Consciousness in a physical universe is problematic. We have a strong sense of self-awareness and free will yet when we cast about we find that the universe seems to run in a deterministic way(Quantum processes also bubble away). Are consciousness and free will illusions? So, what do you think? Is there room for consciousness and free will independent of cause and effect and quantum processes?

Axle wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 10:57pm:

Consciousness in a physical universe is problematic. We have a strong sense of self-awareness and free will yet when we cast about we find that the universe seems to run in a deterministic way(Quantum processes also bubble away). Are consciousness and free will illusions? So, what do you think? Is there room for consciousness and free will independent of cause and effect and quantum processes?

Not only is there room for consciousness, freewill and quantum physics but they are integral in our spiritual make-up.

Axle wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 10:57pm:

Consciousness in a physical universe is problematic. We have a strong sense of self-awareness and free will yet when we cast about we find that the universe seems to run in a deterministic way(Quantum processes also bubble away). Are consciousness and free will illusions? So, what do you think? Is there room for consciousness and free will independent of cause and effect and quantum processes?

I can't see how you can sever the link of cause and effect. Most religions try and do this; they claim to stand outside time, space, and causality and have a personal telephone line to god.  However, the religious shroud their position in vague, obscure language. It's predicated on the now debunked mind/body split. Once their position is examined carefully, it comes to light that they haven't transcended cause and effect at all. One only has to look at the social circumstances the religious find themselves in and psychical reactions they have to certain phenomenon to understand how they came to think as they do.

Consciousness is a result of our environment and whatever genetic influences we possess.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:44am:

[quote author=Axle link=1295701068/0#0 date=1295701066]Consciousness is a result of our environment and whatever genetic influences we possess.

The intelligent consciousness is our Creator.

Religion has usurped and hidden real Spirituality and used it as Control.

The Tibetan Monks are the only ones to come even close to teaching who and WHAT we are.

The bible uses lies to hide the truth: The Bible: In the beginning there was nothing ... and g-d made the heavens and earth ... and g-d was themselves (the scribes/Elite)

Tibetan Monks: In the beginning there was an Intelligent Consciousness that created 'matter' (from the Carbon atom).

If we believe in a close universe and that we're totally material beings then there's no escape from the conclusion that we're bound to cause and effect and whatever freaky indeterministic neuronal firing within our skulls.

However, I would opine that there is a difficulty in accepting this. I don't see matter, for example, being able to perceive meaning in the universe. And I don't think AI will ever bring about consciousness in a computer. It has been living on a long rolled over promissory note.

Computers, it seems, will just be carrying out mindless operations without a hint of consciousness.

Axle wrote on Jan 26^th, 2011 at 4:04pm:

If we believe in a close universe and that we're totally material beings then there's no escape from the conclusion that we're bound to cause and effect and whatever freaky indeterministic neuronal firing within our skulls.

We were made SPIRITUAL with the same genetic material as the Creator with a conscience and a soul (spirit) ... everything is made of atoms, our physical bodies (matter) are merely the shell for this stage of life, a time of learning and gathering 'knowledge' and the wisdom to 'pass' into our true 'consciousness'. The time of awakening is approaching faster than people think, so it is wise to learn 'awareness'. The ones who lose their souls, lose.


Quote:

However, I would opine that there is a difficulty in accepting this. I don't see matter, for example, being able to perceive meaning in the universe. And I don't think AI will ever bring about consciousness in a computer. It has been living on a long rolled over promissory note.

The corporeal body is not who or WHAT we are, religion bred out the true knolwedge of our spirituality and taught us how to 'obey' rather than to THINK for ourselves, it taught us racism, hate and bred into us low self esteem (pride cometh before a fall, born of original sin et al). It taught us that forgiveness gave us the right to repeat transgressions.



Quote:

Computers, it seems, will just be carrying out mindless operations without a hint of consciousness.

That's what the Elite have provided, mindless actions, greed, and without exception 'consumerism' without the need to care for the planet that sustains us or 'do for ourselves'. Thought has been usurped.

We are 'spiritual' ... "Thoughts become things, Think the good ones"

Quote:

Jan wrote We were made SPIRITUAL with the same genetic material as the Creator with a conscience and a soul (spirit)

Quote:

Jan wrote That's what the Elite have provided, mindless actions, greed, and without exception 'consumerism' without the need to care for the planet that sustains us or 'do for ourselves'. Thought has been usurped.

So if we are the same genetic material as the creator wouldn't mindless actions, greed, and consumerism also be part of the creator? I mean, wouldn't these attributes also be an essential part of the creator as well? If not, how does one subvert the creator? How does one "break off" from the creator's "genetic material" and go down an awry path? How does causa sui occur in us regular folk?

I think Jan's statement that we share the same "genetic material" as the Creator was a way of speaking. If it wasn't a way of speaking then it was confused. It would have been better if Jan said something like consciousness subsists in a global consciousness.

I won't pre-empt Jan's answer to the question of why we would deviate from the global consciousness/creator/god or whatever other term you have for for it- assuming that such a being exists.

Axle wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 10:57pm:

Consciousness in a physical universe is problematic. We have a strong sense of self-awareness and free will yet when we cast about we find that the universe seems to run in a deterministic way(Quantum processes also bubble away). Are consciousness and free will illusions? So, what do you think? Is there room for consciousness and free will independent of cause and effect and quantum processes?

To quote Descartes  -  Cogito ergo sum.

I believe in the quantum process.
Trying to become anything more or less than human needs to be realised within the bounds that we live by.
It's not very practicle for a human to attempt to become a cat, dog, crocodile, monkey, or any other creature which is barely removed from our own DNA, so why bother trying to control somebody else's life when there is no control over one's own life?

The answer there IMO, is to fight them off, and kill them if necessary.
We are here for our own lives and not to be the servant of some other dweeb who will only realise their follies on their death bed.

Kill and let kill.

"To quote Descartes  -  Cogito ergo sum. "

I don't know what conclusion you are drawing from the Cogito. You might like to elaborate.

"I believe in the quantum process"

I think that's pretty tough to deny but do you think that consciousness is something more? Is a puppet to quantum processes or something quite distinct?

Axle wrote on Jan 26^th, 2011 at 9:59pm:

"To quote Descartes  -  Cogito ergo sum. " I don't know what conclusion you are drawing from the Cogito. You might like to elaborate.

"I think, therefore I am".  Thought proves existance.

Removed to start a new thread as requested

Amadd wrote on Jan 26^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

I believe in the quantum process.

And so do I. The problem people have in recognising truth is because the Elite separated Quantum physics from spirituality ... we are taught in two separate ways and left to pick up the pieces ... You either have to accept Creation OR evolution when in actuallity we should be looking at them 'together', because that's the way it really is, and logic should tell you that.. "There has to be creation before evolution can take place .. Simple!" It just isn't the Darwinian evolution.


Quote:

Trying to become anything more or less than human needs to be realised within the bounds that we live by.

It's not a matter of 'becoming', it's what we ARE. We are spiritual beings in a mortal body..
We are pure energy ie we are made of Carbon atoms (as is all matter), atoms are pure energy and energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be altered, as in dying, the body changes to nutrients to create more energy, (plants etc) while the spirit/soul (who we really are) increases in knowledge and becomes ethereal. Unless of course, if, like the elite, we lose our souls, from a lack of 'nurturing' and care, then you just alter the energy to feed the worms, and grow more trees, as 'thought' has not learned any 'lessons' in order to 'pass' and move forward.  


Quote:

It's not very practicle for a human to attempt to become a cat, dog, crocodile, monkey, or any other creature which is barely removed from our own DNA, so why bother trying to control somebody else's life when there is no control over one's own life?

Why would anyone want to become anything other than what they are? and controlling others lives is what the elite do and why everyone needs to wake up and remove that control from their lives in order to be what they were meant to be .. 'humane'!


Quote:

The answer there IMO, is to fight them off, and kill them if necessary. We are here for our own lives and not to be the servant of some other dweeb who will only realise their follies on their death bed. Kill and let kill.

In that case you would be exactly like the elite, 'souless' and without a future life. Believing this

is what the elite want you to believe, and are merely following their plan for all of mankind.

