At 4/3/06 11:42 PM, LJCoffee wrote: <spooky reverb>
HahHAHA! Let the APOCALYPSE BEGIN!!
</spooky reverb>

You know your a nerd when...

At 4/3/06 11:56 PM, -ZENON- wrote: You know your a nerd when...

AAAAAHH!!!
Thread Crossover!!!
Parallel Dimensions!!!
Deja Vu!!!
SEWER CROCODILES!!!!!!!
THE END IS NIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

AAAAAHH!!!
Thread Crossover!!!
Parallel Dimensions!!!
Deja Vu!!!
SEWER CROCODILES...

At 4/3/06 11:56 PM, -ZENON- wrote: You know your a nerd when...

You know your a nerd when:

You can't decide what nick to use, so you keep changing it ever so slightly a million times back and forth...

:)

At 4/4/06 12:11 AM, attemptedperfection wrote: Thread Crossover!!!
Parallel Dimensions!!!

See that? - I guess there was something to that theory after all... I should have had the mustard...

At 4/4/06 12:29 AM, LJCoffee wrote:

At 4/3/06 11:56 PM, -ZENON- wrote: You know your a nerd when...

You know your a nerd when:

You can't decide what nick to use, so you keep changing it ever so slightly a million times back and forth...

)

You sir, have made me cry like a kleenex fresh from the sewers, drenched in my pain that I am feel now.

*cuts wrists*

YOU MADE ME GET CUT-WRIST-IN-ITIS.

>:(

At 4/4/06 12:41 AM, -ZENON- wrote: You sir, have made me cry

No! - I couldn't bear the thought of having turned you all emo.

Did I mention that this topic was for sale?

At 4/4/06 12:45 AM, LJCoffee wrote: Did I mention that this topic was for sale?

Money lol?

whose problem is it that you are bother by what I say? Mine problem or yours?

Erkie Wrote

"Debates", or "Discussions", or "Fact Exchange", are completely useless when someone
defends themselves or ends one by not accepting the factual information of the opposite side.

to backhand him saying this means you have no factual information or cannot accept
opposing factors.

It is not about the census; if people agree with it or not, this is about you disregarding fact just to stall an honest and well thought out debate, which goes against the principle of efficient debating.

You can either take what I say to offense or laugh at it

Maybe that's your definition of how to handle fact, but it's not mine.

most people say that debating with others about certain beliefs helps them learn more about their own beliefs

Mind you these are philosophical beliefs and this engagement became a debate when opposing facts were introduced, therefor, it is essential you carry out principle in order to attain a better true/false knowledge of your philosophy, not to better manifest any incorrect notions, which is the point of a debate, to correct them.

MHB Wrote

and only for the fact that if we didn't exist then no conscious mind in the universe would be able to recognize the fact that God exists and therefore there would be no point for Him to

I would argue that God is an illusion, but I can also agree that God created the universe, not human beings, so they can remain independant.

At 4/4/06 02:50 AM, Erkie wrote: It is not about the census; if people agree with it or not, this is about you disregarding fact just to stall an honest and well thought out debate, which goes against the principle of efficient debating.

Ohhh, I finally get what you are saying in plain English, let’s see here: “You disregarded part of LJ’s post and all of mine. Why didn’t you continue to argue? You have no real info, or are you just under too much pressure?”

It’s none of those actually, I read what both of you had to say and I literally just did not have a response, not that I was under pressure, loss of words or stumped whatsoever. I simply became disinterested arguing or debating or at least those points specifically because I replied to the rest of LJ’s post.

Maybe that's your definition of how to handle fact, but it's not mine.

Fact is fact, its purpose is not to arouse emotions in the first place, you shouldn’t get stirred up and I shouldn’t laugh. But if you had to pick, you’d rather laugh, wouldn’t you? You seem to enjoy arguing, you first perceive LJ and I as “attacking” each other and then you bark at me for ceasing “attack.”

Mind you these are philosophical beliefs and this engagement became a debate when opposing facts were introduced, therefor, it is essential you carry out principle in order to attain a better true/false knowledge of your philosophy, not to better manifest any incorrect notions, which is the point of a debate, to correct them.

Fine, would you like to go back and debate both of what you and LJ said? I’ll re-read them and come up with something. Oh yea, I’m stubborn as hell, even if you think you’re going to successfully correct anything I say I still would believe it in my original presented format.

At 4/3/06 09:18 PM, MrMaestro wrote:

At 4/3/06 09:11 PM, LJCoffee wrote: AS far as God goes... well, I simply cannot say - I'm not in any way qualified - but then, neither are you - or any of us for that matter. I'm about to contradict myself though.

