PDA

View Full Version : To Be or Not to Be?


Iacchus
11th February 2005, 01:36 AM
So, when consciousness is no longer observable, by means of its physical interaction with the world (consciousness not being physical in the first place), does that mean it's been destroyed? Or, that it's no longer observable? That's quite an assumption don't you think? So, which is it going to be?

Oh, and regarding the analogy of an impaired TV set, which no longer receives a signal, and yet the signal is still measurable (which, for all intents and purposes should be an indication right there), let's not forget there was ever a time when radio waves were not measurable ... Whereas in that respect, just because we didn't understand they existed, does that mean they had no measurable impact on the world? Why should it (our attitudes) be any different towards a God which doesn't seem to have an impact either? Meaning, why should it be so easily dismissed when there are other things to suggest it could very well be?

Cosmo
11th February 2005, 05:06 AM
I've been trying to think of a clever, witty, and thoroughly off-topic reply to this, but the sheer illogic of it all has fried my sense of humor.

MRC_Hans
11th February 2005, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
So, when consciousness is no longer observable, by means of its physical interaction with the world (consciousness not being physical in the first place), does that mean it's been destroyed? Or, that it's no longer observable? That's quite an assumption don't you think? So, which is it going to be?

Who says consciuness is interacting with the pysical world? What if it is a PART of the physical world, simply an effect of physical processes?

Oh, and regarding the analogy of an impaired TV set, which no longer receives a signal, and yet the signal is still measurable (which, for all intents and purposes should be an indication right there), let's not forget there was ever a time when radio waves were not measurable ... Whereas in that respect, just because we didn't understand they existed, does that mean they had no measurable impact on the world?


Did they? Who was transmitting them, then?

Why should it (our attitudes) be any different towards a God which doesn't seem to have an impact either? Meaning, why should it be so easily dismissed when there are other things to suggest it could very well be?

Which other things?

Hans

Hans

UserGoogol
11th February 2005, 08:32 AM
Yeah, consciousness isn't a thing, but a property thereof. When your TV breaks, where does its ability to work go?

Spirituality is the result of metaphor gone too far.

voodoochile
11th February 2005, 12:23 PM
Maybe consciousness is simply an illusion our intelligent brains cause to happen - survival instinct combined with higher level intelligence.

If so, it ceases when the componants that create the illusion cease functioning - generally upon death.

The world existed just fine without any of us until at least 1900 (and probably more like 1930) CE. It will continue to exist just fine once all of us are gone (probably no later than 2100 CE - though I for one hope advances in medical technology will give me the chance to see the turn of two centuries in my lifetime and remember them both).

The cessation of consciousness caused by my death is simply the prepaid admission to the ride that is life. I'm not going anywhere upon death, though I do admit I hope I'm wrong...

Starrman
11th February 2005, 01:24 PM
So, when consciousness is no longer observable, by means of its physical interaction with the world (consciousness not being physical in the first place), does that mean it's been destroyed? Or, that it's no longer observable? That's quite an assumption don't you think? So, which is it going to be?

I'm sorry, your certainly not saying that consciousness still existing even though it is no longer observable is not an assumption, are you? You certainly wouldn't suggest that it is the rational choice if you only have the two above.

It's like dropping a scoop of ice cream into a bubbling hot tub - do you think it is still floating around in there somewhere in the same form, just because you can no longer observe it? Or has it melted and liquified, losing all properties it had which allowed it to be called 'ice cream'?

hodgy
11th February 2005, 01:25 PM
If consciousness were not a product, and dependant on the existence, of our physical selves (brains essentially) then:

- Why do we ever have bodies and brains in the first place?
- Why did we only become fully conscious when our brains achieved a sufficient level of maturity?

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Who says consciuness is interacting with the pysical world? What if it is a PART of the physical world, simply an effect of physical processes? Yet why does it perceive of itself as being separate from the physical world?


Did they? Who was transmitting them, then?What if I was to expound on this to include electro-magnetic radiation in general? Would that help things any?


Which other things?
Hans For one thing (as suggested above), the notion that consciousness is destroyed when it is merely no longer observable. Just because you don't understand what happened to it doesn't mean it was destroyed does it? And, just because you no longer have the means by which to contain it, does not mean it has been destroyed either ... Indeed, that would be quite a big assumption don't you think?

voodoochile
11th February 2005, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet why does it perceive of itself as being separate from the physical world?


What if I was to expound on this to include electro-magnetic radiation in general? Would that help things any?


For one thing (as suggested above), the notion that consciousness is destroyed when it is merely no longer observable. Just because you don't understand what happened to it doesn't mean it was destroyed does it? And, just because you no longer have the means by which to contain it, does not mean it has been destroyed does it? Indeed, that would be quite a big assumption don't you think?

Why is it ia big assumption to make?

Every other aspect of the human mind ceases function on death, why should consciousness be different?

Mercutio
11th February 2005, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet why does it perceive of itself as being separate from the physical world?
Does it? Or is that learned? Our language (the "metaphor gone too far", above--wonderful phrase, UserGoogol) makes distinctions where there are none, and glosses over real differences...do you think it is really separate from the physical world? I certainly do not.

What if I was to expound on this to include electro-magnetic radiation in general? Would that help things any?
Um...it would help everything but your cause. So, by all means, bring it up, and explain which type of electromagnetic energy you propose consciousness to be...in complete opposition to all that is known about it...

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by hodgy
If consciousness were not a product, and dependant on the existence, of our physical selves (brains essentially) then:

- Why do we ever have bodies and brains in the first place?Why construct a stereo system, if not for the sake of "the music?"


- Why did we only become fully conscious when our brains achieved a sufficient level of maturity? Why is it that we only experience this as an increased sense of awareness? What are we becoming aware of and, more importantly, what do we need our brains for if it has always existed?

Mercutio
11th February 2005, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus

Why is it that we only experience this as an increased sense of awareness? What are becoming aware of and, more importantly, what do we need our brains for if it has always existed? Please, Iacchus, for the love of all that anyone in the universe considers holy...take a biology course! Perhaps one in comparative physiology? Anything at all would do, really...:hit:

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by UserGoogol

Yeah, consciousness isn't a thing, but a property thereof. When your TV breaks, where does its ability to work go?Don't you mean the ability to receive a signal which was pre-existent?


