# The philosophy thread



## New Age United (Oct 2, 2015)

So I've met a lot of very intelligent people on here and I know we all like to debate so this thread is for anyone who just wants to debate, any topic, no subject is off limits. Put your thoughts out there and see if we can't get something going in the philosophy thread. Absolutely any subject.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 2, 2015)

@sunni anyway you can take the question mark out of the tread title lol


----------



## sunni (Oct 2, 2015)

yuh


----------



## New Age United (Oct 2, 2015)

sunni said:


> yuh


Thanks a bunch


----------



## Dyster (Oct 2, 2015)

I feel the way you drive says a lot about how you conduct your life.
All about me me me, my life and my time is more important then yours.
That must be the tailgater kissing your bumper for twenty miles.

The constant lane changer putting on a show,
Not believing his lying eyes that there is traffic,
As far as the eyes can see.

My thoughts, based on how people drive,
Their lives are in chaos.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 2, 2015)

Dyster said:


> I feel the way you drive says a lot about how you conduct your life.
> All about me me me, my life and my time is more important then yours.
> That must be the tailgater kissing your bumper for twenty miles.
> 
> ...


Yes a person's personality is expressed on the way a person drives, aspects of personality traits such as aggressiveness and passiveness, timidness and rage are all expressed on the road.


----------



## Dyster (Oct 3, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Yes a person's personality is expressed on the way a person drives, aspects of personality traits such as aggressiveness and passiveness, timidness and rage are all expressed on the road.


Well it is open season for chaos, the roads on the east coast are a war zone.
Never seen such distaste for one other in my 56 years brother.
I take walks in the woods to decompress from the chaos.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 6, 2015)

Bump, come on nobodies interested in debate.


----------



## ASCIIGHOST (Oct 8, 2015)

Treat others how you want to be treated.


----------



## Dyster (Oct 8, 2015)

Technology, of course has improved our lives and has made it easier.
But their are pitfalls and a whole lot of negatives also.
I was wondering what you thought about being on a 24 x7 News cycle.
People having to check every hour to see how many likes they got.
Updating Facebook like it is their jobs.

I feel major damage is being done by all of this.
I feel we are not smart enough to Handel all of this Technology .
Might as well throw in shooting and killing video games.
People have become cold, and easily irritated.
Want Instant gratification!


----------



## torontoke (Oct 8, 2015)

I think the Internet and the ease of information because of it is killing humanities social skills and values.
Having everything at your fingertips is amazing and I couldn't imagine life without it but I miss the days of someone saying hey you remember that movie with the this that or the other and it bothering you to try to remember. 

Thinking is exercise for the brain and now a days not many people are doing their think ups


----------



## Dyster (Oct 8, 2015)

torontoke said:


> Thinking is exercise for the brain and now a days not many people are doing their think ups


I think that statement is very very true, nice one.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 8, 2015)

ASCIIGHOST said:


> Treat others how you want to be treated.


BM9AGS has a deadly avatar it say "if you expect the world to be fair just because you are fair with it that is like expecting the lion not to eat you because you did not eat him"


----------



## ASCIIGHOST (Oct 8, 2015)

New Age United said:


> BM9AGS has a deadly avatar it say "if you expect the world to be fair just because you are fair with it that is like expecting the lion not to eat you because you did not eat him"


Thats nice the nice thing about having a brain. If someone treats you unfairly, you can discontinue actions with that individual. It is not a platitude, but the foundation to the non-aggression principle.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 8, 2015)

ASCIIGHOST said:


> Thats nice the nice thing about having a brain. If someone treats you unfairly, you can discontinue actions with that individual. It is not a platitude, but the foundation to the non-aggression principle.


Yes but the ties that bind get in the way, I only have a few friends that I would call good friends and even they can piss me off at times, but I suppose I can piss them off too, the golden rule holds merit, but some people are just plain aggressive and will pushover a passive person I agree with non aggression in most interactions but sometimes you have to stand your ground.


----------



## ASCIIGHOST (Oct 8, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Yes but the ties that bind get in the way, I only have a few friends that I would call good friends and even they can piss me off at times, but I suppose I can piss them off too, the golden rule holds merit, but some people are just plain aggressive and will pushover a passive person I agree with non aggression in most interactions but sometimes you have to stand your ground.


outside of personal relationships you'd have business acquaintances you'd have to interact with in a voluntary manor that is mutually beneficial to both parties. outside of personal and business relationships not much exists. its simpler than people think imho, were just so conditioned to the society presented to us.


----------



## Dyster (Oct 8, 2015)

I have always been a heart on my sleeve kind of guy.
I had a hard time playing the game, just to survive.
Well I am typing here,so I learned some for pure survival.

I am anti social, social enough to have a daughter in college,
Who stays with me in between semesters and the summer.
Gets me out of my anti social ways some what.
I walk this trail, I am there at dawn, so I can walk alone.

But life's too short, to just do everything society tells you.
Specially since, IMHO society today is out of its mind.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2015)

Cognitive dissonance. Anyone who aims to be a great thinker needs to understand this concept. It is one of the primary drivers of self-deception. Cognitive dissonance is the name given to the feeling produced when the brain tries to hold two conflicting ideas as true at the same time. There are many of our beliefs which contradict each other, because it is an impossible task for our brains to compare every single one of our beliefs with every other one for consistency. However, the brain likes consistency, because any inconsistency would suggest that the mental narrative in your head that you use to explain the world and your place in it is flawed. So when our brain discovers or is presented with conflicting beliefs, it feels uncomfortable. There is a need to reduce this feeling akin to the need to reduce the feeling of hunger or thirst. And our brains, ever valuing efficiency, seek to do this easiest way possible, which usually means lying to itself.

An obvious example of conflicting beliefs is that the world is only 6000 years old, yet evolution has happened over millions of years. Both of these things can't be true. If you already believed the earth is young, then evolution means your worldview is wrong. That doesn't feel good. There are two ways to reduce that bad feeling. We can accept the evidence for evolution and substantially change what we thought we knew, and possibly a little bit of who we thought we were, or we can find a way to reject evolution. Obviously one of those things is very hard, and one is very easy. Guess which one the brain prefers. The brain is inclined to take the easy route, and it comes equipped with an array of tools and mechanisms to help it reject information is doesn't like, while the skills needed to analyze and accept evidence must be learned and cultivated.

The more a belief is ingrained into our thinking or tied to our identity, the harder cognitive dissonance will work to conserve the narrative. Nevertheless, cognitive dissonance is there to dictate much lesser conflicts as well. It's always lurking, waiting to coddle you, to fend off your insecurities, and to justify your decisions. It's capable of affecting not only your decision making, but your perceptions, your actions, your judgments, and even your memories. The truth is you could not function without it - there would be no way to make sense of the world. That doesn't mean, however, that you should embrace it.

If you want to delve into the subject, I recommend a book called _Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me, _By Carol Tavris.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 9, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Cognitive dissonance. Anyone who aims to be a great thinker needs to understand this concept. It is one of the primary drivers of self-deception. Cognitive dissonance is the name given to the feeling produced when the brain tries to hold two conflicting ideas as true at the same time. There are many of our beliefs which contradict each other, because it is an impossible task for our brains to compare every single one of our beliefs with every other one for consistency. However, the brain likes consistency, because any inconsistency would suggest that the mental narrative in your head that you use to explain the world and your place in it is flawed. So when our brain discovers or is presented with conflicting beliefs, it feels uncomfortable. There is a need to reduce this feeling akin to the need to reduce the feeling of hunger or thirst. And our brains, ever valuing efficiency, seek to do this easiest way possible, which usually means lying to itself.
> 
> An obvious example of conflicting beliefs is that the world is only 6000 years old, yet evolution has happened over millions of years. Both of these things can't be true. If you already believed the earth is young, then evolution means your worldview is wrong. That doesn't feel good. There are two ways to reduce that bad feeling. We can accept the evidence for evolution and substantially change what we thought we knew, and possibly a little bit of who we thought we were, or we can find a way to reject evolution. Obviously one of those things is very hard, and one is very easy. Guess which one the brain prefers. The brain is inclined to take the easy route, and it comes equipped with an array of tools and mechanisms to help it reject information is doesn't like, while the skills needed to analyze and accept evidence must be learned and cultivated.
> 
> ...


Thanks heisenberg, unfortunately I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue against you lol


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 9, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Cognitive dissonance. Anyone who aims to be a great thinker needs to understand this concept. It is one of the primary drivers of self-deception. Cognitive dissonance is the name given to the feeling produced when the brain tries to hold two conflicting ideas as true at the same time. There are many of our beliefs which contradict each other, because it is an impossible task for our brains to compare every single one of our beliefs with every other one for consistency. However, the brain likes consistency, because any inconsistency would suggest that the mental narrative in your head that you use to explain the world and your place in it is flawed. So when our brain discovers or is presented with conflicting beliefs, it feels uncomfortable. There is a need to reduce this feeling akin to the need to reduce the feeling of hunger or thirst. And our brains, ever valuing efficiency, seek to do this easiest way possible, which usually means lying to itself.
> 
> An obvious example of conflicting beliefs is that the world is only 6000 years old, yet evolution has happened over millions of years. Both of these things can't be true. If you already believed the earth is young, then evolution means your worldview is wrong. That doesn't feel good. There are two ways to reduce that bad feeling. We can accept the evidence for evolution and substantially change what we thought we knew, and possibly a little bit of who we thought we were, or we can find a way to reject evolution. Obviously one of those things is very hard, and one is very easy. Guess which one the brain prefers. The brain is inclined to take the easy route, and it comes equipped with an array of tools and mechanisms to help it reject information is doesn't like, while the skills needed to analyze and accept evidence must be learned and cultivated.
> 
> ...


Define your understanding of reality.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Thanks heisenberg, unfortunately I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue against you lol



Ha.  Nonsense, there are many criticisms of cognitive dissonance theory. Some of them quite valid. It's not a complete explanation, however it is likely the foundation that a better explanation will be built on. In fact, anyone who reads the book I recommended should then immediately read _Why Everyone (Else) Is A Hypocrite, _which points out some holes in CD theory and offers its own explanations.

But, as much as I love to argue, I didn't post to start an argument. I posted because I really think it's important for people to understand CD theory, not as an ultimate truth, but as a construct which helps us to improve thinking. That would seem to be one of the goals of philosophy, though certainly not the only one.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> Define your understanding of reality.


Dude, how boring would that be? It's like listening to someone else talk about the dream they had last night. Do you really want to hear me spew on about my personal view of reality? Maybe something more specific would be more interesting. The only broad belief I have about reality is that the more accurately we understand it, the more successfully we can navigate through it.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 9, 2015)

Alright heisenberg I'll definitely check out the books, I've been told by @tyler.durden that I need to work on my critical thinking. 


reddan1981 said:


> Define your understanding of reality.


Reddan bro what's up, while heisenberg may find it a boring subject I am interested to know your understanding of reality, can you define reality? What is real? What is truth?

@Heisenberg are those questions specific enough or no? Your always free to chime in I greatly respect your intellect and knowledge.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 9, 2015)

New Age United said:


> So I've met a lot of very intelligent people on here


Really? Where on here? 

