Tippaporn

I would say you are correct in your theory of what you can learn from examining your own consciousness. Your own consciousness really is the final frontier. In certain terms it's also the only frontier.

Continuing on with the general point I made above, how often have science minded folk here made adamant and impassioned claims that there is no afterlife even though there is no evidence for such a claim? They believe what they believe about death and perhaps it's because they subscribe to the false assumption that the lack of evidence that something exists is the proof that it indeed does not exist. Though they may use that psychological device to support their conviction still they ultimately only hold a personal belief.

Materialism and money are believed to be a panacea for peoples miseries. If only they had money and trinkets they would be happy.

I'd like to point out in general that those who insist on not believing anything unless it has been scientifically proven are being extremely disingenuous by making such a claim. Since all is not known, and certainly all has not been scientifically proven, there remains much that is left up to personal belief. Therefore every scientist and every science disciple hold unproven beliefs. About a lot of things. The irony! Of course you can play a game with yourself and hide the sausage.

I guess you had your last chance to admit to error in claiming that people who know and see what others don't are therefore delusional. Self integrity lost out. So run and hide. "Really? I am one of those highly intelligent people and I know other highly intelligent people. They all don't believe in god." More fallacious logic. "I'm highly intelligent and don't believe in God. I know other highly intelligent people and they, too, don't believe in God. Therefore all highly intelligent people do not believe in God." You also imply false logic with your next statement. "On the other hand I also know a couple of stupid people who think they are smart. There is a name for that. It's called the Dunning–Kruger effect." It suggests that "All stupid people are stupid about everything. All smart people are smart about everything." The Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't apply to your implication. Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general. At least those psychologists recognised a basic truth. No one is smart all of the time and no one is stupid all of the time. It's always a mix. It's never 100% of one and 0% of the other. If you're as smart as you like to think you are, and I'm sure you like to think yourself smart about everything, OMF, then why do you need to resort to false logic and offer up inapplicable citations to try and win an argument?

This isn't even a weak rebuttal. What you wrote has nada to do with what you claimed in your post. This answer is just misdirection to deflect from the foot that's in your mouth for making a ridiculous and ludicrous claim. Here, too, you completely skirt explaining your statement that claims people who know and see things that you don't know or see are delusional. Following your logic through then you yourself are delusional since you know and see things others don't. If you at least walked this ludicrous conclusion back and admitted you didn't make yourself clear then that would be readily accepted by all. Self integrity would demand it. But rather than take the moral route you seem to prefer spin. Win at all costs, right? Just as Sunmaster said. "To hell with credibility, dignity and objectivity....who needs those?" I'd add self-integrity to the list. People who can not allow themselves to admit when they're wrong debauch their self integrity in every instance they fail to do so. If there's one thing you should understand it's that folks here aren't fooled. They're not nearly as stupid as you would like to believe they are. People here are highly intelligent and your poor opinion has no power to take that away from them. Frankly, no one cares at all about the poor opinions prejudicially leveled against us; or the schoolyard slurs; or the adolescent ridicule. For myself I see only embarrassment for the willingness of so many quite intelligent people to stoop to base vileness. If you're proud of that type of behavior then more power to you, live in the world of your creation as it's the bed you make, and go in peace.

A trollin' we will go a trollin' we will go, hi ho the merry-o, a trollin' we will go.

Agreed. At this point I think she's just trolling. I'm not wasting my time.

Talk about sticking one's foot in one's mouth. I hesitate to argue with that rationale.

Are you suggesting we all know the same things and we all see (perceive) the same things? You can't be serious. Tell me, how much punch and die clearance is needed to pierce a 6mm diameter hole in HSLA steel? What would be the force requirements? The stripping force generated? What? I know something you don't? That's simply too amazing to believe!! We both perceive equally? I know you're joking and just pulling my leg. What were you saying about delusional?

By your own admission: I'm afraid it's devolved to unintelligible. Which tells me there's no point in engaging with random ramblings. Carry on, mate.

I call our times the Age of Corruption. Civilisation built upon a foundation of lies and deceit cannot long last. Neither can one expect pillars fashioned of fantasies to hold up. Nowhere is the future settled but in the present. I believe if we are to create a world which resembles utopia more so than dystopia then an awakening of sorts is required.

They can rarely tolerate criticism. The "evils" perpetrated by science upon humanity is a more or less verboten topic. Well, you're free to bring it up, even specific instances, but do not expect them to agree and admit that they've played a role in the creation of mass deaths and misery. Covid vaccines anyone? Weapons of mass destruction? GMOs? Could go on endlessly. But what else can one expect from an institution which believes life was a cosmic accident and existence is nothing more than a game of random chance in which the individual is completely powerless to determine his own future? Would one seriously expect such a system to produce morals which might be useful in tempering the directions which they take science? Hardly. So anything goes. And don't expect any exhibits of shame for any miscreations.