Spirituality is the result of metaphor gone too far. What, in the sense that spirituality doesn't exist? :con2:

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

Maybe consciousness is simply an illusion our intelligent brains cause to happen - survival instinct combined with higher level intelligence.An illusion? I certainly don't conceive of myself in that way. Do you? This is the problem you see, because I don't think Science should be allowed to relegate it as such. But then again, if we are to accept the notion that the whole Universe came about by chance (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51868), what else could we possibly accept?

voodoochile
11th February 2005, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
An illusion? I certainly don't conceive of myself in that way. Do you? This is the problem you see, because I don't think Science should be allowed to relegate it as such. But then again, if we are to accept the notion that the whole Universe came about by chance (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51868), what else could we possibly accept?

I do accept that theory. I have no problem with it. I don't know if it is the final answer - and am not the person to be investigating further, but it is one possible answer that requires no external force.

How would we know that our sense of awareness is anything more than a trick of our own minds? What the heck, there are people on these forums arguing the whole UNIVERSE is a trick of our minds and all that really exists is our awareness.

There's no way to investigate either claim. The point is, that the simpler answer barring direct evidence to the contrary is that whatever our self-awareness is - real or perceived - it ceases to exist when the mind that makes it happen dies.

PixyMisa
11th February 2005, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet why does it perceive of itself as being separate from the physical world?
Mine doesn't.

I suspect yours is broken.

Bodhi Dharma Zen
11th February 2005, 06:14 PM
Lacchus

I wonder what idea you have about this consciousness that its "trasmited" to the brain, or that the brain "tunes" it to be aware. Maybe you have explained it before, but Im still new to the forum.

Do you believe that this consciousness is about anything? and I ask this because, in here, we talk about consciosness about something, like sensations, feelings or objects. In other words, we are aware of something.

This directionality exists because there is a mechanism to "input data" in to this consciousness and then an ego (which I presume is different from what you call consciousness) that have wills and desires that are directed to the world and/or to the contents of the mind. In other words, consciousness, as I understand it, requires a body (well, is more complex than this but lets take this step by step for now) to exists.

So, can you describe this consciousness a bit more?

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Mercutio

Please, Iacchus, for the love of all that anyone in the universe considers holy...take a biology course! Perhaps one in comparative physiology? Anything at all would do, really...:hit: Am merely suggesting, perhaps not too clearly :con2: that with an increased sense of awareness, it does not generally inuclude an awareness of the "physical brain." So in that sense, what does awareness have to do with the brain? Take for example a high powered stereo system with little or "no" distortion, which was specifically designed to faithfully reproduce a signal -- with, little or no distortion of course. ;) In which case if the system is functioning properly, the only thing we should able to hear is the full effect of the music (which was pre-recorded), and not any feedback generated from the equipment it was played back on. In other words the instrumention must be neutral to the effects it is trying to reproduce. So, why should it be any different with one's clarity of mind and the development of their brain?

voodoochile
11th February 2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Am merely suggesting, perhaps not too clearly :con2: that with an increased sense of awareness, it does not generally inuclude an awareness of the "physical brain." So in that sense, what does awareness have to do with the brain? Take for example a high powered stereo system with little or "no" distortion, which was specifically designed to faithfully reproduce a signal -- with, little or no distortion of course. ;) In which case if the system is functioning properly, the only thing we should able to hear is the full effect of the music (which was pre-recorded), and not any feedback generated from the equipment it was played back on. In other words the instrumention must be neutral to the effects it is trying to reproduce. So, why should it be any different with one's clarity of mind and the development of their brain?

The brain has no sensory nerves in it. When you get a headache, it's actually the lining that sends the pain signals.

Not being aware of the brain isn't that unusual either. Are you aware of your appendix? Your Pituitary Gland? The veins in your leg? Your kidney? your Liver?

I have no idea what the rest of that means. Not trolling, just being honest...

Mercutio
11th February 2005, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Am merely suggesting, perhaps not too clearly :con2: that with an increased sense of awareness, it does not generally inuclude an awareness of the "physical brain." Why does this surprise you? Surely you have looked into what is already known about the brain before you have hypothesized further, have you not? You know, for example, that the brain does not sense itself--no sensory receptor neurons, of course (this is why brain surgery may be done under just a local anesthetic), and so no reasonable expectation of "awareness of the physical brain".

Of course you already looked into that, so this cannot be what you mean...so what is it that you do mean? What did your dreams tell you, that is more reliable than decades of traditional research?

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Starrman

I'm sorry, your certainly not saying that consciousness still existing even though it is no longer observable is not an assumption, are you? You certainly wouldn't suggest that it is the rational choice if you only have the two above.Yes, I'm saying an assumption is an assumption no matter how you look at it.


It's like dropping a scoop of ice cream into a bubbling hot tub - do you think it is still floating around in there somewhere in the same form, just because you can no longer observe it? Or has it melted and liquified, losing all properties it had which allowed it to be called 'ice cream'? First of all, consciousness is not solid in the physical sense. So, what properties are you talking about? Second of all, when we measure consciousness, we're only measuring the effects it has on the physical ... which, is not consciousness itself. So, when the effects disapear, it does not suggest anything -- in the least -- about that which caused them, let alone that it was destroyed.

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

The brain has no sensory nerves in it. When you get a headache, it's actually the lining that sends the pain signals.

Not being aware of the brain isn't that unusual either. Are you aware of your appendix? Your Pituitary Gland? The veins in your leg? Your kidney? your Liver?This only supports what I'm trying to say then ... that everything exists to support the experience, rather than the other way around.


I have no idea what the rest of that means. Not trolling, just being honest... Neither do I have any idea what you're trying to say. Are you calling me a troll?

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

I do accept that theory. I have no problem with it. I don't know if it is the final answer - and am not the person to be investigating further, but it is one possible answer that requires no external force.What, aside from the fact that our whole existence is a joke? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=160)


How would we know that our sense of awareness is anything more than a trick of our own minds? What the heck, there are people on these forums arguing the whole UNIVERSE is a trick of our minds and all that really exists is our awareness.Yes, indeed, we would need some other standard on which to base this upon now wouldn't we?


There's no way to investigate either claim. The point is, that the simpler answer barring direct evidence to the contrary is that whatever our self-awareness is - real or perceived - it ceases to exist when the mind that makes it happen dies. Why not? We have the ability to investigate everything else don't we? Why shouldn't that also include the nature of our origin?

