, in my view. And I am familiar with that concept--Original Sin. It is one of the reasons I find it impossible to think god is anything other than a human fictional construct. God is the one and only Creator of the entire universe; yet he cannot get his creation correct. And he blames it upon his creation and not on the originator of it all. But, Original Sin is a brilliant concept to foist upon the masses as an instrument of control. And it has been wildly successful.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 02:52:49 PM
QuoteI am of the firm opinion that the masses some people do require some external structure reinforcing morality.
QuoteReligion is an a cheap effective component of a system of social order that includes secular laws.
Quote
If we didn't need external reinforcement, then there wouldn't be anything like law enforcement in society.
Agree
QuoteEthical atheists are a good example of an exception to the need for religious reinforcement. But how they would function in an environment without religion or secular laws is a different question. I don't know if it's ever been studied.
Atheists are no different. There will be some who will need external reinforcement. Nothing is perfect, including atheists.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 02:57:30 PM
But, Original Sin is a brilliant concept to foist upon the masses as an instrument of control. And it has been wildly successful.
No one's ever explained, to my knowledge, how "original sin" is passed from generation to generation. Is it passed through the genes? Does the soul have spiritual genes to pass it? Just how does that work?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 03:02:18 PM
No one's ever explained, to my knowledge, how "original sin" is passed from generation to generation. Is it passed through the genes? Does the soul have spiritual genes to pass it? Just how does that work?
I think it passes from generation and is stamped upon the soul of all who are born and will be born. It is a masterful piece of propaganda! One is sinful from birth and the only thing that can purge that is to accept Jesus as you saviour. And how do you do that? Just listen to whatever christian leader you like. It helps keep the coffers full!
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:59:17 AMThe case of genuinely ethical atheists is an anomaly worth investigating.
There are literally millions of us.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
I think it passes from generation and is stamped upon the soul of all who are born and will be born. It is a masterful piece of propaganda! One is sinful from birth and the only thing that can purge that is to accept Jesus as you saviour. And how do you do that? Just listen to whatever christian leader you like. It helps keep the coffers full!
Yeah, gotta keep those coffers overflowing! LOL
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 02:36:49 PM
If anything your view is supported by only a minority of historians, and regardless of his beliefs, his objective was the obliteration of all religion in favor of scientism.
You are again, incorrect.
Does this sound like atheist?
"
t was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will"
"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."
"“The most marvellous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.â€
But here's the ugly truth.
Even of Hitler was an atheist, he sure found it very easy to get the 85% of the German population that were Christian, to fall, lockstep behind his policies.
So, where was all that 'theistic morality' in the Christian majority of the Germans?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 02:57:30 PM
That was a good insight, in my view. And I am familiar with that concept--Original Sin. It is one of the reasons I find it impossible to think god is anything other than a human fictional construct. God is the one and only Creator of the entire universe; yet he cannot get his creation correct. And he blames it upon his creation and not on the originator of it all. But, Original Sin is a brilliant concept to foist upon the masses as an instrument of control. And it has been wildly successful.
The church created many false doctrines like this to entrench their power. Indulgences is another example.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 04:14:16 PM
You are again, incorrect.
Does this sound like atheist?
"t was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will"
"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."
"“The most marvellous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.â€
But here's the ugly truth.
Even of Hitler was an atheist, he sure found it very easy to get the 85% of the German population that were Christian, to fall, lockstep behind his policies.
So, where was all that 'theistic morality' in the Christian majority of the Germans?
Are you so gullible to believe that what a politician says reflects his true beliefs? Christians have always historically been racist towards Jews. They were deceived by the devil, using their own religiousity. Theists need to be very careful of going to extremes in religion. Too much of a good thing becomes poison for all.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 05:07:00 PM
Are you so gullible to believe that what a politician says reflects his true beliefs?
Of course not. But what else do we have to go on besides his writings and speeches?
We have the account of one friend that says he was an atheist, but many more accounts of him being a theist.
QuoteChristians have always historically been racist towards Jews. They were deceived by the devil, using their own religiosity. Theists need to be very careful of going to extremes in religion. Too much of a good thing becomes poison for all.
Sorry, but I don't care to get involved in fights between competing mythologies. This is for you to take up with those with differing ridiculous theistic beliefs than yours.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 04:14:16 PM
You are again, incorrect.
Does this sound like atheist?
"t was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will"
"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."
"“The most marvellous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.â€
But here's the ugly truth.
Even of Hitler was an atheist, he sure found it very easy to get the 85% of the German population that were Christian, to fall, lockstep behind his policies.
So, where was all that 'theistic morality' in the Christian majority of the Germans?
German guilt is complicated and ancient. See "Constantine's Sword". Also the religion of the Nazis, even if not political cynicism, is neo-pagan. Hitler intended to destroy Christianity along with Judaism, for the same reasons the first modern anti-semite, Voltaire, did.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 12:47:58 PM
Fact is, by his words in public and private, Hitler believed in a god.
In fact, he was a creationist.
He also persecuted many atheist groups/
You are misinformed on this.
Absolute_Agent is using "atheist" in the general pejorative way, not in the specific epistemological way.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 02, 2019, 01:05:29 PM
He also had a bit of a messiah complex.
And he was a vegeterian.
Ergo, vegetarians are evil.
In 1940 Hitler was hailed as the God of War. By the end of 1941, not so much. Sic transit gloria mundi. Hitler's primary psychology was Wagnerian pagan hero.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:44:55 PM
Yeah, as Abraham Lincoln said, "when I go good, I feel good, when I do bad I feel bad. And that's my religion."
Lincoln and Grant were both reasonable men. The Radical Republicans who supported them, were vicious Federalists.
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:31:34 PM
Absolute_Agent is using "atheist" in the general pejorative way, not in the specific epistemological way.
Yeah, what a coincidence, huh?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:54:25 PM
Funny how none of the Catholic Nazis were ever excommunicated by the RCC, huh?
Fascism (national socialism) was a thing, in all Catholic countries. Part of their crusade against Communism. The Vatican saw Communism as an existential threat that required "ends justify the means". Initially Mussolini was the "golem" of the Vatican in the 20s, but Hitler took over that role in the 30s. As happens with all "golems" (see Frankenstein's Monster as the secular version) ... they go berserk and have to be destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
An episode of X-files featured a golem.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 02:36:49 PM
If anything your view is supported by only a minority of historians, and regardless of his beliefs, his objective was the obliteration of all religion in favor of scientism.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Not true. His minions used science, because it was useful for evil, and because of "Futurism" which is allied to "Scientism". "Futurism" is an early 20th century movement that fetished technology. Hitler was a neo-pagan.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 03:02:18 PM
No one's ever explained, to my knowledge, how "original sin" is passed from generation to generation. Is it passed through the genes? Does the soul have spiritual genes to pass it? Just how does that work?
This confused the early Church also. Difficult metaphysics. Adam is universal man, so when he farted, all humanity farted.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
I think it passes from generation and is stamped upon the soul of all who are born and will be born. It is a masterful piece of propaganda! One is sinful from birth and the only thing that can purge that is to accept Jesus as you saviour. And how do you do that? Just listen to whatever christian leader you like. It helps keep the coffers full!
That was one reason. But non-orthodox .. if by that both the body and soul are inherited from both parents. The orthodox version is that the soul is "ab inito". The body is inherited by both parents. Each soul starts temporally innocent, but eternally shadowed by the sin of Adam. This is also why it was necessary to imagine that Mary didn't conceive Jesus except as a virgin. But to justify Jesus' perfection, her sainthood was continually elevated, even to today. The theory being is that Jesus is the only human with a heavenly father, and the only human with a mother free of original sin. A good reason why I deny all theological pretzel making.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 02, 2019, 03:33:39 PM
There are literally millions of us.
Billions virtue-signaling ;-) ... theist and atheist.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 08:35:03 PM
Yeah, what a coincidence, huh?
People here constantly mix these up. We should retire the term "atheist" because it is confusing. This site can be renamed worshippersofthednc.com (sarc).
Quote from: Arik on August 02, 2019, 04:24:56 AM
Even the so called believers get punishment if they do the wrong thing.
The real problem with ALL religions is that the believers still get punished when they do NOTHING wrong. This is where religion fails miserably. If a god demands I worship it, promising me good then lies about, you don't have a god at all, you have mere chance. And the reality is that gods promises are never kept, therefore god is useless.
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:45:15 PM
That was one reason. But non-orthodox .. if by that both the body and soul are inherited from both parents. The orthodox version is that the soul is "ab inito". The body is inherited by both parents. Each soul starts temporally innocent, but eternally shadowed by the sin of Adam. This is also why it was necessary to imagine that Mary didn't conceive Jesus except as a virgin. But to justify Jesus' perfection, her sainthood was continually elevated, even to today. The theory being is that Jesus is the only human with a heavenly father, and the only human with a mother free of original sin. A good reason why I deny all theological pretzel making.
Many people believe that Jesus was a product of "Immaculate Conception," but it was Mary who was immaculately conceived, without original sin. If God could abolish Mary's original sin, then why could he not do that for everyone else? Was he not powerful enough?
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:48:20 PM
People here constantly mix these up. We should retire the term "atheist" because it is confusing. This site can be renamed worshippersofthednc.com (sarc).
That's why I like the terms "unbeliever" or "nullifidian" - a person having no faith or religious belief.
This is gonna be something of a mess, given the number of short choppy answers and non-answers, but let's go ahead.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
Technically no; but what better way is there to study actual events that happen in the actual world? Anything you do in a lab that is termed science is in many respects, a mere simulation.
I don't care whether it's a simulation. I care whether it's reliably repeatable by any individual capable of making the observation independently.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
Again, you can do all the equations you want, it's all abstract, a simulation of reality. Astrology is an art but there are rules and guiding principles. Somewhat like life.
And unlike mathematics, astrology
does not give the same output when provided with the same input. In fact, it will often give
mutually exclusive results. That makes it totally useless as either a predictive or descriptive tool.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: trdsf
And if the supernatural can't be proven, then I don't have to take it into account. Until it can be, I can discount it with complete legitimacy.
This is understood--and by design.
Then you understand why I reject your claims. Good.
Of course, I object to your usage of the word 'by design'. You can't demonstrate a designer.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: trdsf
If it can't be perceived the same by two people independently, it's by definition completely without merit as evidence.
That's an exaggeration.
The hell it is. Without confirmation, it's only an assertion.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: trdsf
If you want to claim my experience was a genuine encounter with the divine, you must deny the god of the Qu'ran. If you assert the god of the Qu'ran, then you must deny the validity of my experience. You can't have it both ways. It's like trying to assert that 1=2.
Let's talk about this, since you are obviously big on mathematics. Do you accept the concept of infinity as valid mathematical construct?
Which infinity are you talking about? There are several.
And you're avoiding the question
again. We're going to take this one step at a time.
Do you, or do you not, believe that I had a legitimate religious experience, whether or not I accept it as one?
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
There is scientific evidence for the existence of higher realms. Check out Dr. Michael Newton's work on soul realms
No there isn't. Evidence means a) that the proposition has been measured and observed, and that b) someone has duplicated his result independently. No one has duplicated Michael Newton's work, therefore it's not evidence, it's an assertion. I've read his stuff, and he was a woolly-headed idiot.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
Neither does life. That's why pi is an abstraction.
Now you're conflating the generalities of daily life with the scientific method. That's both sloppy and dishonest.
And whether or not pi is an abstraction is of no relevance, since it can be measured and re-measured and its value confirmed both
with precision and
without fail.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
Religious beliefs in the supernatural work too.
Religious beliefs, and beliefs in the supernatural,
existâ€"against all evidence and reason. They don't "work". They are not reliable predictors
and they are not repeatable observations.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
Answers to prayer are always tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the individual. We wouldn't logically expect them to be uniform.
That's just the old "oh, god works in mysterious ways" dodge. If you got what you prayed for, goddidit, and if you didn't, either something's wrong with you or 'mysterious ways'.
Prayer, specifically for sick people, has been studied, and demonstrated to have no effect when the person being prayed for does not know they are being prayed for, and two opposite effects with the same root cause (when any effect at all) when the patients do know about the prayer: some of them take psychological comfort in the knowledge and get better quicker (a psychosomatic effect), and some of them think "oh shit, I must be really sick if they're praying for me!" and get
worse (another psychosomatic effect).
Quote from: trdsf on August 03, 2019, 03:10:27 PM
This is gonna be something of a mess, given the number of short choppy answers and non-answers, but let's go ahead.
I don't care whether it's a simulation. I care whether it's reliably repeatable by any individual capable of making the observation independently.
And unlike mathematics, astrology does not give the same output when provided with the same input. In fact, it will often give mutually exclusive results. That makes it totally useless as either a predictive or descriptive tool.
This is understood--and by design.
Then you understand why I reject your claims. Good.
Of course, I object to your usage of the word 'by design'. You can't demonstrate a designer.
That's an exaggeration.
The hell it is. Without confirmation, it's only an assertion.
Let's talk about this, since you are obviously big on mathematics. Do you accept the concept of infinity as valid mathematical construct?
Which infinity are you talking about? There are several.
And you're avoiding the question again. We're going to take this one step at a time.
Do you, or do you not, believe that I had a legitimate religious experience, whether or not I accept it as one?
No there isn't. Evidence means a) that the proposition has been measured and observed, and that b) someone has duplicated his result independently. No one has duplicated Michael Newton's work, therefore it's not evidence, it's an assertion. I've read his stuff, and he was a woolly-headed idiot.
Now you're conflating the generalities of daily life with the scientific method. That's both sloppy and dishonest.
And whether or not pi is an abstraction is of no relevance, since it can be measured and re-measured and its value confirmed both with precision and without fail.
Religious beliefs, and beliefs in the supernatural, existâ€"against all evidence and reason. They don't "work". They are not reliable predictors and they are not repeatable observations.
That's just the old "oh, god works in mysterious ways" dodge. If you got what you prayed for, goddidit, and if you didn't, either something's wrong with you or 'mysterious ways'.
Prayer, specifically for sick people, has been studied, and demonstrated to have no effect when the person being prayed for does not know they are being prayed for, and two opposite effects with the same root cause (when any effect at all) when the patients do know about the prayer: some of them take psychological comfort in the knowledge and get better quicker (a psychosomatic effect), and some of them think "oh shit, I must be really sick if they're praying for me!" and get worse (another psychosomatic effect).
Yes, your experience was valid because it made sense to you at that time. Why would I want to repeat your experience? I want my own unique experiences. Abstract mathematics have their usefulness, and so do religious experiences. You said yourself, the experience helped you get out of Catholicism. It "worked". I live in the real world, not an abstract mathematical universe. I want experiences--not simulations. Unpredictability is part of life and what makes it fun. Science kills that.
Which infinity? What are my choices?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:40:06 PM
Unpredictability is part of life and what makes it fun. Science kills that.
There it is. Science makes sense while religion is unpredictable. Thus I will ignore that which is proven and accept that which is bullshit. Religion in a nutshell, thus spake its absolute agent. LOLOL.
Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 03:50:29 PM
There it is. Science makes sense while religion is unpredictable. Thus I will ignore that which is proven and accept that which is bullshit. Religion in a nutshell, thus spake its absolute agent. LOLOL.
You know how I know God is real @aitm? Because I love God. Can you love what isn't real?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 04:06:52 PM
You know how I know God is real @aitm? Because I love God. Can you love what isn't real?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Ah......I see. I love bugs Bunny! Therefore, he is real--but I always kinda knew that. He is so damned funny, how could he not be real?!!
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 04:11:01 PM
Ah......I see. I love bugs Bunny! Therefore, he is real--but I always kinda knew that. He is so damned funny, how could he not be real?!!
I know God is real, and Bugs Bunny is not. God answers my prayers, Bugs Bunny does not. God speaks to me, Bugs Bunny does not. There is no god but the one true God (Allah). I don't love that which is unreal.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 04:06:52 PM
Can you love what isn't real?
Jeezus boy, get out of your mothers basement and into the real world. People love all kinds of shit that isn't real. Are you a mental patient somewhere?
If you have the ignorance to proclaim that one cannot love something that is not real then you just admitted that all of the gods ever invented, imagined or believed by humankind must exist. By that reasoning we have tens of thousands of gods and yours is just another minor player given your success of your prayers.
Face it, you are just another in the millions of cultural religionists, your parents told you what to believe and you do. Despite your objections you have never went on your own, you just followed the crowd. You don't get any special awards for simply being a dust bunny.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 04:32:06 PM
I know God is real, and Bugs Bunny is not. God answers my prayers, Bugs Bunny does not. God speaks to me, Bugs Bunny does not. There is no god but the one true God (Allah). I don't love that which is unreal.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I do know that Bugs answers as many prayers as Allah. Bugs and Allah are the same. Praying to either gives one the same results. Both are fictions. And your opinion proves nothing. And you have not provided any more evidence for Allah than for Bugs.
Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 04:46:37 PM
Jeezus boy, get out of your mothers basement and into the real world. People love all kinds of shit that isn't real. Are you a mental patient somewhere?
If you have the ignorance to proclaim that one cannot love something that is not real then you just admitted that all of the gods ever invented, imagined or believed by humankind must exist. By that reasoning we have tens of thousands of gods and yours is just another minor player given your success of your prayers.
Face it, you are just another in the millions of cultural religionists, your parents told you what to believe and you do. Despite your objections you have never went on your own, you just followed the crowd. You don't get any special awards for simply being a dust bunny.
Congratulations @aitm, you are now a believer. 1 John 4:8 says "God is love". When you recognized the existence of love, you recognized God. And you mentioned Jesus to boot! [emoji28]
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:59:20 PM
Many people believe that Jesus was a product of "Immaculate Conception," but it was Mary who was immaculately conceived, without original sin. If God could abolish Mary's original sin, then why could he not do that for everyone else? Was he not powerful enough?
This is Catholic magic. They are the ones who have more recently pushed Mariolatry.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 05:51:40 PM
Congratulations @aitm, you are now a believer. 1 John 4:8 says "God is love". When you recognized the existence of love, you recognized God. And you mentioned Jesus to boot! [emoji28]
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Jews say ... G-d is Life. Hence .. L'chaim. This is a better answer unfortunately. The love theology of John and Rabbi Akiva, ended badly.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:40:06 PM
Yes, your experience was valid because it made sense to you at that time. Why would I want to repeat your experience? I want my own unique experiences.
And again, it is not possible for my religious experience and yours to
both be valid. If you say mine was valid, then you are explicitly rejecting the alleged godhood of Allah, because I absolutely did not experience that deity. If you want to assert the divinity of Allah, you are
required to reject any reality in my experience.
You cannot have it both ways.
I, however,
can have it
neither way. My experience came only from within, not from without. And I think yours did too.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:40:06 PM
Unpredictability is part of life and what makes it fun. Science kills that.
Obviously, you are not
au courant with quantum mechanics.
Hm, I guess I should give this topic a shot.
How many gods do I have? Lots.
Do I have proof? No, that's why it is called "faith", not "knowledge".
Am I going to try to convince you I am right about my beliefs? Absolutely not.
Quote from: trdsf on August 04, 2019, 12:21:24 AM
And again, it is not possible for my religious experience and yours to both be valid. If you say mine was valid, then you are explicitly rejecting the alleged godhood of Allah, because I absolutely did not experience that deity. If you want to assert the divinity of Allah, you are required to reject any reality in my experience.
It's not required to reject the validity of another's experience for yours to be valid. I have experienced Allah, as have many. Others have not. That doesn't mean He does not exist. This is what I mean about science killing life. When you try to pin things down, you suck the life out of them. And this does correspond to quantum mechanics. However science as a whole has not truly integrated the implications of quantum mechanics yet.
Now if you care to chat about infinity, I might be able to show you what I mean. But first I need to know the difference between infinities you mentioned since I assumed there was only one type.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 06:16:52 AM
It's not required to reject the validity of another's experience for yours to be valid. I have experienced Allah, as have many. Others have not. That doesn't mean He does not exist. This is what I mean about science killing life. When you try to pin things down, you suck the life out of them. And this does correspond to quantum mechanics. However science as a whole has not truly integrated the implications of quantum mechanics yet.
Now if you care to chat about infinity, I might be able to show you what I mean. But first I need to know the difference between infinities you mentioned since I assumed there was only one type.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Truth = uniformity of opinion ... hahaha. I am willing to accept a plural truth.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:42:06 PM
I don't think in terms of reward/punishment, or "karma," rather I just consider that there are good and bad consequences to our actions.
So, tell us how the consequences manifest?
Maybe the police get hold of those criminals?
And what about those that are not arrested?
The statistics in this regard are quite disappointing with maybe only 7% of criminals catch.
And all the rest how they suppose to pay for?
Don't you think that without a superior mind that administer all actions most people would never face the reactions to their actions?
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 10:04:36 AM
So, tell us how the consequences manifest?
Maybe the police get hold of those criminals?
And what about those that are not arrested?
The statistics in this regard are quite disappointing with maybe only 7% of criminals catch.
And all the rest how they suppose to pay for?
Don't you think that without a superior mind that administer all actions most people would never face the reactions to their actions?
No, I don't, because I don't think there is any such mind. If there were, we wouldn't have the problems you just described.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on August 04, 2019, 01:17:31 AM
Hm, I guess I should give this topic a shot.
How many gods do I have? Lots.
Do I have proof? No, that's why it is called "faith", not "knowledge".
Am I going to try to convince you I am right about my beliefs? Absolutely not.
What you mean that you don't have proof?
If you smoke, drink or use drugs then you should know that these substances act as a mental masturbation on the pineal gland which is the seat of your I and this I is connected to the everything that exist and that is God as well so you don't really need faith to believe that God exist.
Anyone who use these substances already unconsciously believe in God within.
That is my belief but again you may well wait some more time before science will establish this as golden evidence.
Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2019, 10:07:58 AM
No, I don't, because I don't think there is any such mind.
So, tell me how come that some people born healthy and well off while other people born sick and terribly bad off?
Is that all about good or bad luck?
QuoteIf there were, we wouldn't have the problems you just described.
What you mean?
Are you saying that without a superior mind we would be well off?
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 10:26:02 AM
So, tell me how come that some people born healthy and well off while other people born sick and terribly bad off?
Is that all about good or bad luck?
??? Maybe because there is no loving overseer who assures everyone gets the same start?
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 10:26:02 AM
Are you saying that without a superior mind we would be well off?
I'm saying I see nothing in reality that indicates that a higher power is in any way involved in our lives.
By the way, I'm puzzled that you ask these questions. Your two queries, don't help support your case for a God.
We could all ask how stupid/crazy a person would have to be to even listen to this crap, much less take any of it seriously, but we don't have to because Arik tells us: stop thinking and just believe. Suspend thinking and just feel your way along.
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 10:26:02 AM
Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2019, 10:07:58 AM
No, I don't, because I don't think there is any such mind.
So, tell me how come that some people born healthy and well off while other people born sick and terribly bad off?
Is that all about good or bad luck?
Circumstance. We do not choose our birthplace, our DNA make-up (our parents) and a whole range of other things going through life. It's all down to circumstances outside your control.
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 10:26:02 AM
Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2019, 10:07:58 AMIf there were, we wouldn't have the problems you just described.
What you mean?
Are you saying that without a superior mind we would be well off?
How can your reading comprehension be this bad? It's just down to circumstances; SGOS is merely pointing out the fact that a "superior mind" (euphemism for a deity, no doubt) could make the circumstances better, if it chose to.
But reality is structured in such a way that a deity either doesn't care or simply doesn't exist to be able to care.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 10:51:02 AM
We could all ask how stupid/crazy a person would have to be to even listen to this crap, much less take any of it seriously, but we don't have to because Arik tells us: stop thinking and just believe. Suspend thinking and just feel your way along.
Well, well, well...........
Arik may not know so many things but at least he does know when a person can be declared dead according also what medical science tell us.
What about you Jos?
Did you update your medical knowledge about this topic since you gave up the NDEs topic in total failing?
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 11:01:48 AM
Well, well, well...........
Arik may not know so many things but at least he does know when a person can be declared dead according also what medical science tell us.
What about you Jos?
Did you update your medical knowledge about this topic since you gave up the NDEs topic in total failing?
Nice try to deflect the conversation. I would grade your medical knowledge as "F". But ignorant people like you think they know everything because they happen to read some articles in a book or on the internet, which partly agree with their bias, and then think they know it all. Please get yourself an education and come back in 10 years or so with a medical doctorate, and then perhaps we can have a real conversation.
Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2019, 10:50:48 AM
??? Maybe because there is no loving overseer who assures everyone gets the same start?
What about if we all start on the same line but after some time due to the free will some people use that wrongly so they get in trouble?
Obviously you discount the possibility that there is reincarnation.
In this way it is impossible to see much and your judgement is in this case incorrect.
QuoteI'm saying I see nothing in reality that indicates that a higher power is in any way involved in our lives.
I also do not see where the gold is hidden under the ground but if I never do any effort to find then I will never find.
QuoteBy the way, I'm puzzled that you ask these questions. Your two queries, don't help support your case for a God.
My queries only try to open all possibilities.
Not that I need them.
It is just for you considering that evidence lack in your mind.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 11:16:19 AM
Nice try to deflect the conversation. I would grade your medical knowledge as "F". But ignorant people like you think they know everything because they happen to read some articles in a book or on the internet, which partly agree with their bias, and then think they know it all. Please get yourself an education and come back in 10 years or so with a medical doctorate, and then perhaps we can have a real conversation.
Actually I do regard doctors as very intelligent people (unlike you that reject their evidence) however I found something a lot more important in life and that is called yoga which is the way to the goal of life faster than anything else.
What about you Jos?
What are your priorities in life?
(https://cdn.gelestatic.it/deejay/sites/2/2017/08/22.jpg)
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 05:51:40 PM
Congratulations @aitm, you are now a believer. 1 John 4:8 says "God is love". When you recognized the existence of love, you recognized God. And you mentioned Jesus to boot! [emoji28]
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Dancing around my point that pounded your ass In the ground is typical of “believers†who get caught in their own lies.
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 11:28:34 AM
Actually I do regard doctors as very intelligent people (unlike you that reject their evidence)
Reject what evidence? Again spewing nonsense. Do you know the difference between your mouth and your ass? Start studying anatomy, perhaps one day you'll get in one of those medical school.
Quote from: aitm on August 04, 2019, 12:13:51 PM
Dancing around my point that pounded your ass In the ground is typical of “believers†who get caught in their own lies.
So you don't believe love exists? My mistake. Apparently your idea of getting a point across has to do with the level of skill you can display in insulting. Must be where @josephpalazzo gets it from. Fact is you are logically trapped by what you thought was a stunning smackdown, and now you're squirming.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 12:57:41 PM
... Fact is you are logically trapped by...
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Says the certified idiot who is logically trapped in his own religion...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 10:51:02 AM
We could all ask how stupid/crazy a person would have to be to even listen to this crap, much less take any of it seriously, but we don't have to because Arik tells us: stop thinking and just believe. Suspend thinking and just feel your way along.
This reminds me of a quote of Diderot's:
Quote from: Dennis Diderot
Wandering in a vast forrest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian.
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 10:19:59 AMWhat you mean that you don't have proof?
If you smoke, drink or use drugs then you should know that these substances act as a mental masturbation on the pineal gland which is the seat of your I and this I is connected to the everything that exist and that is God as well so you don't really need faith to believe that God exist.
Anyone who use these substances already unconsciously believe in God within.
That is my belief but again you may well wait some more time before science will establish this as golden evidence.
So biochemical reactions in the brain are, to you, proof of God.
I meant what I said. There is no proof, which is why it is called "faith".
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 11:23:04 AMI also do not see where the gold is hidden under the ground but if I never do any effort to find then I will never find.
The problem you must face is that legions of hard-working people have worked very hard toward a working theory that they did not want... That there is no "gold" to be found, that nature is all there is.
Humans like the idea of perpetual life in paradise. We didn't want to find evidence against it, but we did -- in abundance. Confirmation bias worked against science for centuries. Even the greatest of scientific minds such as Newton resorted to the god of the gaps when he couldn't figure out a problem. Along came Laplace who didn't need that hypothesis.
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 11:28:34 AM
Actually I do regard doctors as very intelligent people (unlike you that reject their evidence) however I found something a lot more important in life and that is called yoga which is the way to the goal of life faster than anything else.
What about you Jos?
What are your priorities in life?
(https://cdn.gelestatic.it/deejay/sites/2/2017/08/22.jpg)
Some people are allergic to alternative medicine and alternative psychotherapy. And some of it is bollocks. But the really committed, are agents of Big Pharma.
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 10:26:02 AM
So, tell me how come that some people born healthy and well off while other people born sick and terribly bad off?
Is that all about good or bad luck?
What you mean?
Are you saying that without a superior mind we would be well off?
Luck is a Greco-Roman goddess. And Canaanite. Tanit - Tyche - Fortuna ... it isn't Pascal/Fermat discussing cards and dice.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 12:42:32 PM
Reject what evidence? Again spewing nonsense. Do you know the difference between your mouth and your ass? Start studying anatomy, perhaps one day you'll get in one of those medical school.
Cave men knew the difference. Fallatio fans and sodomy fans don't.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on August 04, 2019, 06:25:41 PM
So biochemical reactions in the brain are, to you, proof of God.
I meant what I said. There is no proof, which is why it is called "faith".
Not all religions are a faith. Ideology is often a faith in utopias.
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 10:19:59 AMIf you smoke, drink or use drugs then you should know that these substances act as a mental masturbation on the pineal gland which is the seat of your I and this I is connected to the everything that exist and that is God as well so you don't really need faith to believe that God exist.
Wow. That's an awful lot of claims in quick succession with the barest logical threads between them. That actually probably works in verbal arguments, but it's a trainwreck in written form.
QuoteAnyone who use these substances already unconsciously believe in God within.
Clearly, an apologetics argument worthy of recording. Are you familiar with the Way of the Master, by any chance? Cause I'm getting some serious Kirk "Crocoduck" Cameron vibes here.
QuoteThat is my belief but again you may well wait some more time before science will establish this as golden evidence.
Might be a long wait.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 06:16:52 AM
It's not required to reject the validity of another's experience for yours to be valid. I have experienced Allah, as have many. Others have not. That doesn't mean He does not exist.
No, and no, and no. What I experienced â€" or more accurately, what I caused myself to experience inside a mind made more receptive through meditation and a subconscious desire to be free from Christianity â€" was an encounter with two separate, differently gendered individuals, a god and a goddess. There is absolutely no way that you can reconcile that with any standard interpretation of Allah. You must either deny the validity of my experience, or deny the validity of Allah. It can
not be both ways. You
can not have separate, independent supreme deities.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 06:16:52 AM
This is what I mean about science killing life. When you try to pin things down, you suck the life out of them. And this does correspond to quantum mechanics. However science as a whole has not truly integrated the implications of quantum mechanics yet.
Maybe it sucks the life out of it for
you, but there are few things so affirming and awesome as
understanding. I genuinely pity you for that. I can look at a flower, even of a type I've never seen before, and have a rough understanding of not only why it is the shape and color and height it is, but of the kinds of insects it needs to pollenate... and also go "oh, pretty" over it.
All you can do is go "oh, pretty". You miss everything of any importance, of any meaning about it.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 06:16:52 AM
Now if you care to chat about infinity, I might be able to show you what I mean. But first I need to know the difference between infinities you mentioned since I assumed there was only one type.
Why? You're just grasping at any exit from the obvious logical inconsistency you've wandered yourself into. Fuck infinities. They have nothing to do with the fact that your position is untenable.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 12:57:41 PM
Fact is you are logically trapped by what you thought was a stunning smackdown, and now you're squirming.
Pot, please do meet kettle.
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 11:28:34 AM
Actually I do regard doctors as very intelligent people (unlike you that reject their evidence) however I found something a lot more important in life and that is called yoga which is the way to the goal of life faster than anything else.
What about you Jos?
What are your priorities in life?
(https://cdn.gelestatic.it/deejay/sites/2/2017/08/22.jpg)
That is GREAT! Talk about totally missing the point BUT with ATTITUDE, LOL!
Quote from: Arik on August 04, 2019, 11:28:34 AM
Actually I do regard doctors as very intelligent people (unlike you that reject their evidence) however I found something a lot more important in life and that is called yoga which is the way to the goal of life faster than anything else.
When you have to resort to yoga (and by extension) other non-proven medical claims like acupuncture and animal horns, you can't claim much medical expertise. I mean, you didn't even MENTION that grinding up coconut shells in your pulverized lawn grass (fescue only) will give you invisibility powers...
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 04, 2019, 05:28:39 PM
This reminds me of a quote of Diderot's:
But I might point out that if there is a good starry or moonlight night, you sometimes CAN see better than without a candle in your face... I would offer a quote of bit of science, but all I get from Google today is ads for candles. I had in mind though, some nights spent in Canada decades ago where the Milky Way shone like diamonds across the sky and even the full moon rising did not dim it. I could walk around with that more clearly than with a candle.
Quote from: Baruch on August 04, 2019, 07:24:05 PM
Some people are allergic to alternative medicine and alternative psychotherapy. And some of it is bollocks. But the really committed, are agents of Big Pharma.
Peer-reviewed and evaluated drugs are useful if the side-effects are less than the problem they are solving. AND if they work for the individual. I suspect the time of individually-designed drugs is coming soon.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 06:16:52 AM
I have experienced Allah, as have many.
Ah, I was expecting an Allah reference eventually... One of the craziest of the craziest. All religious believers have been the craziest at some point in history, but Allahists are about the craziest currently.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 07:02:05 AM
Peer-reviewed and evaluated drugs are useful if the side-effects are less than the problem they are solving. AND if they work for the individual. I suspect the time of individually-designed drugs is coming soon.
If, if, if ... individually tailored drugs will be possible, but by nature expensive. Drugs are cheap because they are mass prescribed to patients they are unsuitable for.
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 08:00:19 AM
If, if, if ... individually tailored drugs will be possible, but by nature expensive. Drugs are cheap because they are mass prescribed to patients they are unsuitable for.
The first tailored drugs will be male and female specific. Women are not the same as men medically or drugwise. Then it will get to age. After that, medication protocols based on ethnicity, which may cause a real dilemma. NIH says yes ( I personally find that troubling).
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on August 04, 2019, 06:25:41 PM
So biochemical reactions in the brain are, to you, proof of God.
I meant what I said. There is no proof, which is why it is called "faith".
Biochemical reaction need to be felt by the I so it is within the I that the good exist.
All chemical reaction do is to open a door and it is inside this door that the good exist.
Because this I is connected to everything else then we experience the greatness and magnitude of the whole.
We humans look alike because we originate from the same tree of life and it is by penetrating inside this great origin that we feel so good even if a chemical masturbation then lead to disaster.
Quote from: Arik on August 05, 2019, 10:54:13 AM
Biochemical reaction need to be felt by the I so it is within the I that the good exist.
All chemical reaction do is to open a door and it is inside this door that the good exist.
Because this I is connected to everything else then we experience the greatness and magnitude of the whole.
We humans look alike because we originate from the same tree of life and it is by penetrating inside this great origin that we feel so good even if a chemical masturbation then lead to disaster.
OK, first, what on earth do you mean by "I". If you mean ego or id or something like that, say so.
Second, are you suggesting that all good and evil comes from chemistry? That is either very profound at a materialist level (which I doubt you mean), or a rather simplistic level (and I will leave the interpretation to you.
Quote from: Arik on August 05, 2019, 10:54:13 AM
Biochemical reaction need to be felt by the I so it is within the I that the good exist.
All chemical reaction do is to open a door and it is inside this door that the good exist.
Because this I is connected to everything else then we experience the greatness and magnitude of the whole.
We humans look alike because we originate from the same tree of life and it is by penetrating inside this great origin that we feel so good even if a chemical masturbation then lead to disaster.
Are you drunk or something?? This is not understandable and even below your usual drivel.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 08:36:46 AM
The first tailored drugs will be male and female specific. Women are not the same as men medically or drugwise. Then it will get to age. After that, medication protocols based on ethnicity, which may cause a real dilemma. NIH says yes ( I personally find that troubling).
Correct ... except for drugs that have always been specific to men/women, those drugs will cost 2x as much as the old drugs (capitalist supply/demand). There is no free lunch, except in Venezuela.
I agree, ethnicity won't work. We aren't different by ethnicity as much as we are different individually. Two Black men are farther apart than a comparable White man to either of them. Race isn't real (except for very specific things like sickle cell anemia).
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 11:43:21 AM
Race isn't real (except for very specific things like sickle cell anemia).
Which, in the tropics where it originated, provides some protection from malaria.
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 11:43:21 AM
Correct ... except for drugs that have always been specific to men/women, those drugs will cost 2x as much as the old drugs (capitalist supply/demand).
That's where you err. Drugs have historically been tested on men. Not deliberately, but through unintended bias. First, men were routinely chosen for tests (armed forces, "brave" volunteers, etc). The assumption was that the results would be the same for men and women. But that has been proven wrong. Women don't experience heart attacks the same, way or process all drugs the same way. And there are hormonal difference in how drugs work (or don't). Women don't even process alcohol by equal weight as was previously thought.
New research specifically has to test men and women separately. Just a quick link... https://drugtestsinbulk.com/blog/drug-test-differences-based-on-sex/
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 04:04:54 PM
That's where you err. Drugs have historically been tested on men. Not deliberately, but through unintended bias. First, men were routinely chosen for tests (armed forces, "brave" volunteers, etc). The assumption was that the results would be the same for men and women. But that has been proven wrong. Women don't experience heart attacks the same, way or process all drugs the same way. And there are hormonal difference in how drugs work (or don't). Women don't even process alcohol by equal weight as was previously thought.
New research specifically has to test men and women separately. Just a quick link... https://drugtestsinbulk.com/blog/drug-test-differences-based-on-sex/
I know that already. Great revelator of deep medical knowledge. When I found this out about a decade ago, I was flabbergasted at the misogyny of the medical profession.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 11:08:00 AM
OK, first, what on earth do you mean by "I". If you mean ego or id or something like that, say so.
The I is you distinct from the body.
The I is the one who decide to think and act.
The I is the one who tell your eyes to read Arik post.
The I is the one who tell your fingers to type on your keyboard something that make sense so Arik can understand what you try to say.
The I is the one that experience the good or bad feeling once the nervous system deliver the message to the brain place where the I is.
The I is the one that once the body-brain die will leave such a body and live on elsewhere waiting for the desirable day when it will reach the great ocean of consciousness.
QuoteSecond, are you suggesting that all good and evil comes from chemistry? That is either very profound at a materialist level (which I doubt you mean), or a rather simplistic level (and I will leave the interpretation to you.
From chemistry come nothing.
Chemistry is like a masturbation and masturbation is the artificial key to open a door.
It is inside the door that lies the good or the bad.
When I said that a chemical masturbation lead to disaster I just mean that by forcing your entry inside your inner consciousness you ruin all the good that you had.
It is by entering in a natural way that you can gain progress.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 05, 2019, 11:21:28 AM
Are you drunk or something?? This is not understandable and even below your usual drivel.
Actually is all very very simple but obviously for people that do not even know what is the difference between the brain and the consciousness or the I then you are correct because simple things must be hard to understand for them.
Read the post I just wrote in reply to CB so you may understand better what I said.
(https://www.edsys.in/wp-content/uploads/10-Simple-Steps-to-Motivate-Your-Students-to-Read.png)
Quote from: Arik on August 06, 2019, 07:57:18 AM
Actually is all very very simple but obviously for people that do not even know what is the difference between the brain and the consciousness or the I then you are correct because simple things must be hard to understand for them.
Read the post I just wrote in reply to CB so you may understand better what I said.
(https://www.edsys.in/wp-content/uploads/10-Simple-Steps-to-Motivate-Your-Students-to-Read.png)
You are simple, alright. The real world is simply too awesome, to frightening to you to handle, so you simply make stuff up, and if it makes you feel better, you then proclaim you have THE answer to all. You do NOT want to entertain any thing else, for that would simply be too scary for you to endure. Good luck with all of that--I do hope you feel better; just don't expect me to embrace your fears and fantasies.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 06, 2019, 09:07:25 AM
You are simple, alright. The real world is simply too awesome, to frightening to you to handle, so you simply make stuff up, and if it makes you feel better, you then proclaim you have THE answer to all. You do NOT want to entertain any thing else, for that would simply be too scary for you to endure. Good luck with all of that--I do hope you feel better; just don't expect me to embrace your fears and fantasies.
The real world is not the physical-material one that you think Mike.
It is a big big fantasy to believe that that is the case.
But don't panic yet.
At the right time you too will accept this conclusion.
Quote from: Arik on August 06, 2019, 07:42:14 AM
When I said that a chemical masturbation lead to disaster...
Not if you use paper tissues...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 09:44:31 AM
Not if you use paper tissues...
Oh, well.......I can't really argue with the expert in the field.........
(http://etpenterprises.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/expert-bart-simpson-skateboard-commons.jpg)
Oops, and I thought I would be getting a rant on masturbation being evil. I guess not...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 10:13:25 AM
Oops, and I thought I would be getting a rant on masturbation being evil. I guess not...
Evil is a term invented by some religious priest in the past in order to mentally control the masses.
In yoga this term is not used.
In yoga there are actions that help you to achieve more consciousness and actions that make you lose the consciousness that you have.
Quote from: Arik on August 06, 2019, 10:28:19 AM
In yoga this term is not used.
In yoga there are actions that help you to achieve more consciousness and actions that make you lose the consciousness that you have.
And what would that be?
Quote from: Arik on August 06, 2019, 09:42:16 AM
The real world is not the physical-material one that you think Mike.
It is a big big fantasy to believe that that is the case.
But don't panic yet.
At the right time you too will accept this conclusion.
Reality is anchored in the material temporal world but not limited to that. The immaterial eternal world is the larger picture.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 10:13:25 AM
Oops, and I thought I would be getting a rant on masturbation being evil. I guess not...
That is a Puritan hangup. Most of the world isn't Puritan.
Quote from: Arik on August 06, 2019, 07:57:18 AM
Actually is all very very simple but obviously for people that do not even know what is the difference between the brain and the consciousness or the I then you are correct because simple things must be hard to understand for them.
The only difference is, that consciousness is what the brain
does. All testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence points to the fact, that without a functioning physical brain, there is no consciousness.
QuoteRead the post I just wrote in reply to CB so you may understand better what I said.
The post you just wrote, is nothing more than unsupported assertions. Pretty much all you've posted for 64 pages now.
It is not our fault we are not as gullible and credulous as you are.
Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2019, 12:32:09 PM
That is a Puritan hangup. Most of the world isn't Puritan.
Yeah, thank God for that! LOL
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 12:57:41 PM
So you don't believe love exists? My mistake.
I wrote a simple statement that crushed your ignorance and you, knowing you had no answer for the obvious, tried to sidestep. Nice try boy, but you got stepped on.
Quote from: trdsf on August 05, 2019, 01:59:04 AMFuck infinities. They have nothing to do with the fact that your position is untenable.
And here I thought you were into math. It is, after all, a mathematical dilemma that is the basis of your argument that my position is untenable, or that I can't understand flowers, or use science. But as I have been saying, math is only a construct. It's only in the mind--from within. You are only exchanging one construct for another.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: aitm on August 06, 2019, 01:40:27 PM
I wrote a simple statement that crushed your ignorance and you, knowing you had no answer for the obvious, tried to sidestep. Nice try boy, but you got stepped on.
His response is pretty typical of theists, when it is pointed out to them, that people of almost every religion: claim to love their gods, claim their gods talk to them, claim they can feel their god, etc.
And they all have the same amount of 'evidence' to support their claims, which is personal and hearsay.
And here I am, standing outside all unsupported theistic belief systems, with no way of knowing which one, if any, is true.
And all we have, is theists like Absolute_Agent, providing us with all the same flawed evidence, and fallacious arguments, that every Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew has ever provided us with.
It's hilarious when someone like Absolute_Agent inserts into his post the words "Quantum Mechanics" and knows absolutely nothing about the subject. Is he trying to be fashionable, or what?
Why exposing yourself as an intellectual fraud?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 04:07:44 PM
It's hilarious when someone like Absolute_Agent inserts into his post the words "Quantum Mechanics" and knows absolutely nothing about the subject. Is he trying to be fashionable, or what?
Why exposing yourself an intellectual fraud?
Many do this. You are one of the few legitimate posters on the subject. Yes, it is pseudo intellectual posturing. Unless one uses it very carefully.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 06, 2019, 03:47:46 PM
His response is pretty typical of theists, when it is pointed out to them, that people of almost every religion: claim to love their gods, claim their gods talk to them, claim they can feel their god, etc.
And they all have the same amount of 'evidence' to support their claims, which is personal and hearsay.
And here I am, standing outside all unsupported theistic belief systems, with no way of knowing which one, if any, is true.
And all we have, is theists like Absolute_Agent, providing us with all the same flawed evidence, and fallacious arguments, that every Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew has ever provided us with.
When I was married, my wife was my god, and yes, I could feel her up ;-)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 04:07:44 PM
It's hilarious when someone like Absolute_Agent inserts into his post the words "Quantum Mechanics" and knows absolutely nothing about the subject. Is he trying to be fashionable, or what?
Why exposing yourself as an intellectual fraud?
Of course.
Because obviously, if it's mysterious and not totally understood, it's a place to insert 'god'. After all, if scientists can't explain it, god is as good as explanation as any.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on."
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 03:38:48 PM
And here I thought you were into math. It is, after all, a mathematical dilemma that is the basis of your argument that my position is untenable, or that I can't understand flowers, or use science. But as I have been saying, math is only a construct. It's only in the mind--from within. You are only exchanging one construct for another.
And of course, you completely ignore the part of the post you can't answer and try to hide behind an irrelevance. Math has nothing to do with the fact that you're trying to assert the simultaneous truth of two mutually exclusive things.
Thanks, I know all I need to know about you now. We're done here; whether you're unwilling to address, or incapable of addressing, the logical fault in your position, I couldn't care less â€" all that's clear is that obviously you won't, and I have no patience for philosophical masturbation.
When someone goes out of his way to assert, "I know God is real," you know you are talking to a lunatic.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 06:37:08 PM
When someone goes out of his way to assert, "I know God is real," you know you are talking to a lunatic.
Yes. But that isn't the only diagnostic. If someone says ... I am an academic ... what is the diagnosis? ;-)
I know I am real, and that I am a demi-god (along with all other humans). G-d is a mythic personification, to me, of our common humanity. But not an idealization.
Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2019, 06:46:45 PM
Yes. But that isn't the only diagnostic. If someone says ... I am an academic ... what is the diagnosis? ;-)
I know I am real, and that I am a demi-god (along with all other humans). G-d is a mythic personification, to me, of our common humanity. But not an idealization.
I know Allah (G-d) is real, not mythic, and He is sufficient for me. It is not we who have imagined Allah, but He who has imagined us--and called us into being along with all things. I invite you atheists to the reality, and this truth. This material world is an illusion, but your freedom to persist in believing such illusion is inviolable. I feel God's love all around--distinct and unique from any sensation, and more powerful than what my physical senses can detect or my intellect can grasp. It may be possible to love what isn't real, but it is impossible to be loved by what is not real. This is not meant as proof, but testimony. The proof is within, available to all who seek. There is nothing more I could say to convince you.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 07:20:56 PM
There is nothing more I could say to convince you.
Good. Now get lost.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 07:20:56 PM
I There is nothing more I could say to convince you.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
That was true from the first word of your first posting. You are simply a chew toy for us. If that is what you like to be, then stick around. Otherwise you should leave, for you will not change anybody's mind but your own.
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 07:20:56 PM
I know Allah (G-d) is real, not mythic, and He is sufficient for me. It is not we who have imagined Allah, but He who has imagined us--and called us into being along with all things.
How would you go about demonstrating this to us?
If a Hindu comes here (as a few have done in the past) and make the same claims about their god, how are we supposed to tell that they are wrong, and you are right?
QuoteI invite you atheists to the reality, and this truth.
How am I supposed to determine if your claim is reality?
If you are correct, I really want to know. I care about believing as many true things, and disbelieving as many false things as possible.
Again, how am I, a disbeliever in all gods and religions, supposed to differentiate your unsupported assertion, from those of all those other religions? Or, how am I supposed to differentiate your unsupported assertion, from a delusion?
QuoteThis material world is an illusion, but your freedom to persist in believing such illusion is inviolable.
Non Sequitur.
QuoteI feel God's love all around--distinct and unique from any sensation, and more powerful than what my physical senses can detect or my intellect can grasp. It may be possible to love what isn't real, but it is impossible to be loved by what is not real. This is not meant as proof, but testimony. The proof is within, available to all who seek.
I spent a couple of decades sincerely 'seeking' for a god. I read several religious texts, including the Qur'an. I received no responses from any god. Is your god purposely hiding?
Your 'feelings' are meaningless to those of us that care about evidence and logic. Why would a god want us to believe based on bad reason and evidence?
QuoteThere is nothing more I could say to convince you.
Well then, I guess there is no reason for you stick around. Personal testimony is meaningless, for those of us that care if our beliefs are true or not.
I discuss these subjects with theists, because I care if they actually have good (evidence based, and not fallacious) reasons for believing.
If you don't think you have anything else to offer us, then there may be no further need for discussion. If you do think you can support your claim that Allah exists, with evidence and valid and sound argument, then by all means, stick around.
I'm sure another faith-head will be along soon, they can't seem to stay away. Unfortunately, they'll have exactly the same silly arguments all the others have come at us with.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 06, 2019, 08:03:22 PM
How would you go about demonstrating this to us?
One atheist at a time.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 06, 2019, 08:03:22 PM
If a Hindu comes here (as a few have done in the past) and make the same claims about their god, how are we supposed to tell that they are wrong, and you are right?
It isn't necessary for a Hindu, or Buddhist, or Wiccan, or what have you, to be wrong for me to be right. But this is PhD level study in religion. You're still in kindergarten.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 06, 2019, 08:03:22 PM
How am I supposed to determine if your claim is reality?
Prayer is the only way to know the reality of my claim.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 06, 2019, 08:03:22 PM
If you are correct, I really want to know. I care about believing as many true things, and disbelieving as many false things as possible.
If you really want to know the truth you will find it. Or, rather, it will find you!
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 06, 2019, 08:03:22 PM
Again, how am I, a disbeliever in all gods and religions, supposed to differentiate your unsupported assertion, from those of all those other religions? Or, how am I supposed to differentiate your unsupported assertion, from a delusion?
It takes years of study to realize how all established religions are pointing to a common origin and a common goal. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but before we can even get to that point you would at least need to accept the existence of God as a rational belief. I am well versed in major religions, having studied 37 odd years, and am capable of bridging these gaps as necessary. Before you could determine whether my beliefs are a delusion you would have to establish that you yourself are not living in delusion. You haven't done that.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 06, 2019, 08:03:22 PM
I spent a couple of decades sincerely 'seeking' for a god. I read several religious texts, including the Qur'an. I received no responses from any god. Is your god purposely hiding?
Is it possible that you never prayed? You won't receive a response if you never pray. If you did, then what did you say? Perhaps I could better answer this question if I knew more details. Sometimes the answers to prayers come in ways unexpected, and consequently are not perceived.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 06, 2019, 08:03:22 PM
Your 'feelings' are meaningless to those of us that care about evidence and logic. Why would a god want us to believe based on bad reason and evidence?
Logically speaking, God created us with feelings. It is closely related to the purpose of our existence. If He gave you an ability He would want you to use it. Feelings make us human. We were made to act as a bridge between immaterial spirit and matter--the co-regents of creation. Feelings are the conduit which connect us in this dimension to all other dimensions. They are also the impetus of creative acts. I can demonstrate this second assertion logically if you are in doubt. As an example it has been found that memory is closely linked to emotion.
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 07, 2019, 08:33:41 AM
Prayer is the only way to know the reality of my claim.
And since that claim can never be proven, it's the equivalent of bullshitting.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 09:02:37 AM
And since that claim can never be proven, it's the equivalent of bullshitting.
Don't be ridiculous and stubborn Jos.
(https://blogdotluminositydemosdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/creativity_cartoon-shkv5r.jpg)
Most Atheists even reject clear facts based on evidence (see NDEs) so how on earth can you talk about evidence if evidence mean nothing to you?
Get real man.
Quote from: Arik on August 07, 2019, 09:51:56 AM
Don't be ridiculous and stubborn Jos.
The person who is ridiculous and stubborn is you. As I once said, insults are cheap. Throw me some insults, and I'll throw them right back at you. Not to mention your ridiculous use of childish cartoonish pix, as if that could strengthen your point. It doesn't.
QuoteMost Atheists even reject clear facts based on evidence (see NDEs) so how on earth can you talk about evidence if evidence mean nothing to you?
Get real man.
Your claim on NDE is totally ridiculous. It's just your opinion which you mistakenly think as evidence.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 11:27:28 AM
And what would that be?
That is all about free will.
Humans are free to go up or down.
Up towards the peak of evolution and merge into the sea of cosmic consciousness or to go down towards animal life or even matter.
I don't think it is a difficult point to understand.
Quote from: Arik on August 07, 2019, 10:06:34 AM
That is all about free will.
Humans are free to go up or down.
Up towards the peak of evolution and merge into the sea of cosmic consciousness or to go down towards animal life or even matter.
I don't think it is a difficult point to understand.
It's not difficult to understand that it's all bullshit.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 10:02:52 AM
The person who is ridiculous and stubborn is you. As I once said, insults are cheap. Throw me some insults, and I'll throw them right back at you. Not to mention your ridiculous use of childish cartoonish pix, as if that could strengthen your point. It doesn't.
That is bizarre Jos.
Since you came on the forum (or came back) all you have done is to treat theists like idiots and now you get offended for some simple jokes.
Grow up Jos.
QuoteYour claim on NDE is totally ridiculous. It's just your opinion which you mistakenly think as evidence.
Not at all Jos.
That is the opinion of thousand of witness and the fact that you have no valid arguments to counter that say it all.
Fail again man.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 10:07:56 AM
It's not difficult to understand that it's all bullshit.
Having no valid arguments to counter what I said made you a loser.
Quote from: Arik on August 07, 2019, 10:17:30 AM
That is the opinion of thousand of witness and the fact that you have no valid arguments to counter that say it all.
You don't understand my post - either you're too dense or a hypocrite or just confused - and perhaps all three.
I'm not denying the existence of NDE's, which you seem to think I said that, but your claim of what NDE's are. Your interpretation of NDE's is just bogus.
Quote from: Arik on August 07, 2019, 10:20:06 AM
Having no valid arguments to counter what I said made you a loser.
Yes there a valid argument:
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. That's the valid argument for me to say to you,
you are just spewing nonsense.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 10:23:26 AM
You don't understand my post - either you're too dense or a hypocrite or just confused - and perhaps all three.
I'm not denying the existence of NDE's, which you seem to think I said that, but your claim of what NDE's are. Your interpretation of NDE's is just bogus.
Now you are talking rubbish.
It is not my interpretation at all.
The facts are clear and the witnesses are real so to say that it is my interpretation is just a way to divert the facts and that equal to dishonesty.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 09:02:37 AM
And since that claim can never be proven, it's the equivalent of bullshitting.
An NDE is anecdotal only. I consider this sort of thing metaphysics. That isn't controlled experiment territory (but this has been tried). So in that sense, you are correct. But you are using "proof" loosely. "proof" only happens in math, not in science. In science there is repeated demonstration (either uncontrolled observation or controlled experiment). Metaphysical things are purely subjective, and thus outside demonstration. For instance, I can see might right hand, right now. And I am the only one here. It is in principle, objective, if someone else was here to confirm. That makes it objective. There are cases where confirmation by another person isn't possible. For instance, I don't want violence in the US. I can testify to that, but there is no way to demonstrate it. That is why in court, we have testimony. Fortunately in modern scientific police work, objective evidence has been brought forward. Denying testimony, where that is the only evidence available (yes, it is evidence) is contrary to the way the courts operate.
Quote from: Arik on August 07, 2019, 10:32:16 AM
Now you are talking rubbish.
It is not my interpretation at all.
The facts are clear and the witnesses are real so to say that it is my interpretation is just a way to divert the facts and that equal to dishonesty.
That leaves me to believe you don't know the basic definition of a fact. Saying "I saw God" NOT a fact unless you have tangible, verifiable evidence.
Quote from: Baruch on August 07, 2019, 10:47:37 AM
An NDE is anecdotal only. I consider this sort of thing metaphysics. That isn't controlled experiment territory (but this has been tried). So in that sense, you are correct. But you are using "proof" loosely. "proof" only happens in math, not in science. In science there is repeated demonstration (either uncontrolled observation or controlled experiment). Metaphysical things are purely subjective, and thus outside demonstration. For instance, I can see might right hand, right now. And I am the only one here. It is in principle, objective, if someone else was here to confirm. That makes it objective. There are cases where confirmation by another person isn't possible. For instance, I don't want violence in the US. I can testify to that, but there is no way to demonstrate it. That is why in court, we have testimony. Fortunately in modern scientific police work, objective evidence has been brought forward. Denying testimony, where that is the only evidence available (yes, it is evidence) is contrary to the way the courts operate.
Ok. then.
Put in this way Baruch.
Suppose you are a doctor.
You have a chap that died in front of you.
No blood+oxygen run through his head for the last 15-20 minutes.
In the meantime you and other medical staff try your very best to bring him back to life.
After sometime the chap come back to life and describe not only what you were doing to save him but even what you were thinking.
Is this anecdotal evidence?
Quote from: Arik on August 07, 2019, 10:17:30 AM
That is bizarre Jos.
Since you came on the forum (or came back) all you have done is to treat theists like idiots...........
Because they are. Pure and simple. And you are the poster child for idiocy.
Quote from: Arik on August 07, 2019, 11:20:14 AM
Ok. then.
Put in this way Baruch.
Suppose you are a doctor.
You have a chap that died in front of you.
No blood+oxygen run through his head for the last 15-20 minutes.
In the meantime you and other medical staff try your very best to bring him back to life.
After sometime the chap come back to life and describe not only what you were doing to save him but even what you were thinking.
Is this anecdotal evidence?
You made up that story. Where's the evidence of that happening?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 12:06:46 PM
You made up that story. Where's the evidence of that happening?
You just never tire of proving, over and over again, just how really rock-bottom stupid you are. You are amusing, though.
Yeah, I'm that stubbornly stupid. I can't help it...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 02:20:19 PM
Yeah, I'm that stubbornly stupid. I can't help it...
Joe....Joe...that was not aimed at you. :)) That was aimed at Airk. You are the exact opposite of that. don't know how that happened--clumsy fingers?????
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 07, 2019, 02:29:06 PM
Joe....Joe...that was not aimed at you. :)) That was aimed at Airk. You are the exact opposite of that. don't know how that happened--clumsy fingers?????
It's fine. I took your post as sarcasm, and replied in kind. No harm done...:-)
Quote from: Arik on August 07, 2019, 11:20:14 AM
Ok. then.
Put in this way Baruch.
Suppose you are a doctor.
You have a chap that died in front of you.
No blood+oxygen run through his head for the last 15-20 minutes.
In the meantime you and other medical staff try your very best to bring him back to life.
After sometime the chap come back to life and describe not only what you were doing to save him but even what you were thinking.
Is this anecdotal evidence?
Yes, the patient's account of events is anecdotal. The doctor's account, in that their patient was revived from near death, was not anecdotal.
OK, let's look at this story as you are describing. Although, I question that it happened like you said.
First of all, death is a physical process, not a single event, as in; one moment you are alive, the next you are dead. So, the statement that the patient "died in front of you" is not accurate.
Second, in a hospital situation, there would be very little time that there would be "no blood+oxygen run through his head", especially not for 15-20 minutes. You understand that doctors would be breathing and pumping blood for a patient under the circumstances. Have you ever heard the terms "Intubation" and "cardiopulmonary resuscitation"? These are the medical terms for very effective methods for breathing and assisting blood flow for patients.
If the patient is in surgery, the process is even more effective, in that, the patient is connected to a heart-lung machine at all times.
So, where is this period of 15-20 minutes of "no blood+oxygen run through his head" for the patient?
QuoteIn the meantime you and other medical staff try your very best to bring him back to life.
What do you think happens during the process of the medical staff "trying their best to bring you back to life"? They are breathing and assisting blood flow for the patient. Again, no loss of oxygen or blood to the brain. And again, the patient is not dead yet, because death is a process. It's not like turning off a light switch.
QuoteAfter sometime the chap come back to life and describe not only what you were doing to save him but even what you were thinking.
No, the patient was revived from NEAR DEATH. He was in the process of dying, when medical science prevented that process from continuing, and revived the patient.
During the preceding time of near death, the patient's brain was in crisis. When he is revived, his brain tries to fill in the missing time with images, sounds, speech from his memories. I am sure the vast majority of patients have seen enough medical dramas on TV and movies, to create false memories based on them.
Memory does not work the way you think it does. It is not like the brain has a bunch of fully intact videos of your past, that every time you remember an event, that video plays. Memory it more like a relational database.
Your knowledge of modern medicine and human memory is, lets say, a bit lacking. I'm being a bit charitable there.
Quote from: Arik on August 07, 2019, 11:20:14 AM
Ok. then.
Put in this way Baruch.
Suppose you are a doctor.
You have a chap that died in front of you.
No blood+oxygen run through his head for the last 15-20 minutes.
In the meantime you and other medical staff try your very best to bring him back to life.
After sometime the chap come back to life and describe not only what you were doing to save him but even what you were thinking.
Is this anecdotal evidence?
Yes. But I accept anecdotal evidence. Others here are phobic to subjective experience. Nightmares perhaps? Don't want to distract by refuting your semantics, point by point. And not my agenda anyway ;-) For me, objective experience has to pass thru subjective experience, or it doesn't happen at all. That makes subjective experience a-priori, not a-posteriori. Kant is incorrect and dated. I don't accept Pythagoras or Plato. I can tolerate a little Aristotle.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 12:06:46 PM
You made up that story. Where's the evidence of that happening?
Based on Behaviorism, human beings have no thoughts, no personhood. They are a stimulus/response mechanism same as a door bell. Yes, we now can see brain waves and other brain activity. But it is an assumption that objective activity has anything to do with thought or personhood. Hence the "hard problem" of consciousness. The dualism of Descartes is still a problem. Spinoza's solution to that is still too advanced for contemporary thought.
Quote from: Baruch on August 07, 2019, 04:36:55 PM
Yes. But I accept anecdotal evidence.
So do I, for certain claims.
If a friend says they say a poodle walking on its hind legs, I will believe their anecdotal account.
If the same friend says they saw a poodle drive a car, rob a bank, land in a flying saucer, I will not believe those anecdotal accounts.
QuoteFor me, objective experience has to pass thru subjective experience, or it doesn't happen at all. That makes subjective experience a-priori, not a-posteriori.
Of course we are all subject to our subjective interpretations of objective reality. But does that mean everyone's subjective experiences of objective reality are evidence of the events they report?
If so, why do we lock people up for delusional behavior?
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 07, 2019, 04:53:42 PM
So do I, for certain claims.
If a friend says they say a poodle walking on its hind legs, I will believe their anecdotal account.
If the same friend says they saw a poodle drive a car, rob a bank, land in a flying saucer, I will not believe those anecdotal accounts.
Of course we are all subject to our subjective interpretations of objective reality. But does that mean everyone's subjective experiences of objective reality are evidence of the events they report?
If so, why do we lock people up for delusional behavior?
Not all subjective experiences have the same quality. But all subjective experiences are problematic. Such as the supposed recent demonstration of the non-constancy of the speed of light in vacuum (in Swiss Alps I think). For some people that was confirmation bias. They don't accept the dogma that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. But further analysis (objectivity) cleared it up, that the experiment was flawed, and demonstrated the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, not something else. Sometimes it can take decades for bad experiments to be clarified. We assume that experiments, being controlled are 100% reliable. But the experimenters are not as reliable. In fact, that is why there is the popularity of Kuhn, regarding paradigm shifts in science. It is much better to disconfirm, than to confirm, because of the natural bias of human error.
Mostly since the 1970s, the US doesn't even lock up the criminally insane. We put them out as medication dependent out-patients.
How you accept anecdotal evidence is up to you. Some would deny all anecdotal evidence. For others, it matches their confirmation bias ;-) A visitation by Jesus is regarded as less credible than a visitation by space aliens for example.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 07, 2019, 04:30:40 PMMemory does not work the way you think it does. It is not like the brain has a bunch of fully intact videos of your past, that every time you remember an event, that video plays. Memory it more like a relational database.
Yeah, the way memories work is pretty interesting. Think back to any event in your memories, whether recent or distant, and you'll likely remember it in third person. Of course, we view the world from a first person perspective, so the fact that our memories take us out of our own bodies for some reason is already a strike against the reliability of human memory. It has also been theorized that memories are reconstructive; that your brain actively rebuilds your memories when you attempt to recall them. There is a lot of evidence to suggest this, showing that memories can change significantly over time. We don't only lose details, but sometimes we'll add new details to our memories, which may or may not reflect the real events the memories are based on.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 08, 2019, 12:10:17 AM
Yeah, the way memories work is pretty interesting. Think back to any event in your memories, whether recent or distant, and you'll likely remember it in third person. Of course, we view the world from a first person perspective, so the fact that our memories take us out of our own bodies for some reason is already a strike against the reliability of human memory. It has also been theorized that memories are reconstructive; that your brain actively rebuilds your memories when you attempt to recall them. There is a lot of evidence to suggest this, showing that memories can change significantly over time. We don't only lose details, but sometimes we'll add new details to our memories, which may or may not reflect the real events the memories are based on.
Is memory reliable? Eyewitness testimony (memory) = 50% accurate vs perp lineup. Memory also is how you maintain your identity, who you think you are. If who you think you are at any given time is only 50% accurate ... sad. Reconstruction? Context means .. confabulation, not reconstruction.
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 05:59:18 PM
I know that already. Great revelator of deep medical knowledge. When I found this out about a decade ago, I was flabbergasted at the misogyny of the medical profession.
Good, I didn't think your post suggested that.
Quote from: Baruch on August 07, 2019, 04:36:55 PM
Yes. But I accept anecdotal evidence. Others here are phobic to subjective experience. Nightmares perhaps? Don't want to distract by refuting your semantics, point by point. And not my agenda anyway ;-) For me, objective experience has to pass thru subjective experience, or it doesn't happen at all. That makes subjective experience a-priori, not a-posteriori. Kant is incorrect and dated. I don't accept Pythagoras or Plato. I can tolerate a little Aristotle.
Anecdotal evidence is never trustworthy. I have personal family claims that I don't care to share, but the "evidence" on both sides was anecdotal and all unprovable. I had to decline to choose. Both sides were angry at me for "not trusting them". That is a reason to refuse "anectodal evidence". Ir isn't actually evidence of any sort.
You are "Null-A"? Do tell. Give some examples.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 07, 2019, 04:30:40 PM
First of all, death is a physical process, not a single event, as in; one moment you are alive, the next you are dead. So, the statement that the patient "died in front of you" is not accurate.
People gravitate to the idea of being brought back to life. I suspect that some doctors might enjoy telling a patient that he was dead on the operating table, just for the dramatic effect. More likely what the doctor means is that a person was by some common measure considered legally dead. Perhaps he stopped breathing. I don't know this for sure, but I do know that people talking about their operations like to say their doctor told them they were dead, but brought back to life.
It's an amazing story and people like to talk about their amazing operations. And if it requires a little bit of exaggeration to make the story better, well... what's the harm? And in the spirit of friendly "one upsmanship," if one guy was brought back to life, the next one will say his soul floated around the operating room (which is something all souls are well known to do, before ascending up to the clouds).
But coming back to life is now an established meme, and it's not going to end soon. People desperately don't want to die, and the pain is eased a bit when they think they can come back to life. And there is a whole slew of internet stories saying it happened to someone that somebody knew. Published books are part of the religion shelves in book stores, and who's going to argue with a book and especially if it's on the internet?
Quote from: SGOS on August 08, 2019, 09:02:13 AM
People gravitate to the idea of being brought back to life. I suspect that some doctors might enjoy telling a patient that he was dead on the operating table, just for the dramatic effect. More likely what the doctor means is that a person was by some common measure considered legally dead. Perhaps he stopped breathing. I don't know this for sure, but I do know that people talking about their operations like to say their doctor told them they were dead, but brought back to life.
It's an amazing story and people like to talk about their amazing operations. And if it requires a little bit of exaggeration to make the story better, well... what's the harm? And in the spirit of friendly "one upsmanship," if one guy was brought back to life, the next one will say his soul floated around the operating room (which is something all souls are well known to do, before ascending up to the clouds).
But coming back to life is now an established meme, and it's not going to end soon. People desperately don't want to die, and the pain is eased a bit when they think they can come back to life. And there is a whole slew of internet stories saying it happened to someone that somebody knew. Published books are part of the religion shelves in book stores, and who's going to argue with a book and especially if it's on the internet?
One might also wonder why it has to be during surgery. Wouldn't one expect to have the same experience while sleeping in bed? Or does God only observe surgeries? LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 09:19:40 AM
One might also wonder why it has to be during surgery. Wouldn't one expect to have the same experience while sleeping in bed? Or does God only observe surgeries? LOL!
Interesting point CB.
Obviously you haven't read much of the NDEs.
If you would have then you would find that many NDEs also happen outside hospitals but those have no witnesses which is the material that skeptics require 24/7 that is why I try to lead the skeptics towards the NDEs with witnesses.
Quote from: SGOS on August 08, 2019, 09:02:13 AM
People gravitate to the idea of being brought back to life. I suspect that some doctors might enjoy telling a patient that he was dead on the operating table, just for the dramatic effect. More likely what the doctor means is that a person was by some common measure considered legally dead. Perhaps he stopped breathing. I don't know this for sure, but I do know that people talking about their operations like to say their doctor told them they were dead, but brought back to life.
It's an amazing story and people like to talk about their amazing operations. And if it requires a little bit of exaggeration to make the story better, well... what's the harm? And in the spirit of friendly "one upsmanship," if one guy was brought back to life, the next one will say his soul floated around the operating room (which is something all souls are well known to do, before ascending up to the clouds).
But coming back to life is now an established meme, and it's not going to end soon. People desperately don't want to die, and the pain is eased a bit when they think they can come back to life. And there is a whole slew of internet stories saying it happened to someone that somebody knew. Published books are part of the religion shelves in book stores, and who's going to argue with a book and especially if it's on the internet?
I would say that most people during their NDEs clearly do not want to come back into their body.
Why would they considering that to be free from the body constrain is so good?
The very few that wish to come back are usually parents worry for their young kids.
(red color mine)
Quote from: Arik on August 08, 2019, 09:46:25 AM
The very few that wish to come back are usually parents worry for their young kids.
(red color mine)
Evidence? Oh wait, you have none. Just like your story,
QuotePut in this way Baruch.
Suppose you are a doctor.
You have a chap that died in front of you.
No blood+oxygen run through his head for the last 15-20 minutes.
In the meantime you and other medical staff try your very best to bring him back to life.
After sometime the chap come back to life and describe not only what you were doing to save him but even what you were thinking.
I ask for evidence of that story, and you conveniently ignore.
LOL.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 07, 2019, 04:30:40 PM
Yes, the patient's account of events is anecdotal. The doctor's account, in that their patient was revived from near death, was not anecdotal.
Oh, my God...........
You are a total joke SM.
So one is anecdotal and one is not........
Why don't you explain how the patient was able to see and perceive what was happening once he lies dead and his experience was confirmed by all present in the surgery?
Get real man.
QuoteOK, let's look at this story as you are describing. Although, I question that it happened like you said.
Read SM, read a little bit of these NDEs where people are real and not invented characters like in a novel story.
https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
QuoteFirst of all, death is a physical process,
Unfortunately you forget that physical death is not the I or consciousness death.
Quotenot a single event, as in; one moment you are alive, the next you are dead. So, the statement that the patient "died in front of you" is not accurate.
We say that a chap is dead when we see his-her body dead but again in reality nobody ever did die and nobody will ever die because energy-consciousness is behind death.
QuoteSecond, in a hospital situation, there would be very little time that there would be "no blood+oxygen run through his head", especially not for 15-20 minutes. You understand that doctors would be breathing and pumping blood for a patient under the circumstances. Have you ever heard the terms "Intubation" and "cardiopulmonary resuscitation"? These are the medical terms for very effective methods for breathing and assisting blood flow for patients.
If the patient is in surgery, the process is even more effective, in that, the patient is connected to a heart-lung machine at all times.
So, where is this period of 15-20 minutes of "no blood+oxygen run through his head" for the patient?
What do you think happens during the process of the medical staff "trying their best to bring you back to life"? They are breathing and assisting blood flow for the patient. Again, no loss of oxygen or blood to the brain. And again, the patient is not dead yet, because death is a process. It's not like turning off a light switch.
No, the patient was revived from NEAR DEATH. He was in the process of dying, when medical science prevented that process from continuing, and revived the patient.
During the preceding time of near death, the patient's brain was in crisis. When he is revived, his brain tries to fill in the missing time with images, sounds, speech from his memories. I am sure the vast majority of patients have seen enough medical dramas on TV and movies, to create false memories based on them.
Fail again SM.
I am not arguing that in an emergency situation doctors do all those things in order to revive the person.
Unfortunately you do not get the fact that before the doctors do all those things the chap has already been deprived of blood-oxygen for quite a long time.
In fact most people have accidents or traumatic events well before they are taken to an emergency place and enough time has gone before doctors act on them.
In some case that event also happen in front of the doctors so they act faster that if the event happen before they get at the hospital.
So not in all cases doctors are there to act ASAP and obviously every case is different.
QuoteMemory does not work the way you think it does. It is not like the brain has a bunch of fully intact videos of your past, that every time you remember an event, that video plays. Memory it more like a relational database.
Your knowledge of modern medicine and human memory is, lets say, a bit lacking. I'm being a bit charitable there.
An NDE did not happen to me or to you so we both do not know exactly how the memory works.
What I do know is that it is wise to rely on the experiences of those who had an NDE which is something that you avoid doing.
In other word it would be better that you start stop deducing something that is the fruit of your imaginary beliefs and here I am a bit charitable. :wink:
Quote from: Arik on August 08, 2019, 09:36:58 AM
Interesting point CB.
Obviously you haven't read much of the NDEs.
If you would have then you would find that many NDEs also happen outside hospitals but those have no witnesses which is the material that skeptics require 24/7 that is why I try to lead the skeptics towards the NDEs with witnesses.
First, I am not "CB". To you or anyone else.
Second, NDEs tend to happen in hospitals because of the effects of anesthesia. That seldom happens outside of hospitals.
Third, NDEs tend to happen at extreme bodily/brain stress (the two are interrelated), which don't usually occur in observable situations outside of hospitals.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 10:10:36 AM
Evidence? Oh wait, you have none. Just like your story,
I ask for evidence of that story, and you conveniently ignore.
LOL.
I also asked you to read a bit of those NDEs so you would have found out this and that.
There are hundreds or thousand of those NDEs.
I hope you don't ask me to read that for you Jos.
I already been there and done that so now is your time to get up your a.. and do your home work.
Thanks.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t/d-man-word-text-thanks-illustration-standing-human-person-character-white-people-61250749.jpg)
Quote from: Arik on August 08, 2019, 10:27:02 AM
Read SM, read a little bit of these NDEs where people are real and not invented characters like in a novel story.
Unfortunately you forget that physical death is not the I or consciousness death.
We say that a chap is dead when we see his-her body dead but again in reality nobody ever did die and nobody will ever die because energy-consciousness is behind death.
Fail again SM.
What I do know is that it is wise to rely on the experiences of those who had an NDE which is something that you avoid doing.
In other word it would be better that you start stop deducing something that is the fruit of your imaginary beliefs and here I am a bit charitable. :wink:
Provide falsifiable examples.
Define medical death.
If NDEs are personal to the individual (as the must be unless others to detect the event, it is all anecdotal.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 10:30:09 AM
First, I am not "CB". To you or anyone else.
I am so so sorry for that. :angel:
QuoteSecond, NDEs tend to happen in hospitals because of the effects of anesthesia.
That seldom happens outside of hospitals.
What a load of garbage man.
In fact is the other way around.
Just read these NDEs to find out.
QuoteThird, NDEs tend to happen at extreme bodily/brain stress (the two are interrelated), which don't usually occur in observable situations outside of hospitals.
More garbage.
In most cases people are brought to hospitals when the event already happened and in most cases people die suddenly so bodily-brain stress hardly occur.
When you have a serious accident you just haven't got any time to create any stress.
You just die suddenly.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 10:38:27 AM
Provide falsifiable examples.
Define medical death.
Medical death is when the brain cells are dead which happen within 3 minutes average and in 10 minutes in very rare cases from the time that the blood-oxygen stop getting into the brain.
According to me physical death happen when the consciousness leave the body and that can happen even before the 3 or 10 minutes.
QuoteIf NDEs are personal to the individual (as the must be unless others to detect the event, it is all anecdotal.
The anecdotal automatically turn into evidence as soon as the experience is verified by witnesses as I already explain in previous post.
Quote from: Arik on August 08, 2019, 10:46:28 AM
I am so so sorry for that. :angel:
What a load of garbage man.
In fact is the other way around.
Just read these NDEs to find out.
More garbage.
In most cases people are brought to hospitals when the event already happened and in most cases people die suddenly so bodily-brain stress hardly occur.
When you have a serious accident you just haven't got any time to create any stress.
You just die suddenly.
"I am so so sorry for that."
Apology accepted, and don't trouble yourself about it further.
"When you have a serious accident you just haven't got any time to create any stress."
You are thinking conscious stress. When I said stress I meant the stress to the body and to the brain trying to survive the physical shock. Don't confuse that with New Age mindbody ideas though. I DON'T mean that.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 08:14:39 AM
Good, I didn't think your post suggested that.
You are not my Mommy.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 08:25:08 AM
Anecdotal evidence is never trustworthy. I have personal family claims that I don't care to share, but the "evidence" on both sides was anecdotal and all unprovable. I had to decline to choose. Both sides were angry at me for "not trusting them". That is a reason to refuse "anectodal evidence". Ir isn't actually evidence of any sort.
You are "Null-A"? Do tell. Give some examples.
For some purposes, third party anecdotal evidence is ... for entertainment purposes only. But my own testimony about myself, is also anecdotal. I do trust that. And I am not so paranoid as to think that all third party statements are BS. Some people honestly believe their BS, they aren't used camel salesmen.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 09:19:40 AM
One might also wonder why it has to be during surgery. Wouldn't one expect to have the same experience while sleeping in bed? Or does God only observe surgeries? LOL!
In metaphysics, sleep is a fertile ground of experience. Trance also. Life threatening surgery is simply a more dramatic example. For secular folks, dreams are trash and trance is delusion.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 10:38:27 AM
Provide falsifiable examples.
Define medical death.
If NDEs are personal to the individual (as the must be unless others to detect the event, it is all anecdotal.
All human claims are falsifiable, because monkeys.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 11:10:18 AM
Wrong.
"The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981."
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438 (https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438)
Bullshit.
That is a legal definition, not a medical one. The doctors and the relatives have to be legally protected from the suspicion of wrongful death.
Quote from: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 01:17:14 PM
You are not my Mommy.
Never thought I was. Where did THAT come from. And I even re-read the post to which you refer.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 01:32:43 PM
Never thought I was. Where did THAT come from. And I even re-read the post to which you refer.
You are not my Daddy either.
Can you be sure?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2019, 01:43:58 PM
Can you be sure?
Recent testing has verified this. I am not furry, and don't hibernate ;-)
Maybe a cave bear is your spirit animal?
:-P
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2019, 01:56:28 PM
Maybe a cave bear is your spirit animal?
:-P
I actually have one. Crow. He is the smartest and trickiest spirit animal.
Quote from: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 01:59:24 PM
I actually have one. Crow. He is the smartest and trickiest spirit animal.
Well, good for you! Have you ever had to eat crow?
Quote from: Arik on August 08, 2019, 10:27:02 AM
Oh, my God...........
You are a total joke SM.
So one is anecdotal and one is not........
Why don't you explain how the patient was able to see and perceive what was happening once he lies dead and his experience was confirmed by all present in the surgery?
Naw...
I think I am done responding to you.
You can lead a credulous fool to Occam's Razor, but you can't make them slit their wrists*.
* It's ajoke. I am not advocating anyone slitting their wrists.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 08, 2019, 02:11:45 PM
Naw...
I think I am done responding to you.
You can lead a credulous fool to Occam's Razor, but you can't make them slit their wrists*.
* It's ajoke. I am not advocating anyone slitting their wrists.
And I'm sure no one thought you were. We all know the carotid artery is much more efficient.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2019, 02:06:07 PM
Well, good for you! Have you ever had to eat crow?
No. Too much spitting out of feathers ;-)
Quote from: Arik on August 08, 2019, 10:56:47 AM
Medical death is when the brain cells are dead which happen within 3 minutes average and in 10 minutes in very rare cases from the time that the blood-oxygen stop getting into the brain.
Wrong.
"The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981."
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438 (https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438)
QuoteAccording to me physical death happen when the consciousness leave the body and that can happen even before the 3 or 10 minutes.
Bullshit.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 07:50:56 PM
Wrong.
"The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981."
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438 (https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438)
Didn't Baruch explained to you that that is a legal definition and not a medical one?
QuoteBullshit.
Bulllove. :tongue:
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 08, 2019, 02:11:45 PM
Naw...
I think I am done responding to you.
You can lead a credulous fool to Occam's Razor, but you can't make them slit their wrists*.
* It's ajoke. I am not advocating anyone slitting their wrists.
No worry Simon.
Take your time.......maybe some time in the future you may be able to explain how the patient was able to see and perceive what was happening once he lies dead and his experience was confirmed by all present in the surgery?
I am not asking you to explain that right now so relax for the time being.
Have a lovely day. :smiley:
Quote from: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 01:59:24 PM
I actually have one. Crow. He is the smartest and trickiest spirit animal.
I also have crows visiting my garden but the most intelligent birds coming in the garden are the Australian magpies.
I can feed them by hands while the crows are a little bit fearful.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCxSLw6t8Fgdd-LVqjOBmTH6tzeJTs-sAjJGfu2Z7sN6OJOmlaklm2m6IpA4lyiaWuFsCxVT2wRym8SuS8eFsB1kXqBmsO-qje-lOQhqs&usqp=CAE)
Magpies can be taught to talk? I know that Mynah birds can.
Quote from: Arik on August 09, 2019, 05:00:45 AM
Didn't Baruch explained to you that that is a legal definition and not a medical one?
Bulllove. :tongue:
Since when is Baruch an expert. He's idiot, and you are double idiot, thinking that anyone would fall for this ducking. That definition of death, in operation since 1981, destroys your claim since you based arbitrarily death at having no oxygen within a few seconds. The definition established by the medical community is quite clear: it is an irreversible process. Anyone who went through an NDE did not go through an irreversible process, and cannot be considered as dead.
Go along with your stupid theory as you will continue to do proving what I said about you that you are an intellectual fraud, with Baruch applauding you, but you're done AFAIC.
Quote from: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 08:00:08 AM
Magpies can be taught to talk? I know that Mynah birds can.
Yeah, Magpies can be taught to talk. Don't now about the Austrian type, but the type found in the Oregon high desert can--I've heard them.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 08:51:40 AM
Since when is Baruch an expert. He's idiot, and you are double idiot, thinking that anyone would fall for this ducking. That definition of death, in operation since 1981, destroys your claim since you based arbitrarily death at having no oxygen within a few seconds. The definition established by the medical community is quite clear: it is an irreversible process. Anyone who went through an NDE did not go through an irreversible process, and cannot be considered as dead.
Go along with your stupid theory as you will continue to do proving what I said about you that you are an intellectual fraud, with Baruch applauding you, but you're done AFAIC.
You are Dr A D Hominem ;-) Are all former professors as authoritarian as you are? Probably goes with the job.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:47:26 AM
Yeah, Magpies can be taught to talk. Don't now about the Austrian type, but the type found in the Oregon high desert can--I've heard them.
Wonder if talking birds that were kept by hippies have interesting vocabulary? ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 09:51:10 AM
Wonder if talking birds that were kept by hippies have interesting vocabulary? ;-))
Hippies??? As usual, I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I'm talking about the early to mid 50's and in Hermiston, Oregon, located near a high desert ammo dump.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 10:29:23 AM
Hippies??? As usual, I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I'm talking about the early to mid 50's and in Hermiston, Oregon, located near a high desert ammo dump.
Did the military kill all the birds before the 60s? I wasn't speaking of your birds. Are those the only birds?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:47:26 AM
Yeah, Magpies can be taught to talk. Don't now about the Austrian type, but the type found in the Oregon high desert can--I've heard them.
My mother had a budgie that learned to "talk". Basically it was just repeating whatever my mother would say. What was uncanny is that the bird would sometimes repeat a phrase that would fit the situation, which would bring down the house in tears of laughter...
Quote from: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 09:50:10 AM
You are Dr A D Hominem ;-) Are all former professors as authoritarian as you are? Probably goes with the job.
When you have 30 pairs of eyes, 30 pairs of ears, and 30 brains watching everything you say, you better have a mastery of your subject. Otherwise those students will eat you alive. You may fake it in a lit class. Faking it in a physics class is not a good idea.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 10:50:34 AM
When you have 30 pairs of eyes, 30 pairs of ears, and 30 brains watching everything you say, you better have a mastery of your subject. Otherwise those students will eat you alive. You may fake it in a lit class. Faking it in a physics class is not a good idea.
That professor at MIT, Walter Lewin. I loved his "will pendulum bowling ball hit my face" experiment. Sad he was guilty of sexual harassment. That is a problem with authority figures. I am fortunate that I have taught adults in small numbers in very informal settings ;-))
Yeah, lit class. Is that a classist statement? ;-) Our philosophy professor, Freshman class required subject ... he taught Plato's Republic. Their standards are ... pretty loose.
Quote from: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 10:33:06 AM
Did the military kill all the birds before the 60s? I wasn't speaking of your birds. Are those the only birds?
Damn! You must be smoking some good shit, man--or dropping some great shit--White Rabbit!
Quote from: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 11:30:50 AM
That is a problem with authority figures.
It's not a question of authority but a question of trust, which is something you earn, and not given. I never had to impose my authority in class. I knew I had to earn their trust by giving the knowledge they were eager to learn, and not some bullshit. Put it this way. They outnumber you 30:1, most of them are in a honors or major program in physics, and they are smarter than you. The only advantage I had is more knowledge and better understanding. I was also fully aware that advantage was temporary - sooner they would equal their master and eventually surpass him. But once I had their trust, I would have that for a long time.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 12:20:19 PM
Damn! You must be smoking some good shit, man--or dropping some great shit--White Rabbit!
Your response was ... pre-1960 birds is all we can talk about, because that is what I was talking about. I never went there, I was talking species.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 12:21:39 PM
It's not a question of authority but a question of trust, which is something you earn, and not given. I never had to impose my authority in class. I knew I had to earn their trust by giving the knowledge they were eager to learn, and not some bullshit. Put it this way. They outnumber you 30:1, most of them are in a honors or major program in physics, and they are smarter than you. The only advantage I had is more knowledge and better understanding. I was also fully aware that advantage was temporary - sooner they would equal their master and eventually surpass him. But once I had their trust, I would have that for a long time.
Under Title IX. How it is applied, has varied. Sometimes the professor is guilty, other times the student is making a false accusation, other times the college admin is over-reacting. 9/10 of my professors were capable people ... but then I was mostly in technical courses.
I mostly trust your opinion in physics, not because I am 18 and in your Freshman class. I have seen your posts. They are mostly reliable within your subject. Same as Hakurei is on Beysian statistics.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 08:51:40 AM
Since when is Baruch an expert. He's idiot, and you are double idiot, thinking that anyone would fall for this ducking. That definition of death, in operation since 1981, destroys your claim since you based arbitrarily death at having no oxygen within a few seconds. The definition established by the medical community is quite clear: it is an irreversible process. Anyone who went through an NDE did not go through an irreversible process, and cannot be considered as dead.
Go along with your stupid theory as you will continue to do proving what I said about you that you are an intellectual fraud, with Baruch applauding you, but you're done AFAIC.
Since you pop up in the forum and in this thread I realized that you are some sort of a fool but now with this new post you put in clear terms that you are.
First I never said few seconds.
If you read my previous post you would see that I did write 3 minutes and in very rare cases 10 minutes.
Second the medical community can only perceive what come under the physical-mental issue not what come under what is behind the physical-mental one such as the relation that come between the personal consciousness and the mighty ocean of consciousness also known as God.
That is something that the medical community has still to come to terms with but NDEs are making a fast progress as more and more scientists start studying the issue with great interest and the so called irreversible process is no longer so irreversible under certain circumstances.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 08:51:40 AM
Since when is Baruch an expert. He's idiot, and you are double idiot, thinking that anyone would fall for this ducking. That definition of death, in operation since 1981, destroys your claim since you based arbitrarily death at having no oxygen within a few seconds. The definition established by the medical community is quite clear: it is an irreversible process. Anyone who went through an NDE did not go through an irreversible process, and cannot be considered as dead.
Go along with your stupid theory as you will continue to do proving what I said about you that you are an intellectual fraud, with Baruch applauding you, but you're done AFAIC.
You are a total joke man.
1981 is a long long time away in terms of how the science works.
Since when you changed your smart phone?
Would you still hang on to the phone that we had in 1981?
Medical science is the same.
What was the latest discover in 1981 is total rubbish today.
That discover has been cast in the rubbish bin of history ages ago and now the latest discoveries are total different.
Get real man. :evil:
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 10:29:23 AM
I'm talking about the early to mid 50's and in Hermiston, Oregon, located near a high desert ammo dump.
The Montana State Bird is the Meadow Lark, which may have been chosen because of its pleasant trill, but just going on numbers, I thought it should have been the Magpie, but I guess birds whose main diet is roadkill don't appeal to the committee that chooses the state bird.
Quote from: Arik on August 10, 2019, 06:40:39 AM
Since you pop up in the forum and in this thread I realized that you are some sort of a fool but now with this new post you put in clear terms that you are.
First I never said few seconds.
If you read my previous post you would see that I did write 3 minutes and in very rare cases 10 minutes.
Fine, but it still not the consenting definition of death established by the medical community since 1981, nearly 40 years ago. So you're barking on the wrong tree. The definition is clear: you must have an irreversible process, and two of them are described in the definition. That definition has absolutely nothing to do with how long a patient is without oxygen. So your misguided theory is sunk as it is clear no death occurs in an NDE. There's a reason it's NEAR DEAD, because it's not death. Get it.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 08:06:10 AM
There's a reason it's NEAR DEAD, because it's not death. Get it.
He's been told that, but chooses to ignore it. He's hopeless.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 10, 2019, 01:40:37 PM
He's been told that, but chooses to ignore it. He's hopeless.
Not gifted with critical thinking skills...
He probably thinks critical thinking skills are a curse, rather than a gift.
If near death is referring to the light at the end of the tunnel, when I was in Navy flight training a chief who ran the GLOC (gravitationally induced loss of consciousness) centrifuge told me 50% of victims do the "funky chicken" coming back to consciousness and 50% report seeing a light at the end of a tunnel. When I blacked out I saw it too. I asked my cousin, a flight physiologist for the Air Force and he had a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. The fovia and a ring of rods around it are much more sensitive to light than the rest of the retina. Blacking out and regaining consciousness slowly enough all but guarantee tunnel vision.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 08:06:10 AM
Fine, but it still not the consenting definition of death established by the medical community since 1981, nearly 40 years ago. So you're barking on the wrong tree. The definition is clear: you must have an irreversible process, and two of them are described in the definition. That definition has absolutely nothing to do with how long a patient is without oxygen. So your misguided theory is sunk as it is clear no death occurs in an NDE. There's a reason it's NEAR DEAD, because it's not death. Get it.
You just don't get it man.
If physical science say that death is irreversible then those doctors that declare these people involved in their NDE dead then they must be total idiots considering that these people come back to life?
But doctors are not idiots.
They know exactly when is the case to declare the bloke dead or not.
The only problem is that these NDEs do not come under the rules of the physical science.
Doctors do their duty and they do it quite well but it is not part of their knowledge to understand what is not part of physical-medical science.
Doctors did not study the relationship that link individual consciousness with God.
They only studied physical science and medical science in particular so nobody expect from them to understand what the consciousness is all about.
Medical science can not conceive that an irreversible dead is not irreversible but what is impossible for the physical spectrum is instead possible for the master of the universe therefore there is absolutely nothing irreversible and impossible.
QuoteBut doctors are not idiots.
They know exactly when is the case to declare the bloke dead or not.
Are you sure you want to stand by this position before you face the onslaught of humiliation through counter examples?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 10, 2019, 07:35:37 PM
He probably thinks critical thinking skills are a curse, rather than a gift.
Critical skills ... "You %%^#* skank" ... like that?
Quote from: aileron on August 10, 2019, 08:11:49 PM
Are you sure you want to stand by this position before you face the onslaught of humiliation through counter examples?
I could say the same think about you guys considering that none of you is able to explain how it is possible that a declared dead person is able to see or better say perceive what is going on around his-her dead body and once back in his-her body describe all to be confirm by all present.
So how you put that ONSLAUGHT my friend? :smiley:
Quote from: Arik on August 10, 2019, 07:54:19 PM
If physical science say that death is irreversible then those doctors that declare these people involved in their NDE dead then they must be total idiots considering that these people come back to life?
It's not physical science that says so, but the America Medical Association, which has over 200,000 members. If they thought this definition was inadequate, they would have pressured their association to change it. Obviously, they didn't since the definition has been around for nearly 40 years.
You think that death is due to a lack of oxygen, probably got that from watching some stupid TV show, but it isn't so.
The irony is that you were begging all of us to read up on this. Yet a simple google search on the definition of death formulated by the medical community has exposed a huge crack in your ill-conceived theory. The least you can do is thank us for helping you to see the light. But I'm not holding my breath.
Believe what you want, it's a free country, but there are a lot of gullible people out there, so maybe you'll be successful. I don't think you'll find any adherent here... oh wait, maybe Baruch might go for it. Better than nothing...
Quote from: Arik on August 11, 2019, 06:22:49 AM
I could say the same think about you guys considering that none of you is able to explain how it is possible that a declared dead person is able to see or better say perceive what is going on around his-her dead body and once back in his-her body describe all to be confirm by all present.
So how you put that ONSLAUGHT my friend? :smiley:
We simply have no reason to explain it any more than we already have, since we don't believe your premise, that fully dead people came back to life. And you quoting people who claim that fully dead people did come back to life does not constitute any sort of evidence.
Besides, why should we care to school you on any of this stuff? You, after all, came to us, we didn't come to you.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 11, 2019, 06:12:20 PM
We simply have no reason to explain it any more than we already have, since we don't believe your premise, that fully dead people came back to life. And you quoting people who claim that fully dead people did come back to life does not constitute any sort of evidence.
Besides, why should we care to school you on any of this stuff? You, after all, came to us, we didn't come to you.
My question is ... are we alive? Or just dead people in a budget afterlife? There is so much evidence out there, X-files and zombies in the voting booths ...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 09:31:24 AM
It's not physical science that says so, but the America Medical Association, which has over 200,000 members. If they thought this definition was inadequate, they would have pressured their association to change it. Obviously, they didn't since the definition has been around for nearly 40 years.
You think that death is due to a lack of oxygen, probably got that from watching some stupid TV show, but it isn't so.
The irony is that you were begging all of us to read up on this. Yet a simple google search on the definition of death formulated by the medical community has exposed a huge crack in your ill-conceived theory. The least you can do is thank us for helping you to see the light. But I'm not holding my breath.
Believe what you want, it's a free country, but there are a lot of gullible people out there, so maybe you'll be successful. I don't think you'll find any adherent here... oh wait, maybe Baruch might go for it. Better than nothing...
Don't be ridiculous man.
The history is full of cases in which the word of the majority was the only truth but after sometime it turn to be totally wrong.
You must have heard the story that the planet earth was the center of the universe and that it was flat.
That belief last for long time but at the end it was cast in the rubbish bin of history and now anyone who come up with that idea is rightly taken as mad man.
Nobody has ever seen a dead consciousness but most people believe that when the body die also the consciousness die.
And the evidence of that where suppose to be?
It is funny that Atheists always ask to other for evidence for everything but when other ask Atheists for evidence then evidence is not needed because now we must trust an association with 200.00 member.
That is garbage way of carrying on.
As far as the range of expertise of these association is confined to the corral of physicality that is ok.
In this case I agree that physical death is irreversible.
However under different laws nothing is irreversible.
It is the master of the whole creation that decide what is irreversible or not rather than anybody else and this has been proven with a myriad of NDEs.
Quote from: Arik on August 11, 2019, 07:20:29 PM
Don't be ridiculous man.
The history is full of cases in which the word of the majority was the only truth but after sometime it turn to be totally wrong.
You must have heard the story that the planet earth was the center of the universe and that it was flat.
That belief last for long time but at the end it was cast in the rubbish bin of history and now anyone who come up with that idea is rightly taken as mad man.
Nobody has ever seen a dead consciousness but most people believe that when the body die also the consciousness die.
And the evidence of that where suppose to be?
It is funny that Atheists always ask to other for evidence for everything but when other ask Atheists for evidence then evidence is not needed because now we must trust an association with 200.00 member.
That is garbage way of carrying on.
As far as the range of expertise of these association is confined to the corral of physicality that is ok.
In this case I agree that physical death is irreversible.
However under different laws nothing is irreversible.
It is the master of the whole creation that decide what is irreversible or not rather than anybody else and this has been proven with a myriad of NDEs.
Your theory has been debunked.
Bye
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 10:38:33 AM
My mother had a budgie that learned to "talk". Basically it was just repeating whatever my mother would say. What was uncanny is that the bird would sometimes repeat a phrase that would fit the situation, which would bring down the house in tears of laughter...
My grandparents kept a mynah in the late 1960s; we took care of it for two weeks while they vacationed in Italy. Every morning like clockwork, at 6am that damn thing would go "AWRK! DIRTY RAT! DIRTY RAT!" right outside my bedroom door.
Only now does that make me wonder just what the everlasting Technicolor hell was going on over at Grandma and Grandpa's house that it picked *that* phrase and timing up...
Quote from: Arik on August 11, 2019, 07:20:29 PMThe history is full of cases in which the word of the majority was the only truth but after sometime it turn to be totally wrong.
Hasn't theism been the majority view for quite some time? ðŸ¤"
Quote from: Arik on August 10, 2019, 07:54:19 PM
You just don't get it man.
If physical science say that death is irreversible then those doctors that declare these people involved in their NDE dead then they must be total idiots considering that these people come back to life?
But doctors are not idiots.
They know exactly when is the case to declare the bloke dead or not.
The only problem is that these NDEs do not come under the rules of the physical science.
Doctors do their duty and they do it quite well but it is not part of their knowledge to understand what is not part of physical-medical science.
Doctors did not study the relationship that link individual consciousness with God.
They only studied physical science and medical science in particular so nobody expect from them to understand what the consciousness is all about.
Medical science can not conceive that an irreversible dead is not irreversible but what is impossible for the physical spectrum is instead possible for the master of the universe therefore there is absolutely nothing irreversible and impossible.
What part of NEAR DEATH can you not actually understand as NOT BEING ACTUALLY DEAD?
Quote from: trdsf on August 11, 2019, 08:33:29 PM
My grandparents kept a mynah in the late 1960s; we took care of it for two weeks while they vacationed in Italy. Every morning like clockwork, at 6am that damn thing would go "AWRK! DIRTY RAT! DIRTY RAT!" right outside my bedroom door.
Only now does that make me wonder just what the everlasting Technicolor hell was going on over at Grandma and Grandpa's house that it picked *that* phrase and timing up...
LOL.
My mother's budgie's favorite line was: "you're a pig", what my mother would tell it everything it would spread its semen all over the mirror. Of course, when we had visitors, our dear budgie would lash out:"you're a pig, you're a pig, you're a pig."
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 06:00:29 AM
LOL.
My mother's budgie's favorite line was: "you're a pig", what my mother would tell it everything it would spread its semen all over the mirror. Of course, when we had visitors, our dear budgie would lash out:"you're a pig, you're a pig, you're a pig."
I have a vague recollection of stomping the family parakeet when I was about 2. Maybe it insulted me. I do regret it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 12, 2019, 12:10:00 AM
Hasn't theism been the majority view for quite some time? ðŸ¤"
You undercut your own position. Majority good as long as I agree with it. Majority bad as long as I disagree with it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 12, 2019, 12:10:00 AM
Hasn't theism been the majority view for quite some time? ðŸ¤"
Very funny.
Unfortunately for you when I do say............the history is full of cases.....that doesn't mean that all the cases must follow this reasoning.
Try again mate maybe the next time you may have more luck. :evil:
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 04:43:36 AM
What part of NEAR DEATH can you not actually understand as NOT BEING ACTUALLY DEAD?
To say.........that bloke is dead.....is just a way to pretend that for that bloke is all over when in reality nothing is over.
It is only that humans can not see what happen behind that event.
Even science tell us that energy is behind death or dissolution and because we are energy-consciousness we are never dead.
All the medical science can do is to tell that that body is dead and I agree with them but because these scientists are unable to see behind the veil of physical death then is all open to scrutiny.
Physical death is real but consciousness death is not possible so while the shell is dead the I is not.
A life time seem to be an enormous length of time.
In reality is just a drop of time so to speak.
A bit like when you engage in a trip inside your vehicle from point A to point B.
During that time you feel like you and the vehicle are one when in reality there is you and there is the vehicle.
Because we feel so much that our body is us due to a period spent inside it then we find difficult to realize that we are not the body but because soon or later we reach point B we eventually will have to get out the vehicle-body and live on.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 07:38:03 PM
Your theory has been debunked.
Bye
When, where, how?
You are a total joke my friend.
However I got a very good news for you Jos.
The day you will stop being an arrogant nose picking kid you will start to see the whole world in a different dimension and you will be attracted to that mighty power that has been waiting for you for millions of evolutionary years.
Good luck with that.
Quote from: Arik on August 12, 2019, 08:33:44 AM
Very funny.
Unfortunately for you when I do say............the history is full of cases.....that doesn't mean that all the cases must follow this reasoning.
It's almost as if popularity has no logical connection to truth and anyone insisting otherwise is talking complete bollocks. What was your argument again?
Quote from: Arik on August 12, 2019, 09:11:01 AM
To say.........that bloke is dead.....is just a way to pretend that for that bloke is all over when in reality nothing is over.
It is only that humans can not see what happen behind that event.
Even science tell us that energy is behind death or dissolution and because we are energy-consciousness we are never dead.
Seriously? Energy left behind is consciousness?
What happens if you hit your head with a hammer? The energy state of your brain isn't affected hardly at all. By your "hypothesis" there would be no change in state of consciousness.
Spectacularly weak argument.
Quote from: aileron on August 12, 2019, 04:21:34 PM
Seriously? Energy left behind is consciousness?
What happens if you hit your head with a hammer? The energy state of your brain isn't affected hardly at all. By your "hypothesis" there would be no change in state of consciousness.
Spectacularly weak argument.
My POV, as metaphysics ... it isn't energy ... that is still physical.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 12, 2019, 03:47:25 PM
It's almost as if popularity has no logical connection to truth and anyone insisting otherwise is talking complete bollocks. What was your argument again?
Popularity may or may not have a... logical connection to truth.......case by case need to be examine and scrutinize.
My point however was that quite often the popular trend is taken as the correct one when in fact is often all wrong.
I don't see how this simple point is so difficult to understand.
Quote from: aileron on August 12, 2019, 04:21:34 PM
Seriously? Energy left behind is consciousness?
What happens if you hit your head with a hammer? The energy state of your brain isn't affected hardly at all. By your "hypothesis" there would be no change in state of consciousness.
Spectacularly weak argument.
Your reasoning is all wrong.
First the brain is not the consciousness.
The brain is made of matter while the consciousness is an abstract entity.
The two are separate things although they reside inside the same skull.
To me and to yoga death or better say what we call death is only the separation between consciousness and body-brain so nothing really die.
The consciousness goes elsewhere in an other body or merge into the essence of the cosmic consciousness while the body turn his energy into other form of energy (dust, compost....or anything else) so energy never die in either cases.
If the blow of a hammer knock you off then there may be this separation which is something that we wrongly call death.
This thread reminds me of a Dinner for Schmucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHtLwmVdcJg
Quote from: Arik on August 13, 2019, 08:24:04 AM
Your reasoning is all wrong.
First the brain is not the consciousness.
The brain is made of matter while the consciousness is an abstract entity.
The two are separate things although they reside inside the same skull.
To me and to yoga death or better say what we call death is only the separation between consciousness and body-brain so nothing really die.
The consciousness goes elsewhere in an other body or merge into the essence of the cosmic consciousness while the body turn his energy into other form of energy (dust, compost....or anything else) so energy never die in either cases.
If the blow of a hammer knock you off then there may be this separation which is something that we wrongly call death.
1) What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?
2) How would you know if your hypothesis is wrong?
3) A hammer blow knocks unconscious not dead. Does the consciousness float outside the skull for a while until it's ready to rejoin?
4) Why postulate the duality at all in the case of #3 when it's explained more parsimoniously by naturalistic means?
5) If the consciousness does not have the memories, how can it be said to be the same consciousness transferred to another brain?
I'm looking forward to being underwhelmed by your responses. Quite frankly, I'm expecting answers that don't appreciate the problems posed by the questions. Surprise me.
Quote from: Arik on August 13, 2019, 08:05:33 AM
Popularity may or may not have a... logical connection to truth.......case by case need to be examine and scrutinize
Newsflash: it doesn't. Period. The fact that you still think this argument holds water is really quite embarrassing since you obviously don't find it at all convincing when it's used to support a conclusion you don't like.
Quote from: Arik on August 13, 2019, 08:24:04 AMFirst the brain is not the consciousness.
The brain is made of matter while the consciousness is an abstract entity.
The two are separate things although they reside inside the same skull.
You have yet to support that in any way.
QuoteThe consciousness goes elsewhere in an other body or merge into the essence of the cosmic consciousness while the body turn his energy into other form of energy (dust, compost....or anything else) so energy never die in either cases.
If the blow of a hammer knock you off then there may be this separation which is something that we wrongly call death.
Have you seriously ever taken a science class? Because this stuff is just straight nonsense.
Quote from: aileron on August 13, 2019, 09:07:49 AM
1) What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?
2) How would you know if your hypothesis is wrong?
3) A hammer blow knocks unconscious not dead. Does the consciousness float outside the skull for a while until it's ready to rejoin?
4) Why postulate the duality at all in the case of #3 when it's explained more parsimoniously by naturalistic means?
5) If the consciousness does not have the memories, how can it be said to be the same consciousness transferred to another brain?
I'm looking forward to being underwhelmed by your responses. Quite frankly, I'm expecting answers that don't appreciate the problems posed by the questions. Surprise me.
The motherboard isn't the OS, let alone the MS Office.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 13, 2019, 09:52:33 AM
Newsflash: it doesn't. Period. The fact that you still think this argument holds water is really quite embarrassing since you obviously don't find it at all convincing when it's used to support a conclusion you don't like.
Life isn't over "until the fat lady sings" ... and I haven't heard her aria yet.
Quote from: Arik on August 13, 2019, 08:24:04 AM
The consciousness goes elsewhere in an other body or merge into the essence of the cosmic consciousness
hoo-boy. The boy is getting all hibbety jibbety with his "theories". But hey, give anybody some good psychedelics and they can tell stories of all kinds of cosmic shit....course it's still shit. The cosmic consciousness, sure......sure.
Quote from: aitm on August 13, 2019, 11:21:52 AM
hoo-boy. The boy is getting all hibbety jibbety with his "theories". But hey, give anybody some good psychedelics and they can tell stories of all kinds of cosmic shit....course it's still shit. The cosmic consciousness, sure......sure.
Never underestimate the consciousness...
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 10:19:27 AM
The motherboard isn't the OS, let alone the MS Office.
The hardware runs the software. No magic is required.
Quote from: aileron on August 13, 2019, 03:24:26 PM
The hardware runs the software. No magic is required.
You can also make a machine inside a machine. Virtual, yes, but still inside inside.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 03:13:00 PM
Never underestimate the consciousness...
Never underestimate the unconsciousness - Freud
Quote from: aileron on August 13, 2019, 03:24:26 PM
The hardware runs the software. No magic is required.
It is, if the motherboard wrote the software ;-) That would be magic. Never has happened. People wrote the software, someone, not something, transcendent to both hardware and software, aka wetware. There is no AI, just a programmer at further remove from the software being executed on the hardware (at further remove from the engineer).
All claims to AI, are The Turk. A fraud from 200 years ago, a chess playing machine. That had a midget chess player hidden inside. In that sense, all the chess games played by computers, are executions of the ideas put into the computer by the programmer, who "knew" how to play chess. Except of course, a computer doesn't play chess like a human does. It is a simulation, not an emulation. No emulation of a chess program has ever achieved high rank, because we don't understand how humans do it in the first place. A chess program has achieved high rank (and chess is a toy problem) because it overcomes combinatorial explosion thru massive parallel processing. Humans don't do that. Humans have intuition (aka we can guess what the opponent will do, because we are human also). Intuition is impossible for hardware/software, because it isn't a human, but the product of humans.
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 13, 2019, 03:29:10 PM
You can also make a machine inside a machine. Virtual, yes, but still inside inside.
Not quite true. All modern computer CPUs are Turing Machines. A Turing Machine is an idea, that can be simulated by various kinds of hardware, even by a human with paper and pencil. Once you have a simulation of a Turing Machine, then it can do anything any other computer can do. It is universal. That is what makes it a Turing Machine, instead of a more limited thing.
What is a virtual machine? That doesn't mean that the hardware is some executing code on some transcendental alien computer (we had a guy here 2 years ago who argued that reality is a computer simulation). A virtual machine is a particular software implementation of a Turing Machine, running on the hardware implementation of a Turing Machine. So actually not something new. Every OS already is a virtual machine. Only the bottom level algorithms run directly on the hardware. The term "virtual machine" is also used in program application architecture. One can choose to build a program that explicitly has the structure of an emulation of a Turing Machine (a CPU emulation) ... though of course this is alway implicitly true. This is commonly done in engineering new chips.
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 13, 2019, 03:29:10 PM
You can also make a machine inside a machine. Virtual, yes, but still inside inside.
That makes me think that Babushka dolls can be dangerous...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 04:11:47 AM
That makes me think that Babushka dolls can be dangerous...
It is Putin's mother, all the way down.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 03:13:00 PM
Never underestimate the consciousness...
yeah, I think I am not to worried about the cosmic consciousness.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 13, 2019, 09:55:30 AM
You have yet to support that in any way.
Evidence is there my friend.
NDEs clearly show that the consciousness is able to exist outside the dead brain. :tongue:
QuoteHave you seriously ever taken a science class? Because this stuff is just straight nonsense.
Do you seriously believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain?
This materialistic theory find less and less supporters as the days go by and soon will come the day in which materialists will be left and dump even by the science that they were worship and revere so much.
Just do a simple research on the net and see how more and more medical scientists dump the theory that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Time to wake up mate.
Quote from: Arik on August 14, 2019, 09:06:15 AM
NDEs clearly show that the consciousness is able to exist outside the dead brain.
Except NDE's not death...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 09:09:55 AM
Except NDE's not death...
I beg your pardon......
Gee, I didn't know that you are a qualified doctor......
So, so sorry....
Only a small thing Jos.
Do you mind to show me your qualification as a doctor?
Is not that I do not believe you.
Of course I do believe you but is rather for writing it down in my book of record because my memory is quite bad so I do not do the mistake to call you a pretender-claimant in future.
All my fault.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 13, 2019, 09:52:33 AM
Newsflash: it doesn't. Period. The fact that you still think this argument holds water is really quite embarrassing since you obviously don't find it at all convincing when it's used to support a conclusion you don't like.
A conclusion does not necessary carry the truth.
Within this limited universe everything move and change by the second so what was true yesterday is not longer true now and what is correct now will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow.
The only conclusion that hold 100% truth lies with the master of the whole existence.
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 11:42:31 PM
It is, if the motherboard wrote the software ;-) That would be magic. Never has happened.
Evolution.
Have you ever worked with genetic programming? At the risk of oversimplifying, genetic programming simulates natural selection to improve computation of extremely complex problems. The code literally mutates randomly and if the result is better it survives. If not, it's "killed". From there new mutations and selection improve the computation.
It's no exaggeration to state that more often than not there's not a single human on the planet who understands why the resulting computation works better than the starting one.
Sure, you can object that it's all human built, but the resulting computation is not. This is something we give minutes or hours to compute. Give nature 13 billion years, and we'll talk about what nature can do.
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 10:16:44 AM
Evolution.
Have you ever worked with genetic programming? At the risk of oversimplifying, genetic programming simulates natural selection to improve computation of extremely complex problems. The code literally mutates randomly and if the result is better it survives. If not, it's "killed". From there new mutations and selection improve the computation.
It's no exaggeration to state that more often than not there's not a single human on the planet who understands why the resulting computation works better than the starting one.
Sure, you can object that it's all human built, but the resulting computation is not. This is something we give minutes or hours to compute. Give nature 13 billion years, and we'll talk about what nature can do.
Oh, very good to see an expert.
Would you be so kind to explain to me what NATURE is?
Thanks.
(red color mine)
Quote from: Arik on August 14, 2019, 10:02:04 AM
I beg your pardon......
Gee, I didn't know that you are a qualified doctor......
The AMA says so. Get real.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 10:27:46 AM
The AMA says so. Get real.
Very well mate so now I can see your qualifications.
Thanks.
Quote from: Arik on August 14, 2019, 10:40:34 AM
Very well mate so now I can see your qualifications.
Thanks.
Liar. You can't see anything. You're blind.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 10:43:44 AM
Liar. You can't see anything. You're blind.
Liar?
Why?
All I want is to see that you are a real qualified doctor not a pretender.
Do I ask too much?
Quote from: Arik on August 14, 2019, 10:50:37 AM
Liar?
Why?
All I want is to see that you are a real qualified doctor not a pretender.
Do I ask too much?
Appeal to authority much? You don't need to be a doctor to know that "near death" and "death" are not the same things, BTW.
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 10:52:30 AM
Appeal to authority much? You don't need to be a doctor to know that "near death" and "death" are not the same things, BTW.
Near death is just a name given.
That does not mean that the bloke is not dead.
Names given do not necessary represent the truth and if the doctor confirm the real death then the name value given is just meaningless.
Quote from: Arik on August 14, 2019, 11:15:55 AM
Near death is just a name given.
That does not mean that the bloke is not dead.
Names given do not necessary represent the truth and if the doctor confirm the real death then the name value given is just meaningless.
So we've established that:
1) You're only talking about actual deaths, not near death experiences.
2) You're only talking about cases where the death has not been pronounced by mistake.
Okay, go. Find cases where you can confirm 1 and 2 and let's go from there.
Quote from: Arik on August 14, 2019, 10:50:37 AM
Liar?
Why?
All I want is to see that you are a real qualified doctor not a pretender.
Do I ask too much?
This was already posted to you. But the fraud that you are needs to be told again:
"The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981."
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438 (https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438)
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 10:16:44 AM
Evolution.
Have you ever worked with genetic programming? At the risk of oversimplifying, genetic programming simulates natural selection to improve computation of extremely complex problems. The code literally mutates randomly and if the result is better it survives. If not, it's "killed". From there new mutations and selection improve the computation.
It's no exaggeration to state that more often than not there's not a single human on the planet who understands why the resulting computation works better than the starting one.
Sure, you can object that it's all human built, but the resulting computation is not. This is something we give minutes or hours to compute. Give nature 13 billion years, and we'll talk about what nature can do.
I know what it is. I am degreed in computer science BTW. I know from computer science, in what ways it can work, or not work. Now I won't try to oversimplify for you ;-) Basically, a purely random string of binary digits, has no meaning. Meaning comes about with a pseudo-random string of binary digits, that has an accompanying interpretation. Basically similar to a crypt/decrypt of a human communication. If an encryption produced a truly random output, it couldn't be decrypted. If the language behind the original text had no meaning, then whether encrypted or not it is useless.
So what is genetic programming? You start with a carefully selected pseudo-random number (say that encodes some semantic network). For instance, a three level beginning neural net. But you could choose something else. The beginning state of the computation has to not be purely random, and it has to have an interpretation (in computer semantics, not necessarily in human terms). The execution of the base algorithm (such as the evolution of a neural net under data input) then modifies the original configuration into a new configuration. If things are designed well, then the final configuration has an interpretation under the same semantics as the original configuration (say OCRT). Of course the computer doesn't know what is being done, is the transformation of a fuzzy text into a less fuzzy archive text.
The base algorithm can vary, but it isn't a random set of binary digits either. It has to be pseudorandom. A genetic algorithm is a different scheme than a three level neural net, but the principles are the same. Any execution of input data by a Turing machine, into output data is a variation on the same basic routine. A Turing machine, in computational complexity theory, cannot produce a purely random string. At most it can produce what is called a "computable number". Those are transcendental, but only a proper subset of the transcendental numbers. The other transcendental numbers are no computable, they are purely random. It is ultimately deterministic. A non-deterministic system can only be simulated, not emulated, unless one creates an "oracle".
A non-deterministic execution is achieved by a physical event, not software event, that is outside the scope of what we are discussing. It is an "oracle" in Turing theory. In NSA type work, it involves a purely physical random event (say quantum) that can generate a seed, that is then used to build a longer key. As long a the seed is purely random (out of a very large set of potential seeds), then the generation of a longer key by computation method, is not a weakness. A basic version of this would be a purely random number being used to pick a long "one time pad" out of a large list of them. Using a "one time pad" only once, and never again, is perfect encryption. So this can be approached to whatever level of hardness one wants. I have worked with those kinds of systems.
So basically, in this model, one can transform an initial state (plain text) into a final state (crypt text) using an algorithm that is pseudorandom number. And one can make the generation of the key to the pseudorandom number, as hard as one likes. So again, a very great extrapolation of human intervention, from the actual execution of code. Many levels of indirection deep. But not infinitely deep. So Lady Ada Lovelace continues to be vindicated over Alan Turning. The machine can't do more than what we tell it to do. And it can all be done by pencil and paper rather than by computer, if we are patient enough. Alan Turing (in his Turing Test) lowered the requirement, to match what a Turing machine can do. A thought experiment, or cheat.
This is why, Tay the Nazi chatbot went off course. And why Google's experiment with two mutually interacting chatbots was stopped:
https://www.pymnts.com/news/artificial-intelligence/2018/google-chatbots-facebook-voice-assistant-smart-speaker/
Basically as I see it, at some level, they had the various pseudorandom bits working. But the execution moved from a system that had an interpretation to one that did not. Which is to say, not only did Google not know how the chat-bot-coffee-clatch drew conclusions, but they didn't even know what it was reporting after a period of time. The output was pseudorandom in a way nobody could figure out. Aka useless, like baby gibberish.
So yeah, in a subject I know something about, you could learn from me. I am happy to learn in areas where I am deficient (if they exist ;-)).
As any Dilbert fan knows, there is a huge cultural gap between engineering, programming, marketing and management. They don't even speak the same languages. This happened multiple times before in the AI hype market. I was a ground zero during the collapse of AI in the mid 80s. Member of AAAI and went to the UCLA conference in 1985. We were going to take over the world ;-) With LISP.
Of course some people can't learn from experience, theirs or others. Mostly because they are management or marketing ;-( Those two groups recycle the same frauds every decade of so, and probably innocently, because they weren't involved in the previous cycle, or never understood it.
So what did I work on? Had to do with encryption. Details? A felony to share out.
Comparing genetic programming to computer programming??? Every biologists must be rolling their eyes...
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 10:52:30 AM
Appeal to authority much? You don't need to be a doctor to know that "near death" and "death" are not the same things, BTW.
Where is your Dr degree? During the 19th century, about 1/5 people were buried alive. Because coma is so obvious.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 01:22:04 PM
Comparing genetic programming to computer programming??? Every biologists must be rolling their eyes...
Where is your computer degree? Oh yes, PhD means ... I know everything ;-) Too bad for you, I worked with medical doctors. None of them are atheists, because they don't have to know everything, they are gods ;-))
Next you will be telling me that quantum computers change everything (sarc). Actually quantum algorithms running on quantum computers are more capable than genetic programming. That is why all the development money has moved into that, and dropped out from the other AI scams.
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:55:38 PMSo yeah, in a subject I know something about, you could learn from me. I am happy to learn in areas where I am deficient (if they exist ;-)).
I make a living in genetic programming, among other so-called AI techniques. I hate the term since my kids and even dog show a level of intelligence I cannot get from a computer. Here comes the big "however." However, we're barely getting started.
I'll first take issue with your use of "carefully selected pseudo-random number". Simply put, no. We're using quantum-effect RNG that we regularly check for entropy. I'm puzzled why you think genetic programming would need pseudorandom numbers.
As far as the computer not doing anything that humans didn't tell it to do, that's true only in the most trivial of senses. You did not address my point that the output of our genetic programming finds ways to solve complex problems that no human really understands.
We've been in the age of Turing complete machines, what, approaching seven decades? Where do you think we'll be in seven centuries? What about seven millenia? What about giving evolution 13 billion years to work?
Now we're both stating ways that Turing complete machines can exist without direction or planning. My way supposes physical laws and mathematics that we know exist and prove increasingly powerful in their predictive ability. You postulate one that has all that plus personality, omniscience, omnipotence, desires, emotion, and a lot more. You're making a profligate assumption. Occam's Razor is more likely to shave your hypothesis than mine.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 01:22:04 PM
Comparing genetic programming to computer programming??? Every biologists must be rolling their eyes...
Not at all, Joe. Genetic programming is an emerging technology in computer science that was inspired by and is modeled on limited aspects of evolution, and is often applied to solving problems in microbiology. The non-biologists in the field hopefully understand the key difference is that it has a goal in mind, whereas evolution has no goal in mind.
Quote from: Arik on August 14, 2019, 11:15:55 AMNear death is just a name given.
That does not mean that the bloke is not dead.
Bruh....
Quick rule of thumb since you're having a surprisingly hard time telling near death apart from death.
Near death: wakes up and walks around after flatlining for a while
Death: doesn't move, goes cold, rigor mortis, buried/cremated
Was that really so difficult?
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 02:46:00 PM
Bruh....
Quick rule of thumb since you're having a surprisingly hard time telling near death apart from death.
Near death: wakes up and walks around after flatlining for a while
Death: doesn't move, goes cold, rigor mortis, buried/cremated
Was that really so difficult?
For him... Apparently.
What's so hard to understand about an NDE - a not-death experience?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 03:55:51 PM
What's so hard to understand about an NDE - a not-death experience?
Not as hard as rigor mortis ...
Yeah, I've heard it said that a hard body is good to find - but not when it's in rigor mortis! LOL
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 05:36:12 PM
Yeah, I've heard it said that a hard body is good to find - but not when it's in rigor mortis! LOL
Unless you're into that sort of thing.
Yeah, as Seinfeld might say, "not that there's anything wrong with that..." LOL
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 02:25:03 PM
I make a living in genetic programming, among other so-called AI techniques. I hate the term since my kids and even dog show a level of intelligence I cannot get from a computer. Here comes the big "however." However, we're barely getting started.
I'll first take issue with your use of "carefully selected pseudo-random number". Simply put, no. We're using quantum-effect RNG that we regularly check for entropy. I'm puzzled why you think genetic programming would need pseudorandom numbers.
As far as the computer not doing anything that humans didn't tell it to do, that's true only in the most trivial of senses. You did not address my point that the output of our genetic programming finds ways to solve complex problems that no human really understands.
We've been in the age of Turing complete machines, what, approaching seven decades? Where do you think we'll be in seven centuries? What about seven millenia? What about giving evolution 13 billion years to work?
Now we're both stating ways that Turing complete machines can exist without direction or planning. My way supposes physical laws and mathematics that we know exist and prove increasingly powerful in their predictive ability. You postulate one that has all that plus personality, omniscience, omnipotence, desires, emotion, and a lot more. You're making a profligate assumption. Occam's Razor is more likely to shave your hypothesis than mine.
I made a living from working for the most evil organization on Earth ... US Federal Government. I have a satellite laser pointed at you right now ;-)
Yes, there are more details to X kind of algorithm or Y kind of programming language. All those things matter. I know, been doing computers since the 1970s. And that is a fine thing to know/do. My speciality was database management. But I got into cryptology on the side, because I was bored. So no need to think I attacked your profession. Even if you were a used car salesman, I wouldn't judge. It happens I do know a lot about a couple of things. Including computer science. You can have your own philosophy of math/science ... but that doesn't make that math/science. It is an interpretation. As an engineer/programmer, I don't have the knockers for original research. But thanks to Google, I don't have to. Did you see the great 4 part series on deep learning/3-level neural nets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk&list=PLZHQObOWTQDNU6R1_67000Dx_ZCJB-3pi&index=2&t=0s
These guys do wonderful stuff, on a lot of technical topics. Better than my college professors ;-)
If you want to share what you know of genetic programming, in the computer section of this web site, if it isn't proprietary, then I would be happy to read.
I can't show you my computer work, because it is classified. There are countless topics now on algorithms and computer languages, that nuances all this Turing Machine stuff. But at the bottom, it is just a Turing Machine on paper from 1938. And that doesn't touch all the engineering stuff at someplace like IEEE Spectrum. But computers aren't magic, not even the quantum kind. The problem with technology, and the public domain, is that so many people think this is a "Wishing Tree". That any scifi that someone can imagine, is an eventual, and cheap, technical thing.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 05:36:12 PM
Yeah, I've heard it said that a hard body is good to find - but not when it's in rigor mortis! LOL
You just excited all the necrophile and zombies. Thanks!
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 06:31:18 PM
Yeah, as Seinfeld might say, "not that there's anything wrong with that..." LOL
I hope that zombies rape Seinfeld (sarc)
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 06:33:18 PM
I made a living from working for the most evil organization on Earth ... US Federal Government. I have a satellite laser pointed at you right now ;-)
I'll take a look at the vid a bit later, and we can move this to the computing topic area. I'm not deluded into thinking that AI is real - for now. It's just a ridiculous marketing word and I hate the term. I just don't see where the magic enters into the chain from particle to brain whether intelligence or consciousness.
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 06:42:27 PM
I'll take a look at the vid a bit later, and we can move this to the computing topic area. I'm not deluded into thinking that AI is real - for now. It's just a ridiculous marketing word and I hate the term. I just don't see where the magic enters into the chain from particle to brain whether intelligence or consciousness.
There are very technical reasons for doing particular kinds of algorithms or using particular languages. Most people won't be interested. Doing everything in raw Turing Machine, for consistency, would be a nightmare. The bio I read on Turing earlier this year, talked about his early post-war accomplishments trying to move past pure machine level coding. He was a genius at what any CS undergraduate knows today.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that you don't watch every 3BLUE1BROWN video!
Quote from: Arik on August 12, 2019, 09:11:01 AM
To say.........that bloke is dead.....is just a way to pretend that for that bloke is all over when in reality nothing is over.
It is only that humans can not see what happen behind that event.
When a person dies, there is nothing left of the consciousness more than for a swatted fly or a snuffed candle. Your desire to continue is merely a dream.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 12:11:23 PM
When a person dies, there is nothing left of the consciousness more than for a swatted fly or a snuffed candle. Your desire to continue is merely a dream.
Your present existence is only a dream. It isn't really real.
After you "die" please come back and give us first person evidence, thanks.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 01:37:56 PM
Your present existence is only a dream. It isn't really real.
After you "die" please come back and give us first person evidence, thanks.
Ah the dream of the butterfly... Or a butterfly's dreaming of a person.
What you ask was actually asked of guillotine victims... "Signal me somehow if your brain is still alive..."
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 01:41:49 PM
Ah the dream of the butterfly... Or a butterfly's dreaming of a person.
What you ask was actually asked of guillotine victims... "Signal me somehow if your brain is still alive..."
No. Per discussions here, that isn't real NDE.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 01:55:16 PM
No. Per discussions here, that isn't real NDE.
I claim the guillotine IS a real death. Just saying that some people wondered about the brain briefly.
Here's something about that at Top 10 Myths About the Brain:
Your Brain Stays Active After You Get Decapitated (https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-brain-myths6.htm)
QuoteThese stories seem to give credence to the idea that it's possible for someone to remain conscious, even for just a few seconds, after being beheaded. However, most modern physicians believe that the reactions described above are actually reflexive twitching of muscles, rather than conscious, deliberate movement.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 02:06:22 PM
Here's something about that at Top 10 Myths About the Brain:
Your Brain Stays Active After You Get Decapitated (https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-brain-myths6.htm)
Which may explain a lot about the political "talking heads" on TV.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 01:58:03 PM
I claim the guillotine IS a real death. Just saying that some people wondered about the brain briefly.
Do it. The chicken laying eggs isn't committed. The pig from whom the bacon comes, is.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 02:46:00 PM
Bruh....
Quick rule of thumb since you're having a surprisingly hard time telling near death apart from death.
Near death: wakes up and walks around after flatlining for a while
Death: doesn't move, goes cold, rigor mortis, buried/cremated
Was that really so difficult?
I guess you've never watched TWD...
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 11:47:31 PM
Not quite true. All modern computer CPUs are Turing Machines. A Turing Machine is an idea, that can be simulated by various kinds of hardware, even by a human with paper and pencil. Once you have a simulation of a Turing Machine, then it can do anything any other computer can do. It is universal. That is what makes it a Turing Machine, instead of a more limited thing.
What is a virtual machine? That doesn't mean that the hardware is some executing code on some transcendental alien computer (we had a guy here 2 years ago who argued that reality is a computer simulation). A virtual machine is a particular software implementation of a Turing Machine, running on the hardware implementation of a Turing Machine. So actually not something new. Every OS already is a virtual machine. Only the bottom level algorithms run directly on the hardware. The term "virtual machine" is also used in program application architecture. One can choose to build a program that explicitly has the structure of an emulation of a Turing Machine (a CPU emulation) ... though of course this is alway implicitly true. This is commonly done in engineering new chips.
Think of it like a box containing a box - I think is an apt analogy. Or another example are people building CPU architecture within Minecraft with all the accompanying RAM and memory storage using redstone as logic gates. It's not impossible to create virtual architecture that mimics the underlying physical one like this.
A very good example of this is The Halting Problem, where they use proof by contradiction to prove that any program that runs itself about determining if it halts or continuous forever in a loop results in a contradiction. It's a special case, yes, but it demonstrates that it's an underlying problem in logic. Computerphile covered this nearly 5 years ago in a 6 minute vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=macM_MtS_w4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=macM_MtS_w4)
Personally I think the reality we inhabit is "ground truth" and not some simulation. The whole statistical argument about the likelihood of this being a simulation, because it's more likely that we're the result of some sort of Matroska-style brain "computer" achieved by an advanced civilization - or what have you - reminds me of the Drake equation which is just an arbitrary assessment of variables about the likelihood of life existing elsewhere, when we only have one data point, ours. Except in the simulation argument this is turned on its head.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 08:09:40 PM
I guess you've never watched TWD...
Corpses we all are, in homeostasis or not. In Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity, this is called a cremation ground meditation. Shiva was famous for it. Those same ashes are used in Lent celebration.
Well, physical reality can be mimicked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEsfpRrfXf4
A French mime can mimic being in all sorts of trouble ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 12:43:14 AM
Corpses we all are, in homeostasis or not. In Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity, this is called a cremation ground meditation. Shiva was famous for it. Those same ashes are used in Lent celebration.
Well, physical reality can be mimicked.
A French mime can mimic being in all sorts of trouble ;-)
The Walking Dead don't do mimic stuff. Watch the TV show, dumdum...
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 12:43:14 AM
A French mime can mimic being in all sorts of trouble ;-)
Yes, but can a mime mimic being a mine?
∞ + ∞ = ∞
2∞ = ∞
2=1
;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 16, 2019, 01:33:20 PM
Yes, but can a mime mimic being a mine?
Dangerous. Known to cause implosions. French mimes are known in such circumstances to prefer cheap wine and ever cheaper cheese.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 04:00:33 PM
∞ + ∞ = ∞
2∞ = ∞
2=1
;-)
Infinity drove Cantor mad. Is that what happened to you?
I suspect they could fit more clowns in the care if they'd just wear smaller shoes.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 16, 2019, 05:02:25 PM
I suspect they could fit more clowns in the care if they'd just wear smaller shoes.
The rainbow afros get in everyone else's eyes. And they have to fight to the death, to decide who gets to honk the horn.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 04:58:44 PM
Infinity drove Cantor mad. Is that what happened to you?
I'm staying at the Hilbert hotel.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 04:58:44 PM
Infinity drove Cantor mad.
It may have been his relationship with his father that drove him mad. Infinity may have had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 05:38:45 PM
I'm staying at the Hilbert hotel.
Yes, but you will never get to the penthouse suite.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 16, 2019, 05:42:29 PM
It may have been his relationship with his father that drove him mad. Infinity may have had nothing to do with it.
All boys blame their mothers. All mother's blame their husbands. All husbands blame the milkman ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:46:38 PM
Yes, but you will never get to the penthouse suite.
All I need is to tell the occupier to move to the right.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 06:18:42 PM
All I need is to tell the occupier to move to the right.
Nazi too!
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 08:05:08 PM
Nazi too!
On the other thread you called me Lenin. I think I'm doing a pretty good job of confusing you...:-)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 17, 2019, 08:41:17 AM
On the other thread you called me Lenin. I think I'm doing a pretty good job of confusing you...:-)
Then the occupier to move to the left.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2019, 10:22:32 AM
Then the occupier to move to the left.
Sea of negative energy... I'm not anti-particle...I'm anti-Trump...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 17, 2019, 12:39:40 PM
Sea of negative energy... I'm not anti-particle...I'm anti-Trump...
You are a very old high function autistic person ... like me.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2019, 10:52:43 PM
You are a very old high function autistic person ... like me.
Projecting...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 09:14:51 AM
Projecting...
Better than shadows on a cave wall technology you employ ;-) Un-Plato.
Quote from: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 11:02:39 AM
Better than shadows on a cave wall technology you employ ;-) Un-Plato.
Plato very over-rated. Ask Nietzsche...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 04:00:33 PM
∞ + ∞ = ∞
2∞ = ∞
2=1
;-)
a = b
<=> 2a = 2b
<=> 2a + b = 2b + a
<=> 2a = 2b + a - b
<=> 2a - 2b = a - b
<=> (2a - 2b) / (a - b) = (a - b) / (a - b)
<=> 2(a - b) / (a - b) = 1
<=>
2 = 1
above explained:
a = b ; a equals b
<=> 2a = 2b ; since a equals b, both sides can be multiplied with 2
<=> 2a + b = 2b + a ; expand equation with a on one side and b one the other side, since a equals b on both sides from first line.
<=> 2a = 2b + a - b ; subtract b from both sides, gives -b on the right side.
<=> 2a - 2b = a - b ; subtract 2b from both sides, gives -2b on the left side.
<=> (2a - 2b) / (a - b) = (a - b) / (a - b) ; divide (a - b) from both sides.
<=> 2(a - b) / (a - b) = 1 ; since 2a - 2b, you can factorize 2 outside to 2(a - b) & (a - b) / (a - b) has the same denominator as the numerator which means it's 1.
<=> 2 = 1 ; 2(a - b) / (a - b) has the double of the numerator as the denominator which means it's 2.
Math mystery by Sal1981 and Joe ...
Arithmetic works fine with finite numbers, but it gets tricky when infinity (series or quantity) is introduced. In this particular case, you cannot explicitly or implicitly divide by zero, since that isn't a number.
Mathlogger deals with this stuff better than Numberphile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EtHF5ND3_s
But to the unwashed, it makes the equivalent of the Flat Earth conspiracy plausible ... that the intelligentsia are to be disbelieved.
What I leave out is that since a equals b then obviously any division by a - b is a division by zero. You can do all these tricks with division by zero like this.
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 18, 2019, 02:03:47 PM
What I leave out is that since a equals b then obviously any division by a - b is a division by zero. You can do all these tricks with division by zero like this.
This applies to ordinary logic (law of excluded middle systems). It is called the explosion problem. Once you have an axiom, that is a self contradiction, you can basically prove any theorem, true or not. More advanced logic systems try to massage this.
Quote from: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 01:57:52 PM
But to the unwashed, it makes the equivalent of the Flat Earth conspiracy plausible ... that the intelligentsia are to be disbelieved.
QFT is awash with infinities. Solution: renormalization.
If Hawking's "no boundary" proposal is correct, he says there wouldn't be any singularities in our universe - at least not in imaginary time.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 18, 2019, 05:23:35 PM
If Hawking's "no boundary" proposal is correct, he says there wouldn't be any singularities in our universe - at least not in imaginary time.
The "no boundary" refers to a point in space-time as unique - you can't be below the South Pole. So you can't speak of "what happened before" as there is no before. It's also accompanied by what is called a Wick's rotation t â†' it, where i is the complex number SQRT(-1). Why we have imaginary time. One of several problems is that, with an accelerating universe, it leads to an empty universe. Hawking proposed a wave function of the entire universe, plugging into what is called the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, something that in itself is very speculative.
My whole take on this is that it's premature. We don't have a complete classical theory of gravity, let alone a quantum theory of gravity. Note that the "no bound proposal" dates back to early 1980's, and not very much progress of any value has been done. So the jury is still out there.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 02:50:20 PM
QFT is awash with infinities. Solution: renormalization.
QFT is awash with infinities. Kludge: renormalization.
FTFU.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 02:50:20 PM
QFT is awash with infinities. Solution: renormalization.
Lucky. And took 3 geniuses to uncover it. It involves the non-standard arithmetic associated with subtracting one infinity from another. The end result however is slow to converge to solution, limiting numerical prediction to just those items what are tractable. See my math logger link above.
Quote from: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 08:21:05 PM
It involves the non-standard arithmetic associated with subtracting one infinity from another.
Euler had discovered this process in the 18th century.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 18, 2019, 05:23:35 PM
If Hawking's "no boundary" proposal is correct, he says there wouldn't be any singularities in our universe - at least not in imaginary time.
He had a good imagination. Unfortunately however reasonable, his work on Black Hole radiation is hard to verify. That is why he didn't get a Nobel Prize. Astrophysics is hard, and cosmology is harder (see Inflation theory). Singularities are an example of a physical infinity.
There is a fundamental problem with differential equations. A solution is made up of the equation itself, combined with initial conditions (ODE) or with boundary conditions (PDE). The Einstein cosmological model that has an initial singularity, is a combination of both (because space-time).
However others have a solution involving speculative quantum mechanics ... multiple universes that interact (branes). So not only is there something before "before" but there are an infinity of "before", "now", "after".
Some think infinities are a problem (see Aristotle), others do not (see Joe).
Quote from: aileron on August 18, 2019, 06:39:12 PM
QFT is awash with infinities. Kludge: renormalization.
FTFU.
Lucky a kluge was found. Before that, they had to make arbitrary cut-offs of the infinite series (that are the solution to the equations). Called "cut off physics". Renormalization is a tamed version, because there are advanced theories of arithmetic on infinite quantities. This arithmetic is non-trivial. I did watch a grad level lecture on it. The 1+2+3 ... = -1/12 is a trivial trap. Infinities of course initially bedeviled Calculus, because it involves infinite steps for differential/integral math. This was initially done naively. But problems were found, and it took an additional 200 years to make Calculus rigorous. QFT was lucky it only took about 20 years, instead of 200.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuIIjLr6vUA
The QFT infinite series converge very slowly. But there are techniques to estimate the ultimate sum. That is the technique actually used in practice. There are other infinite series that converge so badly (do they converge at all?) that you can't estimate the ultimate sum. You simply have to wast a huge number of comptuter cycles actually adding it up. That there are infinite series that converge to a finite value is itself amazing. But without that, Calculus would be impossible.
So how are we doing, worshiping the goddess Arithmetica, thru her prophet Pythagoras?
Quote from: aileron on August 18, 2019, 06:39:12 PM
QFT is awash with infinities. Kludge: renormalization.
FTFU.
It's not completely kludgy, there is a physical explanation. One argument is that an electron is surrounded by a cloud (photons or pairs of particles/anti-particles). So its physical mass is different from its bare mass. So you need to introduce a shift in mass, ditto for its charge and the interaction constant. When you compensate for all three, you get rid of the infinities. The other case, the infinity arises by integrating from zero to infinity, so here the trick is to integrate to cut-off energy - the explanation is that below a certain scale, we don't know what's there, so we can ignore it. It's like calculating the energy of the moon around the earth, I don't need to look at what's happening at molecular level.
It is essential, for physicists, not mathematicians, that they have a "physical" intuition, not just being good at math. Fourier for example. Sometimes from great physics comes great math. The virtual particle (relativistic) analogy/model was very surprising, since it runs contrary to the relativity notion that there is no "ether". Turns out there is no classical "ether" (relativity itself is part of classical theory). But there is in quantum mechanics an "ether" after all, and in this case a "luminiferous ether". No wonder Einstein was upset. And the Casimir effect gives direct evidence of these virtual photons.
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2019, 10:09:52 AM
It is essential, for physicists, not mathematicians, that they have a "physical" intuition, not just being good at math. Fourier for example. Sometimes from great physics comes great math. The virtual particle (relativistic) analogy/model was very surprising, since it runs contrary to the relativity notion that there is no "ether". Turns out there is no classical "ether" (relativity itself is part of classical theory). But there is in quantum mechanics an "ether" after all, and in this case a "luminiferous ether". No wonder Einstein was upset. And the Casimir effect gives direct evidence of these virtual photons.
You're confusing two things:(1) the luminiferous ether had the quality to transfer electromagnetic waves. As such, it could slow down or speed up those waves. That was discredited by Special Relativity. (2) In QFT, we have a field, which when it interacts, it produces particles. Nothing to do with the speed of a wave.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 19, 2019, 10:23:42 AM
You're confusing two things:(1) the luminiferous ether had the quality to transfer electromagnetic waves. As such, it could slow down or speed up those waves. That was discredited by Special Relativity. (2) In QFT, we have a field, which when it interacts, it produces particles. Nothing to do with the speed of a wave.
Correct, the two theories don't predict the same results ... duh. One is classical, the other is QM. As things turn out, the QM version is more accurate (except so far with GTR). Irony misses you.
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2019, 10:26:22 AM
Correct, the two theories don't predict the same results ... duh. One is classical, the other is QM. As things turn out, the QM version is more accurate (except so far with GTR). Irony misses you.
Nope, it's not a question of classical physics versus quantum mechanics. There are two different concepts. Read my post again.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 19, 2019, 10:30:26 AM
Nope, it's not a question of classical physics versus quantum mechanics. There are two different concepts. Read my post again.
Red isn't Black, but they are both colors. Yes, poetry has nothing on you. Just meaningless words. You are not a Liberal Arts major, are you?
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2019, 10:33:32 AM
Red isn't Black, but they are both colors. Yes, poetry has nothing on you. Just meaningless words. You are not a Liberal Arts major, are you?
Colors are colors - different wavelengths different colors. But the luminiferous ether's job was to speed up or slow down light. That doesn't happen. It has nothing to do with being classical or quantum mechanics. It simply doesn't exist if SR is correct. OTOH, a field like the electromagnetic field can be treated in a classical way in a first approximation traveling at a constant speed c, or a quantum mechanical way in which particles are excitations of the field, - the latter being more accurate. As concepts, they are two different things - luminiferous ether was conceived as something acting on the electromagnetic field.
Correct ... but irrelevant. Intellectual virtue posting.
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2019, 12:51:49 PM
Intellectual virtue posting.
Much better than your paranoia, conspiracy theory, lack of desire to learn.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 19, 2019, 02:07:58 PM
Much better than your paranoia, conspiracy theory, lack of desire to learn.
I learn every day, because I not only read every day (it isn't all Youtube videos) but I follow a daily study plan. Lifelong learner.
My rhetoric isn't the real me, but one has to put on the tragic/comic mask when dealing with people. We are all actors after all.
Empiricism, not paranoia. People are dangerous animals, and this is a zoo without keepers. Like post-Apocalypse.
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2019, 02:40:46 PM
I learn every day,
You look like you've convinced yourself. But I'm not.
Quotebecause I not only read every day (it isn't all Youtube videos)but I follow a daily study plan. Lifelong learner.
Plan is no good if you read shit, and learn shit...
QuoteMy rhetoric isn't the real me, but one has to put on the tragic/comic mask when dealing with people. We are all actors after all.
Performance left to be desired.
QuoteEmpiricism, not paranoia. People are dangerous animals, and this is a zoo without keepers. Like post-Apocalypse.
More CT's.
Sorry Joe ... been asked to not respond.
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2019, 08:57:21 PM
Sorry Joe ... been asked to not respond.
Maybe you guys can start a debate thread?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 21, 2019, 03:18:24 AM
Maybe you guys can start a debate thread?
That would have been nice.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 21, 2019, 03:18:24 AM
Maybe you guys can start a debate thread?
Yeah, like getting a room...
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 21, 2019, 01:22:43 PM
Yeah, like getting a room...
I don't think Joe is gay ...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 19, 2019, 10:01:57 AM
It's not completely kludgy, there is a physical explanation.
Agreed. I was being semi-facetious. Perhaps a better term would be "fine-tuning". Fine-tuning can be okay if we have good reason to do the tuning, as in this case we probably do. In other cases such as adding more and more motions to the Ptolemaic model without understanding why there should be more and more, it's a death cry.
Quote from: aileron on August 21, 2019, 02:27:58 PM
Agreed. I was being semi-facetious. Perhaps a better term would be "fine-tuning". Fine-tuning can be okay if we have good reason to do the tuning, as in this case we probably do. In other cases such as adding more and more motions to the Ptolemaic model without understanding why there should be more and more, it's a death cry.
Epicycles are maligned. They are actually Fourier analysis hundreds of years before their time. Any motion, orbital or not, can be analyzed into a superposition of sine waves. It was shown in another post by Unbeliever, that any motion, if you allow different centers with each component, can be broken into such epicycles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS4H6PEcCCA
Fine tuning is simply adding more epicycles to get a better approximation.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 04:52:34 AM
Isn't this one?
He meant, down in the official adjudicated debate section (mostly unused).
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 08:34:27 AM
He meant, down in the official adjudicated debate section (mostly unused).
I only see "Show unread posts since last visit. and Show new replies to your posts."
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 07:32:07 PM
I only see "Show unread posts since last visit. and Show new replies to your posts."
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?board=74.0
Has man ever invented a worse monster than the God of the Bible?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2019, 08:27:10 PM
Has man ever invented a worse monster than the God of the Bible?
Oh certainly. The older religions were much worse. And the numerous deities needed more sacrifices for placation. Children were always good sacrificial fodder. They come; they go. And most were going to die before adulthood anyway.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 08:34:00 PM
Oh certainly. The older religions were much worse.
In general, the older the religion the crueler the gods.
Old Testament God is an angry cloud itching to slaughter whole cities over the horrific sin of mixed fiber clothing.
New Testament God is a savior giving life in paradise who needs nothing of us but accepting of a free gift.
Being a Christian requires much more cognitive dissonance than I can muster.
Quote from: aileron on August 24, 2019, 08:37:26 PM
In general, the older the religion the crueler the gods.
Old Testament God is an angry cloud itching to slaughter whole cities over the horrific sin of mixed fiber clothing.
New Testament God is a savior giving life in paradise who needs nothing of us but accepting of a free gift.
Being a Christian requires much more cognitive dissonance than I can muster.
I consider that all theisms require cognitive dissonance.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2019, 08:27:10 PM
Has man ever invented a worse monster than the God of the Bible?
I like Kali-Ma ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali#/media/File:Kali_by_Raja_Ravi_Varma.jpg
The ultimate Feminist ...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 08:49:28 PM
I consider that all theisms require cognitive dissonance.
Progress requires managed cognitive dissonance, or no alternatives would ever be entertained.
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 10:34:21 PM
Progress requires managed cognitive dissonance, or no alternatives would ever be entertained.
No, that's what actually makes for BAD political and social decisions. I avoid it myself.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 11:46:33 PM
No, that's what actually makes for BAD political and social decisions. I avoid it myself.
So, you are Vulcan, and haven't changed your mind since you attended the Vulcan coming of age ceremony?
Quote from: Baruch on August 25, 2019, 01:05:43 AM
So, you are Vulcan, and haven't changed your mind since you attended the Vulcan coming of age ceremony?
I am basically rational, if that's what you mean. That isn't the same as "Star Trek "Vulcan". It does mean I try to think about problems and events before responding.
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 10:34:21 PM
Progress requires managed cognitive dissonance, or no alternatives would ever be entertained.
There is a difference between being able to entertain different possibilities and alternatives to proposed situations or claims, without being in cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance only occurs when one
believes (is convinced) contradictory propositions are true simultaneously.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 27, 2019, 01:53:17 PM
There is a difference between being able to entertain different possibilities and alternatives to proposed situations or claims, without being in cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance only occurs when one believes (is convinced) contradictory propositions are true simultaneously.
Like Republicans supporting Trump (he said innocently)?