False. I am an angel disguised as a human to spread the good news of Jesus' imminent return.

... Oh crap. I'm not supposed to say that.

don't worry mrmaestro. i'm already here. and yes ljcoffee i am qualified. i'm christ in the flesh. and before you say why don't i stop world hunger or stop all the wars and famine i'll tell it to you like this, i want this world to go to hell. my first coming was to save. i gave examples and you all defied them with the exception of a few. now i come to condemn and i have done just that. i'm the reason that the wars rage on and the reason that those kids are starving. 'cause i don't care and i no longer need those people. now you may tell me how insane i am. ;-)

Hey Krizzle, would you mind if I used the ladder/hampster wheel comparison in a song I'm working on? I'm having writer's block :P
The song is for an EP I'm donating to SoundAid, so I won't be making any money off it or anything... at least, not directly...
...it's just that I'd feel bad stealing your words without asking :P

At 4/4/06 11:44 AM, mhb wrote: yes ljcoffee i am qualified. i'm christ in the flesh. and before you say why don't i stop world hunger or stop all the wars and famine i'll tell it to you like this, i want this world to go to hell.

XD - as if I'd suggest ending wars and famine... What do you think I am?, one of the make love not war, save the whales, tree hugging, berkinstock wearing, patchouli stinking hippies??

FECK no!

Well, the world certainly doesn't need our help for that (the hell part) - and besides, we're on the same team!

Also...

At 4/4/06 02:50 AM, Erkie wrote: stuff

At 4/4/06 11:24 AM, Dj-Kirizzle wrote: other stuff

Well, I can say that I enjoyed the discussion - I don't know how anyone else was looking at all of it but the real answer is that I honestly don't know and I highly doubt that anyone else here does either.

The current debate seems to be over whether or not there was some sort of debate.

At 4/4/06 02:50 AM, Erkie wrote: this engagement became a debate when opposing facts were introduced
At 4/4/06 11:24 AM, Dj-Kirizzle wrote: Fine, would you like to go back and debate both of what you and LJ said?

I'll quite merrily leap headfirst into a three-way (Chronamut you better not say it!) if you want to continue - I'ts all actually a very good exercise - this type of thing allows us all to sharpen our tarpon and hone our bone.

Let's at least try to narrow the topic down a bit -

"The Universe, it's contents and all the meanings thereof"

sound good? ok?

ready
.
.
Set
.
.
GO!

For Erkie =)

At 4/3/06 01:53 PM, LJCoffee wrote: Seriously though, if there are infinite possibilities then how could you say that it doesn't work that way? Given an infinite number of possibilities I'd say that there is a decent chance that I might have discovered inter-planar travel and cracked this code long ago - but not in our current shared state.

What is the “heart of gold” exactly? Are you saying in some dimension you discovered dimension travel or something and why haven’t our future selves come back to us already and told us crap? Only the well-trained mind can travel, not some machine, you can never program a machine to operate abstractly. Quantum physics is an abstract science explaining the actual nature of the universe better than anything else. Two plus two can equal fish or rock depending on how you perceive it. There is an element that no computer has, consciousness, the ability to perceive for oneself and others. That’s why you are never going to logically crack this code; the universe didn’t come shipped in a box, so think outside of your damn boxes everyone!

But would it be possible to meet yourself in a different lifetime coming to talk to you in the same dimension? Sure.

But it was really just a silly point... I just threw it in there...

Right, there was no point to respond to that, that’s why I skipped it.

At 4/3/06 05:50 PM, Erkie wrote: Humans perceive reality, human consciousness is formed when humans make concepts of what they perceive, and the conscious accepts but one concept of their perceptions, and the concept that is accepted becomes logic.

So you admit there are other concepts, and say they just aren’t accepted, making them abstract, like two plus two equals fish, but that doesn’t make them false. So what if a consciousness looked at a solid wall and accepted, “I can walk through this.” Hmm? Why shouldn’t he be able to? You do know that all things that are solid, also known as gross matter, are simply visible light vibrating at a very slow frequency, right? And quantum physics says that thought affects particles and electrons on a sub-atomic level. So even if you believe you can walk through walls yet you still hit them, they would be slightly softer to the point where you couldn’t notice on you than a person thinking, “Shit this is going to hurt.” It all matters on the magnitude of your belief. Making anything possible and making facts obsolete.

I see your post, it has black text. It has words, what do they mean? They mean this, this person believes in this. Is it true or false?