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Mercutio

Why does this surprise you? Surely you have looked into what is already known about the brain before you have hypothesized further, have you not? You know, for example, that the brain does not sense itself--no sensory receptor neurons, of course (this is why brain surgery may be done under just a local anesthetic), and so no reasonable expectation of "awareness of the physical brain".

Of course you already looked into that, so this cannot be what you mean...so what is it that you do mean? What did your dreams tell you, that is more reliable than decades of traditional research? And what does any of this have to do with the original question? ...


Originally posted by Iacchus

Why is it that we only experience this as an increased sense of awareness? What are we becoming aware of and, more importantly, what do we need our brains for if it has always existed?

Bodhi Dharma Zen
11th February 2005, 08:11 PM
Lacchus,

Will you answer my question? its above, several posts behind.

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

LacchusThat's Iacchus with a capital "I" by the way. ;)


I wonder what idea you have about this consciousness that its "trasmited" to the brain, or that the brain "tunes" it to be aware. Maybe you have explained it before, but Im still new to the forum.

Do you believe that this consciousness is about anything? and I ask this because, in here, we talk about consciosness about something, like sensations, feelings or objects. In other words, we are aware of something.Yes, consciousness very much entails the awareness of "many things," beginning with the awareness of "oneself."


This directionality exists because there is a mechanism to "input data" in to this consciousness and then an ego (which I presume is different from what you call consciousness) that have wills and desires that are directed to the world and/or to the contents of the mind. In other words, consciousness, as I understand it, requires a body (well, is more complex than this but lets take this step by step for now) to exists.Well, I think what we're trying to establish here is whether the brain exists to serve the mind or, the other way around. For if the brain existed to serve the mind, that would account for a whole Universe brimming full with consciousness. And so suggests the Universe was designed specifically as a means to create and sustain it. Also, that we are in fact children of our Creator.


So, can you describe this consciousness a bit more? Besides the few things you've listed here? :D ...


Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

And No, please!! by any means!! I want to imply anything "ghostly" or "inmaterial" or "beyond nature" or "non physical things or beings" by thinking what I think. I do not believe in any kind of souls or gods or ghosts in the machine.

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Lacchus,

Will you answer my question? its above, several posts behind. Yes, I just did! :D

Oh, and that's Iacchus with a capital "I" by the way. ;)

Mercutio
11th February 2005, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
And what does any of this have to do with the original question? ... I already answered that question, when I suggested that you take a course in elementary biology.

This later post was a response to your apparant astonishment that "increased awareness" does not lead to an awareness of the physical brain.

I really thought it was quite obvious what I was responding to, given that I quoted it in my post. Please give as much attention to those who respond to you as they do to you.

voodoochile
11th February 2005, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
What, aside from the fact that our whole existence is a joke? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=160)


Yes, indeed, we would need some other standard on which to base this upon now wouldn't we?


Why not? We have the ability to investigate everything else don't we? Why shouldn't that also include the nature of our origin?

Yes, and we are investigating our own origin. Research is on going into the beginning of the Universe and the beginning of life as well as the evolutionary development of the human species.

I don't care to click on your link. I've been to your forum. I wasn't impressed. Sorry, maybe it's just me.

Maybe our existence is one big joke. Maybe the whole reason humans exist is to eat, drink and have sex. Maybe we did create this universe just so we could do all of those things and then along come people like you *********** it all up with all of these heavy thoughts.

No, I wasn't being serious. Yes, I do think we owe it to our species to strive to be more than we currently are. No, I don't think that answer includes more than a physical universe and actually feel that to look outside the physical universe for answers works against the goal of species survival because it probably cannot be proven to exist barring a major change in the physical laws that govern our existence. If those effects that you and others believe in do exist, I think it much more likely that they will be discovered and manipulated to human benefit through proper investigative channels or scientific discovery. I doubt we can sit around and figure it out by thinking about it or by reading and believing in myths from almost 2 millennium before the invention of instantaneous global communication. Our future lies in front of us, not behind us.

Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you a troll in the previous post. I really had no idea what you were trying to get at. Sometimes those types of responses come across as trollish - mine, not yours. I wasn't trying to be a smartass, I was just saying, you lost me here.

I also don't think that the brain not having pain recepticles in it in any way validates your point.

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Mercutio

This later post was a response to your apparant astonishment that "increased awareness" does not lead to an awareness of the physical brain. Well, you must have misunderstood again. I was merely trying to provide you with a means to accept what I had to say, as opposed to convey any sense of astonishment, whatsoever. In fact I figured if there was any astonishment, it would have been on your part. :con2:

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

Yes, and we are investigating our own origin. Research is on going into the beginning of the Universe and the beginning of life as well as the evolutionary development of the human species.So, what is there to investigate if it all happened by chance? If so, we will never find the answer. And yet, why is it that we seem -- or, why is it that we even try -- to come up with the answer for just about everything else? Is it possible that the Universe is wholly explainable except for this? If it is, then "somebody" must be playing an incredible joke. :D


I don't care to click on your link. I've been to your forum. I wasn't impressed. Sorry, maybe it's just me.You didn't like the way it was laid out or, the quality of the threads?


Maybe our existence is one big joke. Maybe the whole reason humans exist is to eat, drink and have sex. Maybe we did create this universe just so we could do all of those things and then along come people like you *********** it all up with all of these heavy thoughts.Yes, but isn't it the least bit amazing that we have the express ability to evaluate everything that we see before us? What kind of a "chance" occurrence would ever account for that?


No, I wasn't being serious. Yes, I do think we owe it to our species to strive to be more than we currently are. No, I don't think that answer includes more than a physical universe and actually feel that to look outside the physical universe for answers works against the goal of species survival because it probably cannot be proven to exist barring a major change in the physical laws that govern our existence. If those effects that you and others believe in do exist, I think it much more likely that they will be discovered and manipulated to human benefit through proper investigative channels or scientific discovery. I doubt we can sit around and figure it out by thinking about it or by reading and believing in myths from almost 2 millennium before the invention of instantaneous global communication. Our future lies in front of us, not behind us.As if to say "these myths" appeared out of nowhere? ... or, perhaps nothing? It all speaks of a realm which exists beyond our senses? Why should they in any way lie about that?


Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you a troll in the previous post. I really had no idea what you were trying to get at. Sometimes those types of responses come across as trollish - mine, not yours. I wasn't trying to be a smartass, I was just saying, you lost me here.Yes, I realized that after I posted. Sorry.


