Very New and need to know.

[shaman_]

HAVE you ever tried to communicate with a fundamentalist christian/religionist?.....if so, you may agree with me it is a completely thankless task. They are literalist and believe every word in their Bible is coming from thier 'God'. SO, no matte what you say, you cannot EVER be right cause if so you'd contradicting their very faith! and you are then see as te @Devil' etc for even TRYING to contradist their beliefs. SO, built into their belief system is an impasse.

Same it is so with your materialistic fundamentalism.

False analogy. Materialism is a philisophy not a religion. So fundamentalist materialists do not necessarily behave the same way as fundamentalist christians. Christians have miracles, god, messiahs and the afterlife to motivate them. Materialists do not.

You 'faith' that Nature is 'dead' and thus any event, feeling etc which contradicts this ingrained UNprovable assertion

Actually I don't think materialism makes that assertion but never mind.

(which you believe is the word of 'Sciencism'--though you wont call it that. i do) is deemed by your courteous selves woo woo, whacko, lying, fantasy, fame-hunting, crap, 'false memory syndrome'...etc etc.

Do you actually believe that these things don't happen? Are you that naive?

There is a reason why you know about those explanations - because each has happened many times!

SO, the prson(s) who DO have experiences have to contend with your fundamentalist PREMISES. which includes much slander, and is not at ALL scientific, but actually pathetic in the extreme. Is this clearer?

Mud. I don't mean to offend duendy but from our many discussions I don't think you have much idea what is and isn't scientific.


Remember that this is the point we are discussing.

obvioulsy their modus operandi will be to somehow throughwhatever dodgy means to make it to anything which threatens materilistc science i shown to be false.

You have not shown this.

 

[duendy]

False analogy. Materialism is a philisophy not a religion. So fundamentalist materialists do not necessarily behave the same way as fundamentalist christians. Christians have miracles, god, messiahs and the afterlife to motivate them. Materialists do not.

me::o you believe Nature is not sentient?

Actually I don't think materialism makes that assertion but never mind.

me:::answer question

Do you actually believe that these things don't happen? Are you that naive?

me::::no. but i can see you kiddo. still very wet behind the ears

There is a reason why you know about those explanations - because each has happened many times!

me::::::hhhh you bliiind me wid yo logic


Mud. I don't mean to offend duendy but from our many discussions I don't think you have much idea what is and isn't scientific.

me:::i sometimes think yo dont know what DAY it is.....


Remember that this is the point we are discussing.
You have not shown this.

nope....you dont LISTEN. its like being on a 'merry' go round with you

 

[Gustav]

gustav.....i dont really dig your comment atall. whose fukin side is yer one dude. i dont swap and change with you, so i dont expect it. what do you mean i wont 'move on'?

looky here old man
i find you sweet and whatnot but refrain from making any assumptions about me. it is intellect, not ego that concerns me on this board. (most of the time)

as for the "move on"

know which battles can be won. draws and stalemates can go on forever. it can span multiple threads and still not get resolved.

so you gotta at the very least, agree to disagree, especially since you seem to insist on a philosophical approach to issues that i think do not warrant it.

for instance, on the subject of consciouness, i am, an idealist. yet i cannot say in all certainty that i am correct in my viewpoint. similarly, the materialist is also on rather shaky ground with his opinions.

that is the status quo. anything else is just speculation and tentative hypotheses.
at this point in time, in consciouness studies, anyone claiming they know the ultimate nature and cause of consciouness is probably mistaken.

so why harp on this?
trust me, you can compartmentalize.

i am sure you noticed the big boys play around in your consciouness thread.
yes, it is that complicated and that unresolved.
brain freeze time

gut feelings and intuition may suffice to the individual but what we are trying to do is add stuff to humanity's body of knowledge. thus we have to work within the current epistemological constraints peculiar to our biology.

however what we dont have to do is work with bogus constraints as put forward by dishonest pseudo skeptics and wannabe scientists

them we can stomp and grind

 

[shaman_]

me:: o you believe Nature is not sentient?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that but I think my answer will be ' i don't know'.


The next few comments are quite lame. Are you ending this discussion? Should I bother responding?

nope....you dont LISTEN. its like being on a 'merry' go round with you

I will respond to this one. Just because I don't agree with you and I point out the faults in your arguments that doesn't mean I don't listen.