Well something interesting? Hmm. 

Why is there so much debate about different people with different grow techniques? I mean, how can one method be better than another of both are successful using different lights, medium, nutes, set ups? How can a micro guy comment on a commercial guy? 

Just seems that many of the debates are crap and I take little away from them except for the humor in online people going o battle and the witty insults. Fruitless maybe, but somewhat entertaining sometimes.


----------



## Dyster (Oct 9, 2015)

Reality, now that's something that's seen differently in every single human daily.
Reality, if I am in the woods escaping one reality for a hour and half or so,
I am still, dealing with reality in order to help with the 100 other realitys,
We deal with daily. I got one reality to lump all mine together,
Life is hard.

Hey some people never face true reality, that is their reality.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 9, 2015)

GrowUrOwnDank said:


> Really? Where on here?
> 
> Well something interesting? Hmm.
> 
> ...


Tyler.durden, heisenberg, @Padawanbater2 some of the most intelligent people I've ever met. Ya there's a sit load of crap on here let's try to sift through and find some good interesting debate or if you just want to share your perspective then shoot.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 9, 2015)

Yeah man you're right. This thread sucks. Wonder if eBay sells personality? Don't mind me. I'm just stoned! Peace and love.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 9, 2015)

GrowUrOwnDank said:


> Yeah man you're right. This thread sucks. Wonder if eBay sells personality? Don't mind me. I'm just stoned! Peace and love.


I love your fucking sarcasm man it gets me lol


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 9, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Dude, how boring would that be? It's like listening to someone else talk about the dream they had last night. Do you really want to hear me spew on about my personal view of reality? Maybe something more specific would be more interesting. The only broad belief I have about reality is that the more accurately we understand it, the more successfully we can navigate through it.


I can't speak for others, but I would LOVE to hear all about your personal view of reality. Or really anything for that matter  Miss you, Heis. Great to see you around...

P.S. I dig perusing your pseudoscience site and FB page from time to time. You and your very sexy partner are certainly fighting the good fight...


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 9, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Alright heisenberg I'll definitely check out the books, I've been told by @tyler.durden that I need to work on my critical thinking.


I've learned a LOT about critical thought and the scientific method from Heisenberg. I highly recommend you listen carefully to what he has to say. He was known as The Glacier because he is nearly immovable in debate. Look up his debates from a few years ago, the way he decimated opponents was art...



> Reddan bro what's up, while heisenberg may find it a boring subject I am interested to know your understanding of reality, can you define reality? What is real? What is truth?


I've seen the reddan show already. It's earnest but misguided. Smart dude, but he uses his powers for evil  I'll sit that one out...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Alright heisenberg I'll definitely check out the books, I've been told by @tyler.durden that I need to work on my critical thinking.


Well, those books are sorta advanced critical thinking, sometimes referred to as meta-cognition. I am confident that they are not beyond your ability to understand, but I would recommend saving them for later to build on a more basic understanding of critical thinking. You may want to start with _Demon Haunted World_ or _Why People Believe Weird Things_. Then move on to _Thinking Fast and Slow_. All of the books I mentioned are available in audio format via torrents. 

Here is a simplified summary of Thinking Fast and Slow.






Also a great primer is available from The Great Courses called _Your Deceptive Mind_. It's sometimes available for free on youtube, although the link is up and down because it's copyrighted. It's a 14hr lecture series that covers the basics of critical thinking. If you are unfamiliar with the concepts it can be a lot to take in, but it's a great way to get introduced to them.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> I can't speak for others, but I would LOVE to hear all about your personal view of reality. Or really anything for that matter  Miss you, Heis. Great to see you around...
> 
> P.S. I dig perusing your pseudoscience site and FB page from time to time. You and your very sexy partner are certainly fighting the good fight...



Glad you find the site engaging. I've missed these conversations too. Facebook is great for practicing argumentation, but it's always the same circular arguments over and over. Although it offers a great way to reach people, trying to teach critical thinking to social media is like trying to teach a classroom where anyone can wonder in and out at any time. There is no practical way for lessons to build on each other, as it is always the first day of class for much of the audience. I like these deeper conversations where everyone can get to know each other.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 10, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Reddan bro what's up, while heisenberg may find it a boring subject I am interested to know your understanding of reality, can you define reality? What is real? What is truth?


Have you heard of the Tasaday tribe? Well using them as an example ( they were later found to be a fraud) imagine a tribe that lived in the jungle, for eight centuries untouched from colonial influence. Living in their primitive state, under their own systems of order.

What if we were to ask them what 'truths' are relevant to their reality?

What is defined as 'real' is in abstract allegory, with the sole purpose of creating a condition in us to conform to Empirical structure. Reality for an individual in it's most primordial state, is nothing more than an interpretation of electrical signals.


----------



## Dyster (Oct 10, 2015)

Hello my educated friends, I sworn I would not be scared off by your intellect.
Can not reach some of those heights but at 56 and still not drooling 
On myself I am still open to learn.

Man is a animal, and we are jealous creatures.(reality)
I think men in power, in the states,I am talking, because that is want I know,
Underestimate what man is capable of as far as animal instincts and survival.
Will IMHO be caught with their pants down.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 10, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Glad you find the site engaging. I've missed these conversations too. Facebook is great for practicing argumentation, but it's always the same circular arguments over and over. Although it offers a great way to reach people, trying to teach critical thinking to social media is like trying to teach a classroom where anyone can wonder in and out at any time. There is no practical way for lessons to build on each other, as it is always the first day of class for much of the audience. I like these deeper conversations where everyone can get to know each other.


Link it up please.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dyster said:


> Hello my educated friends, I sworn I would not be scared off by your intellect.
> Can not reach some of those heights but at 56 and still not drooling
> On myself I am still open to learn.
> 
> ...


We are more than animal's my friend, we are the most precious, intricate forms of life in existence. We are an expression of nature, it's own creation to observe and understand itself. None of us are above or below each other my mate.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 10, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> We are more than animal's my friend, we are the most precious, intricate forms of life in existence. We are an expression of nature, it's own creation to observe and understand itself. None of us are above or below each other my mate.


I agree with you from a subjective perspective but I'm gonna argue your last to posts tonight.


----------



## Dyster (Oct 10, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> We are more than animal's my friend, we are the most precious, intricate forms of life in existence. We are an expression of nature, it's own creation to observe and understand itself. None of us are above or below each other my mate.


The amount of human carnage Going on world wide,I have to question how well we are
Observing and understanding anything except the strong rule the weak.


----------



## torontoke (Oct 10, 2015)

Dyster said:


> The amount of human carnage Going on world wide,I have to question how well we are
> Observing and understanding anything except the strong rule the weak.


It's a matter or perspective.
It's not surprising considering mankind has seemed to put all of their eggs into one basket. Furthering technology and making everyday Mundane life easier than it was previously.
Eventually the focus should shift or evolve in human conscience to finally achieve 46 and 2.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dyster said:


> The amount of human carnage Going on world wide,I have to question how well we are
> Observing and understanding anything except the strong rule the weak.


All part of this 'reality' that this system brings, unfortunately.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 10, 2015)

torontoke said:


> It's a matter or perspective.
> It's not surprising considering mankind has seemed to put all of their eggs into one basket. Furthering technology and making everyday Mundane life easier than it was previously.
> Eventually the focus should shift or evolve in human conscience to finally achieve 46 and 2.


I am interested in your focus on the numbers 46 and 2. What is your understanding of these numbers?


----------



## torontoke (Oct 10, 2015)

Careful the convo has a real chance of getting super boring to most.
I too have read a lot of books over the yrs and I've always thought that the underlying principles relate to chromosomes and Jungian theory.
A lot more to it than a great song.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 10, 2015)

I ain't skeered. But it always fun watching threads go this wayward with all the little titty babies chiming in. Yeah son. I fucked your momma man and blasted my cum all up inside her. It was good in the moment. Now it don't matter.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 10, 2015)

My belief of our present state, comes from my disagreements with jungian theory well elements of it anyway. I disbelieve in an evolutionary step physically or spirituality. I would probably bore you first or make you laugh at my stupidity before I could get anyone to understand my believes, they are still a work in progress lol


----------



## torontoke (Oct 10, 2015)

The evolution of man has been hampered by mans desire to change the world for himself as an individual entity. This could be proof that an evolution to 46 and 2 is unlikely and a chromosome reduction is just as possible.
If humans could ever manage to achieve the state then perhaps there would be hope for the species and all the remaining species at the time.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 10, 2015)

torontoke said:


> The evolution of man has been hampered by mans desire to change the world for himself as an individual entity. This could be proof that an evolution to 46 and 2 is unlikely and a chromosome reduction is just as possible.
> If humans could ever manage to achieve the state then perhaps there would be hope for the species and all the remaining species at the time.


I don't believe we have 23 pairs of chromosomes so there in lies another part of jungian theory I don't agree with. I believe 23 to be one such symbol (in reference to jungian theory that symbols have noticed effects on our psychology ). What is the axis of the earth brother, how long does it take for our blood to circulate the coincidences of 23 or multiples of 2&3 go on and on... I don't think 'man' or precisely his psychology is the determining factors in our present situation. I used the term 'man' in a 3rd term deliberately. If you want to continue this discussion, what is your understanding of man?


----------



## torontoke (Oct 10, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> I don't believe we have 23 pairs of chromosomes so there in lies another part of jungian theory I don't agree with. I believe 23 to be one such symbol (in reference to jungian theory that symbols have noticed effects on our psychology ). What is the axis of the earth brother, how long does it take for our blood to circulate the coincidences of 23 or multiples of 2&3 go on and on... if you would like me to elaborate more I'll continue.


No need I think I have read a lot of theory and don't disagree with your arguments against Jung and his ideas. 
My ideas are also different from his and I too have found a few holes in the theories and completely disagree with the inclusion of the so called "Jesus chromosome" recognized in 89. 
Not quite sure we will ever have a definitive science based answer.
You don't have to agree with the entire theory however to see the differences in the past to future or in the animal kingdom.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 10, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> My belief of our present state, comes from my disagreements with jungian theory well elements of it anyway. I disbelieve in an evolutionary step physically or spirituality. I would probably bore you first or make you laugh at my stupidity before I could get anyone to understand my believes, they are still a work in progress lol


Yep. U bored me and made me laugh. Good job.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 10, 2015)

torontoke said:


> The evolution of man has been hampered by mans desire to change the world for himself as an individual entity. This could be proof that an evolution to 46 and 2 is unlikely and a chromosome reduction is just as possible.
> If humans could ever manage to achieve the state then perhaps there would be hope for the species and all the remaining species at the time.


Whatever. Try getting high. That crap us just silly.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 10, 2015)

torontoke said:


> I am high but I must have missed the part where I think I'm special.


I'm just high. Sorry I'm being an ass.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 11, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> Have you heard of the Tasaday tribe? Well using them as an example ( they were later found to be a fraud) imagine a tribe that lived in the jungle, for eight centuries untouched from colonial influence. Living in their primitive state, under their own systems of order.
> 
> What if we were to ask them what 'truths' are relevant to their reality?
> 
> What is defined as 'real' is in abstract allegory, with the sole purpose of creating a condition in us to conform to Empirical structure. Reality for an individual in it's most primordial state, is nothing more than an interpretation of electrical signals.