I also don't think that the brain not having pain recepticles in it in any way validates your point. Which point is that?

Mercutio
11th February 2005, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, you must have misunderstood again. :con2: I was merely trying to provide you with a means to accept what I had to say, as opposed to convey any sense of astonishment, whatsoever. In fact I figured if there was any astonishment, it would have been on your part. LOL
If you really wish to provide a means by which I can accept what you have to say, might I reccommend...EVIDENCE? LOGIC?

Perhaps I expect too much.

Why, then, are you astonished (oops, wrong word)...why is it that you do not understand why increased awareness does not lead to an awareness of the physical brain? Or do you have no problem with this? Do you understand? Why, actually, did you post that response to hodgy? Obviously, voodoochile interpreted your response the same way I did...were we both mistaken, and you actually understand that the brain has no means of being "aware" of itself? And you understand that this has been known for decades, and is not even a point of debate within neuroscientists?

Astonishment on my part? About you? I am saving that, Iacchus, for the first time you actually admit you were wrong about one of your theories...

Iacchus
11th February 2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Mercutio

LOL
If you really wish to provide a means by which I can accept what you have to say, might I reccommend...EVIDENCE? LOGIC?

Perhaps I expect too much.

Why, then, are you astonished (oops, wrong word)...why is it that you do not understand why increased awareness does not lead to an awareness of the physical brain? Or do you have no problem with this? Do you understand? Why, actually, did you post that response to hodgy? Obviously, voodoochile interpreted your response the same way I did...were we both mistaken, and you actually understand that the brain has no means of being "aware" of itself? And you understand that this has been known for decades, and is not even a point of debate within neuroscientists?

Astonishment on my part? About you? I am saving that, Iacchus, for the first time you actually admit you were wrong about one of your theories... And did you bother to read the rest of the post? You couldn't see the correlation I was trying to make between the brain and a stereo system? That in fact the medium itself (in this case the music) was more important than the means we have to reproduce it? Hence there would be no need for a stereo without any music to play back on it?

Mercutio
12th February 2005, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
And did you bother to read the rest of the post? You couldn't see the correlation I was trying to make between the brain and a stereo system? That in fact the medium itself (in this case the music) was more important than the means we have to reproduce it? Hence there would be no need for a stereo without any music to play back on it? Of course I read the rest of the post. Did you? Did you note that it is the same argument you have made here on numerous previous occasions? Did you note that on each of those prior occasions, you were taken to task for your argument, and it was ripped to shreds and fed to the worms? Honestly, Iacchus, I do not see why you would expect me to respond to it this time; the argument has been made and refuted so many times. Or do you never bother to read the responses people make to your notions?

voodoochile
12th February 2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what is there to investigate if it all happened by chance? If so, we will never find the answer. And yet, why is it that we seem -- or, why is it that we even try -- to come up with the answer for just about everything else? Is it possible that the Universe is wholly explainable except for this? If it is, then "somebody" must be playing an incredible joke. :D

No, we will be able to answer "How" not "Why". If you are looking for Why the universe exists and Why you are able to think about that question at all, I suspect you will never get an answer. To me the answer is WHO CARES? I don't need to have the fact that I exist have meaning. I want my existence to have meaning and the only way I can do that is by being involved in the real world.


Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but isn't it the least bit amazing that we have the express ability to evaluate everything that we see before us? What kind of a "chance" occurrence would ever account for that?

Really? Why? I would call it a really cool chance occurance and leave it at that. Yes, it's amazing, but so is the entire physical universe. That doesn't mean it needed a creator. Maggots are amazing too. That doesn't meant they are beautiful.


Originally posted by Iacchus
As if to say "these myths" appeared out of nowhere? ... or, perhaps nothing? It all speaks of a realm which exists beyond our senses? Why should they in any way lie about that?

No, it means that we were seeking answers to questions we could not explain. At one point those questions included - where does lightning come from? Not knowing the answer it was convenient to say "Thor did it". When people were found badly mutilated and murdered, it was psychologically easier to accept if a demon did it than look at the guy next to you and wonder if he did it. The human mind is capable of amzing deceit both to itself and to other creature. It's called Congnitive Dissonance (sp?). I don't like the answer, so I make up some crap which makes it easier for me to accept.

You ask why people would lie about spiritual things? Hmmm... Well people who can convince the world they have special talents get special treatment. Thus has it always been and unfotunately thus will it ever be.

"I can see God and He is telling me that you are a sinner unless you give me 10% of all your goods. If you don't, you get to roast in Hell for all of eternity."

That's a pretty powerful message and there are enough gullible people out there who will do it "just to play it safe". Often the ones who claim special powers will use slight of hand or outright trickery to make it seem they actually do have special powers. They've been known to hook up statues to pipes so they appear to cry. They've been known to claim that painted fabric from the 14th century is the burial shrowd of God His-own-bad-self. They've been known to lie, cheat and steal to get ahead and once they gain power, they've been known to beat the crap or outright kill everyone who disagrees with them. That's just human nature. Sadly that doesn't make it in any way special.

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Mercutio

Of course I read the rest of the post. Did you? Did you note that it is the same argument you have made here on numerous previous occasions? Did you note that on each of those prior occasions, you were taken to task for your argument, and it was ripped to shreds and fed to the worms? Honestly, Iacchus, I do not see why you would expect me to respond to it this time; the argument has been made and refuted so many times. Or do you never bother to read the responses people make to your notions? No, I read them, but I rarely agree with them. Yes, mine is basically the same argument and, to the degree that I learn to expound upon it, I will be sure and let you know. For example, here I've brought up the notion that we cannot measure consciousness outside of the effect it has on physical things. Why? Because it is not physical. And yet, if consciousness appears to be the cause (in that our acts are preceded by our thoughts), how can it possibly be destroyed by destroying the effects? I can go out and destroy a crop in the field can't I, in fact wipe it out entirely, yet that doesn't mean I've destroyed the farmer who planted it does it?

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile

You ask why people would lie about spiritual things? Hmmm... Well people who can convince the world they have special talents get special treatment. Thus has it always been and unfotunately thus will it ever be.So, in other words people are incapable of speaking the truth? Why should I listen to you then?


"I can see God and He is telling me that you are a sinner unless you give me 10% of all your goods. If you don't, you get to roast in Hell for all of eternity."Ever hear the expression, "Buyer beware?"

voodoochile
12th February 2005, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
So, in other words people are incapable of speaking the truth? Why should I listen to you then?