My reality/concepts/perception doesn’t necessary have to be yours, but we should still have a common language with terms so that we could communication between each other. Furthermore, to me, my post has white text =) not black, so you just proved to yourself that either you or I can have our own individual concepts/reality simply by how we perceive it ;P I wonder what color LJ sees it in? I’m guessing... hmm... maybe yellow :D

In order to deny your senses, your consciousness, or your flow of logic, you must first be aware of it, which takes senses, consciousness, and logic in the first place, so to deny you are a real, conscious being, you must deny what you already are. Then you wouldn't be a theorist anymore, you'd be a nihilist.

You are arguing with illogical concepts. Your consciousness is not your logic. Your consciousness is simply an observer. Your preset limited concepts are logic, which were possibly perceived by your consciousness as locked and non-changeable, but that doesn’t mean they are non-changeable, that just means you perceive them that way and think you are hopelessly stranded. To deny gravity is not to deny yourself, it is to reverse your limited perception making yourself an abstract thinker instead of a logical one. Our beautiful minds were never meant for such confinement of rules and regulations.

"Spiritual entities" are not a fact or concrete, they are an illusion created by stressed or derailed minds as an answer to mental stress or problems.

Or simply denied by those who are not ready to accept their truth in existence.

Before the mind makes a primary action, they focus on their consciousness to make secondary options, and since consciousness isn't an illusion, there would be no contradiction to WHY humans think up OTHER options if they were to pick ONE to carry out.

Does consciousness think or observe? Doesn’t the mind think and the consciousness observe? Hmm, I don’t remember.

This entails that humans have independent control over their thought process, and that they are fully aware of physical reactions and negative effects, and can choose among their options which one appeals to their logic.

Yea, but a common concept is “fire burns.” So if you were given the option to jump into a flame or not would you do it? No... so what makes you think that was free will? You never were really given a choice because of your locked and rather limited logic. Sure, some idiots actually do jump into the flame, but it still burns them, which means they couldn’t decide whether the fire will burn them or not, and THAT is free will, the ability to differently perceive something and change it’s effect on you, not only to choose between things because you think, “This can only burn me, this can only make my nipples hard.”

Supposedly I just disproved myself about the “free will is an illusion” thing... hmm, MAYBE. But I read something about the Big Bang being so powerful and something about electromagnetic fields and solar flares that said we were more like robots that thought we had free will yet we were controlled by these factors... it made sense at the time, hmm oh well.

Now, if everyone had one logic, but people can carry out actions that contradict this single logic, then the only illusion is that are isn't a free will or there isn't independent logics, which constraints humans from considering principles while studying philosophies.

We do have a shared common logic, and one of the concepts that logic is that “fire burns.” To practice your free will is to actually change fire to a cold feeling, or become immune to it, yet you don’t do that because you are so locked on your perception of it. It’s even a fact that humans use less than 10% of our free will, when chimps use like 13% of their free will. To decide whether you want to do this or that is just scratching the surface of your free will.

At 4/4/06 11:44 AM, mhb wrote: i'm christ in the flesh. i want this world to go to hell. my first coming was to save. i gave examples and you all defied them with the exception of a few. now i come to condemn and i have done just that. i'm the reason that the wars rage on and the reason that those kids are starving...

Holy war is an oxymoron =P

Spiritualizing land or bodies or any sort of objects is retarded.... “this is more holy than that” my ass <_<

At 4/4/06 12:08 PM, attemptedperfection wrote: Hey Kirizzle, would you mind if I used the ladder/hampster wheel comparison in a song I'm working on? I'm having writer's block :P

Hahah, yea it’s perfectly fine, go ahead.

At 4/4/06 01:14 PM, Dj-Kirizzle wrote: What is the “heart of gold” exactly?

It's a Douglas Adams creation :D
It's the name of the space ship from "The Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy" which used, as it's main propulsion system, the "infinite impobability engine". On a side note - not a terrible movie - I liked it but the book was so very much better.

OK - I might be quoting both or one or none of you - honestly I'm not keeping track, I'm only responding to various points...

So what if a consciousness looked at a solid wall and accepted,
“I can walk through this.” Hmm? Why shouldn’t he be able to?

I get that point - but at the same time, shouldn't that happen more often - haven't you ever seen anyone completely eat shit by walking into a closed glass door? They didn't see anything there and truly expected to walk right though and yet something stops them from doing what it is that they expected and believed would happen.

I wonder what color LJ sees it in? I’m guessing... hmm... maybe yellow :D

FINALLY! - someone else who gets that - I've always specifically wondered about that point - we may all see things in a completely different way but since you've always been taught to associate the way that your eyes and brain interpret a specific frequency as "blue" for example and others have pointed at the same thing and learned "blue" and others etc. we all have a common reference but that is not proof that we are all actually experiencing the same things.

Your consciousness is not your logic....Our beautiful minds were never meant
for such confinement of rules and regulations.