 

[duendy]

looky here old man

me)))))hmmmmm, less of the 'old man'...bet i look younger than you. how old is ya?

i find you sweet and whatnot but refrain from making any assumptions about me. it is intellect, not ego that concerns me on this board. (most of the time)
as for the "move on'know which battles can be won. draws and stalemates can go on forever. it can span multiple threads and still not get resolved.

me)))you are being condescending and patronizing, and this may make me go off of you....a little. which could build up. i have never dictated you your style --even when the whole lot were on yer case!

so you gotta at the very least, agree to disagree, especially since you seem to insist on a philosophical approach to issues that i think do not warrant it.

me)))again. do NOT patronize...tell me how to do my shit. and we should maybe geyt on quite fine. yeah? no?

for instance, on the subject of consciouness, i am, an idealist. yet i cannot say in all certainty that i am correct in my viewpoint. similarly, the materialist is also on rather shaky ground with his opinions.

me::::thats you. I am certain!

that is the status quo. anything else is just speculation and tentative hypotheses.
at this point in time, in consciouness studies, anyone claiming they know the ultimate nature and cause of consciouness is probably mistaken.

me)))))))have integrity and show the courage of your convictions.

so why harp on this?
trust me, you can compartmentalize.

me::::::::i dont trust you. i trust myself

i am sure you noticed the big boys play around in your consciouness thread.
yes, it is that complicated and that unresolved.
brain freeze time

me:::big boys my arrrrse. have you read prince james' politcal views, wes morris' political views, and tat fukin anooying avatar. they are talkin crap and have hijacked my fukin thread!!

gut feelings and intuition may suffice to the individual but what we are trying to do is add stuff to humanity's body of knowledge. thus we have to work within the current epistemological constraints peculiar to our biology.

me:::h please please. stop involving me in YOUR agenda. enjoy diversity. in other words. you do your tang and i do mine. tis is freedom

however what we dont have to do is work with bogus constraints as put forward by dishonest pseudo skeptics and wannabe scientists

me))THAT we agree on

them we can stomp and grind

..maybe. but not if you kick the side thats helpin ya do the kickin......haha sorry you materilists. dont mean to kick ya. kick START ya yeahhhh

 

[duendy]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that but I think my answer will be ' i don't know'.

me:::::::::sorry cant help it(((((put yer gamesboy down. go to dictionary and look up 'Sentience'...you cant 'dont know' somethin you dont know!


The next few comments are quite lame. Are you ending this discussion? Should I bother responding?

me::::its as lame as your own fathom-ometer will fathom. did? and errr its entirely up to yo



I will respond to this one. Just because I don't agree with you and I point out the faults in your arguments that doesn't mean I don't listen.

nice to know yer beginin to listen

in one way i can understand you dont want tobe seen as gullible etc. but you have to understand that real people are having real 'strange' experiences. and the reaction of some who call them whackos, liars, ad othr put-down terms is far from cool. so i recommend you explore deeper than you are presently seeming to explore.

 

[shaman_]

me:::::::::sorry cant help it(((((put yer gamesboy down. go to dictionary and look up 'Sentience'...

Don't be stupid. 'Nature' being sentient can mean many things. You are the one being vague...

you cant 'dont know' somethin you dont know!

Yes you can. I could ask you a vague question about quantum physics and even if you didn't understand the question you probably wouldn't know the answer. (I probably wouldn't either)

Basically I don't know if nature is sentient. How do you know that it is?

me::::its as lame as your own fathom-ometer will fathom. did? and errr its entirely up to yo

This is complete gibberish. Funny though.

nice to know yer beginin to listen

in one way i can understand you dont want tobe seen as gullible etc. but you have to understand that real people are having real 'strange' experiences. and the reaction of some who call them whackos, liars, ad othr put-down terms is far from cool. so i recommend you explore deeper than you are presently seeming to explore.

No I was listening from the very beginning. Face it; neither of us has changed our views one bit.

 

[duendy]

Don't be stupid. 'Nature' being sentient can mean many things. You are the one being vague...

me)))who yo callin stupid??....you are too stupid and proud to even look term up in dictionary. so i have to for you?...here!:
'SENTIENT -conscious: capable of sensation: aware: responsive to stimulus...[L.sentiens. -entis. pr.p. of sentire, to feel]


Yes you can. I could ask you a vague question about quantum physics and even if you didn't understand the question you probably wouldn't know the answer. (I probably wouldn't either)

me:::::ahhhh, so there IS someting you not know?