Ever hear the expression, "Buyer beware?"

No, people are perfectly capable of speaking the truth, but SOME people WILL lie to GAIN POWER.

Yes, I've heard that expression, too bad the Christian Church essentially practices that doctrine.

Bodhi Dharma Zen
12th February 2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
That's Iacchus with a capital "I" by the way. ;)

Understood.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, consciousness very much entails the awareness of "many things," beginning with the awareness of "oneself."

I seem unable to understand what is awareness of "oneself", even in meditation you are aware of some mental contents, feelings, sensations, ideas, body position, etc. Being aware of having awareness is a strange concept. Sounds like understandable, but I find myself unable to really grasp it. Can you explain it?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, I think what we're trying to establish here is whether the brain exists to serve the mind or, the other way around. For if the brain existed to serve the mind, that would account for a whole Universe brimming full with consciousness. And so suggests the Universe was designed specifically as a means to create and sustain it. Also, that we are in fact children of our Creator.

One posibility is that the brain causes the consciousness (this is what you dont believe) and the other is that the brain "tunes" the consciousness that is already "there" in an inmaterial state of reality? or something like that? If this is what you think (as I told you, Im still new to the forum) then I will ask my question again. Which are the properties of this consciousness that is beyond the realists approaches? How do you deduce its existence? and, is it consciousness about something, or just consciousness without any kind of content, unless it is "used" by a body.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Besides the few things you've listed here? :D ...

So, if I dont believe in souls or gods, I cant believe in consciousness? As I told another member in that thread, I AM MY CONSCIOUSNESS, I cant deny from where Im writing here, but that doesnt make this consciousness something like a soul. Being aware is being aware, I cant explain it, and I dont need concepts to try to explain it either. Not for now, at least. Im still working in my own explanation, but its far from finished.

P.S.A.
12th February 2005, 09:14 AM
I can go out and destroy a crop in the field can't I, yet that doesn't mean I've destroyed the farmer who planted it does it?

No, but kill the farmer, and no more crops are planted. Likewise, kill the brain, and no more thoughts are created.

Behold the use of analogy applied correctly!

Here's another analogy for you Iacchus; Unfinished musical compositions... If the Mind is only a reciever, why do unfinished sympthonies exist? Why can't the meta mind just get Joe Bloggs and send the signal which Mozart would have recieved, but for his Stereo breaking (ie, he died), to Mr Bloggs and complete the music with him instead? Or Mr Bloggs tunes his mind into the same wavelength as Mozart was on, and hears the celestial composition that way instead?

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile

No, people are perfectly capable of speaking the truth, but SOME people WILL lie to GAIN POWER.

Yes, I've heard that expression, too bad the Christian Church essentially practices that doctrine. So, it's sounds like you may have a problem the Christian Church, in the way that it's practiced. Lots of people do. ;)

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by P.S.A.

No, but kill the farmer, and no more crops are planted. Likewise, kill the brain, and no more thoughts are created.

Behold the use of analogy applied correctly! No, actually, we neglected to mention the machinery which runs the farm. And that would be comparable to the farmer's brain. Behold indeed!


Here's another analogy for you Iacchus; Unfinished musical compositions... If the Mind is only a reciever, why do unfinished sympthonies exist? Why can't the meta mind just get Joe Bloggs and send the signal which Mozart would have recieved, but for his Stereo breaking (ie, he died), to Mr Bloggs and complete the music with him instead? Or Mr Bloggs tunes his mind into the same wavelength as Mozart was on, and hears the celestial composition that way instead?Perhaps because the abstract world is much more diverse than we can possibly imagine? ... albeit that is how we "tune in" to it. ;)

Mercutio
12th February 2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I read them, but I rarely agree with them.It is one thing to not agree with them. It is another to simply not address them. The counter-arguments to your notions have been quite sound, and have quite adequately addressed the mistaken assumptions, false analogies, and counter-evidential claims which characterise your posts. In continuing to post the same arguments without changing anything, your ideas suffer from the same deficiencies they always have. If you disagree with your critics, explain why they are wrong! Don't merely re-assert the same faulty notions and expect us to forget that they arrive pre-shredded for our convenience.
Yes, mine is basically the same argument and, to the degree that I learn to expound upon it, I will be sure and let you know. For example, here I've brought up the notion that we cannot measure consciousness outside of the effect it has on physical things. Why? Because it is not physical.And yet you cannot tell us how this non-physical thing influences the physical brain. And you cannot tell us how your physical sensory apparatus can detect this non-physical consciousness. And you bring up electromagnetic radiation as either a metaphor or an actual medium, completely ignoring the fact that EMR is completely explanable materially, thus arguing against your "non-physical" case.

You do not seem to realize that merely asserting that something is "non-physical" does not solve your problems. It opens a whole can of new ones. Especially since you seem to regard the only alternative to "physical" to be "mental". At least once, you have been presented with the argument that the "non-physical" nature of consciousness is in fact fictional, in the sense that "consciousness" is a category label for a variety of behaviors, mostly private, which are each completely physical. Since a category itself has no existence other than as a label for its members, the category of "consciousness" is, itself, neither physical nor mental. You never addressed this argument (which contains far fewer assumptions than your mentalistic arguments), but it does not go away.
And yet, if consciousness appears to be the cause (in that our acts are preceded by our thoughts),But it does not appear to be the cause. Your ignorance works against you here. There are many cases in which it is easily demonstrated that the actions come before the thoughts (google for the James-Lange theory of emotion for one such demonstration), and in any case, our introspective notions of the order in which thoughts and actions occur are wildly inaccurate. Your own methodology is flawed, in such a manner that you are unable to see its flaws.
how can it possibly be destroyed by destroying the effects? I can go out and destroy a crop in the field can't I, in fact wipe it out entirely, yet that doesn't mean I've destroyed the farmer who planted it does it? Please...more metaphors? Hey, I have an idea--go out and read some of the research on neurology and psychophysiology. You may find that some of your precious metaphors are much much too simple to be helpful. You may also find that the real research in this field is even more beautiful than your dreams.