We already ARE servants, of the elite, and have been for thousands of years, and what you see occurring in the world today is the result of their 'teaching' and control.

great thread

i observe jan as a conscious brother sister being

whom is divine and sacred yes

and self aware

this exists within all

and so it is

namaste

beloved masters

-:)

it_is_the_light wrote on Jan 27^th, 2011 at 9:36am:

great thread i observe jan as a conscious brother sister being whom is divine and sacred yes and self aware this exists within all and so it is namaste beloved masters -:)

Thanks 'light' but I don't consider myself divine, or a master I was awakened to "All that is"
by a 97 yr old mentor who taught me to research every aspect and every path of 'life' from the very beginning of 'knowledge' and follow through to the present.

I learned we are spiritual and nothing like what the elite and religion have 'Fed' us to believe, and that everyone who is aware of our true being should then teach others.

Namaste

Thanks 'light' but I don't consider myself divine, or a master

____________

you may not consider as much

however

this is the case..you are sacred and divine

a master yes

you are coming into your own at these moments

in this spacetime continuum/linear time line

as you chose to come here and experience this

3rd dimension...you are eternal yes

as no new souls are allowed upon this planet

in these times

and so it is

namaste

-:)

Quote:

Jan wrote First it's important to know that the Intelligent Consciousness is a SINGULARITY ie there is no good or bad, hot or cold, right or wrong. in other words it is PERFECT. We were made imperfect (as the bible tells us, and proves the Elite KNEW), therefore we are a DUALITY, and to balance our 'being' for "GOOD" we were also given a CONSCIENCE. ie spirituality AND a conscience. The corporeal body contains the 'genes', or if you like the DNA of the Intelligent Consciousness (which is NOT a person, a being, or a g-d as depicted in religion) the Creator (for lack of a better word) is "ETHEREAL", and we were given a corporeal body along with "Freewill, and a conscience" with the emotional NEED to learn as a precursor to the next phase of 'life'.

Before I comment, I need you to flesh out in more detail these terms:
Good.
Conscience.
Duality.
Free will.

What does each mean and how do they interact with each other?

""I think, therefore I am".  Thought proves existance."

Existence of your own mind perhaps but not much else. However, is that mind a product of your brain or is it something distinct, existing in it's own right separate from the brain?  
 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 27^th, 2011 at 2:00pm:

[quote] Before I comment, I need you to flesh out in more detail these terms: Good. Conscience. Duality. Free will. What does each mean and how do they interact with each other?

If you don't know these things then I can't 'explain them.

Good as opposed to bad.
Is conscience good or bad? does it allow you to to feel good when you do 'bad'?
Duality: Good/bad, right/wrong, hot/cold, up/down, black white, odd/even, left/right, inside/outside, wet dry, sweet sour, ad infinitum.
Freewill is to do, feel, be any of the above. Yep that's correct you can be as bad or as 'good' as you choose, ie you choose to have eternal life or you choose to lose contact with the spiritual and merely feed the worms.

There is no 'degrees' just a 'balance'... To think or act 'wrong', or make a mistake is not bad in itself, but you must make amends when needed, to maintain the 'balance'. Eventually you realise that to feel good is better than lowering self esteem which leads to more bad behaviour and a road block to knowledge.

Axle wrote on Jan 27^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

""I think, therefore I am".  Thought proves existance." Existence of your own mind perhaps but not much else. However, is that mind a product of your brain or is it something distinct, existing in it's own right separate from the brain?

Atoms are pure Energy, energy is power. Ever heard of the power of THOUGHT?

We are what we THINK, not a mortal body that wears out and dies, Thought is the energy that can't be destroyed.

The 'brain' is merely the 'computer', thought is the software that makes it work.

Quote:

Atoms are pure Energy, energy is power. Ever heard of the power of THOUGHT? We are what we THINK, not a mortal body that wears out and dies, Thought is the energy that can't be destroyed. The 'brain' is merely the 'computer', thought is the software that makes it work.

We can't be what we think because there's something doing the thinking. Software is material based and when that base wears out and dies so to does the software.  Moreover, software embodies a rigid set of instructions. Are we rigid like software?  Are we a set of materially imbedded instructions?

How is thought energy? Energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. I think you're seeking to distinguish thought from anything physical, aren't you?

i have covered the concept of duality in the threads

i have started..an explaination is there yes

however

open to individual interpretation .

research the i ching,i may suggest

64 amino acids in the human organism

many or the main one may say,

would use but 20 of these attached unto the binary construct of

your DNA..and 10 'junk' strands..science would project,

these 12

to get her

are about to fully function..

so i would suggest do that which brings joy

does this bring a state of comfort?

so be it

namaste


-:)

Axle wrote on Jan 27^th, 2011 at 10:45pm:

Quote: Atoms are pure Energy, energy is power. Ever heard of the power of THOUGHT? We are what we THINK, not a mortal body that wears out and dies, Thought is the energy that can't be destroyed. The 'brain' is merely the 'computer', thought is the software that makes it work. We can't be what we think because there's something doing the thinking. Software is material based and when that base wears out and dies so to does the software.  Moreover, software embodies a rigid set of instructions. Are we rigid like software?  Are we a set of materially imbedded instructions? How is thought energy? Energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. I think you're seeking to distinguish thought from anything physical, aren't you?

Ever heard of metaphors?

Energy! a capacity of a Physical system to work? Tell that to Tesla.

How about telepathy? Telekinesis!

I had you tabbed as one of the more astute here ... Guess I was wrong.

If you can't interpret metaphors I despair of you recognizing symbols.

Are you a Yank? You think like one.

Jan wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 12:34pm:

Axle wrote on Jan 27th, 2011 at 10:45pm: Quote: Atoms are pure Energy, energy is power. Ever heard of the power of THOUGHT? We are what we THINK, not a mortal body that wears out and dies, Thought is the energy that can't be destroyed. The 'brain' is merely the 'computer', thought is the software that makes it work. We can't be what we think because there's something doing the thinking. Software is material based and when that base wears out and dies so to does the software.  Moreover, software embodies a rigid set of instructions. Are we rigid like software?  Are we a set of materially imbedded instructions? How is thought energy? Energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. I think you're seeking to distinguish thought from anything physical, aren't you? Ever heard of metaphors? Energy! a capacity of a Physical system to work? Tell that to Tesla. How about telepathy? Telekinesis! I had you tabbed as one of the more astute here ... Guess I was wrong. If you can't interpret metaphors I despair of you recognizing symbols. Are you a Yank? You think like one.

You weren't clear, Jan. I wanted you to be more careful and precise.  Metaphors are ok, if that's what you in fact had in mind. What are you saying now? Is consciousness a form of energy or is it entirely something else?

What support do you have for telekineses or telepathy? Mainstream science rejects these purported phenomena. Also, no one claiming such powers has ever succeeded in the Randi challenge to demonstrate such powers for one million dollars?

What evidence do you have to claim that your consciousness is energy of any form? Can you measure it any way?

Maybe you're not as astute as you think you are. You seem to have a New Age hippy trippy mishmash of concepts concerning consciousness. In other words, you really don't come across as having much of a grasp on it at all. Your resort to ad hominem attacks reinforces this. It also tells me you're not as enlightened as you purport to be.

I was trying work out whether you actually know what you're talking about  and could provide evidence with a cogent argument. So far, I'm not seeing anything other than some recital of New Age hippy, trippy speil which you expect everyone to unquestioningly swallow.

Consciousness is a serious topic and excellent philosophical enquiry and experimental research has been carried out on both sides of the argument. Can you draw from any of these sources to make a case for your claims?

Quote:

Time wrote Before I comment, I need you to flesh out in more detail these terms: Good. Conscience. Duality. Free will. What does each mean and how do they interact with each other?

Quote:

Jan wrote If you don't know these things then I can't 'explain them. Good as opposed to bad. Is conscience good or bad? does it allow you to to feel good when you do 'bad'? Duality: Good/bad, right/wrong, hot/cold, up/down, black white, odd/even, left/right, inside/outside, wet dry, sweet sour, ad infinitum. Freewill is to do, feel, be any of the above. Yep that's correct you can be as bad or as 'good' as you choose, ie you choose to have eternal life or you choose to lose contact with the spiritual and merely feed the worms. There is no 'degrees' just a 'balance'... To think or act 'wrong', or make a mistake is not bad in itself, but you must make amends when needed, to maintain the 'balance'. Eventually you realise that to feel good is better than lowering self esteem which leads to more bad behaviour and a road block to knowledge.