Yes for the individual it is the interpretation of electrical signals but therefore is there not a reality beyond the individual, if your last statement is true then aren't electric signals real and therefore constituting an objective reality beyond what the individual may subjectively experience, an ultimate reality. 

Does the universe exist outside and independent of the human consciousness?


----------



## New Age United (Oct 11, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> We are more than animal's my friend, we are the most precious, intricate forms of life in existence. We are an expression of nature, it's own creation to observe and understand itself. None of us are above or below each other my mate.


Are we really above or below the animals, just because we may be more intricate and evolved in the brain does not make us more precious. I think that is a natural thing to look at your own species as the most important, and of course I would in a life threatening situation I would be far more concerned with the life of a human than the life of an animal, but it's still just the human perspective.

I completely agree with the rest of your post.

In what way are we more precious?


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 11, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Are we really above or below the animals, just because we may be more intricate and evolved in the brain does not make us more precious. I think that is a natural thing to look at your own species as the most important, and of course I would in a life threatening situation I would be far more concerned with the life of a human than the life of an animal, but it's still just the human perspective.
> 
> I completely agree with the rest of your post.


Yes I consider this a lot. I mean the lions hunt the weak for food. We raise livestock for the same. The male lions battle for territory. Humans go to war. I honestly don't think humans are all the intelligent. I mean we do great things but also, civilization is just a not very civil. But, we should focus on taking advantage of our limited time. And not dwell on our animalistic nature.


----------



## Darth Vapour (Oct 11, 2015)

to think there is life after death as many claim ( After life ) if find it rather hilarious only in religion will they use both the now and the after life for there benefits
I love it when you here yeah i was floating above my body and saw family on hall way etc hahaha ,, there was such a great light i tell yeah was i ever stoned lol..
Truth is and hate to say it there is fuck all on the other side no god , heaven absolutely Fuck all hate to break the news ..
Only light you see or memories is from your brain flashing signals fighting for its life as 02 is depleted , once that brain dies ,, light is out all your memories are lost and you are nothing
Ashes to ashes dust to dust..
But remember to give your pastor some money and pray to god for his sins lol sure the fuck not your sins


----------



## New Age United (Oct 11, 2015)

Darth Vapour said:


> to think there is life after death as many claim ( After life ) if find it rather hilarious only in religion will they use both the now and the after life for there benefits
> I love it when you here yeah i was floating above my body and saw family on hall way etc hahaha ,, there was such a great light i tell yeah was i ever stoned lol..
> Truth is and hate to say it there is fuck all on the other side no god , heaven absolutely Fuck all hate to break the news ..
> Only light you see or memories is from your brain flashing signals fighting for its life as 02 is depleted , one that brain dies ,, light is out all your memories are lost and you are nothing
> Ashes to ashes dust to dust


Why should anyone believe that death will be any different than it was in the year 1800, not even black, absolute nothingness.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 11, 2015)

Darth Vapour said:


> to think there is life after death as many claim ( After life ) if find it rather hilarious only in religion will they use both the now and the after life for there benefits
> I love it when you here yeah i was floating above my body and saw family on hall way etc hahaha ,, there was such a great light i tell yeah was i ever stoned lol..
> Truth is and hate to say it there is fuck all on the other side no god , heaven absolutely Fuck all hate to break the news ..
> Only light you see or memories is from your brain flashing signals fighting for its life as 02 is depleted , once that brain dies ,, light is out all your memories are lost and you are nothing
> ...


I have a personal relationship with what I perceive as a higher power. Or God. Not in the conventional sense of heaven and hell. But, when I pray I ask God to help me Be better. To be humble. To be kind. To be understanding.

I don't consider my relationship as a means to immortality as is taught. I've seen much death in my loves ones. People I loved who were taken before their time. Yet, that is my perception. I have no idea what "time" is perfect. We should embrace these moments. I don't fear death much, cause I've lived a very adventurous life. I already feel the pains as my body gets older and the machine wears down. And my mind is certainly not as sharp as it once was. I feel there could be conscience after life. Maybe. I am not committed to the idea. Maybe. My religion simply tells me peace and love to all. I pray so I don't hate. Even when done wrong.


----------



## Darth Vapour (Oct 11, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Why should anyone believe that death will be any different than it was in the year 1800, not even black, absolute nothingness.


Death is another reason for the strength in the beliefs of religion. The vast majority of people are naturally afraid of death, it is the normal fear of the unknown. By its very nature we can never gain knowledge of what may befall us after death, it is our worst nightmare come true. We all know for certain that we will die but do not know when, how or why. Religion is there to comfort us on our trip into the great unknown, all will be well, in fact it will be far better than anything you could possibly imagine. Now that's a really good sales pitch, work on people's fears then sell them the solution. Its like showing a potential customer some really dreadful photographs of fire damaged houses then selling them a dozen smoke alarms.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 11, 2015)

Darth Vapour said:


> Death is another reason for the strength in the beliefs of religion. The vast majority of people are naturally afraid of death, it is the normal fear of the unknown. By its very nature we can never gain knowledge of what may befall us after death, it is our worst nightmare come true. We all know for certain that we will die but do not know when, how or why. Religion is there to comfort us on our trip into the great unknown, all will be well, in fact it will be far better than anything you could possibly imagine. Now that's a really good sales pitch, work on people's fears then sell them the solution. Its like showing a potential customer some really dreadful photographs of fire damaged houses then selling them a dozen smoke alarms.


I disagree. Religion is to help in this right now. To help us deal with pain and confusion. We pray right now for comfort. I do anyway. I don't do organized religion. People should worship if they choose in quiet. The subject of religion itself leads to conflict. I don't think that is true religion. Religion should be kind and gentle. Not war material.


----------



## Darth Vapour (Oct 11, 2015)

As for the holy bible, its just a book like any other, it contains pages of printed text bound together. It does not possess any mystical power of course, any more than a daily newspaper. The content, however, is interesting in what it claims. It was once held as containing the absolute truth, but even this is being challenged.We no longer believe that the world was created in a few days. Modern church leaders are also saying that Mary, mother of Jesus, was not reallya virgin, and so on. Back in the past people did genuinely believe the bible was 'gospel' and beyond question, but times, fortunately, have changed. The bible is being 'updated' so that it will again be acceptable to today's society. But is it really meaningful, can it be held up as 'proof' that God exists? No, of course not, we all know that, I may as well hold up a copy of 'UFO News" as 'proof' of the existence of flying saucers.

In all discussions on Christianity, I know that at some point someone will start to quote at me from the bible to back-up their argument. I really wish they wouldn't bother, its meaningless to do so, because it requires that the bible be accepted as hard evidence, and as we have seen it quite simply isn't so. The bible can be interpreted *any way you want*, so why bother? And precisely how accurate are the stories in it anyway?


----------



## Darth Vapour (Oct 11, 2015)

All religion is nothing more than an attempt to control a population by enforcing 'laws' that come from a higher authority that is beyond challenge, It is used as an extremely powerful tool to keep people 'in line'. It is particularly useful in circumstances where the population are under duress, be it poverty, starvation, tyranny. whatever, because then the powers that rule will assure you that you must accept your lot, lead a good life, don't rock the boat and cause any trouble, and you will be rewarded in the next life. Oh, good. The more you apply cold logic to it, the more senseless and totally meaningless the whole charade becomes, except as a means of control.

Imagine for a minute that you are God with all his unlimited powers.

*1) You decide that for some reason that the people on planet Earth need guidance for their own good. Do you*

(a) Appear before one person in a vision, give them secret instructions and hope they pass it on correctly and don't take liberties, or

(b) Appear before the masses and tell them direct, thereby proving your existence beyond doubt and at the same time ensuring that they get the right message.

*2) You wish to have your laws continued forever. Do you*

a) Tell them once and disappear for a couple of thousand years or more, or

(b) Make regular appearances to reinforce belief.

*3) *Y*ou care for these people, so when you see things going terribly wrong, do you*

a) Sit back and watch the fun, or

(b) Step in again with some timely advice.

*4) You have unlimited powers, you can create the world any way you want. Do you*

(a) Make the climate changeable and unpredictable resulting in the deaths of millions due to drought, floods, heat waves etc. Or

(b) Create a stable climate so that the population can grow their crops and feed themselves.

For all questions answered (a), Really bad idea, award yourself nil points. For all answers (b), Well done! good choice, you get full marks. So why do we have all the above wrong answer situations in the world and none of the good answers? If you believe there is a God, how *do* you answer that? Why would He act in such an uncaring and nonsensical way? Please do not reply with that old standby phrase reserved for all tricky questions, 'God's work is beyond our understanding'. You can bet your life it is! Given unlimited powers any one of us could make a much better job of it.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 11, 2015)

Religion could be argued all day. I choose not to. Our lives are kind of short anyway. I accept that people may use their time to believe whatever they want as long as it's peaceful. Much of life is really an illusion. I honestly don't care how others believe. It's a personal experience not an emotional experience. Perhaps when I pray I speak to my own self conscience. Whatever works? If others don't wanna believe I'm cool with it. It's about the peace and love and kindness to all. Respect. People are selfish by nature. I don't need a lot. I live a very humble lifestyle actually. Prayer just helps to comfort. Really. That's it. I like believing in God. Else self is God and I know I am not perfect at all.


----------



## Darth Vapour (Oct 11, 2015)

Our world is not perfect and never will be, so why not get used to it, because that's the way it is. Religion never has, nor ever will, solve anything. Only we can do that. As for religion, its just make-believe, a heart warming myth to pacify and control the masses who otherwise would not be quite so happy to accept their miserable lot, or their eventual demise. However, we would all be better off without it because no matter how unpalatable the truth may be, its better than living a lie.


----------



## GrowUrOwnDank (Oct 11, 2015)

I think I can be better tho. And me is the only thing I have some amount of control over. Believe how you wanna believe. I honestly don't care. I really think people should not wear their religion on there sleeve or lack there of. Peace and love.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 11, 2015)

Darth Vapour said:


> Our world is not perfect and never will be, so why not get used to it, because that's the way it is. Religion never has, nor ever will, solve anything. Only we can do that. As for religion, its just make-believe, a heart warming myth to pacify and control the masses who otherwise would not be quite so happy to accept their miserable lot, or their eventual demise. However, we would all be better off without it because no matter how unpalatable the truth may be, its better than living a lie.


I find truth and wisdom in the words of the prophets Siddhartha, Jesus and Muhammad but as you say scripture can be interpreted in many ways, but I still hold their word as absolute truth, because it seems so obvious to me. Unfortunately the Scriptures were all perverted by the words of other men that had their own self interests at heart, the salesman who preys on the fear and desire of the masses. 

Just so you know I don't believe Jesus ever refers to the kingdom of heaven as the after life.


----------



## Darth Vapour (Oct 11, 2015)

why would you hold there word as truth ??? i mean when you really break it down


----------



## New Age United (Oct 11, 2015)

Darth Vapour said:


> why would you hold there word as truth ??? i mean when you really break it down


Find me any scripture from the four gospels where jesus presents the idea of eternal damnation and I will see if I can give you my perspective on his words. Find me any quote from Siddhartha referring to Atman, Jesus referring to God or Muhammad referring to Allah as any of the things he states and I will give you my opinion. 