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

I seem unable to understand what is awareness of "oneself", even in meditation you are aware of some mental contents, feelings, sensations, ideas, body position, etc. Being aware of having awareness is a strange concept. Sounds like understandable, but I find myself unable to really grasp it. Can you explain it?Are you suggesting that you're not an entity unto yourself? There must be something about you which recognized its needs ... albeit these needs are generally associated with the body. And yet if your body dies, where does this part of you go? It obviously doesn't remain with the body does it?


One posibility is that the brain causes the consciousness (this is what you dont believe) and the other is that the brain "tunes" the consciousness that is already "there" in an inmaterial state of reality? or something like that? If this is what you think (as I told you, Im still new to the forum) then I will ask my question again. Which are the properties of this consciousness that is beyond the realists approaches? How do you deduce its existence? and, is it consciousness about something, or just consciousness without any kind of content, unless it is "used" by a body.Here are a few ideas on the notion of heaven and hell (http://swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/hh33.html) ... While the whole book is a good read by the way.


So, if I dont believe in souls or gods, I cant believe in consciousness? As I told another member in that thread, I AM MY CONSCIOUSNESS, I cant deny from where Im writing here, but that doesnt make this consciousness something like a soul. Being aware is being aware, I cant explain it, and I dont need concepts to try to explain it either. Not for now, at least. Im still working in my own explanation, but its far from finished. There's not doubt that "you" are a conscious entity. It's entirely up to you, however, if you wish to address that entity as "your soul."

P.S.A.
12th February 2005, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
No, actually, we neglected to mention the machinery which runs the farm. And that would be comparable to the farmer's brain. Behold indeed!

Don't you realise how silly that sounds? The Farmer is the Farmer, he's NOT the machinery, is he...? At least keep your analogies consistant, instead of keep making up new definitions as you go along. I might as well argue that Iacchus is a kipper is a small house in Pensarn is a wooden spoon thus God doesn't exist, QED.

And if the farmer's dead, he isn't going to be operating the machinery, is he? How is a dead farmer going to physically interact with anything, let alone plant any crops...? But anyway, then all I have to say is "Ok, let's kill the machinery too."

Look, I'll save you the effort of trying to argue any further. You don't have a correct analogy; in your analogy there has to be a cause for the crops. Which is fine, because I agree... there's a cause for consciousness too. And I'm just going to suggest we kill what ever new cause you claim it might be. However you are just going to weasal around what the actual cause of consciousness is by constantly shifting its definition to avoid my saying that consciousness will end if we kill it's cause. Right now no doubt you are thinking of ways to get around my luddite treatment of your new definition... Because your analogy so far is still a materialistic position, and like Lifegazer (whom you follow sheep like around the internet) you don't want to admit this. You want to believe in an immortal consciousness, one that cannot have a killable cause. Unlike Lifegazer however you don't have the depth of delusion to believe that absolutely everything is God and is therefore immortal...

Perhaps because the abstract world is much more diverse than we can possibly imagine? ... albeit that is how we "tune in" to it. ;) [/B]

What nonsense be this? How does the variety of experience prevent someone tuning into a particular experience that is there? If Radio Mozart exists, what's stopping me from finding it's frequency? Unless you mean that we randomly peer into the wavelength of consciousness ... in which case, why does anyone have a consistent personality? Why wasn't Mozart a magnificent composer one day, and then a qualified engineer the next, and on Wednesday a small villa commanding spectacular views of the Nienne Valley? Is it randomly set at birth then which Consciousness Radio Station you get then, and you don't deviate much from it during life? Ahah, but now we are edging back towards making a hard link between physical nature and Consciousness again... Quick! Bend that analogy again Iacchus! Make up some new nonsense! Post more smileys!

So let's see... so far Consciousness is a Stereo System that is used on a farm, which has a random wavelength dial (or possibly one that can only tune in to one random station) which contains the brain of a farmer, that....

:D :D :D :D

voodoochile
12th February 2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
So, it's sounds like you may have a problem the Christian Church, in the way that it's practiced. Lots of people do. ;)

No, I have a problem with the whole concept of Christ or Thor or Yaweh or Shiva or Brahma or Zeus, etc. etc. etc.

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Mercutio

It is one thing to not agree with them. It is another to simply not address them. The counter-arguments to your notions have been quite sound ... They're all false.


... and have quite adequately addressed the mistaken assumptions, false analogies, and counter-evidential claims which characterise your posts.And how can you even say such a thing when you don't know what you're talking about?


In continuing to post the same arguments without changing anything, your ideas suffer from the same deficiencies they always have. If you disagree with your critics, explain why they are wrong! Don't merely re-assert the same faulty notions and expect us to forget that they arrive pre-shredded for our convenience.The only problem that exists here is your unwillingness to admit that an abstract world does exist.


And yet you cannot tell us how this non-physical thing influences the physical brain. And you cannot tell us how your physical sensory apparatus can detect this non-physical consciousness. The physical brain is nothing more than a doorway or a channel between two worlds.


And you bring up electromagnetic radiation as either a metaphor or an actual medium, completely ignoring the fact that EMR is completely explanable materially, thus arguing against your "non-physical" case. Yes, there has to be a means by which the spiritual can have conjunction with the natural. In fact as I have suggested several times before, this whole thing about the spiritual could merely entail a form of subtle energy ... In which case it alleviates the need for it to be "disconnected" from the physical.


You do not seem to realize that merely asserting that something is "non-physical" does not solve your problems. It opens a whole can of new ones. Especially since you seem to regard the only alternative to "physical" to be "mental". In the case of consciousness, yes. Absolutely!


At least once, you have been presented with the argument that the "non-physical" nature of consciousness is in fact fictional, in the sense that "consciousness" is a category label for a variety of behaviors, mostly private, which are each completely physical. Since a category itself has no existence other than as a label for its members, the category of "consciousness" is, itself, neither physical nor mental. You never addressed this argument (which contains far fewer assumptions than your mentalistic arguments), but it does not go away.Without any conscious activity there would no physical activity, period.


But it does not appear to be the cause. Your ignorance works against you here. There are many cases in which it is easily demonstrated that the actions come before the thoughts (google for the James-Lange theory of emotion for one such demonstration), and in any case, our introspective notions of the order in which thoughts and actions occur are wildly inaccurate. Your own methodology is flawed, in such a manner that you are unable to see its flaws.You must be speaking of that which is a matter of conditioning or, is wholly involuntary. But then again I guess that's okay because you don't believe the voluntary will exists either, do you?