But our conscience is intimately attached to the society in which we live. The content of one's conscience, and the presiding of what is 'good' or 'bad' is defined by the mores of the culture. 'Good' and 'bad' is held in place by a system of punishments and rewards; and you cannot abstract them from the culture in which they take place, i.e. there's no universal good or bad.
Plus, free will is a highly tricky scope of inquiry. It's not as simple as "choosing" what we want to do. We are caught in the causal link of events, therefore, we are always subjected to constraints of some kind. Also, one's underlying psychical inclinations often tend one to act in certain ways, hence 'free will' becomes quite complicated when we take into account the unconscious.

I am going to infer here, but correct me if I am wrong, that what you imply to be 'good' is some kind of universal act given to us by the creator devoid of any material or physical infestation?

If so, it's predicated on the debunked mind/body split.

"If so, it's predicated on the debunked mind/body split. "

Who debunked it? Actually, you will still find dualism of some sort is still alive and kicking. For example, home grown David Chalmers, famous for posing the "hard problem",harbours a form of dualism.

"Chalmers's book, The Conscious Mind (1996), is widely considered (by both advocates and opponents) to be an essential work on consciousness and its relation to the mind-body problem in philosophy of mind.[2] In the book, Chalmers argues that all forms of physicalism (whether reductive or non-reductive) that have dominated modern philosophy and science fail to account for the existence (that is, presence in reality) of consciousness itself. He proposes an alternative dualistic view he calls naturalistic dualism (but which might also be characterized by more traditional formulations such as property dualism, neutral monism, or double-aspect theory)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

There is no universal debunking of dualism in philosophical circles. However, you will find those philosophers like Dennett who believe they have.

Axle wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 4:22pm:

"If so, it's predicated on the debunked mind/body split. " Who debunked it? Actually, you will still find dualism of some sort is still alive and kicking. For example, home grown David Chalmers, famous for posing the "hard problem",harbours a form of dualism. "Chalmers's book, The Conscious Mind (1996), is widely considered (by both advocates and opponents) to be an essential work on consciousness and its relation to the mind-body problem in philosophy of mind.[2] In the book, Chalmers argues that all forms of physicalism (whether reductive or non-reductive) that have dominated modern philosophy and science fail to account for the existence (that is, presence in reality) of consciousness itself. He proposes an alternative dualistic view he calls naturalistic dualism (but which might also be characterized by more traditional formulations such as property dualism, neutral monism, or double-aspect theory)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers There is no universal debunking of dualism in philosophical circles. However, you will find those philosophers like Dennett who believe they have.

Chalmers' dualism is different from the Platonic and Cartesian versions. My reference to dualism to Jan is based on either Plato or Descartes; the source for so many religious or 'mystical' thinkers. Plato and Descartes both argue for a god or a 'good' that stands outside time, space, and causality.

My knowledge of Kant isn't great, but didn't he have an answer to Chalmers' duality problem? If my memory serves me correctly, Kant was battling the empiricists who believed 'everything comes from experience', whereas he maintained there must be some kind of unconscious cognition going on before and while experience is imputed into the mind. That is, there's something in the mind that organises and 'computes' how we absorb and experience an experience.

In respect of the outline you gave from Kant, you would have an argument that the dualist camp would lap up. Some inner homunculus which is at odds with the current modular brain of neuroscience. Neuroscience has a binding problem to surmount. A dualist does not have that problem.

I'd like to take up with you your claim that free will is enmeshed in cause and effect or operates under constraints. To say so, is not to adequately argue that it is bound to cause and effect

You are missing or not articulating a necessary assumption. That's ok, I did earlier. The assumption is that we live in a closed universed. If that's the case then free will is an illusion.

However, there comes a voice from physics- Henry Stapp. He takes the view that there has to be something outside the panorama of the universe for wave functions to collapse. There needs to be something to decide on an experiment. It can't be part of things because it would be part of the uncollapsed wave function and nothing would happen.

He therefore believes in a psychological process separate and distinct from the mechanics of the universe.

Axle wrote:

Quote:

You weren't clear, Jan. I wanted you to be more careful and precise.  Metaphors are ok, if that's what you in fact had in mind. What are you saying now? Is consciousness a form of energy or is it entirely something else?

Sigh! I guess being an old cow I'll just have to chew my cud 'again'. I have been so precise that a kindy pupil could fathom what I have said ... but knowing you're just being a pain in the arse and wanting to air your pseudo knowledge is no excuse for me to capitulate and deny others who are genuinely curious and want to learn.
Let's see, Anyone here not able to recognise these 'metaphors'? "The 'brain' is merely the 'computer', thought is the software that makes it work." ?

Didn't you learn about the carbon atom at school? EVERYTHING is energy, even the ether ... as in ethereal.


Quote:

What support do you have for telekineses or telepathy? Mainstream science rejects these purported phenomena. Also, no one claiming such powers has ever succeeded in the Randi challenge to demonstrate such powers for one million dollars?

TK has been studied scientifically but no 'scientists' would ever reveal the results cos it would make them look like idiots. Except for a few studies they remain hidden just as real 'knowledge' has been. As for James Randi I've seen his 'so called' tests in documentaries and it's designed so that it's like proving god exists. No-one will ever win it and he knows it ... even if someone really can use TK.

Guess you found this when you googled  http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Telekinesis%20Fact%20or%20fantasy.htm This idiot wasn't performing TK, merely an exercise in basic physics, at no time did he try to use his thoughts. Even medical science uses a form of telekinesis to lower bloodpressure by having the patient sit comfortably, holding a lever attached to a BP monitor showing a graph (NOT a digital monitor), to indicate the patient's BP level (via THOUGHT only), ie they're told to CONCETRATE on the graph not their blood pressure ... it works perfectly, no drugs, just THOUGHTS.

Science DOES use a form of telekinesis it's called meditation. I was diagnosed with cancer and refused conventional treatments because the only thing that will cure you of cancer is your own  immune system and medical treatments destroy it. They gave me a book and a diary/manual to keep check of doctors and oncologists, and my progress, In the manual was a chapter on "Meditation" and HOW to. I went on a 'healthy diet' took herbs, did meditation, and in 2006 my last test came back showing "No malignancy found"

Also Simply observing and slowing the breath (a form of "meditation") produces a significant reduction in blood pressure.

Medical Meditation has been developed by doctors and meditation experts with the goal of creating a meditation program that helps heal people. Medical meditation not only helps people relax and become stress-free, but also helps prevent and recover from various diseases. Medical meditation utilizes specific postures, hand positions, movements, breathing patterns, and mantras to tailor meditation practices for the treatment of specific ailments. Practitioners of medical meditation report that these practices produce more powerful results than those available through meditation alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_meditation

Geez does that sounds like New Age hippy trippy mishmash? and from medical SCIENCE no less???

There is also reiki that can cure headaches. Some good advice here  http://www.essortment.com/articles/reiki-hand-positions_3858.htm but the one I have 99% success with, is to sit the 'patient' comfortably (because this can take ten minutes or more, so make yourself comfortable too), now rub hands together vigorously untill you feel a magnetic 'pull' when you move your palms apart and together several times (without touching), then place your right palm across the patients forehead (without touching) and in the same way cup your Left palm at the base of the sckul (again without touching), Works for me.


Quote:

What evidence do you have to claim that your consciousness is energy of any form? Can you measure it any way?

Can you measure your thoughts? Can you prove there's a god? Or prove that the bible is the "word of g-d".

Like I said EVERYTHING is made of carbon atoms and we know they are real, or do you want to dispute that too?


Quote:

Maybe you're not as astute as you think you are. You seem to have a New Age hippy trippy mishmash of concepts concerning consciousness. In other words, you really don't come across as having much of a grasp on it at all. Your resort to ad hominem attacks reinforces this. It also tells me you're not as enlightened as you purport to be.

Oh now it's your turn for ad hominens.

I'm a little more ASTUTE than you because I don't have to google everything, I came by my knowledge personally and the hard way, not by googling.

But at least you googled to try and prove me wrong. That's a start.

Axle wrote:

Quote:

I was trying work out whether you actually know what you're talking about  and could provide evidence with a cogent argument. So far, I'm not seeing anything other than some recital of New Age hippy, trippy speil which you expect everyone to unquestioningly swallow.