Whoever goes against Allah and his apostle shall be crucified or murdered or they shall have their foot and hand cut off at opposing sides, this shall be a chastisement in this life and the next- Muhammad

What you have to understand is that Muhammad is facing heavy opposition, he is trying to instill fear in any Muslim who may turn and plot against him. Like the video said they were dealing with barbarians that's a good point, but even today I receive violent opposition to my own word, I think many people can agree.

"When one attains the height of heights, when they try to help others do the same, they often find themselves the subject of ridicule, even violence" Plato


----------



## Darth Vapour (Oct 11, 2015)

Traditionally, the most prominent view regarding eternal damnation is that the people cast into hell—the lake of fire—will suffer fiery conscious torments forever and ever. Depicting the horrors of this belief was a favorite subject amongst artists in medieval times, resulting in all manner of imaginative and ghastly portraits of people suffering unending agony. Some have since tried to modify this position a bit, suggesting a more metaphorical view, that the unending pain experienced probably refers to the mental anguish of eternal loss and “separation from God;” but it makes no significant difference as both views involve the notion of eternal torment.

Didn’t Jesus preach that those who reject the gospel and refuse to repent will suffer never-ending torment in hell? Many ministers adamantly insist on this, but what did Jesus say as recorded in the bible itself? By all means, let’s examine what Jesus himself taught on the issue starting with a statement we’ve already looked at:

MATTHEW 7:13-14:

“ ‘Enter through the narrow gate. For wide and broad is the road that leads todestruction and many enter through it, but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.’ ”

Seriously, how much clearer could Jesus possibly be here? _Destruction_ is the fate that awaits the “many” that are thrown into the lake of fire, not perpetual undying torture in flames of torment. And please notice, again, that this is in contrast to _life_ that will be granted to the “few.”

Jesus repeatedly made this very clear. For example, consider his simple statement, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise _perish_” (Luke 13:3, 5 NASB). This mirrors Jesus’ statement in John 3:16regarding the fact that those who believe in him “… shall not _perish_, but have eternal life.” “Perish” in both these texts is not referring to the death we all must face at the end of this present earthly life. No, Jesus is obviously referring here to a perishing that those who believe in him will _not_ have to suffer—the _second _death, which takes place on the day of judgment when the damned are cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:11-15 verifies this; verses 14 b and 15 of this passage state: “The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, He was thrown into the lake of fire.”

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus solemnly declaredwhat would happen to people when they experience this “second death:”

MATTHEW 10:28

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One(God) who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” 4

Notice that Jesus is telling us explicitly what God will do to unrepentant sinful people on the day of judgment: He will _destroy both soul and body_ in the lake of fire, his chosen instrument of destruction.

Jesus is dealing _specifically _here with the subject of the second death and yet He says absolutely nothing about spending eternity in undying conscious torment. If this were true Jesus would tell us to “fear the One who is able to _preserve_ the soul in hell.” But this is not what Jesus taught. He didn’t teach it because it is not a biblical doctrine. _Religion _may very well teach it, but the _bible _does not. God is going to unenthusiastically issue out the wages of sin and justly destroy the unrighteous, not sadistically torture them forever. Scripture clearly states:


----------



## New Age United (Oct 11, 2015)

Darth Vapour said:


> Traditionally, the most prominent view regarding eternal damnation is that the people cast into hell—the lake of fire—will suffer fiery conscious torments forever and ever. Depicting the horrors of this belief was a favorite subject amongst artists in medieval times, resulting in all manner of imaginative and ghastly portraits of people suffering unending agony. Some have since tried to modify this position a bit, suggesting a more metaphorical view, that the unending pain experienced probably refers to the mental anguish of eternal loss and “separation from God;” but it makes no significant difference as both views involve the notion of eternal torment.
> 
> Didn’t Jesus preach that those who reject the gospel and refuse to repent will suffer never-ending torment in hell? Many ministers adamantly insist on this, but what did Jesus say as recorded in the bible itself? By all means, let’s examine what Jesus himself taught on the issue starting with a statement we’ve already looked at:
> 
> ...


Very good quote at the first, I have an opinion on that. Can someone please tell me how to multi QUOTE so I can break it up and reply accordingly.

Shit I'm on a cell phone that can't copy and paste is that all you do is copy the first quote and type in the end quote. I'll try to reply to this post tonight when I'm on my computer.


----------



## Darth Vapour (Oct 12, 2015)

with all philosophy aside can anyone tell me what this thing is ??


----------



## hellmutt bones (Oct 12, 2015)

New Age United said:


> So I've met a lot of very intelligent people on here and I know we all like to debate so this thread is for anyone who just wants to debate, any topic, no subject is off limits. Put your thoughts out there and see if we can't get something going in the philosophy thread. Absolutely any subject.


Working is for suckers


----------



## New Age United (Oct 12, 2015)

Darth Vapour said:


> with all philosophy aside can anyone tell me what this thing is ??View attachment 3519726


Jesus Christ you're gonna give people nightmares, tell me you didn't find that in a north American lake.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 12, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Yes for the individual it is the interpretation of electrical signals but therefore is there not a reality beyond the individual, if your last statement is true then aren't electric signals real and therefore constituting an objective reality beyond what the individual may subjectively experience, an ultimate reality.
> 
> Does the universe exist outside and independent of the human consciousness?


Ok I will attempt to answer what I think your question is asking. Think of your most cherished memory, perhaps you can remember a smell or a feeling. One of my earliest memories is laying on an old Red Indian patterned rug with my dad changing my nappy. I remember being blinded by the strong sunlight, that had found its way through an opening in our closed curtains. I remember being fascinated with the light, I was blowing raspberries and watching the spit disperse and illuminate parts of the ray I couldn't see. My memory is real in the sense that I remember it, but where is that memory stored? In photons stored in our brains? Not likely. Is my memory real in the scientific, physical interpretation of the word real? The answer will change when the condition of the question is elaborated. This might not make sense but bare with me. Real, consciousness, awareness and reality are misleading words that lull us to a security of thought; what we can touch, view or feel is real and the collective aspirations of social reality and our adherence to it, a gauge of our sanity. 
But all that we can see touch or experience is not all that IS. Our senses are our containment to understanding the primordial truth, our truth above all truths in that; our essence is omniscient and without physical form. Our minds and perceived 'self' are an illusory projection.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 12, 2015)

What if... the intelligence that drives observable matter to form, IS our essence (our sense of self). Our body's, the containment of our essence from the unobserved world?


----------



## New Age United (Oct 12, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> What if... the intelligence that drives observable matter to form, IS our essence (our sense of self). Our body's, the containment of our essence from the unobserved world?


Yes this a belief I hold myself but I have never put it into words so perfectly before. The only thing I don't agree with is that our essence and our sense of self are the same, like you said our perceived self, the ego is illusory, unless you do mean our bare essence as awareness, the witness, the I amness and that is what you mean by sense of self.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 12, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Yes this a belief I hold myself but I have never put it into words so perfectly before. The only thing I don't agree with is that our essence and our sense of self are the same, like you said our perceived self, the ego is illusory, unless you do mean our bare essence as awareness, the witness, the I amness and that is what you mean by sense of self.


Our essence is all knowing already, it made us (in the physical sense) and brought matter to the observable world. Our sense of 'self' is the collective communication between our senses and is NOT what we are, if that makes sense?


----------



## New Age United (Oct 12, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> Our essence is all knowing already, it made us (in the physical sense) and brought matter to the observable world. Our sense of 'self' is the collective communication between our senses and is NOT what we are, if that makes sense?


Makes perfect sense, thank you for putting it so eloquently, hope you don't mind but I may have to quote you in the future.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 12, 2015)

"Consciousness is simply the real time processing of sensory input and internal communication and monitoring. Our experience of reality is demonstrably constructed by the brain. When you alter the underlying brain function, you alter that construction. People can be made to feel as if they do not control their own limbs, or that they have extra limbs, or that sound has a color, that parts of the world do not exist, that their spouse has been replaced by an imposter, or that they are one with the universe. We can do all this by poking around in the brain." -Steven Novella


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 12, 2015)

With honesty in your heart, anyone that reads this please ask yourself, where did your worldview come from? When you envisage your position in this universe you will probably view your self standing on a spinning ball spiraling through an expanding vacuum called space. The greater ambition of your destiny, to populate the universe through space travel.
What if I told you that this position was given to you through an organised deception, carried out by those you hold to be worthy of complete trust. This deception is that gross that a condition in man will not allow himself to break free of it.
We - live - on - a - flat - earth. We are born into a system of control. We are conditioned to accept hierarchical order. In this hierarchical system those at the top, have always been at the top. They have designed a system that keeps us in servitude to the system. This system of esoteric control, uses images and shapes which have an observed affect on our psychology. I could attempt to disprove everything that you hold true but will you let go of that which you don't need?
Go to a river a lake a sea, wait for a clear day, watch the clouds. Are they moving together? Do they move independently? Considering they are water VAPOUR being held in relative AIR why does the spin of the earth not disrupt their movement? Why do they move on their own current of air, if air is supposed to be held relative? You can Google obviously but what does your heart say? Listen to your heart and it will whisper Copernicus, the founder of the heliocentric (note helio) world view, was an mystery school initiate and merely a pawn used for passing on this new control system of information. Prove me wrong by all means but question the origin of the proof you use, with the full capacity of your criticisms. I believe you will find the truth.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 12, 2015)

When trying to establish objective facts, it's not a very good sign that you have to caution those who would doubt to "listen to your heart." People's hearts lead them astray everyday. You also seem to be setting up a canard similar to creationists when they assume that if they can poke a hole in evolution, then their pet theory must be the only alternative. It's not enough to point out an apparent anomaly in observation. You first have to examine it an verify that it is a true anomaly that no one can explain. Do we expect the rotation of the Earth to affect cloud movement? If so, is observing cloud movement from the ground an accurate way to measure that effect? I'm not convinced that a human's inability to observe what they assume to be proper cloud movement is sufficient to establish any sort of anomalous phenomenon. Even so, it still wouldn't necessarily stand that that this anomaly can only be explained by a flat-earth hypothesis. 