Please...more metaphors? Hey, I have an idea--go out and read some of the research on neurology and psychophysiology. You may find that some of your precious metaphors are much much too simple to be helpful. You may also find that the real research in this field is even more beautiful than your dreams. No thanks! ;)

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile

No, I have a problem with the whole concept of Christ or Thor or Yaweh or Shiva or Brahma or Zeus, etc. etc. etc. Would you say it all stems from your affiliation with the Christian Church though?

voodoochile
12th February 2005, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Without any conscious activity there would no physical activity, period.

Really? What about for the first 2,995,000,000 years of life when no humans roamed the planet?

What about the first 2,999,995,000 years before the written word existed?

What aout the approxamately 2,999,999,000 years before the immortal phrase, "I think therefore I am"?

voodoochile
12th February 2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Would you say it all stems from your affiliation with the Christian Church though?

Never had an affiliation with the Christian Church. I attended a Unitarian Church for Sunday school but never graduated. My Father and Mother are both Atheists.

The Christian Church is the most prolific and the most scary in America, but I don't hate religion, I just don't want it used to explain the origins of life/universe/scientific studies/etc.

What people believe and do with their own time I really don't care. You want to worship god, go for it. You want to do drugs or drink booze until your head explodes, go for it. You want to gamble away all your money, go for it. It's your life and once you reach a certain age, I really don't care what you do so long as it doesn't impact on me unless I desire it to.

Mercutio
12th February 2005, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
They're all false.

And how can you even say such a thing when you don't know what you're talking about?

The only problem that exists here is your unwillingness to admit that an abstract world does exist.

The physical brain is nothing more than a doorway or a channel between two worlds.

Yes, there has to be a means by which the spiritual can have conjunction with the natural. In fact as I have suggested several times before, this whole thing about the spiritual could merely entail a form of subtle energy ... In which case it alleviates the need for it to be "disconnected" from the physical.

In the case of consciousness, yes. Absolutely!

Without any conscious activity there would no physical activity, period.

You must be speaking of that which is a matter of conditioning or, is wholly involuntary. But then again I guess that's okay because you don't believe the voluntary will exists either, do you?
LOL...note, all of the above are Iacchus's assertions...I won't go into internal contradictions here, but merely wish to point out how certain he is...Iacchus must really have a direct channel to knowledge, because when it comes to reading the actual research that applies to his ideas....

No thanks! ;) ...he declines.

Nothing like active, chosen, willful ignorance!

Ta-ta, Iacchus. I may be back, but you have just admitted you have no real desire to learn. You know it all already. have fun dreaming.

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile

Really? What about for the first 2,995,000,000 years of life when no humans roamed the planet?

What about the first 2,999,995,000 years before the written word existed?

What aout the approxamately 2,999,999,000 years before the immortal phrase, "I think therefore I am"? Thanks for reminding me. Of course it can only help to reiterate that an abstract reality does exist, call it a Universal Consciousness if you will which, manifests itself into the nature of all things.

P.S.A.
12th February 2005, 11:05 AM
Tch, and just like Lifegazer, Iacchus chooses to hide from my points too. Oh well, I guess what they say is true; Fools of a feather go "Woo!" together...

voodoochile
12th February 2005, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Thanks for reminding me. Of course it can only help to reiterate that an abstract reality does exist, call it a Universal Consciousness if you will which, manifests itself into the nature of all things.

Use the force, Luke...

and that concludes the discussion...

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Mercutio

LOL...note, all of the above are Iacchus's assertions...I won't go into internal contradictions here, but merely wish to point out how certain he is...Iacchus must really have a direct channel to knowledge, because when it comes to reading the actual research that applies to his ideas....
...he declines.

Nothing like active, chosen, willful ignorance!

Ta-ta, Iacchus. I may be back, but you have just admitted you have no real desire to learn. You know it all already. have fun dreaming. Regardless ... the only way it is possible to know anything is intimately and, via the "experiential mind."

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by P.S.A.

Don't you realise how silly that sounds? The Farmer is the Farmer, he's NOT the machinery, is he...? At least keep your analogies consistant, instead of keep making up new definitions as you go along. I might as well argue that Iacchus is a kipper is a small house in Pensarn is a wooden spoon thus God doesn't exist, QED.Can you imagine a farmer maintaining his field without a tractor?


And if the farmer's dead, he isn't going to be operating the machinery, is he? How is a dead farmer going to physically interact with anything, let alone plant any crops...? But anyway, then all I have to say is "Ok, let's kill the machinery too."No, I said nothing about the farmer being dead, except that if we destroyed the crops, would that be evidence that the farmer was destroyed? In which case the answer is clearly no.


Look, I'll save you the effort of trying to argue any further. You don't have a correct analogy; in your analogy there has to be a cause for the crops. Which is fine, because I agree... there's a cause for consciousness too. And I'm just going to suggest we kill what ever new cause you claim it might be. However you are just going to weasal around what the actual cause of consciousness is by constantly shifting its definition to avoid my saying that consciousness will end if we kill it's cause. Right now no doubt you are thinking of ways to get around my luddite treatment of your new definition... Because your analogy so far is still a materialistic position, and like Lifegazer (whom you follow sheep like around the internet) you don't want to admit this. You want to believe in an immortal consciousness, one that cannot have a killable cause. Unlike Lifegazer however you don't have the depth of delusion to believe that absolutely everything is God and is therefore immortal... No, what I'm trying to suggest, is that if we eliminate the effects, does that necessarily eliminate the cause? In which case the answer, again, is clearly no.


What nonsense be this? How does the variety of experience prevent someone tuning into a particular experience that is there? If Radio Mozart exists, what's stopping me from finding it's frequency?Simply because it doesn't work that way. Now, if you could discover the wavelength in which a person thinks, perhaps through telepathy? maybe it would be possible?


Unless you mean that we randomly peer into the wavelength of consciousness ... in which case, why does anyone have a consistent personality? Why wasn't Mozart a magnificent composer one day, and then a qualified engineer the next, and on Wednesday a small villa commanding spectacular views of the Nienne Valley? Is it randomly set at birth then which Consciousness Radio Station you get then, and you don't deviate much from it during life? Ahah, but now we are edging back towards making a hard link between physical nature and Consciousness again... Quick! Bend that analogy again Iacchus! Make up some new nonsense! Post more smileys! It's called birds of a feather (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97) ... Indeed, why should they flock together, if they didn't maintain a specific energy pattern or field?