Anyone can check what I have offered as "information", along with your pitiful attempts to dilute that information, and the information just might be the answers they are looking for, and that makes you 'look lik'e a shill.


Quote:

Consciousness is a serious topic

Yes it is ...So why are you trivializing it?


Quote:

excellent philosophical enquiry and experimental research has been carried out on both sides of the argument.

 

Thought you said mainstream science rejects these phenomena? So lets see the research you mention so we can judge YOUR contributions to this topic, and not just some kitchen hand please


Quote:

Can you draw from any of these sources to make a case for your claims?

I already have ... Now it's your turn!!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

But our conscience is intimately attached to the society in which we live. The content of one's conscience, and the presiding of what is 'good' or 'bad' is defined by the mores of the culture.

That is what the bible and the elite have taught us. Conscience belongs to ourselves alone, it's attached to nothing but ourselves. I've said this all before.


Quote:

'Good' and 'bad' is held in place by a system of punishments and rewards; and you cannot abstract them from the culture in which they take place, i.e. there's no universal good or bad.

What a pathetic attitude, This is the attitude the elite wanted, and as their system of laws fail and people become more discontent and and less caring they increase the laws. Anyone have any idea at all as to how many laws there are today?

And the rewards are not much better than the punishments, they all make people greedy and demanding.


Quote:

Plus, free will is a highly tricky scope of inquiry. It's not as simple as "choosing" what we want to do. We are caught in the causal link of events, therefore, we are always subjected to constraints of some kind. Also, one's underlying psychical inclinations often tend one to act in certain ways, hence 'free will' becomes quite complicated when we take into account the unconscious.

You have no idea what freewill is. There is always a choice to be good or bad and that's the extent of it is. It's not about obeying the law or not, What your talking about is supply and demand.


Quote:

I am going to infer here, but correct me if I am wrong, that what you imply to be 'good' is some kind of universal act given to us by the creator devoid of any material or physical infestation?

choosing good is NOT an action, it comes from within, and yes it is devoid of the materialistic, but choosing bad definitely carries a physicallity to it.


Quote:

If so, it's predicated on the debunked mind/body split.

I have absolutely no idea what that sentence means, it makes no sense at all.

Quote:

'Good' and 'bad' is held in place by a system of punishments and rewards; and you cannot abstract them from the culture in which they take place

I think I know what you meant when you wrote this but the word 'abstract' is not the word you needed. I thnk you meant to use 'extract', or 'extricate'.

Quote:

Jan wrote I have absolutely no idea what that sentence means, it makes no sense at all.

That doesn't surprise me. Anyone with a cursory interest in consciousness knows about the the mind/body split or duality. If you are unaware of the history of your own position, how do you expect me to take you seriously?
I've conversed with you 'mystics' thousands of times. It's the same everytime; always vague, always obfuscate, and then abuse.


Quote:

Jan wrote That is what the bible and the elite have taught us.

Rubbish. The bible does not teach that our conscience is shaped by the culture in which we live. It tries to transcend it, which is exactly what you're preaching.
And who's this "elite" you keep speaking of? Be clear, outline exactly who they are. Don't be vague.


Quote:

Jan wrote What a pathetic attitude, This is the attitude the elite wanted, and as their system of laws fail and people become more discontent and and less caring they increase the laws. Anyone have any idea at all as to how many laws there are today?

Meaningless blather.


Quote:

Jan wrote You have no idea what freewill is. There is always a choice to be good or bad and that's the extent of it is. It's not about obeying the law or not, What your talking about is supply and demand.

Is that the best you can do?
Just saying we have choice is too simplistic. Can I choose to grow wings? Can I choose to grow another hand? Can I choose to teleport myself to Mars?



Quote:

Jan wrote choosing good is NOT an action, it comes from within, and yes it is devoid of the materialistic, but choosing bad definitely carries a physicallity to it.

lol. So being good is something deviod of materiality but being bad isn't. Funny. What's also funny is that you haven't even explained what this 'good' is.
I smell the setting up of "i can be good and others can't therefore i am superior". Classic religious and mystic maneuver.

Axle wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 5:49pm:

In respect of the outline you gave from Kant, you would have an argument that the dualist camp would lap up. Some inner homunculus which is at odds with the current modular brain of neuroscience. Neuroscience has a binding problem to surmount. A dualist does not have that problem. I'd like to take up with you your claim that free will is enmeshed in cause and effect or operates under constraints. To say so, is not to adequately argue that it is bound to cause and effect You are missing or not articulating a necessary assumption. That's ok, I did earlier. The assumption is that we live in a closed universed. If that's the case then free will is an illusion. However, there comes a voice from physics- Henry Stapp. He takes the view that there has to be something outside the panorama of the universe for wave functions to collapse. There needs to be something to decide on an experiment. It can't be part of things because it would be part of the uncollapsed wave function and nothing would happen. He therefore believes in a psychological process separate and distinct from the mechanics of the universe.

I am not aware of Stapp. Do you have a good link?

My view of free will is that it has to be cultivated. Although, we are never totally free regardless of how well we discipline ourselves. But we can cultivate ourselves to give us the inner strength and outer awareness which would give us more options to choose from.
The more we are aware of our surroundings and how they operate, and the more self-discipline we possess, the more options that open up to us on what path of action we can choose.
Someone with little self-control will operate purely on instinct or what ever impulse happens to be in their head at that given time. However, someone who is more aware of their own instincts or habitual behaviour knows he can, given he is disciplined enough, choose from several options of behaviour.
Although we can never be totally free because we often find ourselves in circumstances we don't choose to be in. We have to 'go with the flow' so to speak.

Quote:

Like I said EVERYTHING is made of carbon atoms and we know they are real, or do you want to dispute that too?

You might want to rethink that Jan....not 'everything' is made of carbon atoms...

For a start, water isn't, neither is oxygen or hydrogen...

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 9:35am:

Quote: Jan wrote I have absolutely no idea what that sentence means, it makes no sense at all. That doesn't surprise me. Anyone with a cursory interest in consciousness knows about the the mind/body split or duality. If you are unaware of the history of your own position, how do you expect me to take you seriously? I've conversed with you 'mystics' thousands of times. It's the same everytime; always vague, always obfuscate, and then abuse. Seeing as it was you who came here to do a tag team debunking of everything I have said I consider it is you who's abusing. For a start you now tell me I'm vague obfuscating and abusive, wow that's pretty assumptive (both meanings) on your part. Perhaps I should have quoted the entire (inference) of the two parts: [quote]I am going to infer here, but correct me if I am wrong, that what you imply to be 'good' is some kind of universal act given to us by the creator devoid of any material or physical infestation? If so, it's predicated on the debunked mind/body split

You try very hard to come across as intelligent using inappropriat words in inappopriate places ie Predicated means affirmed, obfuscation to the max. Now show me where it's been debunked.

1. I don't google everything to find answers,
2.I came by my "position" (your words) through personal events and study of all aspects of 'life' and consider there is no 'split' until death (we are a duality till the full stop) and by duality I don't mean body and mind I mean the duality of nature. If we were a singularity we would be as perfect as IT (which none of us are) and we wouldn't be here arguing the difference.

I use creator only to please the religious, and be understood by those who aren't, because there is no G-d, there is no 'being', there is only an inteligent 'Consciousness', an ethereal universal Intelligence, I consider it an IT, not a person or 'thing'. An IT that doesn't watch over us, doesn't hear or answer prayers, makes no laws, or require our worship or obedience We're on our own from birth. We're given everything we need to survive, learn and make our own way in life. As I have said over and over, we are carbon based atoms that has everything we need for this life and the next. If you care for neither that's your problem. What we become and what we believe comes from what we are taught, (if we're too lazy to learn for ourselves).

As for me not knowing what my history is, that's also arrogant. I learned who and what I am from experience and events and not believing everything I was told and studying for my own benefit, not by being brainwashed by religion or the media.

What is the history of YOUR position?

I don't care if you believe me or not, as it is only important to me, I don't want people to believe as I do, I merely want them to THINK, for their own sake as well for their family and loved ones and for the planet, Not spout all the crap taught by the ELITE.

