Tippaporn

Yes. This is a typical pre-trans fallacy. In Spiral Dynamics religion (Blue) predates science, while spirituality (Yellow and beyond) transcends (and includes) science. From one at Orange (science), the 2 are indistinguishable. It will happen sooner or later, of that I'm certain. In my opinion Spiral Dynamics is a system of thought which attempts to explain why life works the way it does. There are an endless number of systems of thought which attempt to do this, all to the end of providing explanations as to what makes reality function as it does. I have my answer which explains it all in excruciating detail. The simple answer is you create your reality in every aspect and down to every nuance using subjective ideas which are translated into an objective medium which you then experience and interact with. How that works in all instances is the excruciating detail. I could investigate and analyze every system of thought out there in an attempt to see where each system of thought might be correct and where it is amiss. To what end, though? And if there is no worthy end then I'd only be wasting my time. Of course there would be an end to doing so if I didn't already have answers.

You missed commenting on this excerpt. I highlighted what Swami Sarvapriyananda claims as the purpose of life in bold text. Is that it? And yes, it is as he says . . . "That's the big claim." And it is nothing more than a claim, indeed. For the rationale behind the claim is, the ideas which support the claim are, entirely missing. Far be it from me to take that claim as "true" on simple pure faith that it is "true." I like to examine ideas as to their validity before I decide to accept them.

The truth of which is strictly for you to decide for yourself given your idea constructions. Within them perhaps it's true.

The physical universe as idea construction. Sapolsky provides a wonderful illustration of that concept. Of all of the ideas which are in existence you pick and choose amongst them and, like a child playing with building blocks, you create an idea construction made up of those ideas which you've picked. This is exactly what Sapolsky has done. It is exactly what everyone does. Without the slightest awareness or understanding of what they are doing. But it goes further. Any idea construction which people create for themselves they are able to make sense of. And again, without the slightest awareness or understanding that what they've constructed makes sense only given those ideas which comprise their idea construction. For as soon as other ideas are included into their idea construction then what once made sense become nonsensical. And so Sapolsky illustrates perfectly that the absurd can and does indeed make sense. Even if only within itself. And that there is no limit to the numbers of people who can then also see and create Sapolsky's idea construction for themselves and so they all attract each other like magnets via their shared idea constructions. If I were to attempt to get people to understand the mechanics behind it all, that the physical universe is an idea construction, that nothing in our world exists without first existing as an idea - an idea being subjective and thus the objective reality is sourced in the subjective reality - then I would appear as an idiot. For given the idea constructions most have created for themselves my explanation makes no sense at all. Sapolsky's ideas that there exists no free will and no purpose to anything matches more closely those idea constructions which most people have already constructed for themselves. Therefore, I'm the loon in my rational and logical sanity whereas Sapolsky is sheer brilliance in his irrational and illogical lunacy.

My posts are longwinded? I think you're confusing me with someone else. 😄 Give credit to where it belongs, Frogs. Verbosity is my middle name.

When does the bakery open?

Now that's what I call finding fulfillment in ones life! So where did your ice cream bars come in?

I'm only up one because I went first. Which means that at best you can only catch up.

I would say the brown things are minced potatoes covered in the used oil from Basil's last oil change. Looks to me to be 5W as it's thin and runny.

And I'd bet you call a bak sida (บักสีดา) a guava, too. Next time I go to an Italian restaurant here (and I do often) I'm going to ask for a salamino piccante pizza. If I end up getting a crab and shrimp pizza with mayonnaise I'm gonna send it to your house along with the bill.

There's a video you had posted somewhere and the guy in it said "we need to understand the meanings of the words." The common definition of the word 'real' is: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. I'd use a different word than 'real'. For saying that a dream or our physical life is not really real it implies that it's "imagined or supposed" and therefore not valid. Physical existence has as much validity as inner existence but in different terms. And those terms are the way reality manifests itself. I need to make a poster sized copy of that Fishburne meme and hang it in my office. I do understand what you're saying, though, Sunmaster. Your point is real valid. Tippaporn: 2 Sunmaster: 1