I sense the waving of a white flag. Not in surrender but perhaps in a call for a truce in the throwing of barbs. The folks here who hold convictions which lie outside of the accepted realm of science have from day one been mercilessly attacked by the 'respectable men of science" for being little more than ignorant pagans who shun science for blind faith. Respectable men who have no respect for anyone who disagrees with their conclusions of reality. The hubris of science declaring that they are the sole purveyors of truth and that their methodology is the only methodology which can ascertain the whole of reality is a bit too much to bear. By God, it infers that pre-science humanity had no avenue to understand the reality in which it found itself. That notion is beyond preposterous. As is the notion that science alone holds the keys to the kingdom. Respect for the beliefs of others and a bit of humility seems to be too much to ask for. All I ask is that science not slam the door on the inquisitiveness of others. And I heartily suggest that they take upon themselves the temerity to at least suspend their convictions just long enough to consider the potential of other ideas. No one is asking that those of science relinquish their beliefs. Simply that they be temporarily suspended because that is an absolute requirement to gaining any knowledge that resides outside of what is currently known. Is that so much to ask for? Your old beliefs will always be there waiting for you to fit right back into their clothing. Where's the threat? What's the danger? But alas conformity and dogma have settled in, no different than with religion. If there's a true scientist by occupation on this thread do tell what would happen to your reputation if you would be so honest as to suggest to your community a hypothesis which falls too far outside of established and accepted thought. You would be quickly ostracised, your funding would dry up, and your reputation tarnished and slandered. "Some on this site seem to then take these scientists to task for talking as though things are true when no one is saying they necessarily are, but they are simply acknowledging that the possibility of them being wrong, is remote." Have you read TropicalGuy's posts above. No science disciple here has made the claim that evolutionary theory is indeed fact for all intents and purposes? What you wrote is only partially true. There are some, and admissions at times by others, that science can never prove anything to be true; science can only prove something to be false. But by and large I would say that claims of absolute truth ore made more often than not. For what it's worth to you, and it may have no worth at all to you since it's coming from me, I do appreciate your post. In your appeal to not criticise scientists when they are simply following scientific methodology mauGR1 makes a valid point. What say you?

If you liked that film I'm sure you would love this one. The actual footage, especially when colorised, is mesmerising to watch. Often it seems to be present time. They Shall Not Grow Old is a 2018 documentary film directed and produced by Peter Jackson. The film was created using original footage of the First World War from the Imperial War Museum's archives, most previously unseen, all over 100 years old by the time of release. Audio is from BBC and Imperial War Museum (IWM) interviews of British servicemen who fought in the conflict. Most of the footage has been colourised and transformed with modern production techniques, with the addition of sound effects and voice acting to be more evocative and feel closer to the soldiers' actual experiences.

The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse (1938). Personally, I think I enjoy the classic silverscreen movies the most. Acting is superb, the scripts are unique and the dialogue is incomparable to contemporary movies. Edward G. Robinson as Dr. Clitterhouse Claire Trevor as Jo Keller Humphrey Bogart as "Rocks" Valentine Allen Jenkins as Okay Donald Crisp as Police Inspector Lewis Lane Gale Page as Nurse Randolph Henry O'Neill as Judge John Litel as Mr. Monroe, the prosecuting attorney Thurston Hall as Grant Maxie Rosenbloom as Butch Interesting cast notes: Ronald Reagan's voice can be heard as a radio announcer, a job that Reagan held before he started as a film actor. Max "Slapsie Maxie" Rosenbloom was a boxer who converted his fame in the ring into a film career playing Runyonesque characters. Susan Hayward had a part in the film, but her scenes were deleted. Dr. Clitterhouse is a wealthy society physician in New York City who decides to research the medical aspects of the behavior of criminals directly by becoming one. He begins a series of daring jewel robberies, measuring his own blood pressure, temperature and pulse before, during and afterwards, but yearns for a larger sample for his study. From one of his patients, Police Inspector Lewis Lane, he learns the name of the biggest fence in the city, Joe Keller. He goes to meet Keller to sell what he has stolen, only to find out that "Joe" is actually "Jo". The doctor impresses Jo and a gang of thieves headed by 'Rocks' Valentine with his exploits, so Jo invites him to join them, and he accepts.

Damn, I was just formulating a reply but you beat me to it. Great response. I'll reply to OMF too but just to make a few further points and to sledgehammer home some of the points you raised using another perspective.

You caught that admission, too, I see. I thought I'd let it go. I've been rough enough on poor TropicalGuy. He can't even bring himself to the debate table any longer. We're all too stupid to debate with.

I should amend my post to clarify that I do not believe in the existence of God as God is defined by many religions. It's a bit more expansive and certainly doesn't tailor God in our image. I'm not even sure one can define what God is. I prefer the term All That Is.