Removed to start a new thread as requested.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 12:28pm:

Quote: Like I said EVERYTHING is made of carbon atoms and we know they are real, or do you want to dispute that too? You might want to rethink that Jan....not 'everything' is made of carbon atoms... For a start, water isn't, neither is oxygen or hydrogen...

Hey great pick-up Gizmo! You're right Hydrogen and oxygen are atoms in their own right and water is a molecule made up of both of them, what I should have said is just ATOMS.

So few people understand about atoms combining to make molecules and the human body being mostly carbon atoms (along with all other material things that 'matter') that I have forgotten a lot of of the things I have learned over many years (and lack of 'good' debate).

Like most other people I've forgotten more than I remember, and it's good to get back some of that knowledge from people who really do understand and research.

I love it when people actually understand what I'm saying rather than just trying to make me look stupid or making me into a liar or both.

But I'm glad you have been able to 'really' correct me on a point.

Learning is my passion and every contribution is acknowledged, as it refines, and reaffirms my beliefs, and reminds me to be careful "how" I say things as I hate it when anyone goes away with the wrong information.

And damn! I love it when someone finds me wrong on points and doesn't turn it into a slanging match

Thanks again and congratulations  :)

You might want to rethink that Jan....not 'everything' is made of carbon atoms...

For a start, water isn't, neither is oxygen or hydrogen...
Back to top        

___________

everything in the physical universe

ie:virtual reality

has consciousness

do any deny this?

so be it

namaste

-:)

further

true reality is complete consciousness

this is the 3rd order of dimension

every night you dream you go to the 5th order

of vibrational frequency when the pineal gland

the 3rd eye

excretes dmt and you 'dream'

and so it is

namaste

-:)

Quote:

Jan wrote The elite are those who control our government, creates enemies in order to go to war for profit, or gain even more power, they control the media and own all the international banks (all privately owned), they push all the buttons. They also provide the drug market, pollute our food and water, destroy jobs and control our economy. Theres more but you will only find something to debunk it, so I'll leave it at that, If you can prove me wrong I would love you to offer it up.

So your conception of the 'elite' is connected to your conception of consciousness, conscience, the good, and free will how?
Also, how is the elite connected to use of critical thought? You charge me with being brainwashed by the elite but fail to link how they are connected to critical thought. In case you haven't noticed, I've never referred to drug companies or bankers to back up my position. That's unjustified projection of your behalf.


Quote:

Jan wrote Well I suppose it is to someone who doesn't even know we have an elite let alone who they are?

You're the one telling the story. It's up to you to define the very  terms you use, like 'elite'.


Quote:

Jan wrote Now THAT is what I call meaningless blather, how trite! Having a choice to BE good or bad means just that .. you personally, your 'general' behaviour ... Growing wings, extra hand teleportation ?? You've been reading too many comics if that is what you call being good or bad

You still haven't outlined what being 'good' is. Nor how it is grouned.
Again, the onus is on you to define and ground the terms you are using.


Quote:

Jan wrote Let me in on the joke. What's good about being materialistc? or bad reaping physical punishment? and by Physical I mean the pain 'you' experience, if you have a conscience, or the pain you cause others, or perhaps punishment by 'the law'... and don't accuse me of words I have never used, that's classic elitism. Being good is a personal choice... "and everyone has that choice"

Again, what is the 'good' you speak of? Is it merely to cease pain? Is it merely acting outside the physical? Is it both? If so, how do you rip yourself outside the causal link of events? How do you absolve history, education, parental discipline, societal laws, and a plethora of other 'physical' influences that make you who you are?  And if you think you can, why does that make you 'good'?


Quote:

Jan wrote Seeing as it was you who came here to do a tag team debunking of everything I have said I consider it is you who's abusing. For a start you now tell me I'm vague obfuscating and abusive, wow that's pretty assumptive (both meanings) on your part.

Asking questions is not abuse. I was initially polite and merely trying to get you to clarify your position clearer. Then you came in with "pathetic", "brainwashed" etc.
It's a two way street.


Quote:

Jan wrote 1. I don't google everything to find answers, 2.I came by my "position" (your words) through personal events and study of all aspects of 'life' and consider there is no 'split' until death (we are a duality till the full stop) and by duality I don't mean body and mind I mean the duality of nature. If we were a singularity we would be as perfect as IT (which none of us are) and we wouldn't be here arguing the difference. I use creator only to please the religious, and be understood by those who aren't, because there is no G-d, there is no 'being', there is only an inteligent 'Consciousness', an ethereal universal Intelligence, I consider it an IT, not a person or 'thing'. An IT that doesn't watch over us, doesn't hear or answer prayers, makes no laws, or require our worship or obedience We're on our own from birth. We're given everything we need to survive, learn and make our own way in life. As I have said over and over, we are carbon based atoms that has everything we need for this life and the next. If you care for neither that's your problem. What we become and what we believe comes from what we are taught, (if we're too lazy to learn for ourselves).

If the creator makes no laws, then where does your idea of the 'good' come from? Also, where does free will enter this state of affairs?


Quote:

Jan wrote What is the history of YOUR position?

Any of the thinkers who state we are a product of the environment and possess genetic traits.

It is false to claim we can escape our environment. Any turn we take in life is merely just a response or reaction to our environment.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 31^st, 2011 at 11:36am:

So your conception of the 'elite' is connected to your conception of consciousness, conscience, the good, and free will how? Also, how is the elite connected to use of critical thought? You charge me with being brainwashed by the elite but fail to link how they are connected to critical thought. In case you haven't noticed, I've never referred to drug companies or bankers to back up my position. That's unjustified projection of your behalf.

What has you not mentioning drug companies or bankers got anything to do with my answer? Must I be as uninformed as you appear to be, just to answer more inane questions? You asked I answered, precisely


Quote:

You still haven't outlined what being 'good' is. Nor how it is grouned. Again, the onus is on you to define and ground the terms you are using.

There is no onus on me, if you don't know what good is that's your problem and accounts for your lack of knowledge, and answering questions with questions


Quote:

Again, what is the 'good' you speak of? Is it merely to cease pain? Is it merely acting outside the physical? Is it both? If so, how do you rip yourself outside the causal link of events? How do you absolve history, education, parental discipline, societal laws, and a plethora of other 'physical' influences that make you who you are?  And if you think you can, why does that make you 'good'?

It's both, and if you had a conscience it would be self evident. So you believe those things make you who you are? The lazy way out, blame it on everyone else?
Life is what we make it . "Learn" from mistakes.


Quote:

Asking questions is not abuse. I was initially polite and merely trying to get you to clarify your position clearer. Then you came in with "pathetic", "brainwashed" etc. It's a two way street.

That depends on the questions asked and the way in which they are asked, and if you ask pathetic and brainwashed questiones expect to get honest replies in return.
I have been saying all along that 'everything is a two way street' but you're only going one way.


Quote:

If the creator makes no laws, then where does your idea of the 'good' come from? Also, where does free will enter this state of affairs?

IT doesn't make any laws because IT gave us a conscience to make our own, and freewill is the choice to use our conscience, or not, and accept any consequences that goes with those choices. We made our environment by the choices we have made over millennia, it's now it's now up to us to bring about change by the choices we make and the way we 'Think'.


Quote:

Any of the thinkers who state we are a product of the environment and possess genetic traits.

Then you are too lazy to even make your own choices and let others do your thinking. No wonder all these bizarre questions.


Quote:

It is false to claim we can escape our environment. Any turn we take in life is merely just a response or reaction to our environment.

We can't escape the environment (we let happen) because we stopped thinking for ourselves. In order to escape it we have to relearn the thinking process, and not follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole. Response and reaction is a choice... The truth will set you free.

You can only choose if you know who or what the mechanisms of control are... Which you seem to avoid like the plague, or have just plain given up and let the control make your decisions for you and respond/react the way they meant you to.

You talk like a defeatist.

Quote:

Jan wrote What has you not mentioning drug companies or bankers got anything to do with my answer? Must I be as uninformed as you appear to be, just to answer more inane questions? You asked I answered, precisely

You're joking, right?
Cite the exact claims I've made and how they are linked to bankers and drug companies.