Oh but we were - the fact that we are here is proof enough of that - either that , or we're all a much higher form or being that are all being punished in some way right now by being forced to work within the logical limits of this world/universe.

Maybe it's not a punishment - maybe it's a contest or a bet...

Like pin the tail on the donkey - all the kids line up and willingly allow thier sight to be temporarily unavailable and then they all play a game...

Maybe we're all much higher beings who said - OK here are the rules:

You temporarily give up 95% of your intelligence and ability - you will be unaware that you have given these things up - you will be bound by arbitrary rules such as science and "physics" and the first one to figure it out and re-achieve enlightenment wins!

- possible ... not probable but possible...

“This can only burn me, this can only make my nipples hard.”
We do have a shared common logic, and one of the concepts that logic is that
“fire burns.”

Ahhh - or does it in fact just make your nipples really really hard?

To practice your free will is to actually change fire to a cold feeling,
or become immune to it, yet you don’t do that because you are so locked
on your perception of it. It’s even a fact that humans use less than 10% of our free will

Actually, your not talking about free will - your talking about transcendence which is an entirely different thing.

Honestly, I've never heard anything about only using 10% of our free will.... I've heard the crap about only using 10% of our brain or thinking capacity - but that was just some crap that someone threw against a wall that just happened to stick.

I think we are using similar terms to define vastly different concepts...

Maybe I was wrong - maybe we both learned "blue" as two different colors...

I simply became disinterested arguing or debating or at least those points specifically
because I replied to the rest of LJ’s post.

They say when you discipline dogs, you have keep correcting them until they accept it, and if you give into them at any point, the dogs become dominate, not you.

Well, when you lose your grounds or 'retract' your stand on a debate, then that's a gesture that the other "belief" is dominate. That is how debates are settled.

Fact is fact, its purpose is not to arouse emotions in the first place

I share no emotion in these responses. What you might percieve as an aggressive nature is my way of asserting facts. I don't cry or curse when I write these, that is called rationalisation, and it clouds reason and judgement.

But if you had to pick, you’d rather laugh, wouldn’t you?

Yeah, if I had to pick, I chose not to in the first place.

You seem to enjoy arguing

That is because I'm convinced I have fact Fact, and so far your structure has Moral.

Fine, would you like to go back and debate both of what you and LJ said?

No, I' am indifferent to LJ's views, it is simply the "Okay, this is a debate, my view vs your view, OK, NVM, I decided this is too complex for me, I give up. Not that you're right or anything.".

I still would believe it in my original presented format.

Close-Minded

So you admit there are other concepts, and say they just aren’t accepted, making them
abstract, like two plus two equals fish, but that doesn’t make them false

Two fish equals two fish, it is a tautology only understood by humans, animals do not understand fish or the number two, but they do see, two fish. Humans can come up with "other" concepts, but they are instant and passed on, but everything in the world has an exact properties, and you can't think up contradicting concepts without going into the nihilist thing. So says the Law of Identity.

So what if a consciousness looked at a solid wall and accepted, “I can walk through this.”

Making anything possible and making facts obsolete.

Humans can consciously accept or reject nerve pain on command, but they do not control their own reality, they are independant conscious minds, what you're saying is that we're all attached to the same fabric logic, which is true, but to a physical extent, not mental, why? It's not because humans accept or reject it, it is because of what I said above.

Perception: Big, colored, obstruction. Concept: Wall, thin, tall, brick. Logic: Brick wall, immovable. "No matter how many times I try to enter this wall, the chance of a universal loophole of me being able to walk through this wall to the other side is minimal to none, but it'd take more then just human life to be able to enter it."

My reality/concepts/perception doesn’t necessary have to be yours

It is human nature, it is an automatic thought process built into the cognitive brain.

so you just proved to yourself that either you or I can have our own individual
concepts/reality simply by how we perceive it

Absolutely, and you just accepted that everyone is independant in reality.

I also said black text because the text in the response screen is black when you type it.

Your consciousness is not your logic

I never said that, the conscious holds this thought process into the present. Reread it.

Your preset limited concepts are logic

Concepts form into logic, you can form up to three/four concepts on one thing at anytime, but it is not concrete until the conscious identifies it, and it becomes logic.

Which means "Preset" or "Limited" concepts is false. If they were preset/limited to fit to one logic of all humankind, then there would be no reason to think contradictory concepts to our one reality if you were to pick one.

Or simply denied by those who are not ready to accept their truth in existence.

Spirital entities serve no efficient purpose to mankind, they don't write book, they don't study, they give you murder stories, and convince human consciousness to form an entity in order to handle the distress of it.

