Please Heed My Advice And Save Yourselves.

[Chalaco]

It doesn't surprise me that you don't want peace (I can tell from your posts).
Life isn't neutral, there's always change.

I know there will always be change, that's just my point; life will never be linear. There will never be peace or constant war, there will always be both, all ends of the spectrum, life does not discriminate. I told you, you can't have peace all the time, you need the counterbalance, the contrast to remind what peace is. Learn to read, nudnick.

Ok, thankyou for explaining to me that there's no reason to believe you at all.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Well, stumpy, if you would've read rather than look for something to use against me, you would've seen how I told you that it is my opinion that nothing would get done if the whole world was buddhist, and I made that a point when I first posted...

If the whole world was buddhist, nothing would ever get done (in my opinion, although I can only speculate). But then again, all you pious buddhists out there would retort with, "Well, what needs to get done?". All too predictable.

And for the record, you CAN have a healthy amount of peace (though never totality because I've already showed you how life is neutral and not linear) and still get things done. That's YOUR own complexity that has you thinking because I said my opinion if the whole world was buddhist nothing would get done as being I would rather get things done than have peace. However, NOTICE I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PEACE in that comment. Just that the world would stay much like you - idle. Well, actually, that's just being hyperbolical, I still aver that if the WHOLE world was buddhist, not much would get done. And I expect you to either twist my words around and take it as meanign something I made no reference to (much like that 'peace' card you tried playing on that one) or retort with, "well, what needs to get done?". As I said, all too predictable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

I now know why Squashbuckler decided to refrain from congregating with you. If reality is subjective, why don't you tell your mind you're in China right now, close your eyes, tap your shoes and you'll be there. Then, head over to Austria, learn how to ski while you're there. Seriously, what right do you have to be this stupid? Reality is not subjective, ethics is, morality is, your perception of what's charming is, etc. etc. I don't even feel I should have to explicate WHY reality isn't subjective. You seem quite content in your little bubble, mister subjectivity. I done debunked the whole skeptic argument through the use of Epicurus' wonderful epistemology

.


See, I hate it when people argue like this. Instead of answering, they just insult because they can't counter argue. Thanks for trying, your pathetic mind wouldn't be able to counter argue anyway. All you can say is basically that it "just isn't".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

If nothing can be known, do you KNOW that nothing can be known?

No.

Hmmm..... n0! As a matter of fact, I DID counteragrue, I showed you through the anti-skeptical arguments why YOU'RE the one not making a claim; if you say nothing can be known, and when asked if you KNOW THIS, you reply with no, then you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you. I didn't just say, "it isn't". I've already debunked your "reality is subjecive" notion



Now, allow me to debunk AGAIN with the help of Epicurus (link here)

Anti-skeptical Arguments



1. The "lazy argument"


Epicurus says that it is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

2. The self-refutation argument


If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

3. The argument from concept-formation


If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses


Hmmm, not only are you an idiot, but as it turns out, you say that nothing can be known, and to top it off, when I asked you if you KNOW that nothing can be known, you said, "no"... well, in that case, you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you, NOBODY DOES! You're an idiot. Look, I come and say, "oh it's going to rain tomorrow", my friend turns to me and goes, "what, you serious, do you know that it's going to rain tomorrow?", then I go, "no". Why on earth would anyone pay me mind that way. If your grammer follies weren't enough for me to chide you with, you've now exposed yourself as being the worst type of debator - one who doesn't make any claims, just says stuff. Congratulations, you're mediocre!

You say that nothing can be known, and we only use our sense but even we can't trust them, and only aver them to be reliable because the other six billion people on this planet share the same sense..... well, if you can't trust the sense, where do you get your knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as you claim, then you are not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating your thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.

Just read what I've pasted for the second time rather than have me fit it into this situation, if you can't see past your own follies, you're beyond help and not worthy of my time. Do you like having someone make you look this stupid? Not that it took much, though. It was actually quite facile.