It's easy to try to get people to shoot holes in your claim and then come up with ad hoc excuses of why it doesn't count. Did I mention I have a dragon in my garage? It becomes especially easy when you are willing to play the conspiracy card. What you should be doing is figuring out a way to test your hypothesis. A test that will allow reality to be the judge. A test that attempts to disprove the hypothesis. If it survives that attempt, that's a good sign. The explanation that the Earth is a spheroid has survived many such attempts at falsification. Further, the theory has been utilized in the real world as a means of gaining control over nature. If the theory was not highly accurate then we would be in a lot of trouble anytime we try to launch a satellite, as the calculations used are based on it. Even if we don't understand those calculations ourselves, we can witness with our own eyes the satellites passing overhead nightly. If you value parsimony, which has proven its worth in helping us reach accurate answers, then the flat-earth hypothesis has a lot of catching up to do.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 12, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> When trying to establish objective facts, it's not a very good sign that you have to caution those who would doubt to "listen to your heart." People's hearts lead them astray everyday. You also seem to be setting up a canard similar to creationists when they assume that if they can poke a hole in evolution, then their pet theory must be the only alternative. It's not enough to point out an apparent anomaly in observation. You first have to examine it an verify that it is a true anomaly that no one can explain. Do we expect the rotation of the Earth to affect cloud movement? If so, is observing cloud movement from the ground an accurate way to measure that effect? I'm not convinced that a human's inability to observe what they assume to be proper cloud movement is sufficient to establish any sort of anomalous phenomenon. Even so, it still wouldn't necessarily stand that that this anomaly can only be explained by a flat-earth hypothesis.
> 
> It's easy to try to get people to shoot holes in your claim and then come up with ad hoc excuses of why it doesn't count. Did I mention I have a dragon in my garage? It becomes especially easy when you are willing to play the conspiracy card. What you should be doing is figuring out a way to test your hypothesis. A test that will allow reality to be the judge. A test that attempts to disprove the hypothesis. If it survives that attempt, that's a good sign. The explanation that the Earth is a spheroid has survived many such attempts at falsification. Further, the theory has been utilized in the real world as a means of gaining control over nature. If the theory was not highly accurate then we would be in a lot of trouble anytime we try to launch a satellite, as the calculations used are based on it. Even if we don't understand those calculations ourselves, we can witness with our own eyes the satellites passing overhead nightly. If you value parsimony, which has proven its worth in helping us reach accurate answers, then the flat-earth hypothesis has a lot of catching up to do.


I am not aiming to publish my theory brother, I am communicating my thoughts for discussion, unformatted on a weed forum. For your sceptical assertion;
Ayres failure
Sagnac experiment
Michelson- Morley experiment
Zig zag argument
Bedford canal level test.
I also asked that you use your own critical thinking when countering.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 12, 2015)

Yes, I am familiar with the typical geocentrists' tropes. You've simply listed experiments intended to measure the movement of Earth which failed. I'm guessing you have already been over the details with others, and heard the standard rebuttals. If that's the conversation you want to have again, then go for it. 

I'm guessing if someone pointed out video from space which shows the Earth rotating, you would explain that by the relative motion of the camera (which is actually partially correct). If someone mentions a Foucault pendulum, would you then bring up Mach's principle? If I pointed out the retrograde motion of planets, would you cite Tycho's model?

You don't have to intend to publish your explanation before it is okay to question it. I have no problem with you making these posts, obviously, but criticism is a necessary part of discussion if ideas are to improve. You are, of course, free to ignore logical consistency and principles like parsimony, but in doing to you signal to the rest of us that you are primarily looking to confirm rather than to test your idea.


----------



## Darth Vapour (Oct 12, 2015)

Bottom line enjoy the here and now hug a loved one , keep a public door open for a stranger.. Pay it forward .. Cause after your heart stops beating, there is nothing more, nor has there ever been anything more .. you remembrance will be from how many you effected in the real time once there gone or moved on you are again NOTHING


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 12, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Yes, I am familiar with the typical geocentrists' tropes. You've simply listed experiments intended to measure the movement of Earth which failed. I'm guessing you have already been over the details with others, and heard the standard rebuttals. If that's the conversation you want to have again, then go for it.
> 
> I'm guessing if someone pointed out video from space which shows the Earth rotating, you would explain that by the relative motion of the camera (which is actually partially correct). If someone mentions a Foucault pendulum, would you then bring up Mach's principle? If I pointed out the retrograde motion of planets, would you cite Tycho's model?
> 
> You don't have to intend to publish your explanation before it is okay to question it. I have no problem with you making these posts, obviously, but criticism is a necessary part of discussion if ideas are to improve. You are, of course, free to ignore logical consistency and principles like parsimony, but in doing to you signal to the rest of us that you are primarily looking to confirm rather than to test your idea.


But if I'm having a friendly chat on a weed site, why do I need to use logical consistency or commonly used principles? Are you not trying to control? Does that not suggest you have tendencies to control? Are your control issues not a more wiser focus to your critical thought? The Foucault pendulum shows movement, not that WE move. Celestial Wind theory/ New Ether theory can explain the movement fairly accurately.
Parsimony has no context in this discussion. Did you know Tycho's student was keplar in fact the complete work of keplar was plagiarism of calculations and observations of his tutor.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 12, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> But if I'm having a friendly chat on a weed site, why do I need to use logical consistency or commonly used principles? Are you not trying to control? Does that not suggest you have tendencies to control? Are your control issues not a more wiser focus to your critical thought? The Foucault pendulum shows movement, not that WE move. Celestial Wind theory/ New Ether theory can explain the movement fairly accurately.
> Parsimony has no context in this discussion. Did you know Tycho's student was keplar in fact the complete work of keplar was plagiarism of calculations and observations of his tutor.


Actually, what I said was "You are, of course, free to ignore logical consistency and principles like parsimony." What part of that do you find controlling? Parsimony is a principle nature herself dictates, it's not for me to press it upon you. I've simply stated that if you choose to ignore investigative principles you can't really expect others to take you seriously. It's not terribly convincing. If we remove logic and sound reasoning from our process we can argue any concept as true. As I mentioned, I have a dragon in my garage. Like I said, if that's the sort of conversation you want to have, go for it. Just don't be surprised when others recognize it as mere mental masturbation.

It's no coincidence that alternative hypotheses always seek to remove the quality controls that the universe itself has demonstrated as necessary for accuracy, because it is those very controls witch filter the hypothesis out and expose it as nonsense.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 12, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Actually, what I said was "You are, of course, free to ignore logical consistency and principles like parsimony." What part of that do you find controlling? Parsimony is a principle nature herself dictates, it's not for me to press it upon you. I've simply stated that if you choose to ignore investigative principles you can't really expect others to take you seriously. It's not terribly convincing. If we remove logic and sound reasoning from our process we can argue any concept as true. As I mentioned, I have a dragon in my garage. Like I said, if that's the sort of conversation you want to have, go for it. Just don't be surprised when others recognize it as mere mental masturbation.
> 
> It's no coincidence that alternative hypotheses always seek to remove the quality controls that the universe itself has demonstrated as necessary for accuracy, because it is those very controls witch filter the hypothesis out and expose it as nonsense.


My friend I have made this as clear as I can to you. My prerogative is to generate conversation. I have said that this is my belief. I have posted proof to back my belief that the world is flat even though in this situation it is not necessary but is a requirement of yours , now it is your turn to produce your proof of my ignorance. The way a debate works in a friendly discussion is how? You get cartblanche to insult without using the same criteria for your own reply. Is that not hypocritical dude? All I am asking is that you use your full criticism towards your own answer, PROVE me wrong, prove a globe earth with out a bogus picture, show me a verified experiment (not the ship disappearing into the horizon, as that can be ripped apart). Or please don't try to put my logic down, I have done my homework but I'm not infallible. How has the universe demonstrated it needs quality control?


----------



## Moonwalk (Oct 12, 2015)

Reality is the place where there is no tv, no phone, no weapon, no car, and you need to deal with something. That is where you are most alive, when you are the most vulnerable. You hear every blade of grass brush, every twig, your senses are heightened. 

It's also driving fifteen minutes in Los Angeles traffic, and right in the middle of the 405 you realize you left the money in the ATM.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 13, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> My friend I have made this as clear as I can to you. My prerogative is to generate conversation. I have said that this is my belief. I have posted proof to back my belief that the world is flat even though in this situation it is not necessary but is a requirement of yours , now it is your turn to produce your proof of my ignorance. The way a debate works in a friendly discussion is how? You get cartblanche to insult without using the same criteria for your own reply. Is that not hypocritical dude? All I am asking is that you use your full criticism towards your own answer, PROVE me wrong, prove a globe earth with out a bogus picture, show me a verified experiment (not the ship disappearing into the horizon, as that can be ripped apart). Or please don't try to put my logic down, I have done my homework but I'm not infallible. How has the universe demonstrated it needs quality control?


But you don't seem to like that conversation unless it only challenges you in a specific way. You want to stay within the frame of your diatribe. That's not how debate works. You make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. When others debating do not find your arguments convincing, you cannot simply lower the standards for evidence or place the burden on them to disprove, at least not while also making references to proper debate. Telling others they cannot disprove your ideas is no different than saying your ideas are unfalsifiable, which puts those ideas on the same level as creationists. And, like creationists, your ideas only work if we narrow our scope, ignore quality controls, and embrace confirmation bias. You don't want to actually explore the truth-value of the concept of a flat-earth, you simply want others to help you masturbate over it.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 13, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> But you don't seem to like that conversation unless it only challenges you in a specific way. You want to stay within the frame of your diatribe. That's not how debate works. You make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. When others debating do not find your arguments convincing, you cannot simply lower the standards for evidence or place the burden on them to disprove, at least not while also making references to proper debate. Telling others they cannot disprove your ideas is no different than saying your ideas are unfalsifiable, which puts those ideas on the same level as creationists. And, like creationists, your ideas only work if we narrow our scope, ignore quality controls, and embrace confirmation bias. You don't want to actually explore the truth-value of the concept of a flat-earth, you simply want others to help you masturbate over it.


Again you have told me how I should of presented my belief to be accepted by you. Look back to your first post in reply to my quote, already you're saying I'm making up 'adhoc excuses' to people pointing out holes in my 'theory'. Lol you were the first to raise a question to me so by your own logic I had already made excuses for holes you were going to pull in my theory. This means one of a couple of possible motives for your attempt to debate me;
1. Since this is the first communication we have had under this avatar name, you are holding resentment. This could be a general resentment toward others, but I believe it might be that, we have debated under one of your sock accounts.
2. You just copy and paste replys, in which case you have failed even more miserably.

You can't produce observable,repeatable experiments that prove a globe can you?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 13, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> Again you have told me how I should of presented my belief to be accepted by you. Look back to your first post in reply to my quote, already you're saying I'm making up 'adhoc excuses' to people pointing out holes in my 'theory'. Lol you were the first to raise a question to me so by your own logic I had already made excuses for holes you were going to pull in my theory. This means one of a couple of possible motives for your attempt to debate me;
> 1. Since this is the first communication we have had under this avatar name, you are holding resentment. This could be a general resentment toward others, but I believe it might be that, we have debated under one of your sock accounts.
> 2. You just copy and paste replys, in which case you have failed even more miserably.
> 
> You can't produce observable,repeatable experiments that prove a globe can you?


Your attempt to play the persecution card is as typical and transparent as your denialism. It can't be that you are spewing nonsense, it must be that I personally dislike you, or that I just have a bad disposition. Cognitive dissonance seems to have once again found the path of least resistance.

I did not know you before this thread, and I haven't disagreed with everything you've said. We actually have _some_ common ground when it comes to your ideas about consciousness. All I've said is that your advocacy for a flat-earth/geocentrism is pretty much textbook denialism. It's a conversation I've had many times, and it's nearly always the same. Look up any debate on flat-earth websites/forums and you'll see it over and over. Your arguments are known as PRATTs (point refuted a thousand times). You could easily find their counters if you were interested, but instead you want to debate here where it is easier to find people who are not equipped to refute you, and who might be swayed by your sophistry. The steps in your song and dance are not original, and have their counterparts in creationism, anti-vax, aids denialism, fluoride truthers, ect. Narrow the scope, cherry-pick certain arguments, ignore obvious contradictions, and claim unfair treatment when challenged.

Geocentrism is easy to argue when you insist on one frame of reference. It's a perfectly valid frame when you are standing on the Earth looking out. It's when you go outside that frame that you either have to misuse relativity to bolster your arguments, or deny it completely. Both avenues are demonstrably wrong, and better people than I have provided the arguments to demonstrate it.



> You can't produce observable,repeatable experiments that prove a globe can you?


This is a great example. Several times I you have asked me to disprove you, and several times I have explained that the burden falls to you. This isn't unfair. It is, in fact, what is expected of anyone who sits at the adult table. You constantly try to re-position the argument so that people try to shoot you down, to bait them into giving you the familiar arguments that you are comfortable rejoinding. All of this is done under the false dichotomy that says if a globe cannot be proven, then flat automatically becomes correct. It's just not convincing to stand up and say "hey, if we throw out concepts like parsimony and logical consistency, a spheroid earth doesn't make sense, therefore flat." I'm sorry if I am ruining that for you, but such is the peril of debating on public forums.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 13, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Your attempt to play the persecution card is as typical and transparent as your denialism. It can't be that you are spewing nonsense, it must be that I personally dislike you, or that I just have a bad disposition. Cognitive dissonance seems to have once again found the path of least resistance.
> 
> I did not know you before this thread, and I haven't disagreed with everything you've said. We actually have _some_ common ground when it comes to your ideas about consciousness. All I've said is that your advocacy for a flat-earth/geocentrism is pretty much textbook denialism. It's a conversation I've had many times, and it's nearly always the same. Look up any debate on flat-earth websites/forums and you'll see it over and over. Your arguments are known as PRATTs (point refuted a thousand times). You could easily find their counters if you were interested, but instead you want to debate here where it is easier to find people who are not equipped to refute you, and who might be swayed by your sophistry. The steps in your song and dance are not original, and have their counterparts in creationism, anti-vax, aids denialism, fluoride truthers, ect. Narrow the scope, cherry-pick certain arguments, ignore obvious contradictions, and claim unfair treatment when challenged.
> 
> ...


You have set the burden of proof on my shoulders. I can provide proof, I have provided tid bits for your appetite, but you're pushing them around the plate with out trying them. How can I even attempt to show that it is YOUR delusions that are stalling this talk. It is YOU that has based your logic in false truths, your refusal to provide any experiments proves you can not prove your arguments against me. So... Whilst i have no doubt you can string a sentence together, your objections to my reasoning shows you lack self awareness. I can show you the lies that have cemented themselves into science. I can show you the connection of corruption to NASA and your government, smithsonian, various social programs that are running currently. I can show you that we live in a magnetic and dielectric field. But until you attempt even my first evidence all this will be is talk. Your problem is your belief in your own intelligence. I however am stupid, but you still haven't proven... anything yet?

You keep dancing this question also, you said 'quality controls that the universe itself has demonstrated as necessary for accuracy' How does or has the universe demonstrated it needs anything, let alone quality controls?


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 13, 2015)

Copernicus introduced mainstream heliocentric THEORY, one of many theories attempting to explain related aspects of our planetary bodies. Kepler's equations attempted to provide mathematical proof of Copernicus's THEORY. His equations were based on his teachers observations Tycho Brahe*, who strongly opposed Copernican THEORY. Kepler himself admits "I myself, a professional mathematician, on re-reading my own work find it strains my mental powers to recall to mind from the figures the meanings of the demonstrations, meanings which I originally put into figures and the text from my mind". When Kepler succeeded Tycho as Imperial mathematician to the HOLY Roman Emperor Rudolf II, he returned the favour by immortalising the Emporors name by naming the Rudolphine Tables after him.

Isaac Micheal Newton
Newton was a devout Arian, thoroughly Christian, but belonging to a stream that rendered him a heretic. His theories extended to world extinction dates. Even in matters of faith and religion Newton was politically incorrect, but more correct than the majority would—or could—have admitted. Regardless, his Arianism Newton kept to himself, since at the time, in such an orthodox religious climate, to proclaim it would have meant the likely ruination of his career. Newton was also a Creationist. He believed in the Biblical Creation story—that God made the heavens and the earth in seven days—but he qualified this quite ingeniously. Since it is not specified in the Scriptures that all seven days were of equal length—because there was no Earth during the first two days, and thus, no twenty-four-hour day based upon planetary rotation—the length of a day could have been anything the good Lord desired.
Newton also managed to calculate a date for the second coming of Christ—some time during 1948. ( Newton appears to have missed the mark.) Prophecy and Biblical interpretation occupied Newton even in the last weeks of his life. Trying to ascertain when the Day of Judgement would come was, for Newton, an irresistible intellectual puzzle to be solved by one who was worthy of the challenge.
Picknett and Prince have written that everymajor character in the Scientific Revolution was steeped in Hermeticism,including; Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, William Gilbert, William Harvey, and Newton’s nemesis Leibniz. In fact, all of Copernicus’ “radical” notions—especially the heliocentric concept—are to be found in the Hermetica, which originated from 2nd or 3rd century Alexandria, but To return specifically to Newton once more, the cute little tale (originating from Newton) about seeing an apple fall from a tree and thereupon falling into a “deep meditation” on the nature of gravity some time in the summer of 1666 is obviously a politically correct and safe enough version of events that would have served to protect Newton’s image from his secret obsession with alchemy and esotericism.
In reality, his alchemical creation in 1670 of the prized Star Regulus of Antimony (a step on the way to producing the Philosopher’s Stone) was probably one of many factors that fed into Newton’s theory of gravity as it ultimately appeared in the Principia of 1687. Due to its radiating shard-like crystals, the Regulus could be viewed as symbolic of the way gravity (or aether) flows into the centre of a celestial body. Besides being anathema to traditional science and society in general, the attempted transmutation of base metals into gold was also a capital offence. Newton needed to hide his pursuits in order to remain on the side of legality as well as to preserve his image and reputation as history’s greatest scientist. Still, as Picknett and Prince state: “Newton didn’t make his great discoveries despite his occult beliefs, but because of them.”


----------



## VTMi'kmaq (Oct 13, 2015)

What i'd like to understand and appreciate alil more is 



How long before we can get off this rock and jump on another?


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 13, 2015)

NASA foundations begin with the frame work that was NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) which was formally disbanded under instruction from Eisenhower.
NACA started under Woodrow Wilson. Its chairman was Brigadier General George Scriven. Who was also chief of the Armyas Signal Corps (a main committee of 12 members representing the government, military and industries).
NACAs head rocket scientist (and supposedly father of rocket science) was a man named John Whiteside Parsons (also known as Jack).
Successor to him was Von Braun.
Eisenhowers parents were Jehovahs Witness he was recorded as Christian, but practiced mysticism through free masonry.
Brigadier General George Scriven (freemason)
Woodrow Wilson (Freemason)
Werner Von Braun (christian, freemason) ascribes to Nazism.
NASA is undeniably indistinguishable from the American military and again of the American government and should not be trusted.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 13, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> You keep dancing this question also, you said 'quality controls that the universe itself has demonstrated as necessary for accuracy' How does or has the universe demonstrated it needs anything, let alone quality controls?


That is, of course, my own term. "Quality controls" is a good description of many of the restrictions, rules and principles necessary for scientific investigation. Many of them are there as a way of compensating for biases and common pitfalls inherit to human thinking, but some are there because nature has shown us they are needed if we want to reach accurate answers. Obviously I am taking some poetic liberties here with my description, but if we want to listen to what nature/reality/the universe is telling us, science is the best tool capable of delivering the clearest reception. (I do leave room for other methods when considering the inner, subjective world and how it relates.)

Parsimony, for example, is a rule that nature dictates. It's part of the scientific method because everything we have observed about nature tells us she favors the concept. There is no scientific or logical reason to dismiss the idea that aliens are responsible for crop circles; it explains the evidence quite nicely (or did for a long time). But if we want to get to the bottom of it, we must filter the explanation through parsimony. The explanation which makes the fewest assumptions is that humans are responsible. For a while we had no evidence of this whatsoever and Occams razor was the only thing causing us to favor such a conclusion. But, now that we have youtube, everyone can see complicated crop circles being made in short amounts of time right before their eyes.



> I can show you the lies that have cemented themselves into science.


Science is a process. I would be interested in hearing which parts of the process are lies, and how they made their way into science. 

"Science is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” - Steven Novella


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 14, 2015)

Heis meet reddan. My pet name for him is Dunning-Kruger, after the famous study on competence. He doesn't understand logical consistency, the scientific method, rules of debate, and he is unfamiliar with cognitive science, critical thinking and logical fallacies. I have come to the conclusion that he is not interested in discovering the facts of objective reality, instead his goal seems to be to do whatever he can to protect his irrational beliefs that we sheep are all being fooled, but that he is not and has the answers. Most of which lie outside the 'brainwashed mainstream.' You should stop by the moon landing hoax thread in T&T if you ever find yourself out of things to read when on the toilet. I enjoy reading your posts, and witnessing reddan get smacked around, but I feel bad that this is time out of your life that you won't get back...


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 14, 2015)

Science is a process. I would be interested in hearing which parts of the process are lies, and how they made their way into science.
Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? [/QUOTE]

I disagree with not having verifiable, observable and repeatable experimentation to back up the theoretical writing we are supposed to accept as Gospel. I have shown you experiments that you can conduct that prove a flat, stationary earth. I have eluded to the fact that, there are many scientific theories but how many of them are backed with experimentation? I have a fairly comprehensive grasp of scientific methods, saying something is so, is a lot easier than proving it.
You can not disprove my belief, nor could you prove your belief. So your wise words are nothing more than fodder.
Your belief has NEVER been PROVEN. Show me the experimental evidence that give you the authority to out right dismiss my thoughts on this.
You believe your position is concrete, HISTORY proves it isn't. If you were more observant you would understand this.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 14, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Heis meet reddan. My pet name for him is Dunning-Kruger, after the famous study on competence. He doesn't understand logical consistency, the scientific method, rules of debate, and he is unfamiliar with cognitive science, critical thinking and logical fallacies. I have come to the conclusion that he is not interested in discovering the facts of objective reality, instead his goal seems to be to do whatever he can to protect his irrational beliefs that we sheep are all being fooled, but that he is not and has the answers. Most of which lie outside the 'brainwashed mainstream.' You should stop by the moon landing hoax thread in T&T if you ever find yourself out of things to read when on the toilet. I enjoy reading your posts, and witnessing reddan get smacked around, but I feel bad that this is time out of your life that you won't get back...


Did you suppose a position of authority over my intellect?
Did I submit that position to you? I think I did. Prematurely. I gave you the chance to talk with me and you chose to use it, pretending to be a psychoanalytic specialist. I told you to wake from YOUR delusions. We are on a weed site stop pretending to be an authority. Understand how to communicate, without the condescending tones and we could have gotten somewhere with our dialect, I'm sorry if I offended you and I'm sorry that you couldn't look past my inability to format a response that you could understand.
If you were to REALLY understand Dunning-Kruger's analysis of psychology, you would identify your own behaviour. You lack the meta cognitive process.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 14, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> Did you suppose a position of authority over my intellect?
> Did I submit that position to you? I think I did. Prematurely. I gave you the chance to talk with me and you chose to use it, pretending to be a psychoanalytic specialist.


You often display trouble addressing and/or arguing against what is actually said, so you create strawmen with which you are comfortable. We're just two dudes exchanging ideas over the internet, I never pretended to be anything more...




> I told you to wake from YOUR delusions.


What would those be?



> We are on a weed site stop pretending to be an authority.


An authority on what?



> Understand how to communicate, without the condescending tones and we could have gotten somewhere with our dialect, I'm sorry if I offended you and I'm sorry that you couldn't look past my inability to format a response that you could understand.


I believe I am an effective communicator, I hear as much regularly. I never have trouble understanding, or being understood by, rational or learned members. You haven't offended me. The reason we hit an impasse at each encounter is not because I don't understand what you are conveying, it's all simple enough and I've read it many times before. It is because you choose to hold on to your pet ideas and beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence and logic. It's as if these ideas were tied to your self-esteem or sense of identity, you hold on so desperately. Like Heis said, you really are like a creationist in this way...




> If you were to REALLY understand Dunning-Kruger's analysis of psychology, you would identify your own behaviour. You lack the meta cognitive process.


I'm always trying to improve my meta cognition. I love cognitive science, and I study it regularly. Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Doug Hofstadter, Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker are favorites of mine, and I've read most of their work. I believe that my more serious posts display a fair meta cognitive process. You on the other hand often display the lack of one, along with a lack of basic science education. For example, you have posted material that you clearly don't understand, intending it supported your point, but when examined the material was shown to be against your point (I hesitate to link to examples to embarrass you). But instead of being humbled by these errors, or even acknowledging them, you boldly and arrogantly attempt to deflect or ignore the instance, and often change the subject and go on a non sequitur offensive. This is a major reason why you do not show growth or improvement in your thinking. As I've stated before, you need to learn the basics, and learn to recognize errors in your thinking that are likely holding you back. Why not start by becoming familiar with the informal logical fallacies? Doing this really helped me recognize faulty logic in my thinking and hence, my beliefs. I think you'll recognize many of these informal fallacies in your thinking and debate tactics...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 14, 2015)

Real knowledge is understanding what we don't know Tyler. You pretend to know a lot more than you actually know, but again that is the character you wish to be perceived by. Your refusal to demonstrate how your arguments come from solid foundation and your failure to understand what SHOULD constitute scientific fact shows your ignorance, that your own arguments could be viewed as ad hominem and your sly techniques of poisoning my inkwell.... and of course your argument from personal incredulity.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 14, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> For example, you have posted material that you clearly don't understand, intending it supported your point, but when examined the material was shown to be against your point (I hesitate to link to examples to embarrass you).


 Please feel free to produce this, or any evidence to conclusively prove I am wrong on ANY OF MY BELIEVES for that matter. In fact if you can't, shall we make a deal that we agree to disagree.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 14, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Heis meet reddan. My pet name for him is Dunning-Kruger, after the famous study on competence. He doesn't understand logical consistency, the scientific method, rules of debate, and he is unfamiliar with cognitive science, critical thinking and logical fallacies. I have come to the conclusion that he is not interested in discovering the facts of objective reality, instead his goal seems to be to do whatever he can to protect his irrational beliefs that we sheep are all being fooled, but that he is not and has the answers. Most of which lie outside the 'brainwashed mainstream.' You should stop by the moon landing hoax thread in T&T if you ever find yourself out of things to read when on the toilet. I enjoy reading your posts, and witnessing reddan get smacked around, but I feel bad that this is time out of your life that you won't get back...



Heh. I was trying very hard not to use to the term "Dunning--Kruger" because I figured it was just another concept that would be lost on him. I see that you have already had that convo with him. It does sum it up beautifully.



> An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that’s filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors, and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge. What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by _something _that feels to them like knowledge.


I didn't know you were into the writings of Pinker and Hofstadter. Strange Loop is an awesome book. Both of them are fans of my page. Check this out.
 

That's a pic of Douglas driving my co-admin to the bus station after staying with him for a few days. She then got on a bus to my house, stayed for three days, and went on to NY where she met up with Pinker.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 14, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Heh. I was trying very hard not to use to the term "Dunning--Kruger" because I figured it was just another concept that would be lost on him. I see that you have already had that convo with him. It does sum it up beautifully.
> 
> I didn't know you were into the writings of Pinker and Hofstadter. Strange Loop is an awesome book. Both of them are fans of my page. Check this out.
> View attachment 3521093
> ...


Wow! I'm excited to simply have these guys sign my books at conventions, and you guys are like friends. Your partner got to hang with Hofstadter, you, and Pinker all in the same week. That had to be an awesome, mind blowing experience. I love Hofstadter's classic car in that pic, suits him well...


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 14, 2015)

You two are still cool as fuck and I appreciate your time. TRUTH.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 27, 2015)

@Heisenberg @Padawanbater2 @tyler.durden
@reddan1981 
Do you believe in a conscious universe? If so do you believe there is any connection between universal consciousness and our own? If not do you believe in the clock work universe, an intelligent design at the least? Would very much appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 27, 2015)

I don't think there are good reasons to believe in any of the concepts you listed, as there is no evidence for them...


----------



## New Age United (Oct 27, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> I don't think there are good reasons to believe in any of the concepts you listed, as there is no evidence for them...


Very good video very good points. Can you explain how the DNA code developed or how it communicates that information with the cell? No way carbon atoms would form the double helix on there own. I know he said there are many examples of where nature seems clever but these are still valid questions.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 27, 2015)

New Age United said:


> @Heisenberg @Padawanbater2 @tyler.durden
> @reddan1981
> Do you believe in a conscious universe? If so do you believe there is any connection between universal consciousness and our own? If not do you believe in the clock work universe, an intelligent design at the least? Would very much appreciate your thoughts.


What do you mean by "a conscious universe" exactly?


----------



## New Age United (Oct 27, 2015)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What do you mean by "a conscious universe" exactly?


A universe that is aware of cause and effect and is actively and maybe somewhat intelligently affecting the physical bodies of mass which is energy in motion, the relative motion of time in space, as if every single atom is in perfect sequence and the future was already destined long ago. Tyler pretty much proved that the universe is about as intelligent as we are.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 27, 2015)

By we I mean humanity I know you guys are more intelligent than me I'm definitely not stupid.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 27, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Very good video very good points. Can you explain how the DNA code developed or how it communicates that information with the cell?


http://www.livescience.com/9546-dna-molecules-display-telepathy-quality.html

Although it looks as if spooky action or telepathic recognition is going on, DNA operates under the laws of physics, not the supernatural.

To understand what researchers conjecture is really happening, think of double helixes of DNA as corkscrews. The bases that make up a strand of DNA each cause the corkscrew to bend one way or the other. Double-stranded DNA with identical sequences each result in corkscrews "whose ridges and grooves match up," said researcher Sergey Leikin, a physical biochemist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Md.

The electrically charged chains of sugars and phosphates of double helixes of DNA cause the molecules to repel each other. However, identical DNA double helixes have matching curves, meaning they repel each other the least, Leikin explained.

The scientists conjecture such "telepathy" might help DNA molecules line up properly before they get shuffled around. This could help avoid errors in how DNA combines, errors that underpin cancer, aging and other health problems. Also, the proper shuffling of DNA is essential to sexual reproduction, as it helps ensure genetic diversity among offspring, Leikin added.

Leikin and his colleagues will detail their findings in the Jan. 31 issue of the _Journal of Physical Chemistry B_. 



> No way carbon atoms would form the double helix on there own.


This is a logical fallacy known as The Argument from Incredulity - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity




> I know he said there are many examples of where nature seems clever but these are still valid questions.


All valid questions, and all easily answered via the use of a reliable search engine...


----------



## New Age United (Oct 27, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> http://www.livescience.com/9546-dna-molecules-display-telepathy-quality.html
> 
> Although it looks as if spooky action or telepathic recognition is going on, DNA operates under the laws of physics, not the supernatural.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much seriously, I'm imagining a plethora of molecules all shuffling around in a cell and finding the groove and much more naturally forming the double helix. That is an argument from incredulity to the definition sorry after like 6 months I still can't catch myself in the act. I gotta study those bastards and really question my thought process.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 27, 2015)

I do have to say that if the universe does have some sort of intelligent creator, I can totally understand why it hides any evidence of its existence. It created a beautiful and amazing shit hole, where something as precious as a kitten can develop a blockage in its urinary tract and die a slow, painful death. It created life capable of understanding itself, so when that life watches its mother die a horrible lingering death from cancer, it can be fully aware of what is going on. It allowed for diseases like alzheimer's which robs its victims of their very humanity before it kills them.

If I were responsible for such a colossal fuck-up that is the universe, I wouldn't show my face either.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 27, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> I do have to say that if the universe does have some sort of intelligent creator, I can totally understand why it hides any evidence of its existence. It created a beautiful and amazing shit hole, where something as precious as a kitten can develop a blockage in its urinary tract and die a slow, painful death. It created life capable of understanding itself, so when that life watches its mother die a horrible lingering death from cancer, it can be fully aware of what is going on. It allowed for diseases like alzheimer's which robs its victims of their very humanity before it kills them.
> 
> If I were responsible for such a colossal fuck-up that is the universe, I wouldn't show my face either.



Fucking lol!


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 27, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Thank you very much seriously, I'm imagining a plethora of molecules all shuffling around in a cell and finding the groove and much more naturally forming the double helix. That is an argument from incredulity to the definition sorry after like 6 months I still can't catch myself in the act. I gotta study those bastards and really question my thought process.


It took me a long time to integrate the informal logical fallacies into my thought process, and I still catch myself falling for them from time to time. Even my 14 yo catches me using them and calls me out. I say, 'good catch', and we both just laugh. It's simply a matter of practice, and even then one must always stay vigilant. Our minds weren't really built for this logic and reason shit


----------



## New Age United (Oct 27, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> I do have to say that if the universe does have some sort of intelligent creator, I can totally understand why it hides any evidence of its existence. It created a beautiful and amazing shit hole, where something as precious as a kitten can develop a blockage in its urinary tract and die a slow, painful death. It created life capable of understanding itself, so when that life watches its mother die a horrible lingering death from cancer, it can be fully aware of what is going on. It allowed for diseases like alzheimer's which robs its victims of their very humanity before it kills them.
> 
> If I were responsible for such a colossal fuck-up that is the universe, I wouldn't show my face either.