All subjective phenomenon produce objective results. The problem is in connecting the dots. I've said before that what an idea is is just as little understood as what consciousness is. An idea is not physical. It's purely subjective. And yet thoughts - thought technically being the process of mentally entertaining an idea - produce physical effects. That is something which is not well understood at all. Ask anyone if their thoughts have physical effects and most would say "no." On the other hand, people do at times recognise the connection between their thoughts and the physical results which they then experience. But because the idea, or the thought of the idea, is purely subjective and the physical result is objective then it's often impossible to say that the two are linked or to show how they are linked via physical evidence alone. For instance, you've probably experienced thinking of someone in particular and that someone appears in your experience soon after, either through a physical meeting or a communication of some type or another. The association between your thinking of that person and them appearing in your experience may immediately come to mind. As you become aware of that connection then you attempt to explain it, to rationalise it. And what most people do via rationalisation is to dismiss it, or pass it off to chance or coincidence, and then fail to see the true reality of the idea producing a physical result. And good luck trying to convince another that the thought produced the result. For though the physical evidence of the person appearing in your experience is concrete, valid and acceptable evidence there is no evidence which links to the thought. Good luck to me trying to convince you that that is what happens all the time with everything. If you want to know what the crux of the problem of understanding truly is it is this: people do not possess consciousness but rather they are a consciousness. A particular type of consciousness we call human. Since so little is understood of what consciousness is and what it's properties are then it would be true to say that we don't really know who or what we are. And I'm not referring strictly to the reflection in the mirror. Since we don't understand what consciousness is then we can't begin to even consider what it's capabilities are or what effects it produces in our world. It is said, and said truly, that without any true and comprehensive knowledge of what consciousness is then it is literally impossible to understand and make sense of the world we find ourselves in. The quest for this type of knowledge begins with understanding what consciousness is. Now I've said many times that I'm not religious but I was raised a Catholic. I do recognise that there is wisdom to whatever extent in all religions. As long as it's truth I care not what it's source. So here is one truth which comes from the Bible: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." -- Matthew 7:7-8 Anyone who wants to understand what consciousness is simply needs to ask and then frickin' knock on the mental door. Everything necessary to bring about what you seek to find will then occur. But you have to allow it and then work for it. Don't want to do it? No problem. You stay where you are. Now that's a perceptive observation. Since I was a kid I understood that life is both mysterious and baffling. Mysterious in the sense of wonderment and baffling in the sense that events "happen to you," which confounds you as to why they've happened. Everyone has at one time or another repeated the well worn phrase "sh!t happens" when something has gone south on them. I used to think the old phrase to myself, "if it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all." When I was 13 I determined to understand why sh!t seemed to happen to me. Religion didn't have any answers. Science didn't have any answers. So I looked elsewhere. But I was adamant that I would not go through my entire life believing in a bunch of answers given by my parents, my teachers, religion, science nor anyone else that weren't true answers because none of what they claimed to be answers worked. I had enough intensity of desire to know that a "super deep dive" was not at all a deterrent for me. That rolled right off my sleeve. And I worked and worked and worked at it. Just like anyone who, for example, wants to make money and decides to open a business, then to be successful one is required to take every single step that is needed to make that successful business a reality. Don't want to take the necessary steps? No problem. But you won't have a successful business. It's the same with my line of endeavour. If it takes reading, testing out ideas in the real world, or whatever, then I'm willing to do whatever is necessary and so I reap the rewards. My life then doesn't just "happen to" me. I create my life consciously and deliberately. Of the vast quantity and quality of ideas which exist I'm picky about the ones I choose. For most folks they are not so discriminate in choosing what they believe and so from the morass of oftentimes conflicting beliefs which they've picked up through their journey in life, uncritically and unexamined for the most part, life then appears to "happen to" them. And they are stumped as to why. You and I have completely different beliefs around Covid and the mRNA shots. Your set of beliefs create the only conclusions which can be drawn from that set of beliefs. The conclusions are almost predetermined. My set of beliefs draw different conclusions based on my set of beliefs. No matter what facts, evidence, or interpretations are yours they will be in conflict with mine. And vice versa. On this subject we will, therefore, have to leave it as is and simply agree to disagree.

I would not recommend anyone make self-depreciating comments. Especially on a public forum. Not everything you post is garbage information, Frogs.

But no less real. Just as dreams are real. Tippaporn: 1 Sunmaster: 0 Me and you have to get on the pitch to settle this once and for all, Sunmaster. Or maybe a game of horseshoes. Great beer drinking game.

You forgot to give me your address. Being European I'd think you'd be more discriminating about what kind of bread you eat for breakfast. Just a quick story. When we first emigrated to the U.S. the first time my mother went to a grocery store to pick up some bread and came to realise that all that was available at that time (mid-50s) was the mass produced sliced white bread she cried. Any European would understand that and cry, too.

Don't you recognise pepperoni when you see it? Che ti succede? Hai sangue italiano oppure no? Edit: Oops!!! That was TBL's comment, not yours. I'm on my knees asking for forgiveness.

Just taking care of the odds and ends first. My reading of that scene was that world which was the truth of the matrix sucked and he'd rather eat a fictitious steak than the slop in the real world, even whilst knowing the steak was not real.

I'd have to read her works to determine that for myself. Nobody has everything right. They're spot on at times and at other times way off the mark. Everyone is a mixture of having some things correct and some things wrong.

How is it that such a simple point is so difficult to understand by some people? You can explain it in a thousand different ways, and even explain the reasons to them of why they don't get it and what it is which blocks their understanding, and they still look at you cross-eyed. fusion58, sooner or later you'll need to learn to think outside of your box. Of course you may well be perfectly happy living within it's narrow and limited confines. And perfectly safe, too. The unknown reality which exists outside of your comforting box is a very scary place. For some people stretching their minds is painful.

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