Basically I don't know if nature is sentient. How do you know that it is?

me:::::::like i am gonna tell YOU and get caled a 'whacko' or godknows what?....many many Indigenous peoples for millenia, long before the strutting know-it-all materialist scientists also had insight into Nature being alive


This is complete gibberish. Funny though.



No I was listening from the very beginning. Face it; neither of us has changed our views one bit.

like i keep saying. i am exploring. i am flexible. yet yous seem not so. your position seems like an impasse, which includes slander against people

 

[shaman_]

me)))who yo callin stupid??....you are too stupid and proud to even look term up in dictionary. so i have to for you?...here!:'SENTIENT -conscious: capable of sensation: aware: responsive to stimulus...[L.sentiens. -entis. pr.p. of sentire, to feel]

I find your question vague. That doesn't mean I don't understand the words used to construct it. Do you understand that?

I said you were being stupid. I don't know if that's the same thing as say that you are stupid. oh never mind.....

me:::::ahhhh, so there IS someting you not know?

I have explained to you before that there is a lot that I don't know. You must have forgotten that..

me:::::::like i am gonna tell YOU and get caled a 'whacko' or godknows what?....many many Indigenous peoples for millenia, long before the strutting know-it-all materialist scientists also had insight into Nature being alive

Oh so I answer your questions but you wont answer mine. Typical. By the way I have never called you a whacko before. The worst thing I have called you is 'deluded'. You have said the same to me.

like i keep saying. i am exploring. i am flexible. yet yous seem not so. your position seems like an impasse, which includes slander against people

Who have I slandered duendy?

No you are not flexible duendy. You are desperately clinging to your beliefs and you are hostile to anyone who disagrees with you. You don't even bother debating the subject with them (that would be too hard), you just claim they are a materialist and ramble on about materialism. Your attempts you discredit science are quite sad as you show that you know very little about science at all.

Forget the beliefs of the sceptics, science and materialism for a while and try to discuss evidence.

 

[duendy]

I find your question vague. That doesn't mean I don't understand the words used to construct it. Do you understand that?
me::::yes i understand tat. te whole culture you are being brought up in and educated in is materialisticaly bias. you and others are bound tobeconfused when someone claims Nature IS sentient

I said you were being stupid. I don't know if that's the same thing as say that you are stupid. oh never mind.....

me::::::k stupid


I have explained to you before that there is a lot that I don't know. You must have forgotten that..


Oh so I answer your questions but you wont answer mine. Typical. By the way I have never called you a whacko before. The worst thing I have called you is 'deluded'. You have said the same to me.

me::::::::in Zen (i am not zennist, i just know this) 'delusion' is termed 'Mara'. itmeans becoming entangled in Nature. i found tis out wen i was part of tis zen-forum and asked what they thought of psychedelic experience, and was met with--'you can get entangld in Mara. what they man is that they fear Nature. when you look at te etymology of 'mara' you see itis connected with 'Goddess of Evil'--yet agn patriarchs fear te Goddess fear Nature. sciencism fears Nature. it pretendsto have dismissed her 'spirit' FROM Nature. silly SEEEEELY billies!


Who have I slandered duendy?

me::::::well, spose i cooda got yo mixed up with te other materialists here. ie., hve heard the labels....whacko, liar, mentaly ill, fantasists, fame-hunters, etc. okkkay, let me sk ou. i mentioned a family--a mum, gran, and two young boys who believe they were abducted. how pray would you describe this family's report?

No you are not flexible duendy. You are desperately clinging to your beliefs and you are hostile to anyone who disagrees with you. You don't even bother debating the subject with them (that would be too hard), you just claim they are a materialist and ramble on about materialism. Your attempts you discredit science are quite sad as you show that you know very little about science at all.

me::::::AM i clingin...or are you? i am open to listening to people who claim experiences not accepted by materialsitc wcience. is tat clingin to my belief, or is it te attitude...'they are liars/whackos'....and hey mr big stuff. SCIENCE is vastly more that you keep interpreting it to be. wat you mean by science is as i keep saying materialistic........a million times?

Forget the beliefs of the sceptics, science and materialism for a while and try to discuss evidence.

you just dont get it do yo..............your very criteria FOR 'evidence' is ontologically bias which is why there is always impasse and real pople being slagged off....that's number 1

number 2, tere IS actual evidece, but yo lazy materialists are :
a)too lazy to even know, or examine it
b) poo poo it when you hear about it without even giving tim to explore about it
c)love to hide behind your security blanket of.....'show me EVIDENCE....show meeeee METAL' a good voice for that is Stallone's 'Rocky')

 

[SkinWalker]

Same old nonsense from the pseudoscience believers about "criteria for evidence."

The criteria for evidence is simple and is of the scientific method: 1) potentially falsifiable 2) testable 3) reproducible

If you don't like these criteria, fine. But this is how science works. And, despite your unwarranted & baseless criticisms, science works. Acceptance of evidence that doesn't meet these criteria isn't science, it's magic. And magic, my friend, is not real.

 

[duendy]

Same old nonsense from the pseudoscience believers about "criteria for evidence."
me:::this isn't 'olod nonesense' this is serius shit. cuaseit is trying to get past a deliberate impasse which is holdin back proper investigation. though some real scientists dont let it stop them continuuing to explore

The criteria for evidence is simple and is of the scientific method: 1) potentially falsifiable 2) testable 3) reproducible

me:::ys. you impose that method over ALL experience, which is oppression, which is sciencism!

If you don't like these criteria, fine. But this is how science works. And, despite your unwarranted & baseless criticisms, science works. Acceptance of evidence that doesn't meet these criteria isn't science, it's magic. And magic, my friend, is not real.

so your method tells you.....wiat what is springing to mind ..what yonder muse impinges on my temple...tis faint yet clear as a bell, it says 'cause the Bible told me so'! same old same old

 

[SkinWalker]

Experience is valuable. But only when it is objectively understood. What would be the experience of the prehistoric human who decided to hunt a taboo animal (say, his clan's totem) and watched his hut burn with the strike of a lightning bolt just as her returned with that kill in his hand?

Would it be reasonable for this prehistoric man to believe that the gods have been angered because he killed a gibbon to feed his family -even though the gibbon is his family totem? He hasn't the knowledge of conductivity and the properties of electricity and didn't know that it was his hut, in the open and on a small hill, that attracted the electrical discharge from the atmosphere.

Experience is fine, my friend. But only when the experiencer has an understanding of what he has experienced. This is the failing of the alleged "abductees." The do, indeed, experience something, but their sleep paralysis is greatly misunderstood and even feared. Their gullibility, proneness to receive suggestion, etc. along with the cultural themes of aliens who "abduct" come together and create a delusion.

You keep saying "you're wrong, your materialist methods are wrong," but you've yet to provide any reasonable counter argument. You CLAIM to be open-minded, but demonstrate nothing but close-minded indoctrination into the cult of UFO-ETI. Interestingly enough, you choose to suggest that the process of science itself is a cult, as if you aren't a willing and indoctrinated believer faced with an infidel (me).

Duendy, do yourself a favor and get an education. Sure, much of what you would be "taught" is subjective and the opinion of some professor. But I assure you, if you truly have the ability to think critically, you'll be able to see through that very small amount of subjective opinion and will probably be encouraged to form your own opinions.

You're critical of all things "establishment" but you've yet to offer a viable and logical alternative to answer the things that are mysterious. Science works my friend. The esoteric does not. There are no medical advancements or diseases that are cured by mystics. There are no means of transporting ourselves from one continent to another in a few hours that are mystical. There are no internets that are esoteric. The supernatural hasn't provided any clothing to keep us warm in the summer so we can cut back on slaying animals for fur, but chemistry has. And so on.

You state above that "experience" is the alternative to the scientific method. This betrays your true ignorance, my friend. "Experience" is part of the method. In fact, the hypothetico-deductive process of the scientific method finds experience to be a key ingredient.

If you want to posit that the scientific method is wrong, duendy, you're on the wrong board. You'll want to visit atlantisrising.com or grahamhancock.com or some other woo-woo site.

 

[duendy]

Skin says 'experience is valuable. but only when it is objectively understood'.....you see, in thatpresupposition lies the tangle yo weave for yurself.....for example, how do you 'objectively understand subjectvity'.......dig? isn't this the 'HARD PROBLEM'.......?how can w actually KNOW what anothe person, animal, plant, stone, atom, quark, etc experiences inwardly/subjectively.....you dont.
your example of the person from te past imagining that his breaking of taboo causes lightening strike......see what you do. you substitute her mythfor your own....which is? oh it is: just a matter of conductivity. you see bal bal bla professor bla's arrived. all very prosaic and 'objective' but still limited, cause it is based on a world view tat has decided tat only matter exists, and consciousness is a product of complex matter....myth. i say mythcause as i keep saying to you ...cognitive science is struggling wit te Hard Problem...ie., what is subjectivity? so for you to ten harp on about the superiority of'objective scince is rather ironic...no?

that lightening strike COULDhave hppeed to our ancestor preciely case some power of his allowed condisions to produce it. WE DONT KNOW!....what is PLACEBO? we dont know......agin and agin and agin, schools, collegesm parents, peers, TV, news, here with you lot, yorself's inner chatter is saying/drumming itin over and over and over tat you are a mere biochemicaal cyber comp-uter'like, and tat there is no meaning but shoppin.....ove and over. and YOU want me to go back to friggin SCHOOL? hoooow CUD YU?? (breaks down in willowingtears, forearm overface) but i am also serious. you can be funny and serious at same time

as usual you parade ythe great gilltering prizes of 'science'...the meds, te flight, te tis n that, tus implying ourprescientific ancestors must have been in utter MISERYwit teir lot. but thatis your myth yet agin

also, as i keep saying. i am not ANTI science. i have techno gadgets like everyone and ejoy em. yeahhh. what i am aginst is sciencism which imposes its dead worldview oveer all exprience. including experience it is not humble enuf to say 'i do not know'......that is someting you mr Skin very much illustrate significantly

 

[Gustav]

..maybe. but not if you kick the side thats helpin ya do the kickin......haha sorry you materilists. dont mean to kick ya. kick START ya yeahhhh

oh my
i just noticed a whole bunch of replies within the quote.
i will not respond lest things get out of hand

however you do understand that i can have an opinion about you , ja?
and in all honesty duendy, i think you are doing just fine. a trifle unorthodox but then again that might be the whole point

/not patronizing

 

[SkinWalker]

I disagree Mr. duendy. You are very much anti-science. You like the gadgets and what science can do for you when it's convenient, but you don't want science ruining your deluded worldview, and therefore reject it selectively.

You, sir, are a hypocrite. You keep saying that science isn't the answer (science/scientism -its all the same, my friend. Science is a process not some entity or institution) for the things you believe in. You say this because science, using the same methods that provided your gadgets and advantages you like, is now saying your beliefs aren't holding true.

I think you need to find another forum, duendy. Either that or GET AN EDUCATION and stop wasting your obvious talent for wonder and desire to know. If you choose the former, I (for one) would miss you. If you choose the latter, you'll be all the better for it. If you choose neither, I'm afraid you'll continue to be regarded as the village crackpot with his conspiracy "theories" about illuminati and the "materialist, fundamentalists of 'scientism.'" The drive by woo-woo will admire your "courage" to stand up to us all, but you'll simply continue without progress in a steady-state of ignorance and denial.

I like you too much to see that happen. I hope you seek the education, my friend. Enroll in the spring semester at a community college. Get some financial aid. Don't the Brits educate those that want it beyond secondary school?

And please don't take this all as condescention. I mean it in earnest.

 

[duendy]

oh my
i just noticed a whole bunch of replies within the quote.
i will not respond lest things get out of hand

however you do understand that i can have an opinion about you , ja?
and in all honesty duendy, i think you are doing just fine. a trifle unorthodox but then again that might be the whole point

/not patronizing

cool ja...love you saying 'ja'........
you dont have to answer and it dontmatter if not true. are you Iraqi?

 

[Gustav]

sometimes

 

[Gustav]

I mean it in earnest.

of course, a well meaning, good intentioned but entirely deluded pseudo skeptic

<li>Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

<li>Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

 

[Gustav]

skinwalker: "duendy is the village crackpot but i like him"

/rotfl

with friends like these, who would ever want enemies?
seems like skinwalker has got the social skills of a retarted child
and about as much guts as a coward to slander safely behind his computer

the real gem of course is his incessant insistence that he is morally justified in his slander

mommy! charlie is telling fibs