I never said anything about the conscience of god, if there is a supreme creator IMHO it is a sick sadistic being that created humanity just to watch us suffer. But I do not equate a conscious universe with a supreme being, I perceive an awareness of present action and Presently affecting the physical mass, absolutely no perception of good or evil. Though tyler really just struck it deep and I'm beginning to intuit that maybe the universe is more natural if viewed without a conscious director, just cause and effect, action and reaction taking place, it just is what it is.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 27, 2015)

New Age United said:


> I never said anything about the conscience of god, if there is a supreme creator IMHO it is a sick sadistic being that created humanity just to watch us suffer. But I do not equate a conscious universe with a supreme being, I perceive an awareness of present action and Presently affecting the physical mass, absolutely no perception of good or evil. Though tyler really just struck it deep and I'm beginning to intuit that maybe the universe is more natural if viewed without a conscious director, just cause and effect, action and reaction taking place, it just is what it is.



Oh I realize your question left room for something other than an intelligent creator. I was simply offering a rant.


Who's up for a round of "name the logical fallacy"?


----------



## New Age United (Oct 27, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Oh I realize your question left room for something other than an intelligent creator. I was simply offering a rant.
> 
> 
> Who's up for a round of "name the logical fallacy"?


Excuse my ignorance heisenberg I am trying to learn. You know I bet that less than 20% of people even know what the logical fallacies are.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 27, 2015)

I'm asking if you guys want to play the fallacy game. I give you three unrelated arguments, all of which employ different versions of the same fallacy, and you tell me what it is.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 27, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> I'm asking if you guys want to play the fallacy game. I give you thee unrelated arguments, all of which employ different versions of the same fallacy, and you tell me what it is.


For sure sounds like a good way to enforce them in my mind. I might not be too keen but will definately pay attention.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 27, 2015)

That's cool. The point of the fallacy game is to spark discussion more so than to test knowledge. The exact categorization for some fallacies is still very much open for debate, so it's good to explore and talk about them.

I feel I should probably start a new thread so as not to derail the discussion here. I'll post a link to it shortly.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 27, 2015)

https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-fallacy-game-name-the-logical-fallacy.888422/


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 28, 2015)

New Age United said:


> A universe that is aware of cause and effect and is actively and maybe somewhat intelligently affecting the physical bodies of mass which is energy in motion, the relative motion of time in space, as if every single atom is in perfect sequence and the future was already destined long ago. Tyler pretty much proved that the universe is about as intelligent as we are.


No, I don't believe in any kind of sentient intelligence directing the course of the universe. However, I do believe that the universe can figure itself out, that's exactly what we are and as far as I'm concerned, what we're here to do..


----------



## New Age United (Oct 28, 2015)

Padawanbater2 said:


> No, I don't believe in any kind of sentient intelligence directing the course of the universe. However, I do believe that the universe can figure itself out, that's exactly what we are and as far as I'm concerned, what we're here to do..


"The universe can figure itself out" sounds conscious. Are you saying that we are the universe and we are conscious therefore the universe is conscious?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 28, 2015)

New Age United said:


> "The universe can figure itself out" sounds conscious. Are you saying that we are the universe and we are conscious therefore the universe is conscious?


That's exactly what I'm saying, so I guess to a certain degree, the universe is 'conscious'


----------



## pothead4life810 (Oct 28, 2015)

Any Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens fans??


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 28, 2015)

pothead4life810 said:


> Any Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens fans??


Big fan of both. I just watched an old debate with both of them, all jokes aside, Hitchens is a master debater. I like how they tend to compliment each other, reminds me of a good cop/bad cop scenario when they go up against people


----------



## reddan1981 (Nov 1, 2015)

My friends, had we had this discussion last week I could attempt to explain my view on this subject. I have had a nightmare two weeks, my wife and I have been implicated in a devastatingly serious crime and have had our children taken from us. I am in a fragile state and can't really gather my thoughts, I am glad I have had this chance to converse with you all but I think this might be the last opportunity I get to visit this site. Having already served a ten year sentence and being on life licence my hopes are bleak, but I do have hope as my wife and I are innocent. I will report back with any developments in my case if I get the opportunity. As idiotic as it maybe to do this, my email is [email protected] My Facebook; Daniel smith I attended Meadway school, U.K.
I am part of a team attempting to make people aware of the lies that are being taught. We have experimental proof of our claims and everything I have attempted to argue here is TRUTH. I can not condense my proof to you in this setting however. Do any of you understand the Doppler effect? If you do you will know that sound has a maximum speed, we supposedly spin FASTER than the speed of sound. If you can understand the implications of this premise you will understand....


----------



## New Age United (Nov 1, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> My friends, had we had this discussion last week I could attempt to explain my view on this subject. I have had a nightmare two weeks, my wife and I have been implicated in a devastatingly serious crime and have had our children taken from us. I am in a fragile state and can't really gather my thoughts, I am glad I have had this chance to converse with you all but I think this might be the last opportunity I get to visit this site. Having already served a ten year sentence and being on life licence my hopes are bleak, but I do have hope as my wife and I are innocent. I will report back with any developments in my case if I get the opportunity. As idiotic as it maybe to do this, my email is [email protected] My Facebook; Daniel smith I attended Meadway school, U.K.
> I am part of a team attempting to make people aware of the lies that are being taught. We have experimental proof of our claims and everything I have attempted to argue here is TRUTH. I can not condense my proof to you in this setting however. Do any of you understand the Doppler effect? If you do you will know that sound has a maximum speed, we supposedly spin FASTER than the speed of sound. If you can understand the implications of this premise you will understand....


We wish you all the best Daniel if you are innocent then just have faith that justice will prevail.

I'll keep in touch I'll try to send you an email some time today.


----------



## New Age United (Nov 7, 2015)

@Heisenberg @tyler.durden @Padawanbater2 @reddan1981 
I hope you are all watching this thread this is the last time I'll tag you unless I have a good reason. 

What are your thoughts on the way society presents itself in the media? It seems to me that in the 50s and 60s society was trying to present itself as being more innocent than what it was, nowadays we focus on all the bad and it seems to have gone to the extreme and now we project in the media a society that is more evil, I honestly think that society is now more innocent than is projected in the media. Is the media an accurate portrayal of real world human beings? Or is it just a little too dramatic?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 7, 2015)

New Age United said:


> @Heisenberg @tyler.durden @Padawanbater2 @reddan1981
> I hope you are all watching this thread this is the last time I'll tag you unless I have a good reason.
> 
> What are your thoughts on the way society presents itself in the media? It seems to me that in the 50s and 60s society was trying to present itself as being more innocent than what it was, nowadays we focus on all the bad and it seems to have gone to the extreme and now we project in the media a society that is more evil, I honestly think that society is now more innocent than is projected in the media. Is the media an accurate portrayal of real world human beings? Or is it just a little too dramatic?


I would say the media has full control over that, and the way they tend to portray society at large is only to push their own agenda. For example, I just saw a clip of Rep. Alan Grayson talking to an anchor on Fox News about the republican strategy of shutting down the government, the anchor was very clearly only interested in pushing why Grayson's plan goes against the constitution and "fundamental rights of democracy" and other such retarded nonsense. When it was clear to the producers she was losing the discussion, all of a sudden they didn't have any more time, the grin on Grayson's face at the end of the clip says exactly that. 

I think as a society, we should stop looking towards the propaganda machine that tries to scare and divide everybody into buying whatever it is they're selling. I think progress is being made on that front, but people need to be more consciously aware of the biases they're exposed to every day and if you have one conversation with your average conservative, it's very clear a lot of them don't employ the same kind of criticisms to the things that tell them what they want to hear..


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 7, 2015)

Remember the media is a general term. There are some good outlets out there, particularly foreign ones. But yes the vast majority of media outlets have numerous problems. Part of the problem is that marketers are smarter than ever. Whether it's to sell a product or an idea, they have been researching the ways to influence the human mind for decades and decades now, and some of their tactics utilize the media. Even worse, the news itself it now marketed towards demographics, essentially selling a product in the form of an echo chamber. All this taints the integrity of the information we are getting.

The 24hr news cycle is relativity new, and get's blamed for a lot of the problems. News outlets must compete for ratings, which drives them to sensationalism. Now that online and social media have come along, there is a perfect storm fostering the return of yellow journalism.

I also have a personal hypothesis that many people, at least in America, are too easily swayed and satisfied with pretentious cosmetics. It only has to quack like a duck, and no one cares to check and see if it really is a duck. We have a vapid generation that was never taught to strive for anything deep, because there are no losers. Everyone who plays gets a trophy. Every test answer gets partial credit, because at least they tried. They grew up with Nike telling them "just do it" and and BK saying "have it your way", and watching people like Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole be celebrated for nothing more than being vacuous. They go to colleges where they were recruited by predatory advertisements making superficial promises for the purpose of filling seats and securing loan money. They sit and pretend to learn, the teachers pretend to teach, and then they get a pretend degree so they can go out into the world and pretend to do a job. The worst part is that they are completely satisfied with the pretending; pretending they have a career, that they are loved, that they have informed opinions, and that they understand the world. They do this all the way up until the end when they pretend they're not really dying, but going somewhere else. 

You can see this manifest in the current PC movement and in the form of social justice warriors. They have no problem pretending that something they've read/heard/seen is offensive, sexist, racist, classist, ect. They do not have the ability to think deeply, and so if you object to their accusations in any way, they wont be able to follow you, and decide you are offensive as well. It looks like a duck, so it must be a duck. They are unable to understand hypocrisy, so censorship somehow becomes freedom of speech. If you are not aware of the recent spat of speakers being uninvited to colleges, comedians being shammed off of Facebook and Twitter, or do not participate in arguments on social media, it may sound as if I am being cynical. Perhaps I am.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 7, 2015)

Anyway here is an example of someone who is pretending to do her job. This woman calls herself an investigative journalist. Notice that she actually does no investigation at all.






Notice that her investigation was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias. She started with the conclusion that we are seeing alien spacecraft, and then haphazardly attempts to rule out other explanations. True investigation requires the attempt to disprove the explanation itself, not merely shoot down competing ones. She took her camera down to the location, but rather than trying to verify that what they were filming is truly an anomaly, she simply captures more of the same. She essentially uses the very same data that led to the hypothesis to test the hypothesis (aka the sharpshooter fallacy). She could have easily put a white sheet at some distance from the camera covering half the field of vision so we could see if the object was really close or far away. She could have set up a second and third camera to catch the same object from different angles. Instead, her efforts were put towards hype and sensationalism, because she doesn't conceive the difference between pretense and reality. After all, it looks like a duck.

This clip is mostly more of the same, but if you skip to the end (4:30) you can hear her confused indignation at being criticized. She doesn't understand why her journalistic integrity is being questioned. She defends herself by saying she has done many serious stories, not realizing that those serious stories are where journalistic skill and integrity are needed most. It makes her pretentiousness more concerning, not less.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 7, 2015)




----------



## New Age United (Nov 8, 2015)

Ya there definitely should be a dislike button that's what I like about yahoo answers you have a thumbs up and a thumbs down it's really a more accurate way of determining popular consensus.


----------



## New Age United (Nov 13, 2015)

@tyler.durden isn't it possible that the sheer amount of the universe that is uninhabitable is a part of the grand design, as if the universe had to be so big in order for the miniscule chance of life to come? And just as a vehicle is designed iintelligently can you not get a lemon? And can you explain how DNA communicates the information it contains? Is the DNA code intelligent?


----------

