Non-Christians, or Non-Abrahamic Religious Folks, in the WR?

[DiogenesOfSinope]

It's not my fault if you want to be a hippie fuck when we already know how the brain works on a fundamental level.

Did I even say "we" to you? No.

You can't even remember what you posted a few minutes ago. There's a good reason your condition is called "the yellow aids" Mr dubs.

 

[DoomPatrol]

You can't even remember what you posted a few minutes ago. There's a good reason your condition is called "the yellow aids" Mr dubs.

That's the only comeback you have for the paragraphs of information you say is wrong. Your argument is going really well. And yes, I know how the brain works on a fundamental level. I don't know how it works on a deep level. So try again.

 

[meauneau]

Whenever you are saying "it is just..." All you are doing is making an assertion that you have proven a universal negative. Science when done objectively measures and describes mechanisms. To then assume you have gotten down to the root of causation stifles not only your spiritual development, which you dismiss, but also the further development of science, since in all things there is always another deeper level of scale.

Fuck off.

I never intended to prove a universal negative. If I say "it is just..." I mean that it is one thing and not the other. This does not imply that the things I am not referring to do not exist. Rather, all I say is that they have not part of the explanation or causal chain.

Then you mention something about the methodology of science. Why? We are not doing science here. Though science does indeed explain what happens in your head when you meditate and move from one mode of awareness to another we don't need to do science to show that your interpretation of your experiences is wrong.

We also don't need to get to the root of causation or the first cause. This is irrelevant. You also assume there are levels in science without any argument whatsoever. This again is irrelevant to the discussion.

I think you had to put these red herrings up because we showed you that you are wrong about your experiences and life in general. This is obviously because you tell us to fuk off. We burst your bubble of delusion right?

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

@jgarner Actually I never claimed any of the mechanisms described are false. Your manners suck. Good day.

 

[meauneau]

Actually I never claimed any of the mechanisms described are false. Your manners suck. Good day.

If you are referring to me, fair enough you didn't. But you implied that the natural explanation is insufficient or inadequate. You seem to want there to be something else other than the natural to explain what you experienced. There isn't. That has been ruled out by science and philosophy.

 

[DoomPatrol]

@jgarner Actually I never claimed any of the mechanisms described are false. Your manners suck. Good day.

Yeah my manners suck towards people who tell me to fuck off at the start of a conversation because they don't hear what they like. Combine that with my lack of respect for people who don't respect science, and you get what happened here. You failed to learn something because you don't want to learn. Scientists have already figured out how our brain works for the most part. In twenty years I'm sure the few remaining questions will be answered. You insinuated that those mechanisms were false because you wanted to promote the idea of spirituality, which is a load of shit.

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

If you are referring to me, fair enough you didn't. But you implied that the natural explanation is insufficient or inadequate. You seem to want there to be something else other than the natural to explain what you experienced. There isn't. That has been ruled out by science and philosophy.

Your manners are a bit better than Jgarner. Mine are about as bad as his at this point.

I didn't seek an explanation beyond our 4 dimensional dillusion, but the experiences piled up. Science describes mechanisms. The cartesian duality you share with Jgarner and the Dawkins types is a premise. It is holding science back at this point.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Your manners are a bit better than Jgarner. Mine are about as bad as his at this point.

I didn't seek an explanation beyond our 4 dimensional dillusion, but the experiences piled up. Science describes mechanisms. The cartesian duality you share with Jgarner and the Dawkins types is a premise. It is holding science back at this point.

Using science to explain the world around us is not holding back science. That's some nuthouse shit. And as I said, you're the one who started with hostilities in the conversation so you can suck it.

 

[meauneau]

Your manners are a bit better than Jgarner. Mine are about as bad as his at this point.

I didn't seek an explanation beyond our 4 dimensional dillusion, but the experiences piled up. Science describes mechanisms. The cartesian duality you share with Jgarner and the Dawkins types is a premise. It is holding science back at this point.

Who said I am a dualist? I am a monsit, I believe that everything is physical, all causes are physical causes and physics fixes all facts. I don't think Dawkins is a dualist either. There is no need for another substance together with the physical stuff. The mind is physical, all the mental phenomena we experience is physical, there is no spirit world no immaterial or non physical substance.

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

Who said I am a dualist? I am a monsit, I believe that everything is physical, all causes are physical causes and physics fixes all facts. I don't think Dawkins is a dualist either. There is no need for another substance together with the physical stuff. The mind is physical, all the mental phenomena we experience is physical, there is no spirit world no immaterial or non physical substance.