Doesn’t the mind think and the consciousness observe?

I suppose.

so what makes you think that was free will?

That's called logic, not free will, if you jump into a fire, how does it better humanity? You'll die, that's what. I won't jump into the fire and become immortal. This is a really bad example.

Say you had a gun and had to shoot someone, do you shoot them? In order to identify the situation, it takes free will to understand the climax and make the decision of why you had to shoot this person. Without free will, if the big bang removed free will, then we wouldn't form concepts or actions, now would we?

At 4/4/06 03:25 PM, Erkie wrote: They say when you discipline dogs, you have keep correcting them until they accept it, and if you give into them at any point, the dogs become dominate, not you.

Ahh - the Dominant Alpha Wolf theory - there is great truth to that when dealing with dogs - The thing here is that people are so much more difficult to deal with because of that whole enlarged frontal lobe and all...

Well, when you lose your grounds or 'retract' your stand on a debate, then that's a gesture that the other "belief" is dominate. That is how debates are settled.

True, party A's retraction can be seen as a submissive move and the party B may see that as a step towards victory but it can also be used as a tool by party A to lead B down a specific road that will ultimately end in party A's win - but I really don't think that's what is happening here.

I share no emotion in these responses. What you might percieve as an aggressive nature is my way of asserting facts.

Good point, in order to really communicate any ideas we would all need to distance ourselves a bit from any personal emotional ties or we run the risk of taking it all to heart which could cause a few hurt feelings.

That is because I'm convinced I have fact Fact, and so far your structure has Moral.

And I think that this is close to the core - Facts vs. Morals and Faith vs. Science debates are really unwinnable by either side because nobody will concede - to do so would be to abandon a core belief system which niether party would or should ever do.

No, I' am indifferent to LJ's views

:) - nice to know you care.

Two fish equals two fish, it is a tautology only understood by humans

It's also an easy way out sometimes... The one thing that I'm never really crazy about is when someone uses "___Physics" be it Meta, Quantum or otherwise to say something that cannot be proved, disproved or even quantified in any real way and then use the inevitable non-disproval as proof of proval - or rathar - as an ostensible "win"

How does that go again?

The lack of the existence of proof is not in and of itself proof of the lack of existence.

or something...

Possibility vs. Probability

Basically my point is that it's a cheap and easy way out to say "This might be possible" and then when another says - "sure I guess it could be possible" to run with that as if someone said "OK - you're right - that happens all the time"

Example - it is entirely possible that I could suffer a fatal aneurysm before I finish typing this sentence - but I still managed to finish without anything exploding.

Just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's imminent.

I also said black text because the text in the response screen is black when you type it.

DAMN - I really wish that you had meant it in the other way... but it doesn't matter - I am confident that you understood the perception point just the same.

That's called logic, not free will

I have to admit - I was a little confused by the use of the term "free will" as well... As I said in my last - I'm not sure that we are all using the same definitions.

So far what have we all shown? We're all relatively smart? We are capable of a little abstract thought?

Should we just compare IQ scores? Might that help settle things? :D

You guys are both great - each in different ways but just as fun both ways (Chronamut, if you're looking, I swear, you better not say it!)

The lack of the existence of proof is not in and of itself proof of the lack of existence.

or something...

Possibility vs. Probability

This is just a classic dichotomy.

Just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's imminent.

This only applies when facts aren't concrete, or when facts are just beliefs, theories, or non-concretes. I strongly believe what I'm saying is factual, and concrete.

I'm not sure that we are all using the same definitions.

He thinks that Free Will controls logic, so he uses Free WIll to openly mean Logic, and the Conscious Cognitive process.

Part One.

At 4/4/06 03:25 PM, Erkie wrote: Well, when you lose your grounds or 'retract' your stand on a debate, then that's a gesture that the other "belief" is dominate. That is how debates are settled.

Haha, you made the mistake of actually thinking this is a real debate and that I care whether you believe me or not. Beliefs cannot be dominate, by the way, they are all equally false =)

I share no emotion in these responses. What you might perceive as an aggressive nature is my way of asserting facts.

Confidence comes from peace which comes from true understanding of what one is talking about. Assertion does not mean you are confident or intellectual, some of the most ignorant and stubborn people I have meet were very assertive but they obviously didn’t know crap about what they were talking about. (Not saying that you are one of them or anything.)

It is simply the "Okay, this is a debate, my view vs your view, OK, NVM, I decided this is too complex for me, I give up. Not that you're right or anything."

I’m just the blank blackboard remember? =P I didn’t actually say that, it’s only what you thought I said, and second, I already explained why I didn’t reply at first, and third, I then replied anyway to prove it to you.