The evidence is everywhere. It's a matter of being able to recognise it for what it is. The argument that something doesn't exist due to a lack of evidence is fallacious logic. Think of a dog whistle. The sound it emits is outside the range of frequencies which our ears are currently able to recognise. To say that it produces no sound would be false since we obviously know that the frequency is picked up by no less than dogs. Now consider what else exists and operates at frequencies we are not attuned to. Doesn't this example make one wonder, at least, what else exist unbeknownst to us? And would it be probable that what else exists is quite extensive? Now you can at least have a glimmering of why some people don't simply accept the deduction you and so many others put forth.

"I have no time to write any thesis debunking your “points” . . . " I know you like to think of those who don't subscribe to your theories as being kinda stupid. So if we're so stupid why are we able to recognise a copout when we see one? No time? That's a laugh. More like an unwillingness to debate honestly and an inability for any kind of admission that one could be wrong. Sunmaster has you dead to rights. "After all, the main goal is clearly to "win" the argument at any cost and not having an honest, dispassionate discussion. To hell with credibility, dignity and objectivity....who needs those?" I'm sorry to see you chicken out of a debate by waving us off with a dismissive hand. I'm not at all surprised, though. It's what people naturally do when they feel they have to be right at all costs but can't win an argument on it's merits. It speaks to insecurity for one. Here's a fun fact for you which you can try to make fit, or not, into your evolutionary theory. We, including yourself hopefully, are conscious, sentient beings who produce effects in this world, are imbued with the power of self determination, possess endless creativity . . . to list just a few of our many inherent attributes . . . and given these undeniable facts how do we effect or steer this evolutionary process? If your answer is nada you needn't reply to this rebuttal for that answer will be the tell all of your ability to be able to think anywhere outside of the tiny box you've willingly placed yourself in.

Now I nominate the directly above post for the award of best display of hubris in a post for at least this year. I love the creative use of caps. By God, that makes your declarations of reality compelling to the point of leaving one who might boldly but foolishly be thinking of mounting a contrariwise viewpoint utterly speechless. Then again the post where you 'prove' that 99%+ of the answers are definitively in, at least amongst 'reasonable' people, and the balance of answers would merely tidy up the books is a major contender. It's a wonderful ploy to use a figure that suggests that a question is settled but the added + sign really gives it the umph needed to seal it as done and dusted for all time. So let's break down all of the flawed logic in your above posts. "Science has answered that question through study of evolution." The statement implies that science as a whole has answered the question. Which is patently false. There is not a 100% consensus. It would be accurate to say that a portion of the scientific community believes they have enough evidence to answer the question and another portion who believe not only that the evidence is not at all conclusive but lacking as well. It would also be accurate to say that there are strong arguments that point to the impossibility of the theory based on the immense probabilities that randomness could never arrive at the practical functioning of an innumerable variety of life given the time span for which all of this has supposedly occurred. Of course openly considering and mentioning these facts would not bode well for your argument so best leave all of that out. Unless your intention isn't to debate on merits but rather to simply declare your "truth" and chide all those unaccepting of your "truth." "Advanced mammals inc. Homo sapiens a complete fluke initiated by a random asteroid strike eliminating the dinosaurs who otherwise would still be in charge here." Here you couch your wholly speculative "truth" as factual. What you wrote above is, in my humble opinion, poor science fiction at best. The idea that life is a fluke is based on nothing more than personal belief since you have no means of providing any evidence to your theory, let alone proof. Given the many admonishments by the scientifically minded sect on the failure of some here to understand the scientific method it seems the height of hypocrisy that a scientifically minded person would then dispense altogether with the scientific method and proceed to promote personal beliefs as fact. "evidential science of animal evolution on planet earth is clear." Here again is a declarative statement meant to imply that the declaration is beyond debate though the truth is that it is in fact highly debatable. What "evidential science" really means is only that evidence which agrees with the goal sought conclusion. Any and all contrarian evidence is, via one method or another, unceremoniously dismissed out of hand. "Which has provided sufficient (99%+) answers any reasonable person could possibly want . . . " Providing a figure of 99%+ is not so much the use of flawed logic but rather simply a deceptive tactic which is meant to ascribe credibility by way of a employing a near absolute number. If one were asked to provide the totality of this evidence it would not be forthcoming. Most likely since it doesn't exist. But it certainly is easy enough to tout such an unimaginably high number knowing that one doesn't have to provide any evidentiary support whatsoever. Kinda like a free shot on goal. Another fallacy of this argument is the use of the phrase "any reasonable person." It's function is to subtly browbeat. In other words, if you want to be considered a sane individual you must be in agreement. Else you will be given any number of derogatory labels. I actually like the term "Disrupter." It has a superhero type cast. I like it a lot. Tippaporn, The Disrupter!!! That should send fear into your heart and make your knees tremble!! ". . . concerning the 15 million year primate origin & development leading to us modern humans????????" This statement is purely assumptive speculation given the narrow range of allowable and acceptable information to reach it's conclusion. If other available information were to be included in the mix and, importantly, if one were forced to fit it in rather that simply sh!tcan it solely because it can't be made to fit that may well wreak havoc on the original verdict. BTW, the emojis serve well as an exclamation point, I take it, as otherwise the sentence is missing it's full stop. "So nothing is truly known & some discovered fragment might unravel everything. Right got it. Moved you now to category (2). We’re done." As mentioned above, yes, it's quite possible that a mere single piece of information can completely annihilate even long established and cherished "truths." It's happened many times through history and I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny the fact, else risk exposing yourself as disingenuous. "such view is typically for (1) professional scientists fully understanding the known 99% yet seeking to close the insignificant knowledge gaps for record purposes …..OR (2) pseudosciencers rejecting the known 99% & claim to seek an (unnecessary unrealistic) 100% absolute truth before “believing” ( clue: they will never accept any 100% completion). You are neither so no logical need to go there ……..without first becoming (1) above????" I believe I've covered the subtle browbeating. This time it's not so subtle. Agree with "professional scientists" or else you will be declared a "pseudo scientist" by we, the sole and final, self appointed arbiters of "truth." And we will then attack you with the intention of inflicting debilitating harm in every way possible. Just ask any of the "pseudo scientists" fighting to provide humanity with cheap and effective treatments to Covid. Ah, there's nothing like good old mob rule. It must be nice to be in the club. "Evolution is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Gravity is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Also no credible alternatives. Both are also (proven) Theories." It's logical fallacy to suggest that one proven fact proves another unproven fact to be proven fact solely because both have been ascribed to have "Overwhelming Evidence," albeit the unproven fact's "Overwhelming Evidence" is not nearly in the same league of the fact that does have truly "Overwhelming Evidence." As to "no credible alternatives," again this is a declarative statement to be taken as "truth" though it is impossible to make such a statement genuinely unless one is All-Knowing. To ask whether or not you are would be purely rhetorical. (Proven) Theories are simply that. Facts with a huge asterisk and explanations given in multiple footnotes. The only people who argue for theories to be treated as facts are the people who desire those theories to be fact. To everyone else a theory is unproven fact. Some people like to make up rules to the game and insist everyone else blindly, sheepishly follow along. I appreciate your use of capitalisation to convey the aura of supreme authority to your self-declarations. It's so commanding. As if it came down from high above. Almost as a God-like pronunciation. "There are no “flaws” that matter a damn." What delightful chutzpah! And scientific to boot! It's is, after all, critical that we all follow the science. "Absolutists are pointless disrupters, never experts, finding “flaws” in everything & never satisfied. would argue black is white or night is day. Usually also pseudo- scientists, Flat Earthers & Moon Landing Deniers or Creationists Example: Earth is 4.7 billion years old but some say 4.6. Disrupter says “so we don’t know how old the earth is !”. Yeah, we do it’s 4.6 to 4.7 billion years old. The difference is insignificant." Yes, it's so exhausting to have to deal with people's questions. Why can't they just buy what I'm selling? Damn Disrupters!! Well, you can't accuse me of failing to address specific points. Feel free to address mine.

Just watched the zany comedy Georgy Girl (1966). Superb performances by all. In the Academy Awards Lynn Redgrave was nominated for Best Actress and James Mason for Best Supporting Actor. Also nominations for Best Cinematography – Black-and-White by Kenneth Higgins and Best Song by The Seekers. It's an interest of mine when watching older movies to try and identify some of the filming locations. At 1:35:00 in the movie there's a scene of Mason and Redgrave in the Paddington Borough on Maida Street. It's interesting to see how it's changed since 56 years. For instance, the tree trunk in front of the building on the corner of Edgware and Aberdeen has visibly gained in girth. Most everything is as it was. And Georgy Girl by The Seekers remains a 60's pop classic.

I use the on-line LOADER.TO. It's fast and as easy as pasting in the URL and choosing a format You have the option to download as a video or audio file. Since storage space is not an issue for me I download audio as FLAC and choose the highest quality video available. Just one note: The video quality option must be equal or less than the video quality on YouTube. Also, you're not limited to YouTube. You can download videos from a host of other platforms. I've never tried downloading audio from other sites, though, but I'm sure that's possible as well. When I'm downloading I just keep the page open so all I have to do is keep pasting in URLs. Here's a screenshot of the options.

A young, 15 y.o. Steve Winwood performing pianist Jimmie Cox's '23 blues standard Nobody Knows You When You're Down And Out. In his pajamas no less. Amazing that a kid of fifteen could produce such vocals.