Now that is a proper clarification. Historically it was Descartes who made one of the more forceful and widely respected assertions that matter was without spirit. He in fact did set aside a realm for spirit, but his followers eventually brought us to the point where many clever, educated people are what you call monists.

Again I do not dispute science's utility in describing our "physical" world. And yes, to make my point better I should be armed with some citations to reputable peer reviewed work. It exists, but I spend little time usually trying to argue about these things.

 

[Denter]

If you are referring to me, fair enough you didn't. But you implied that the natural explanation is insufficient or inadequate. You seem to want there to be something else other than the natural to explain what you experienced. There isn't. That has been ruled out by science and philosophy.

Lol ok buddy use science to explain conciousness, we'll wait.

 

[Denter]

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

Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that some aspects of reality are ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Realism may be spoken of with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought. Realism can also be promoted in an unqualified sense, in which case it asserts the mind-independent existence of the world, as opposed to skepticism and solipsism.

Medieval realism

developed out of debates over the problem of universals. Universals are terms or properties that can be applied to many things, such as "red", "beauty", "five", or "dog". Realism in this context, contrasted with conceptualism and nominalism, holds that such universals really exist, independently and somehow prior to the world. Moderate Realism holds that they exist, but only insofar as they are instantiated in specific things; they do not exist separately from the specific thing. Conceptualism holds that they exist, but only in the mind, while nominalism holds that universals do not "exist" at all but are no more than words (flatus vocis) that describe specific objects.

In metaphysics, nominalism is a philosophical view which denies the existence of universals and abstract objects, but affirms the existence of general or abstract terms and predicates.[1] There are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals – things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g., strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects – objects that do not exist in space and time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ṛta

The concept of rta is itself derived from the PIE concept of "xartus" as it has been reconstructed, something like the cosmic order or natural justice.

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

This formal proof of God was the intellectual justification that supported my accumulative experience and intuition.

Edit: Without it, the pentultimate experience I had in meditation would have been equally as powerful but perhaps more jarring.

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

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







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ṛta

The concept of rta is itself derived from the PIE concept of "xartus" as it has been reconstructed, something like the cosmic order or natural justice.

Truly sir for argumentive jerks like me Sherdog is instant karma. Thanks for the links, I will eat them to tonight.

 

[meauneau]

Now that is a proper clarification. Historically it was Descartes who made one of the more forceful and widely respected assertions that matter was without spirit. He in fact did set aside a realm for spirit, but his followers eventually brought us to the point where many clever, educated people are what you call monists.

Again I do not dispute science's utility in describing our "physical" world. And yes, to make my point better I should be armed with some citations to reputable peer reviewed work. It exists, but I spend little time usually trying to argue about these things.

He did argue that the brain and the mind are different things because you can doubt that you have a brain but you cannot doubt that you have a mind, it would be a contradiction. This is supposed to show that there is a different between mind and brain. He wanted to rid us of the hylemorphism of the scholastics but ended up creating more problem than solving the problems he was faced with.

I believe that philosophy should be constrained by physics. Physics tells us that everything is made of fermions and bosons, the mind and the brain are the same thing, there is no self, there is no teleology, no meaning, all these things are illusions that came to be by accident through natural selection.

 

[meauneau]

Lol ok buddy use science to explain conciousness, we'll wait.

If not science and philosophy what will explain it, religion?

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

He did argue that the brain and the mind are different things because you can doubt that you have a brain but you cannot doubt that you have a mind, it would be a contradiction. This is supposed to show that there is a different between mind and brain. He wanted to rid us of the hylemorphism of the scholastics but ended up creating more problem than solving the problems he was faced with.

I believe that philosophy should be constrained by physics. Physics tells us that everything is made of fermions and bosons, the mind and the brain are the same thing, there is no self, there is no teleology, no meaning, all these things are illusions that came to be by accident through natural selection.

This statement itself is philisophical in nature and hence contradictory. That said, I understand what you are getting at.

For a further formal elaboration on a system close to my own, see the above links on Spinoza, though these links represent my life and experiences about as well as a taxidermied lion represents the real, living thing.

 

[Denter]

If not science and philosophy what will explain it, religion?

Maybe not all things need to be understood like a machine, its far more important to know what to do with it than what it is.

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

Maybe not all things need to be understood like a machine, its far more important to know what to do with it than what it is.

If understanding can be finalized then strong AI is inevitable.

Action that brings you new information is a great good, but dangerous to continued metabolism... anti-buhddist?

 

[meauneau]

Maybe not all things need to be understood like a machine, its far more important to know what to do with it than what it is.

But everything is a natural machine, the result of pure chance and environmental filtration.