Close-Minded

Ahem, confidence... and I’ve read what you had to say, took time to think about it, and discarded it because I wasn’t convinced or impressed.

From the beginning of our debate you have done nothing but argue physics with meta-physics, it’s ridiculous. How can we debate when one of the sides has such an inadequacy of background knowledge of the other’s side that if this debate was a lake, and we were going fishing, you’d bring a chainsaw and horse shoes... look I’ll show you:

But everything in the world has exact properties... So says the Law of Identity.

Ah-ring-ah-ding-ding Erkie my boy, good job, you pass newtonian physics, but you fail quantum physics, which is what I/we am/are arguing with/about. Quantum physics in this case says that an object takes the properties that the observer (consciousness) assigns to it, and it can change from observer to observer meaning that nothing really has any set exact properties. Quantum physics is a branch of science, just as newtonian physics, but less popular and accepted, that doesn’t mean it’s false though. It’s very abstract way of thinking which actually much better describes the universe and nature of reality than newtonian physics ever will, no matter how stubborn you newtonians choose to be about it.

But they do not control their own reality.

In newtonian physics. Not in quantum physics.

They are independent conscious minds.

Again, in newtonian physics but not in quantum physics.

what you're saying is that we're all attached to the same fabric logic, which is true, but to a physical extent, not mental, why? It's not because humans accept or reject it, it is because of what I said above.

Consciousness and energy create reality. Consciousness = our mind, or just consciousness. Energy = belief and confidence in that belief. Reality = what you see in front of your face. An example would be the light lab I talked about, another example is sugar pills, where scientists experimented with pills that did nothing but told people it would make them smarter and it actually worked since they believed in the pills, along with countless other experiments that were performed along the same lines. Your reality is purely a projection of what is in your mind and newtonian physics will NEVER understand that because they are too busy looking outside instead of inward where all the real magic is happening.

"No matter how many times I try to enter this wall, the chance of a universal loophole of me being able to walk through this wall to the other side is minimal to none, but it'd take more then just human life to be able to enter it."

And that’s exactly why you’ll never be able to walk through walls Erkie, because there is a very big wall blocking your own mind, it’s called newtonian physics and you admire it just the way it is with it’s exact properties and immovability. I’m trying to put a window in your wall Erkie, so that you can at least peak over to the other side to see what’s there but you are just so stubborn that I’m starting to feel there is no point in continuing this “debate” with you. Like I said, you cannot argue meta-physics with physics and say one is right or wrong over the other, they just simply exist.

Now gimme a second to post up Part Two.

Part Two.

At 4/4/06 03:25 PM, Erkie wrote: Absolutely, and you just accepted that everyone is independent in reality.

No, I just accepted that everyone can change their reality and actually, we’d all be aware of it because we are all connected on the subconscious level, it’s called collective consciousness.

Which means "Preset" or "Limited" concepts is false. If they were preset/limited to fit to one logic of all humankind, then there would be no reason to think contradictory concepts to our one reality if you were to pick one.

Collective consciousness makes it true. We are all very aware of gravity even as soon as being born on a subconscious level, which is exactly why we experience it in our reality. Remember, as I explained early, free will isn’t just making a choice between “this and that” depending on this’s effects/properties and that’s effects/properties. Free will is the ability to play our role as observer and assign properties/effects to this and that as we please. This doesn’t necessarily mean making fire cold; you can turn fire into water if you wanted.

Spiritual entities serve no efficient purpose to mankind, they don't write book, they don't study... etc.

No, I was saying we are the spiritual entities and yea, even the ones you are talking about, believe it or not, I’m pretty sure they wrote numerous books.

That's called logic, not free will, if you jump into a fire, how does it better humanity? You'll die, that's what. I won't jump into the fire and become immortal. This is a really bad example.

Say you had a gun and had to shoot someone, do you shoot them? In order to identify the situation, it takes free will to understand the climax and make the decision of why you had to shoot this person. Without free will, if the big bang removed free will, then we wouldn't form concepts or actions, now would we?

Wow, you are looking at this from a retardedly different point of view than I am, I am talking about free will in a sense of only yourself, yet you keep insisting it needs to do something with others. I think what you just described I’d term as logic, the cumulative of common concepts such as: “If I shoot this person they will die” and “I will be in a shit load of trouble.” I wouldn’t say that’s free will though, free will is the freedom to will your reality to be anything you want it to be.

Are you ready to stop “debating,” Erkie? I’d be a mutual stop, meaning no one would be throwing in the towel and that there are no losers or winners.