So let's see... so far Consciousness is a Stereo System that is used on a farm, which has a random wavelength dial (or possibly one that can only tune in to one random station) which contains the brain of a farmer, that....

:D :D :D :D Thus far ... none of this could be maintained without it. ;)

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by P.S.A.

Tch, and just like Lifegazer, Iacchus chooses to hide from my points too. Oh well, I guess what they say is true; Fools of a feather go "Woo!" together... Originally posted by voodoochile

Use the force, Luke...

and that concludes the discussion... Jolly good! ;)

P.S.A.
12th February 2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Can you imagine a farmer maintaining his field without a tractor?

Er... Yes. Mankind settled down from a nomadic existance many thousand years ago. He only got the tractor in the last few hundred odd. Tell you what, I'll even be kind and let you claim the plough as a primitive tractor. Mankind still has a few thousand years without even that though... And the crops themselves have existed, in slightly different forms, for sometimes millions of years... happily growing away in the fields without any man's hand touching them at all. What a silly, silly set of arguments you have!

No, I said nothing about the farmer being dead, except that if we destroyed the crops, would that be evidence that the farmer was destroyed? In which case the answer is clearly no.

No you didn't say anything about it; that was me, pointing out the huge gaping flaw in your argument. You see, you accept that the crops must have a cause. So do I. But I say take away that cause, the crops will not be sown next year. Farmers die every year, you know. You think the farmer can't be killed however... and that's where the difference lies, you see? You won't accept what a clearly silly analogy you used, because it "sounds" right to you... the appeal of the eternal Farmer is just too great for your mind.

No, what I'm trying to suggest, is that if we eliminate the effects, does that necessarily eliminate the cause? In which case the answer, again, is clearly no.

See what I mean? it depends upon the reason for the effects ceasing. If indeed the Farmer is purely responsible for the crop, then killing the Farmer ALSO destroys the crop, n'est pas? Just as Consciousness ends when the brain dies.

Simply because it doesn't work that way. Now, if you could discover the wavelength in which a person thinks, perhaps through telepathy? maybe it would be possible?

It's not possible. It's only your silly religious beliefs that claim that it should be... If personality truly was held outside the person, then some form of pyschic disturbance between someone's body and consciousness would be possible. But it's not, it isn't, so stop being silly.


It's called birds of a feather (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97) ... Indeed, why should they flock together, if they didn't maintain a specific energy pattern or field?

I should have known you'd be a Jungian. Or rather, that you'd cherry pick ideas from his concepts and warp them to fit your own concepts... And you have to love people trying to fit pre-radio physcological ideas into modern concepts of radio transmission and wavelength physics. It'll be the 5 basic elements next, applied to Quantum Mechanics next, just you wait...

And it's not as if what you linked to is even relevant to what I said either... Are you claiming that the reason yourself and Lifegazer are so closely Woo Woo is because you happen to have the same "specific energy pattern"? Does Lifegazer realise this? Because as far as I can tell, by refusing to embrace his philosophy entirely, by claiming God is exterior to yourself rather than you actually being him, you are in fact killing his God.... I try and kill his God every day; today by shouting out "I am not God" whilst waving my member at the roof; but really, it's jolly bad show to kill his god when you actually share his personal messianistic tendancies.

Or was it you'd just rather make a happy, silly comment instead, rather than actually face hard truths?

Thus far, none of this could even be acknowledged without it. ;) [/B]

And that doesn't even make any sense at all. What couldn't? Are you suggesting I owe my understanding to you to these mystical wavelengths? But I DON'T understand you... ! Either someone's not transmitting at full power here, or... Ahah ha ha, and here comes the problem again; if it's my fault materially for not having a good enough reciever, then.... that's a material explanation again! And even more amusingly, natural selection has no morality at all, and if someone is born with a health defect, there's no reason or justice in that. It just is. But if GOD decides to give me a poor reciever...

Well, how do you justify that, hmm?

(Editted for Bold OFF, dang it... oh yes, and just to add, I know it's "birds"... but fools sounds better with the following "Woo". And it's more accurate. Let's not start calling people birds now, that would be Iaccherific!)

El Greco
12th February 2005, 01:14 PM
Until know I used to think that "Do Be Do Be Do" was just a stupid answer to the profound question "To Be Or Not To Be". But when Iacchus asks, I can't think of a more appropriate response.

Bodhi Dharma Zen
12th February 2005, 01:33 PM
"To do is to be." - Aristotle
"To be is to do." - Jean Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do..." - Frank Sinatra

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by P.S.A.

(Editted for Bold OFF, dang it... oh yes, and just to add, I know it's "birds"... but fools sounds better with the following "Woo". And it's more accurate. Let's not start calling people birds now, that would be Iaccherific!) Actually I'm not here to lend myself to someone's "silly" notions about me, so, unless you can come up with a more intelligent discourse, I see no point in carrying this further. And, are you sure it's not one of those love/hate relationship things between you and Lifegazer? Neither am I asking for any transference of that to me if that's what you think? :eek:

Mercutio
12th February 2005, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually I'm not here to lend myself to someone's "silly" notions about me, so, unless you can come up with a more intelligent discourse, I see no point in carrying this further. And, are you sure it's not one of those love/hate relationship things between you and Lifegazer? Neither am I asking for any transference of that to me if that's what you think? :eek: Excuse me for nosing back in...but you are chastising P.S.A for a lack of intelligent discourse? LOL...

Look, if you cannot combat P.S.A.'s dissection of your metaphor, the proper thing to do is admit it. There is no shame in that...ok, well, there is less shame in that than there is in your course.

But please...harbour no illusions that anyone else thinks your "discourse" is more intelligent than P.S.A.'s. Sorry, no; although, I must agree with you on one point. You are quite correct when you say " I see no point in carrying this further".

Iacchus
12th February 2005, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Mercutio

Excuse me for nosing back in...but you are chastising P.S.A for a lack of intelligent discourse? LOL...

Look, if you cannot combat P.S.A.'s dissection of your metaphor, the proper thing to do is admit it. There is no shame in that...ok, well, there is less shame in that than there is in your course.What, his beating of a dead horse?


But please...harbour no illusions that anyone else thinks your "discourse" is more intelligent than P.S.A.'s. Sorry, no; although, I must agree with you on one point. You are quite correct when you say " I see no point in carrying this further". Oh, and please do not agree with me, that would make me think I was doing something wrong. :con2: