Tippaporn

I haven't read any of Rand's works. I've come across some of her most well known quotes and if they smack of truth then they're worth quoting. To be honest, I already know the answer. She would react no different than anyone on this thread would react. The Seth material either fits into ones current world view, their belief system, or it does not. ". . . by your own admission the evidence is subjective at best." I admit I laughed as I read that. I laughed because subjective reality, though it's existence is undeniable, is given scant credibility. It's not r-e-a-l like objective reality is. And that is the fallacy which most have adopted as their "truth." Subjective evidence cannot be accepted as r-e-a-l evidence because only objective evidence can be real. The truth is, and this is a truth I understand full well that you may never accept, Fat, that the objective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of subjective reality. Science is attempting to take that truth and reverse it by saying that the subjective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of objective reality. Which is only a natural consequence when holding the erroneous belief that objective reality is all the exists. I understand full well, therefore, that the implications of what I claim would then force unimaginably massive changes in ones thinking. So many currently held beliefs, belief being an idea considered to be "true," would have to be discarded whilst new ones take their place. In the interim people would literally be lost as to how to act and what to think as their current beliefs which comprise their world views are in the most practical terms the modus operandi by which people act and interpret the data of life. There are few, very few, who are willing to do that work of massively changing their ideas to conform to actual reality rather than a fictitious one. As illustrated in the movie series, The Matrix, the character Cypher would rather return to the matrix than know the truth of the matrix. So it is for most. I ain't gonna change that.

How has it been debunked? With what proof? You're not following along, Gottfrid, because you don't listen. You don't listen because you're too busy coming up with your next response. What's been debunked is that I don't have the imaginary friend you that you claim I have in your above quote. I've stated that many, many times and yet still posters attribute a belief in God to me. Which is why I said: When I say I don't believe in God and yet people insist that I do then they're being dishonest. There's no way you can debate anyone who will simply insist on lying whenever it suits them.

You see now why I take a pass. Right off the bat you perpetuate and insist on a lie that's been debunked. If it's not an old axiom then it should be: You can never debate with dishonest people.

Sorry to see you waste time and effort replying to me, Gottfrid. I've read your posts here. I'm sure you've read mine. Since they haven't rung a bell yet anywhere inside your cranium then my pronouncement is that your understanding is terminal. Where shall I send the flowers? Insanity is attempting to move an immovable object. I'll take a pass.

He tried to explain it to you in 5 different ways and you still don't get it. Or don't want to get it. Or pretend not to get it. On the contrary, you like to parade this lack of understanding as if it were a matter of great pride. 😄 Hopefully you'll be blessed with more understanding in the next life. Good luck 😉 Aw, let fusion58 take his empty victory lap, Sunmaster. He certainly deserves a passing grade for 'participation' and maybe even a Bozo the Clown trophy. Always accuse the other of what you yourself are doing. — fusion58

When I said that I validate to the extent that I can I'm obviously making that statement in reference to my below quote. I've certainly validated much for myself. And of course, as with anything in science, there's always something that remains to be validated and some things which are almost impossible to validate. Because it has massive practical applications in the real world. But you have no way of knowing about that. If you did then you wouldn't ask the question. The proof is always in the pudding, isn't it? The way you framed each and every point you made then each and every point was a blatant lie. Remember what I said about honesty being an indispensable prerequisite for uncovering the real truth of ourselves and the world? You're dispensing with it. It is true to say that the only one anyone really fools is themselves. You, sir, are fooling yourself as all of the evidence needed to prove your assertions to be wrong are readily available if only you were willing to look. But just as you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs about Covid so you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs regarding this subject matter. You may not like the truth but there it is. “You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” — Ayn Rand

I've got faith in you.

@Sunmaster What, no reply? I know you have thoughts about what I wrote.

". . . if there was evidence . . ." That's your red herring. BS. Covid and climate change. Let's be honest, Fat. There's science as an ideal and then there's science as it's practiced. The two are vastly different these days. You don't interact with an ideal world, do you? The ideal world doesn't exist and neither does the ideal science. Okay, you've gone off the rails, Fat. What you wrote has no truth in it. I can jam the real truth right down your throat but the evidence is not acceptable here. Early on? That's an out and out lie. The odd scientist? That's an out an out lie. A few politicians? That's an out an out lie. Misspoke my ar$e. That's an out an out lie. It boggles my mind that people can so easily forget what really happened and then deny that what really did happen didn't happen. There's one thing about any exploration of consciousness. It requires absolute self honesty. Without that you'll only be fooling yourself and the truth will remain hidden from you because the dishonesty is that which will hide it. Your choice there, Fat. And thus your uninformed and misinformed opinions carry very little weight. I've studied consciousness for decades. Explained succinctly? You're being unreasonable. The subject matter of consciousness includes multiples upon multiples of subject matter. It is far more complex than you can begin to imagine. How many books would you need to read to get your PhD in astrophysics? What, you can't learn astrophysics in a succinct manner. Can you reasonably expect to understand what consciousness is with a few one liners? A paragraph or two? A couple of posts? As has been said many, many times. Some things can only be proven by yourself to yourself. If physical evidence doesn't exist so then what? Statistical data collection and analysis the points to A being responsible for B? You have no idea how many variables there are to consider. As you admitted, you have not studied consciousness. Therefore you are not in any position to demand how it needs to be proven. Analogies are useful in conveying a point. But they are never meant to be used to make unfitting points. When that happens it's said that the analogy doesn't fit. And it doesn't fit the point you're trying to make with my analogy. Huh? Again, you have not studied what consciousness is and therefore can't begin to opine on what possibilities exist for producing evidence. As to "followers of your ideas" that's like saying that if I taught someone the mechanics behind an automotive engine then they would be followers of my ideas. Consciousness is what it is, like an engine is what it is. Both work according to definite principles and are governed by laws. It's not "my idea." It's the simple fact of the way it is. I agree. Faith is not a dirty word. Those who do not believe in faith have little idea of how often they operate on faith throughout every day of their lives. My reference to faith, though, was that I'm not about to employ it as a method of accepting anything I say as being "true." That's your personal interpretation and it's wrong. Anything one learns needs to be validated. I validate, to the extent I can, what I learn via testing it out in the real world. I can provide you with endless anecdotes that are proof for me but will never be accepted as proofs by those who fail to understand that proofs for anything and everything in existence must come in the form of "hard" evidence. Let's face it, Fat, you have no interest in understanding any of this. You have your beliefs and they suit you just fine. You don't want to change them, nor are you ready to change them. It's fun for you to argue for your beliefs but that's really about as far as it goes.

Goddamn, I love your posts, Vince. You're respectful, you lay out well thought arguments, and you don't run away when challenged. Deep respect once again. The reason "What is consciousness" is the question to ask is because consciousness is the very definition of life. If something possesses consciousness then it is alive. The fact the we we know literally nothing about it is precisely why it is the most vital question which can be asked. Here's why: if we don't know what consciousness is then we cannot know what it's effects in the world are. Now if we were to know what consciousness is and what it's effects are then we would know that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not how evolution works. His theory is not just a little bit off. It's massively off. But how can you know what consciousness is? After all, it's a question which has stumped science, philosophers, and theologians for millennia. There are answers and it can be known. What it is and what it's effects are cannot be so easily proven, however. How do I know that? The proof is in the pudding. It's a question which has stumped science, philosophers, and theologians for millennia and to this date still no one can speak of consciousness with any authority. Another prime reason that it cannot be easily proven is that consciousness is not a physical aspect of the physical universe. You can't place a consciousness in another's hands. Hell, people have tried in vain to find it's location. Because it's not physical it doesn't, therefore, reside in a physical location. It isn't a "thing" or an object. Science has theorised that consciousness resides in the brain. But after hundreds of years they've not found it anywhere in the brain. What does that tell you? Consciousness is, in essence, self awareness. All consciousness is aware of itself as itself. Therefore there are no "levels" of consciousness. There are, however, an infinite number of types of consciousnesses. That much has been figured out. The problem with science's approach in examining consciousness is that it can't be done from the outside. It needs to be examined, or explored, from the inside. But that notion, the inside, is a notion which science cannot accept as it's major tenet is that only the objective universe is real. That idea that there exists only an objective universe is precisely what will hamstring science until such time that science realises that there's more. Until then they won't learn much more than the putrid little they know thus far. You had recently posted a quote from the Wiki page on neurotheology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion The following quote from the article is an interesting explanation of the processes that result in a Buddhist monk, meditator, or contemplative guru, experiencing what they feel is the ultimate reality, or a oneness with the universe. "What Andrew B. Newberg and others "discovered is that intensely focused spiritual contemplation triggers an alteration in the activity of the brain that leads one to perceive transcendent religious experiences as solid, tangible reality. In other words, the sensation that Buddhists call oneness with the universe." The orientation area requires sensory input to do its calculus. "If you block sensory inputs to this region, as you do during the intense concentration of meditation, you prevent the brain from forming the distinction between self and not-self," says Newberg. With no information from the senses arriving, the left orientation area cannot find any boundary between the self and the world. As a result, the brain seems to have no choice but "to perceive the self as endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything." "The right orientation area, equally bereft of sensory data, defaults to a feeling of infinite space. The meditators feel that they have touched infinity." Whilst this sounds promising to some it does not to me. It is correct as far as showing that there are links to the brain but the approach is still one which focuses exclusively on the physical portion of the conscious mind. The mind is a part of subjective reality. The brain is merely it's physical counterpart. For subjective reality to be connected to physical reality then for all practical purposes there must of course be a link between subjective reality and objective reality. If nothing else can be said about the world then it can be said truly that our universe is practical in every respect. Nothing operates on magic dust. Science will, predictably, conclude that the objective reality produces the subjective reality. They will then have it backwards. They are moving in that direction now postulating incredibly absurd notions such as the sense of free will which people feel they have is simply an illusion created by the brain. Hence the ludicrous conclusion that free will does not exist. At which point science has totally gone off the rails of rationality and careened into the ditch of the bizarre. Humans don't create idea. Humans entertain ideas and hold ideas. What an idea is is just as much of an enigma as what consciousness is. The existence of ideas are recognised and accepted but again, what they are and where they come from, or where they go when you're done with them, no one knows. Ideas are also a part of subjective reality, hence why so little is known about them also. That's a total fallacy which is also a product of the Theory of Evolution. Even on an intuitive and emotional level one screams, "False!!." Tell me, Vince, that your entire life is for no other purpose other than to reproduce and you see no cooperation anywhere in this world. Other than your reproductive value to the human race your life is purposeless, meaningless, worthless, valueless, and only one huge joke. And when it's over it's lights out. Do you truly believe that? Don't your intuitions and emotions protest even a little bit over that idea? The intellect, on the other hand, can be made to rationalise the most ludicrous absurdities. That much is well known as fact. So much that is misunderstood. I'll leave that for another time.

I told you a long time ago, Sunmaster, that save the frogs isn't worth your time. My 11-year-old shows more common sense. And respect.

Well, is that truly a shocker considering that the unknowns about consciousness are not "many" but rather that what most people, including science, know about consciousness is precious, precious, very scant little? Because of that fact, and due to so many accepted ideas of science which I would say are false, any claims of non physical forces would be viewed with massive skepticism. Also, given the vast ignorance about consciousness, combined with erroneous scientific "truths," then would it also be a shocker that obvious connections aren't being made which link to non physical forces? Dear Fat, this "shocking" revelation is, in the words of the great Sherlock Holmes who had exceptional deductive reasoning skills, elementary. What else can one expect as a result??? Reread the above and neither is there definitive proof that it is reliant on or a product of our physicality. It's what's called "up for debate." I'm debating it and taking up the counter position using reason and logic. I've not invoked the word "faith" as a convincer ever. Not to poke fun at you, Fats, or to be condescending but your suggestion for how to show a connection between non physical forces and real world physical outcomes via statistical data collection and analysis is highly amusing - it produced a smile on my face. I consider it so because the idea you suggest has such little thought put into it that the fatal flaws of such an approach are immediately apparent to those who have an understanding of these non physical forces. Now this is a highly important point. I've written before about folks who haven't, as I put it, "thought things through." People all too often give their opinions on subject matter of which they have little knowledge, experience, or have not put a great deal of thought into. They usually repeat only the scant ideas which they've come across in their journey through life, ideas which they've accepted as "true" for themselves. Take the idea which fusion58 and I are arguing about. fusion58 claims that everything which exists can be proven via evidence of it's existence. That is an idea which is heavily promoted by science. Most have heard it. Most trust science. And since they do not want to spend the time and effort to validate the idea for themselves, and since they trust science and trust that science has done the heavy lifting for them - and concluded correctly, then most people simply accept the "truth" of it uncritically and unexamined. And they then repeat it themselves as "truth." This is simply a truth of the way people "pick up" ideas through life which then become their beliefs; beliefs held as "true." That is without dispute - at least if you give pause long enough to think it though. By no means do I judge you now, but I would say you are such a one on this topic. To prove me correct I would only need to ask you how much thought you've given to the subject of what consciousness is, what ideas are, where they come from, what their effects are, what beliefs are, how they work, what thoughts are, etc., etc., and ask you how many books on these subjects you have not only read but studied. And how much effort you've then put in to testing the ideas out in the real world to validate them yourself. Believe it or not there are people in the world, Fats, who delve to great depths on this subject matter. On the subject of consciousness it is simple fact that science and people in general are wholly ignorant on that subject. I do not imply any judgement whatsoever in my use of the word 'ignorant'. I use it in the strict sense of the dictionary definition: lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact Yet those who have studied it, some for a lifetime, are treated as idiots who don't know what they're talking about. An apt analogy, which happens in real life, is an individual who has spent an entire lifetime in his business and knows it inside and out. He hires a newbie, someone who perhaps had taken some classes taught by teachers who may well have taught him correctly at times but also much which is backwards, and this newbie on his first day then decides to "educate" this individual with a lifetime of real experience on how the business needs to run. I've said this many times: people love to pretend they know it all. They approach subject matters as if they were experts despite the fact that they are less than novices. They tend to believe that everything which they believe is correct and true and when challenged get upset and feel prideful indignation. Do show some respect. It has nothing to do with faith, sir. Reading the faith part of it into it is strictly due to your personal interpretation, your personal perception. I've already addressed the 'faith'. I've never, ever suggested meditation. Be accurate. As to reading a million words it works this way: if one has no interest in a subject matter my posts are verbose, long-winded. If one has settled on their convictions and are immovable then my arguments are verbose, long-winded. If one has interest in the subject matter then my posts are too short. If one has no set convictions and possesses curiosity then my posts are too short. It all hinges on ones position. So, do you still want to contend that I am being unfair? I guess that would depend on what position you take, correct?

Logic seems to confound some people as it's only illogical within their framework of beliefs.

Possible or not, the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being is still yours and yours alone. That’s because you are the claimant. There's one other point which needs to be made. Your statement concedes my point "that evidence does not exist in physical terms" for all phenomenon. As you say, "possible or not." Your statement, once you posit that evidence does not always exist in physical terms, then becomes illogical. For if you agree that evidence does not always exist in physical terms then it is illogical and irrational to then claim burden of proof for clearly you've tacitly agreed that proof does not exist for all phenomenon. Therefore, if proof does not exist it is illogical and irrational to then claim burden of proof. Bottom line is that there exists an objective reality and a subjective reality. Objective reality is physical in nature. Subjective reality is not physical in nature. Any phenomenon which is purely subjective, due to it's very nature, cannot be transformed into physical terms. So, how would you argue that it can be, fusion58? I understand that there are numbers within the scientific community who are positing the idea that all subjective reality is merely a product of the physical brain. Those adopting that absurd notion then further posit ludicrous ideas such as the nonexistence of free will, for instance. The illusion of free will is then explained as being due to the function of the brain. Science then has totally come off the rails of rationality and has careened into the world of the bizarre.