At 4/4/06 04:17 PM, LJCoffee wrote: And I think that this is close to the core - Facts vs. Morals and Faith vs. Science debates are really unwinnable by either side because nobody will concede - to do so would be to abandon a core belief system which neither party would or should ever do.

Bingo.

The one thing that I'm never really crazy about is when someone uses "___Physics" be it Meta, Quantum or otherwise to say something that cannot be proved, disproved or even quantified in any real way and then use the inevitable non-disproval as proof of proval - or rathar - as an ostensible "win"

Ahah, that is a very funny way to look at it, but quantum physics has been proven hasn’t it?

Possibility vs. Probability
Example - it is entirely possible that I could suffer a fatal aneurysm before I finish typing this sentence...
Just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's imminent.

Quantum physics and the whole, “create your own reality” thing is NOT probability. It is only proved so rarely because people are too weak and limited in their minds to accept it, since it DOES have everything to do with the power of the observer (consciousness) and the observee (reality). A newtonian trying to tackle quantum physics and trying to walk through a wall is like a 5 year old coming up to bat against a major league pitcher. Sure, it’s possible the kid hits a fast ball, but very very unlikely. That’s how it is to the untrained mind and quantum physics; you just have to practice at it until you can accept it and remove the blocks in your thinking and from your sub/consciousness just as the kid can keep swinging until he gets much better hand-eye coordination (understanding of quantum physics) and gain some muscles to put power behind the bat (belief in creating his own reality). That way, two plus two can equal fish every single time ;P

At 4/4/06 06:35 PM, Dj-Kirizzle wrote: ...quantum physics has been proven hasn’t it?

OK - Now wer'e getting somewher - I think - let me handle this part first.

From what I understand, quantum physics does work for certain things - so I suppose the answer is yes it has been "proven"- but that's just a guess, I'm not 100% certain.

Quantum physics and the whole, “create your own reality” thing is NOT probability...
two plus two can equal fish every single time ;P

DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER - I'm not a physicist so I may be wrong but...

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure that a decent part of quantum physics does in fact have something to do with probability matrices. And as far as the two plus two = fish thing goes - That sounds more like MetaPhysics (from here on as "MP") than Quantum...

I was under the impression that Quantum Physics (from here on as "QP") was a science and not a philosophy like MP. MP covers any number of silly un-dis-provable philosophical fnords.

I also thought that QP dealt with the relationship between units of energy and subatomic particles - because at a certain point the standard Newtonian sets fail to accurately do the job as they require something to measure - like a particle - which doesn't work after a point.

So ... "light is both a wave and a particle" is QP, "Red added to tree = Sediment" is something altogether completely different but it's definitely not QP.

So when you said "Quantum physics and the whole, “create your own reality” thing is NOT probability" I will agree with you in part but your lumping several different things under one category...

Quantum Physics != the whole, “create your own reality” thing
Quantum Physics = Science and Physics
the whole, “create your own reality” thing != probability
the whole, “create your own reality” thing = Pseudo Science and MetaPhysics

QP definitely does have strong ties to probability.

Everything goes straight out the window when you bring up MP.

So then to say 2+2=fish every time is not QP...

what might be closer (assuming we're talking about QP) would be to say that:

At any given point, the probability that any two fish simultaneously share an up quark is approximately 2 to the power of 447672 to 1

:P

At 4/4/06 07:54 PM, LJCoffee wrote: what might be closer (assuming we're talking about QP) would be to say that:

At any given point, the probability that any two fish simultaneously share an up quark is approximately 2 to the power of 447672 to 1

That sounds a tad fishy...

Ba-boom-boom-CHA! ;P

Everything goes straight out the window when you bring up MP.

I guess we'll never really settle anything then, but it was never my goal to settle anything? I'm satisified with my crazy un-dis-provable theories =)

At 4/4/06 08:19 PM, Dj-Kirizzle wrote: That sounds a tad fishy...
Ba-boom-boom-CHA! ;P

Nice - an onomotopoeia rimshot... :D

I guess we'll never really settle anything then, but it was never my goal to settle anything? I'm satisified with my crazy un-dis-provable theories =)

Same here - I'm perfectly happy going around in semi-circles for no real point myself.

Erkie?

You made the mistake of actually thinking this is a real debate and that I care : whether
you believe me or not. Beliefs cannot be dominate, by the way, they are all equally false =)

I put the a quotation over Beliefs because that is the exact term you used to define the "philosophy" you exercised throughout the topic, sprinkling "Belief" means that it's your way out the back door of the debate.

Assertion does not mean you are confident or intellectual.

That's a pretty naive approach, I know loads and loads of aggressive--even PRETENTIOUS people who are probably the most agile and complex minds I've ran into.