Quote:

Jan wrote There is no onus on me, if you don't know what good is that's your problem and accounts for your lack of knowledge, and answering questions with questions

Do you even know how arguments work? Obviously not. If you make a claim, like 'what is good', then the onus is on you to prove it. Your whole argument sits on this premise, so if you can't even explain it, let alone ground it, then what the hell are you even on a debate forum for?
I can't prove a negative.


Quote:

Jan wrote It's both, and if you had a conscience it would be self evident. So you believe those things make you who you are? The lazy way out, blame it on everyone else? Life is what we make it . "Learn" from mistakes.

So the 'good' is now avoiding pain and acting outside the physical. This is not self-evident at all; if it is self-evident then it's based on intuition emanating from the mind/body split; something which you stated before your position wasn't predicated on.
Also, how does your 'good' claim to be the only one in a world where about 5 million other versions of 'good' exist? What gives your 'good' a grounding over the other few million?


Quote:

Jan wrote That depends on the questions asked and the way in which they are asked, and if you ask pathetic and brainwashed questiones expect to get honest replies in return. I have been saying all along that 'everything is a two way street' but you're only going one way.

I was polite but you're just a rude bitch arn't ya. bugger you too then.


Quote:

Jan wrote IT doesn't make any laws because IT gave us a conscience to make our own, and freewill is the choice to use our conscience, or not, and accept any consequences that goes with those choices. We made our environment by the choices we have made over millennia, it's now it's now up to us to bring about change by the choices we make and the way we 'Think'.

So if the creator has no part in the 'good', what part does it play at all?
Also, by now discounting this creator as the source of your 'good', you've fallen back into subjectivism. Even though grounding a 'good' in mystical mumbo jumbo is ludicrous to begin with.


Quote:

Jan wrote We can't escape the environment (we let happen) because we stopped thinking for ourselves. In order to escape it we have to relearn the thinking process, and not follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole. Response and reaction is a choice... The truth will set you free. You can only choose if you know who or what the mechanisms of control are... Which you seem to avoid like the plague, or have just plain given up and let the control make your decisions for you and respond/react the way they meant you to.

But you stated above that the good is self-evident and now you're saying we only recognise the good if we know the mechanisms of control. So what is it, is it self-evident, or is it obscured by the elite?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 31^st, 2011 at 5:16pm:

Quote: Jan wrote What has you not mentioning drug companies or bankers got anything to do with my answer? Must I be as uninformed as you appear to be, just to answer more inane questions? You asked I answered, precisely You're joking, right? Cite the exact claims I've made and how they are linked to bankers and drug companies. Can you NOT read ... read the paragraph again ... and does this mean I can't answer with precise answers if it mentions any subject outside of YOUR parameters? [quote]Jan wrote There is no onus on me, if you don't know what good is that's your problem and accounts for your lack of knowledge, and answering questions with questions Do you even know how arguments work? Obviously not. If you make a claim, like 'what is good', then the onus is on you to prove it. Your whole argument sits on this premise, so if you can't even explain it, let alone ground it, then what the hell are you even on a debate forum for? I can't prove a negative.

Whats the negative ... good?
Debate is where you ask a question it gets replied with an ANSWER,


Quote:

Jan wrote It's both, and if you had a conscience it would be self evident. So you believe those things make you who you are? The lazy way out, blame it on everyone else? Life is what we make it . "Learn" from mistakes. So the 'good' is now avoiding pain and acting outside the physical. This is not self-evident at all;

That is not what I said ... you once again deliberately take my words out of contex and that is not argument it's lying.


Quote:

if it is self-evident then it's based on intuition emanating from the mind/body split; something which you stated before your position wasn't predicated on.

I wont answer you again as you obviously don't have a conscience and so anything I say will be twisted. You can't even lie sensibly, but you effectively trash a thread along with any information it contains ... You don't want to know what good is, and even if I explained it the way you want me to it would be useless because you don''t know what it is in the first place.


Quote:

Also, how does your 'good' claim to be the only one in a world where about 5 million other versions of 'good' exist? What gives your 'good' a grounding over the other few million?

Your looking more stupid by the minute


Quote:

Jan wrote That depends on the questions asked and the way in which they are asked, and if you ask pathetic and brainwashed questiones expect to get honest replies in return. I have been saying all along that 'everything is a two way street' but you're only going one way. I was polite but you're just a rude bitch arn't ya. bugger you too then.

You just proved my point again.  Your polite like the Elite are polite with a forked tongue. Besides I'm only providing what you so desperately want from me an angry response, your wish is my command oh master. And I have no intentions of making a slip so that you can have a ahah moment


Quote:

Jan wrote IT doesn't make any laws because IT gave us a conscience to make our own, and freewill is the choice to use our conscience, or not, and accept any consequences that goes with those choices. We made our environment by the choices we have made over millennia, it's now it's now up to us to bring about change by the choices we make and the way we 'Think' So if the creator has no part in the 'good', what part does it play at all? Also, by now discounting this creator as the source of your 'good', you've fallen back into subjectivism. Even though grounding a 'good' in mystical mumbo jumbo is ludicrous to begin with..

Again you prove my point ... You have asked this before, I answered. Aren't you making your agenda too self evident!!!


Quote:

Jan wrote We can't escape the environment (we let happen) because we stopped thinking for ourselves. In order to escape it we have to relearn the thinking process, and not follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole. Response and reaction is a choice... The truth will set you free. You can only choose if you know who or what the mechanisms of control are... Which you seem to avoid like the plague, or have just plain given up and let the control make your decisions for you and respond/react the way they meant you to. But you stated above that the good is self-evident and now you're saying we only recognise the good if we know the mechanisms of control. So what is it, is it self-evident, or is it obscured by the elite?

No I didn't say that I said you cant CHOOSE

No wonder you carry on like a chook without a head ... you can't bloody read!!

You are now on my ignore list! You're a waste of words

Quote:

Jan wrote Can you NOT read ... read the paragraph again ... and does this mean I can't answer with precise answers if it mentions any subject outside of YOUR parameters?

Squirm all you like.
You claimed I am brainwashed by bankers and drug companies. The onus is on you to make a link between my statements and these two things.


Quote:

Jan wrote Debate is where you ask a question it gets replied with an ANSWER,

That's right. So how about answering the question I put to you.


Quote:

Jan wrote That is not what I said ... you once again deliberately take my words out of contex and that is not argument it's lying.

So the 'good' isn't to be outside the physical or harm someone now?


Quote:

Jan wrote I wont answer you again as you obviously don't have a conscience and so anything I say will be twisted. You can't even lie sensibly, but you effectively trash a thread along with any information it contains ... You don't want to know what good is, and even if I explained it the way you want me to it would be useless because you don''t know what it is in the first place.

Well, if you cease obfuscating and write clearly: "Jan thinks the good is ..." Then I wouldn't be continually asking you to outline the 'good'.
You ought to have done this at the start instead and playing hidey games for 4 pages. The closest I've come to getting it out of you is that it's something beyond the physical and also to not harm others, yet, above you claimed "this is not what I said".
Well then, what the hell is it?


Quote:

Jan wrote Your looking more stupid by the minute

It's a perfectly vaild question to ask how your conception of the 'good' has superiority over the many other varieties floating around.
You're here to debate, right? If not, it's you who is looking stupid.


Quote:

Jan wrote You just proved my point again.  Your polite like the Elite are polite with a forked tongue. Besides I'm only providing what you so desperately want from me an angry response, your wish is my command oh master. And I have no intentions of making a slip so that you can have a ahah moment

And you're oh so polite as well aren't you.
I merely asked simple questions, in a polite manner, so I could get a better understanding of what you believe and why you believe it. Yet you replied with "pathetic" and "brainwashing".
If you don't like being asked questions, piss off from a debate forum and go to a chat room.


Quote:

Jan wrote Again you prove my point ... You have asked this before, I answered. Aren't you making your agenda too self evident!!!

Again you fail to answer simple questions.
If the creator has no part in what is 'good', then where does it originate from? It's a perfectly valid question.


Quote:

Jan wrote No I didn't say that I said you cant CHOOSE No wonder you carry on like a chook without a head ... you can't bloody read!!

Do you have some perverse aversion to answering questions do you?
I simply asked is this: Is this good 'self-evident', as you once claimed, or is it obscured by the elite, as you have also insinuated?
If you know your topic you'd have no problem attempting to justify your positions. However, it's become obvious you really haven't thought through your stance at all. This makes you look kinda dumb.


Quote:

Jan wrote You are now on my ignore list! You're a waste of words

You can run but you can't hide. As long as you sprout your vague mystical views in the presence of someone who's willing to question them, you're going to have the same problem you're having with me.

Removed to start a new thread

Quote:

Jan wrote on Jan 29th, 2011 at 7:24am: Axle wrote: [quote]You weren't clear, Jan. I wanted you to be more careful and precise.  Metaphors are ok, if that's what you in fact had in mind. What are you saying now? Is consciousness a form of energy or is it entirely something else? Bloviating waffle, waffle waffle................. EVERYTHING is energy, even the ether ... as in ethereal.

Ok, like everything else mind according to you is energy therefore it would be physical,  measurable and would be subject to the laws of thermodynamics.


Quote:

[quote]What support do you have for telekineses or telepathy? Mainstream science rejects these purported phenomena. Also, no one claiming such powers has ever succeeded in the Randi challenge to demonstrate such powers for one million dollars?

TK has been studied scientifically but no 'scientists' would ever reveal the results cos it would make them look like idiots. Except for a few studies they remain hidden just as real 'knowledge' has been. As for James Randi I've seen his 'so called' tests in documentaries and it's designed so that it's like proving god exists. No-one will ever win it and he knows it ... even if someone really can use TK.[/quote]

How do you know who studied it Jan if they haven't come forward as you claim? I  suppose  they share your  bong.

I've looked at the JREF criteria. Go to the site, they're reasonable to me. Psychics with alleged ability should put up or shut up.






Quote:

Guess you found this when you googled  http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Telekinesis%20Fact%20or%20fantasy.htm This idiot wasn't performing TK, merely an exercise in basic physics, at no time did he try to use his thoughts.

What else did you clairvoyantly see me do, Jan?

[edit]Even medical science uses a form of telekinesis to lower bloodpressure by having the patient sit comfortably, holding a lever attached to a BP monitor showing a graph (NOT a digital monitor), to indicate the patient's BP level (via THOUGHT only), ie they're told to CONCETRATE on the graph not their blood pressure ... it works perfectly, no drugs, just THOUGHTS[/edit].

How does that  experiment demonstrate anything other than brain states affecting body states? Are you saying that thoughts are non-physical things? If so, then you've contradicted your statement that mind is energy, which is a physical thing.

Quote:

Science DOES use a form of telekinesis it's called meditation. I was diagnosed with cancer and refused conventional treatments because the only thing that will cure you of cancer is your own  immune system and medical treatments destroy it. They gave me a book and a diary/manual to keep check of doctors and oncologists, and my progress, In the manual was a chapter on "Meditation" and HOW to. I went on a 'healthy diet' took herbs, did meditation, and in 2006 my last test came back showing "No malignancy found" Also Simply observing and slowing the breath (a form of "meditation") produces a significant reduction in blood pressure. Medical Meditation has been developed by doctors and meditation experts with the goal of creating a meditation program that helps heal people. Medical meditation not only helps people relax and become stress-free, but also helps prevent and recover from various diseases. Medical meditation utilizes specific postures, hand positions, movements, breathing patterns, and mantras to tailor meditation practices for the treatment of specific ailments. Practitioners of medical meditation report that these practices produce more powerful results than those available through meditation alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_meditation

How does that demonstrate anything more than the brain affecting body states. Mind could be seen just as brain behaviour. So far all you've said is that mind is energy. I guess we didn't see the billowing smoke when you typed it.


Quote:

Geez does that sounds like New Age hippy trippy mishmash? and from medical SCIENCE no less???

Saying that everything is energy and mind is energy isn't really saying anything at all. However , what you are trying to do is make your bs sound legitimate by appealing to a phsyical concept but then trying to load it with your mumbo jumbo. The mumbo jumbo is New Age hippy trash.



Quote:

There is also reiki that can cure headaches. Some good advice here  http://www.essortment.com/articles/reiki-hand-positions_3858.htm but the one I have 99% success with, is to sit the 'patient' comfortably (because this can take ten minutes or more, so make yourself comfortable too), now rub hands together vigorously untill you feel a magnetic 'pull' when you move your palms apart and together several times (without touching), then place your right palm across the patients forehead (without touching) and in the same way cup your Left palm at the base of the sckul (again without touching), Works for me.

I'd imagine if someone wore a turbin and told you to eat your own crap that would work for you too.

You waffle so much I've run out of space just quoting some of your pearls of crap.

Quote:

Jan wrote on Jan 29th, 2011 at 7:29am: Axle wrote: [quote]I was trying work out whether you actually know what you're talking about  and could provide evidence with a cogent argument. So far, I'm not seeing anything other than some recital of New Age hippy, trippy speil which you expect everyone to unquestioningly swallow. Anyone can check what I have offered as "information", along with your pitiful attempts to dilute that information, and the information just might be the answers they are looking for, and that makes you 'look lik'e a shill.

Can you imagine what you  look like , Jan? Saying that everything is energy and the carbon atom, and thinking some perceived similarity between the brain and ancient symbols amounts to much.  ::) You've missed a hell of lot of the periodic table, and really, saying that everything is energy and the sacred carbon atom says nothing at all. Yeah, I know, we're not seeing the billowing smokes and other special effects when you spray it.


Quote:

[quote]Consciousness is a serious topicexcellent philosophical enquiry and experimental research has been carried out on both sides of the argument.

 

Thought you said mainstream science rejects these phenomena? So lets see the research you mention so we can judge YOUR contributions to this topic, and not just some kitchen hand please[/quote]

Mainstream science does reject - ESP, telekenis, spirits, and other paranormal mumbo jumbo that you subscribe to.  I did state in that quote that there has been excellent philosophical and experimental enquiry on both sides of the debate on consciousness. On the side of the debate that anchor consciousness to the brain are the mainstream philosophers and scientists. Such philosophers include Daniel Dennett, Ned Block,  John Searle and Marvin Minsky. As for scientists I guess you would include just about every neuro-scientist on the planet.

Now, there are a few scientists , and they aren't mainstream in their thought that have interesting things to say from the other side of the debate.  The side of the debate that your nonsense drowns in laughable disrepute. Such scientists include Charles Tart, Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake. Recently, there has been a peer reviewed paper on precognition by Dr Daryl Bem.


Quote:

Yes it is ...So why are you trivializing it?

I'm not trivialising good philosophophical and experimental effort I'm trivialising what you say. It's nonsense.   :D

Jan wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2011 at 6:12am:

To understand our spiritual nature and consciousness in order to live by it there are things we need to study, and the first is sacred geometry that Kabbalah is based on and Freemasons use.

Wow - What a load of Kabbalah's.

Quote:

Ok, like everything else mind according to you is energy therefore it would be physical,  measurable and would be subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

So your disputing that everything is made of atoms then? If you aren't then you don't exist. That will save me time and energy.... everytning is measurable


Quote:

How do you know who studied it Jan if they haven't come forward as you claim? I  suppose  they share your  bong. I've looked at the JREF criteria. Go to the site, they're reasonable to me. Psychics with alleged ability should put up or shut up.

Because I read, and I'm too bloody old to smoke a bong that's for your age bracket, are you out of nappies yet?
I did go to the site, it's what I commented on but your 'reasoning' couldn't take it in ... Your claiming to be psychic, you say you know what I know and it's crap, and what I think, so you put up or shut up.  



Quote:

How does that  experiment demonstrate anything other than brain states affecting body states? Are you saying that thoughts are non-physical things? If so, then you've contradicted your statement that mind is energy, which is a physical thing.

Oh boy! I knew you were mentally challenged ... so I won't confuse you anymore.


Quote:

Saying that everything is energy and mind is energy isn't really saying anything at all. However , what you are trying to do is make your bs sound legitimate by appealing to a phsyical concept but then trying to load it with your mumbo jumbo. The mumbo jumbo is New Age hippy trash.

OK have it your way, you aren't energy and you don't have a mind.


Quote:

I'd imagine if someone wore a turbin and told you to eat your own crap that would work for you too. You waffle so much I've run out of space just quoting some of your pearls of crap.

That's "turban", and your disgusting


Quote:

Can you imagine what you  look like , Jan? Saying that everything is energy and the carbon atom, and thinking some perceived similarity between the brain and ancient symbols amounts to much.   You've missed a hell of lot of the periodic table, and really, saying that everything is energy and the sacred carbon atom says nothing at all. Yeah, I know, we're not seeing the billowing smokes and other special effects when you spray it.

You don't 'think' about anything, and consider all energy and mind just crap ... so why are you still making stupid comments?
Like I said before you don't exist because your mindless ... so not much more to do than acknowledge the fact .... POOOOFFF your gone.

muso wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 3:56pm:

Wow - What a load of Kabbalah's.

Thanks for the reminder muso I was getting to that.

Removed to start a new thread

Jan wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2011 at 6:12am:

To understand our spiritual nature and consciousness in order to live by it there are things we need to study, and the first is sacred geometry that Kabbalah is based on and Freemasons use. The ancient egyptians were well versed in the consciousness of man and left evidence of it everywhere and it can still be evidenced in all religions and in politics in all parts of the world Again .. Look at the similarities of  our Cerebral Cortex (the seat of knowledge and reason, all 'thought') and the eye of Horus (or the all seeing eye, third eye) . http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/Seawings/Religion/Spiritual/Cortex-thalamus.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/Seawings/Religion/Spiritual/eyeofHorus1.jpg The all seeing eye is perhaps the most prolific of all symbols and it's the vesica piscis. Symbolism is a very large knowledge base. This is a good start .... Sacred Geometry that all religions use ..."The vesica Pisces" (vessel of the fish) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/Seawings/Religion/Spiritual/aboutus.gif This is a sign from an actual chapel that still operates. But who knows what the vesica piscis really is? It's used in almost every church in the world   http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/Seawings/Religion/fish05.png The vesica Piscis is the base symbol of all living things, and the reason the Kabbalah uses it "as the flower of life". http://www.gogeometry.com/videos/sacred_geometry_vesica_piscis.htm Also a little more here http://www.halexandria.org/dward097.htm This video that shows you how it works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoMk0estzXc And Fibonacci discovered the sequential numbers of the nautilus, waves, flowers etc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBfbzxS1l4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoMk0estzXc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ibc8sD5sgw&feature=related

First, what do you mean by "spirituality", then, how is this spirituality linked to geometry?
Also, the links just assumes that everything comes from a football shape when two circles partially overlap. So human beings are born from football shapes? Are we to find our "inner football" and then be at one with the world? What do the shapes want?
Also, where is the link between the big bang and the footballs? Is there a link at all?

Jan wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 11:29pm:

Quote: Ok, like everything else mind according to you is energy therefore it would be physical,  measurable and would be subject to the laws of thermodynamics. So your disputing that everything is made of atoms then? If you aren't then you don't exist. That will save me time and energy.... everytning is measurable

Take a close look at what I said Jan. If you can infer that from what I said then you need remedial training.



Quote:

How do you know who studied it Jan if they haven't come forward as you claim? I  suppose  they share your  bong. I've looked at the JREF criteria. Go to the site, they're reasonable to me. Psychics with alleged ability should put up or shut up.

Quote:

Because I read, and I'm too bloody old to smoke a bong that's for your age bracket, are you out of nappies yet? I did go to the site, it's what I commented on but your 'reasoning' couldn't take it in ... Your claiming to be psychic, you say you know what I know and it's crap, and what I think, so you put up or shut up.

Like I said before, you need remedial training.



Quote:

How does that  experiment demonstrate anything other than brain states affecting body states? Are you saying that thoughts are non-physical things? If so, then you've contradicted your statement that mind is energy, which is a physical thing.

Quote:

Oh boy! I knew you were mentally challenged ... so I won't confuse you anymore.

Quote:

Hardly answers anything, does it Jan. You're the one here that's not following, and it's quite obvious. [quote]Saying that everything is energy and mind is energy isn't really saying anything at all. However , what you are trying to do is make your bs sound legitimate by appealing to a phsyical concept but then trying to load it with your mumbo jumbo. The mumbo jumbo is New Age hippy trash.

OK have it your way, you aren't energy and you don't have a mind.[/quote]


What else do you see that isn't there, Jan?


Quote:

[quote]I'd imagine if someone wore a turbin and told you to eat your own crap that would work for you too. You waffle so much I've run out of space just quoting some of your pearls of crap.

That's "turban", and your disgusting[/quote]

I don't think you have any real sensibilities to be offended with,Jan. And you're being precious here, aren't you? Do you recall some of your comments in other threads? In any case, I made the point. You've got no real foundation for your woo woo nonsense but only your gullibility.



Quote:

[quote]Can you imagine what you  look like , Jan? Saying that everything is energy and the carbon atom, and thinking some perceived similarity between the brain and ancient symbols amounts to much.   You've missed a hell of lot of the periodic table, and really, saying that everything is energy and the sacred carbon atom says nothing at all. Yeah, I know, we're not seeing the billowing smokes and other special effects when you spray it.

You don't 'think' about anything, and consider all energy and mind just crap ... so why are you still making stupid comments?
Like I said before you don't exist because your mindless ... so not much more to do than acknowledge the fact .... POOOOFFF your gone.[/quote][/quote]

Again, you're not really responding to anything actually written. How about you take off, Jan. I started this thread and it had some promise until you dropped in with nonsense that you find in conspiracy magazines like New Dawn and Nexus.

How about you stay in your own thread instead of dumping your crap in mine. And do, of course, invite the Illuminati, Freemasons and Elite to respond.  ::)

Because I read, and I'm too bloody old to smoke a bong that's for your age bracket, are you out of nappies yet?

- Jan

Oh boy! I knew you were mentally challenged ... so I won't confuse you anymore.

- Jan

Could you kindly desist in making these types of personal attacks on others. It's needless and most uncalled for.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

I am going to infer here, but correct me if I am wrong, that what you imply to be 'good' is some kind of universal act given to us by the creator devoid of any material or physical infestation? If so, it's predicated on the debunked mind/body split.

And I replied to that "I have absolutely no idea what that sentence means, it makes no sense at all."

I had no idea what you meant because you used the word PREDICATED ie. Predicate 1. Assert or affirm as TRUE or existant 2. (followed by on) found or base (a statement) on.

ie you were saying that what I had said was 'right'.

So in essence you were AFFIMING that was correct ... from a debunking site?

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 1:02am:

Because I read, and I'm too bloody old to smoke a bong that's for your age bracket, are you out of nappies yet? - Jan

I was replying to this "reply #48  "How do you know who studied it Jan if they haven't come forward as you claim? I  suppose  they share your  bong. - Axle

and in the same post was this comment, which I notice you don't consider an 'attack': "Reply #48   I'd imagine if someone wore a turbin and told you to eat your own crap that would work for you too.- Axle


Quote:

Oh boy! I knew you were mentally challenged ... so I won't confuse you anymore. - Jan

And that reply came after deliberately taking my posts out of contex and constant baiting with inane replies ... I'm only too happy to explain myself and my meanings, and and give respectful replies ... but it is hard being respectful of someone who is being deliberately disrespectful.

There were also these comments that didn't get a notice from you, On Page 3 of this thread. Reply #44...."I was polite but you're just a rude bitch arn't ya. bugger you too then"

His/her posts were anything but polite.

There was also this comment that I found equally distasteful:

"The answer there IMO, is to fight them off, and kill them if necessary.
We are here for our own lives and not to be the servant of some other dweeb who will only realise their follies on their death bed.

Kill and let kill."


Quote:

Could you kindly desist in making these types of personal attacks on others. It's needless and most uncalled for.

Absolutely!! When others desist.

Stop playing favourites it doesn't look good on a fair and judicious moderator.

It would be nice to get a fair go. I didn't make a nasty or disrespectful post untill I was baited and harrassed.. I know I sound pretentiuos to others because I use correct English and precise with 'information', but that is no reason for spiteful 'attacks' just so 'they' can show how clever they are at using copy, paste banality.

Namaste

Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, Jan. It's unfortunate that you have memory difficulties.

Start reading Jan from here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295701068/15- from the top.


"Are you a Yank? You think like one."  

She starts off here and she goes downhill on a toboggan after that point.

Please ignore and post over any person who comes into this topic seeking to troll/cause trouble.

And by all means .. report all offensive and off topic posts asap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG9tiaY-2Qo

Very clever Soren lol :)