Again, you insist on my holding the "belief in a supernatural being." Another typical intellectually dishonest debating tactic where you keep repeating a false claim in order for the repetition to make it true. This is exactly what you are doing, sir. I predict it won't be long now before you simply exit this conversation as that is what people typically do when their points are shown to be fallacious and they can no longer argue in defence of them. Nor can they successfully find the logical flaws in the other's points and point them out. Intellectual dishonesty is severely limited as it is laden with faults which can't be overcome. And so the eventuality is that those who practice intellectual dishonesty hightail it outta there.

Attacks? Is that what you call critiques of naturalism which show it's logical deficiencies? What kind of a science disciple are you where you can't handle opposing ideas to your scientific theory and simply stomp your feet whilst endlessly and loudly repeating, "My theory is right!!!" Another typical intellectually dishonest debating ploy where you shout down the opposing views and refuse to argue the substance of what you're shouting down. By the way, I never once "attacked" atheism. Never argued against it. Another typical intellectually dishonest debating tactic where you put words into the other's mouth.

The upshot of which is that I'm arguing that the evidence you demand doesn't exist, not that you're not willing to accept it. You want to insist that it does, or should, and refuse not only to accept sound and logical reasoning but can't even debate that sound and logical reasoning. The failure is yours, fusion58.

This is just another intellectually dishonest debate tactic. Resort to ad hominem by accusing the other of simply blowing hot air without ever saying what he's blowing hot air about or why he's wrong. What we have here, in truth, is the fact that you refuse to debate any of the valid points made in these so-called "long-winded dissertations." This is widely recognised and accepted as intellectually dishonesty. So that's what I'm now accusing you of.

Possible or not, the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being is still yours and yours alone. That’s because you are the claimant. First of all, I had written this in my last reply to you: You have this impression of me that I believe in God, that I believe in supernatural agencies, that I believe in supernatural beings or entities, that I subscribe to theism, that I believe in a supernatural realm. I believe in none of that. And: And so, I expect no more references from you as to what you think I know or believe. If you're uncertain then have the courtesy to ask me first. I demand intellectual honesty for without it there's nowhere for us to go. Are we clear? Yet here you are spouting the same BS about me that I believe in a supernatural being. I demanded intellectual honesty from you I guess that would throw a monkey wrench into your narrative so you simply continue to dishonestly proceed with your narrative that I believe in a supernatural being. Secondly, here's an entry from Wiki on consciousness: Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and all of science. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked. Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain. Millennia of analyses, and however many hundreds of years by science, and yet to this day science doesn't have much of any clue as to what consciousness is. And they have even less of a clue as to where consciousness is. For the life of them they can't find it's physical location. Do you know why? Because consciousness isn't physical. And thus it can't be proven to exist, nor can it be found to reside anywhere in the physical world. This is illustrates conclusively the point that I've been making which you refuse to accept. There exist in the world phenomenon which are not physical. And if they are not physical then how the f are you going to legitimately place the burden of proof on the claimant, or demand they produce the evidence of it's existence? I'm sure you would claim you have consciousness. That you have awareness. So prove it. Show me where your consciousness is. Well, after millennia of analyses and no one has yet been able to do it then neither will you. But you can't deny the fact that you have consciousness. To deny that would be the epitome of stupidity. Same with thoughts. Thoughts aren't physical. But they sure as hell exist and are real. Think a thought and then prove to someone else that the thought you had exists. You can't. Another instance, which example I've used earlier - but conveniently ignored by you, of phenomenon which surely exist yet can't be proven to exist. But hey, keep fooling yourself as long as you would like to. You don't fool me, though.

Can I assume that you are joking? No. Yes. Consciousness creates form. Form does not create consciousness. What is consciousness?

Science got the best of you, owl sees all. Indoctrination is what me calls it. We talk about all those lefties who can't see the truth if it gobsmacked them upside the head because they don't question any of the great lies they've been told. Evolution is a great lie. You just need to question it. Question everything. Especially, most especially when it agrees with you.

Harari certainly loves and cherishes his life. Harari certainly feels he has a sacred right to life. These people cannot hide their hypocrisy. Do they really believe no one sees it? Now that's dumber than dumb.

I totally agree. When I first read the Seth material I had very specific questions in mind. If the material didn't address those questions directly I didn't focus on it too much. As my questions changed over time other portions of the material appealed to me. There needs to be a blending of science (intellect) and spirituality (intuition and emotions). Since I see science as arising as a counter to religion (not in total, of course) then for science to incorporate spirituality would be seen as a return to religious precepts. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon. This thread is evidence of that in spades. Seth does not focus merely on our material existence. Hence the book of exercises I posted. But we're here now and we're here for a reason. And so Seth certainly addresses that quite practical and real fact, too. The reason for our very existence here is missed completely by Swami Sarvapriyananda. I would say "in my opinion" but it's in his own words, which I transcribed from the video. You are that. Why should we be interested? Well because Vedanta tells us the way to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment. Which is after all what we are interested in. All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment. Lasting peace, happiness, security. The way to do that is to realize who you are. That's the big claim. Nowhere that I've seen yet is there any discussion of how specific experience is created. I do not see any talk of ideas or beliefs; what they are, what their function is, and certainly not what their effects are. Who is creating personal suffering? Who creates personal fulfillment, or lack of fulfillment? Is fulfillment in physical life something which is not attainable? Or only in the spiritual world once we become one with the One? Are we not spirits now, in this life, merely clothed in flesh, blood and bones? Lasting peace, happiness, security implies a final destination. There is no final destination to anything. That statement also implies an end to growth. Beyond which lies eternal repetition and true death. That is antithetical to All That Is and Seth explains how that works and why in granular detail in "Unknown Reality Vol. 1." Seth is not within the circle of Vedanta. All else emerges . . . for what reason, though? For what purpose? I've asked you before, why is Sunmaster in this world? For what? Where does Vedanta talk about creativity? What of reincarnational selves? If one reincarnational self attains connection with the One then what of those living the other reincarnational existences? Given that time is simultaneous and all exists at once then how does that work? Are the rest of the reincarnational selves liberated as well by default? What of probable selves? Trace selves? Counterpart selves? Now creativity would explain that. That's what puzzles me. There are huge contradiction which I see. How is it that you don't see them? Seth's material on the ego is one such contradiction. Yes, there are similarities. But nowhere does Seth ever denigrate the ego. And why relegate the ego to a lesser portion of the self? Some parts of your greater identity are better than others? Some, such as the ego, being kicked to the curb? A useful tool, when it works? Else it's only a hindrance? That's a huge contradiction between what Seth claims and what Vedanta seems to claim. Total opposite view points in major respects. Another major contradiction between Vedanta and Seth's material is one which I heard in another of the Swami's videos. He used the same whiteboard with the greater self, or the One, on the left side with a line drawn separating all else. He then claimed that everything existing on the right side of the line was not real and not eternal. Thet's 180 degrees from what Seth is saying. Those two disparities are not just minor, unimportant details to be brushed away (excuse the reference to painting pun ). There are no insignificant details as everything has meaning and importance. Anyway, I accept that our paths are different but I do object to drawing parallels from Vedanta to Seth such that they appear to be identical, if only in the "important" respects and class the differences as simple details that one can overlook. Lest people begin to falsely identify Seth with eastern religious thinking. In fact, Seth growing out of Vedanta as you now put Seth squarely into Vedanta's circle. Square <--> circle pun intended. Square pegs do not fit into round holes.

Sugar has killed me yet. Nor has it made me fat. So what's the problem again?

Utter rubbish. Only Austrians can hold a candle to Germans on cakes and pastries. You married a fellow artist? Forget the photos. Just send us the watercolours of them. Cosa ti succede?