This isn't about me or how I "feel"; since when do I have to define my emotions to you? I don't. My messege is clear and informed, and without constraining emotion, that's all that matters.

I’m just the blank blackboard remember?

That's called an analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

How can we debate when one of the sides has such an inadequacy of background knowledge of the other’s side that if this debate was a lake

Uh, what? I've been saying the same things over and over because you keep rephrasing the same question in different mechanics to the point of this becoming semantic.

newtonian physics

This never left the objectivist metaphysical world. You brought in quantum physics to continue this massive paradox/contradiction without even touching any of the things I had outlined.

Your reality is purely a projection of what is in your mind and newtonian physics will NEVER : understand that because they are too busy looking outside instead of inward where all the : real magic is happening.

Not in any of these instances did the conscious change reality, or did reality change the conscious, reality wasn't dumbed down so that humankind can learn better, the conscious overcame self-supposed inferiority from the advice a person they know is smarter then them. Again, poor example.

You are just so stubborn that I’m starting to feel there is no point in continuing this
“debate” with you.

Sure, I' am the inferior one. You're not? For you to even make these accusations of me being stubborn might ring true in some sense, but not an wholesome way. Click on the link that is title Close Minded.

I just accepted that everyone can change their reality

free will is the freedom to will your reality to be anything you want it to be.

I reread it, of course people can affect their reality, but they cannot change the nature of the identity of an entity within reality, if something is not what it is in the reality I outlined, then it contradicts the principles of Identity, in turn, making them nonexistent.

you are looking at this from a retardedly different point of view than I am

Unnecessary sentence.

And please, instead of rubbing off my statements

In newtonian physics. Not in quantum physics.

Again, in newtonian physics but not in quantum physics.

This pretty much shows that we are both as close minded and stubborn.

I’d be a mutual stop, meaning no one would be throwing in the towel and that there are no
losers or winners.

k

At 4/4/06 09:29 PM, Erkie wrote: sprinkling "Belief" means that it's your way out the back door of the debate.

I don't believe you.

I know ... people like LJCoffee who has the most agile and complex
mind I've ran into. He's like a God really, I love him like you wouldn't believe

Thank you Erkie! That was the nicest thing anyone has said about me in the last few posts!

You're pretty keen too ya know! - the God thing was a bit of a stretch but I understand what you mean.

I’d be a mutual stop, meaning no one would be throwing in the towel
and that there are no losers or winners.

k

That was it? It's ... it's... over?

alright that's cool.

It was fun guys but maybe we should just let it all go for now and possibly continue at a later time - which according to some earlier posts would be about a year ago as well as last week.

LJ wrote

I don't believe you.

DJ Wrote

“You are entitled to your beliefs.”

I wrote

to backhand him saying this means you have no factual information or cannot accept opposing factors.

Thank you Erkie! That was the nicest thing anyone has said about me in the last few posts!

Haha, no problem. Sorry if I was pushy or anything, I admit I got a little carried away, but I had to stay focused in order to give the right responses.

That was it? It's ... it's... over?

We'll both just keep nipping at each other, it's relatively pointless.

how's about this for a statement...

i take huge shits, therefore i am Holy.

At 4/4/06 09:29 PM, Erkie wrote: sprinkling "Belief" means that it's your way out the back door of the debate.

Hmmm, and all this time I thought I was just trying to be nice =P

That's called an analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

Naw, I look at it as a very interesting way of looking at something.

This never left the objectivist metaphysical world.

Meh... I'm not sure I can agree with that... but we are stopping this so it doesn't matter.

Sure, I'm the inferior one. You're not?

We're too close-minded and stubborn to make these kinds of statements.

This pretty much shows that we are both as close minded and stubborn.

I'm glad you can see that.

Unnecessary sentence.

Trust me, there were plenty if unnecessary sentences in there, no need for you to specifically pick one out and label it as the most unnecessary =P just as there is no need for me to nitpick when you misspelled "percieve" and "independant" more times than I could bother to keep track of.

I’d be a mutual stop, meaning no one would be throwing in the towel and that there are no
losers or winners.

k

Good and if you were to refuse, I would have gave up and given your bitter sweet victory anyway. No hard feelings, right? Course not, even better.

Nice chatting with you Erkie =)

At 4/4/06 11:36 PM, LJCoffee wrote: It was fun guys but maybe we should just let it all go for now and possibly continue at a later time - which according to some earlier posts would be about a year ago as well as last week.

You mean it’d take place at the same time as last week and last year ;D

I was thinking of writing a proof table of how changing you reality was possible... and possible beyond a level of: one out of three... to the tenth billionth power... but just for observatory/speculation purposes rather than debate. We’ll see.