You said something. I agree partially about the altruism thing.

You really can't just partially agree with that altruism bit, it's plain and simple, humans do what is in their interest. Always. Plain and simple. If it is in your interest to help othrs, then you do so, but you are not being unselfish; you are sufficing your own interests, thus making it selfish (which is not bad, mind you). If it makes you happy to help others, then you are doing you. Sounds selfish to me. If you do somethign you don't like, it's because you fear the reprucussions (spelling) if you DON'T do it, the distres of not doing (i.e. going to school/work) or because you know it will not be productive and conducive to your interests later on in life. See a pattern here, people. Also, you go to work though you may not enjoy it because not doing so will leave you unemployed, stressed and pauper, so you avoid pain and agony, and suffering. Hedonism again. And if it doesn't pain you to lose your job, then you're attaining pleasure; hedonism again.

Altruism = specious.

 

[Chalaco]

All you can say is that it's crap, and that it's not true. You're just basically denying it because you don't want to accept it. Using your moronic sense, to counter argue you say things like "do you believe this story or this story is true?" instead of using some type of concrete evidence. There's concrete forensic evidence, all you're doing is ridiculing the article (like I said you would) because you can't argue otherwise with real evidence.

NO, I was not strawmanning (What is referred to as straw-manning: setting-up imaginary arguments that are easy to disprove, while ignoring the ACTUAL criticisms) as I have already told you that if this article has merit, as does every nut who claims to have seen Elvis.

I swear you must be slow... do you know what it is to have a scientific basis to claim something, or what the words forensic and science mean?

The subsequent definitions are for science and forensic, respectively. Both are from dictionary.com so you too can reference them, simpleton.

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.


Now, I could have some scientific basis to claim that trees make plastic bags because I saw one hanging off a branch from a tree the other day. However, there's already a science to the making of plastic bags, and little sense in the possibility of trees making plastic bags, so the probability of this claim interesting me enough to take it seriously is little to none. Just because a claim is made don't make it scientific. The science happens when scientists go and check the science of it. Meaning, anyone could have some scientific basis to claim almost anything they want.


Forensic Science is the application of science to law, also known as "medical jurisprudence". And, as a point of interest, the definition for "forensic" is...



fo·ren·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-rnsk, -zk)
adj.
Relating to, used in, or appropriate for courts of law or for public discussion or argumentation.
Of, relating to, or used in debate or argument; rhetorical.
Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.



Now, in this article, it states that the handwritings are identical, so this leans to the possibility of re-incarnation. But since there's no edict or layout of "what traits make someone a re-incarnate", there would have to be more and more evidence to this possibility. That his handwriting is identical to that of the former boy could simply mean somthing totally different than re-incarnation. And all of the other oddities could mean something else, as well. There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it.


There's forensic science to the fact that the boy's handwriting is identical to the next boy's but there isn't forensic evidence to the issue of the boy being a re-incarnate.

Sorry for asking a question, if it bothered you that much that you would rather write insulting statements rather than simply answering the question I wouldn't have said anything.

That was not pertinent, thanks for wasting time.

I must say this is true, and that you actually used some type of logic to argue. Well done, I agree (you could never say this, now could you?). I do fear dying now, but not later.

I don't think you, nor anyone, can really say that with certainty. You don't know what you will fear later, stop fooling yourself.

I thought you could've at least argued without using insults for two paragraphs, but I guess I was wrong. Go ahead and release your anger. What a mean person...

Ahhh Sad are you? Awwwwww........ :bugeye: cry me a river, boo hoo, if you miss the point of pontification, not my fault, if I seem curt, dry your eyes, it's not that serious. Booo hooo hooo! Hey IdleOne, heed MY advice and stop crying about "what a mean person" I am; it makes you sound like a milksop. Sadly, I think you actually thought this was going to evoke sympathy; way to fuel the fire!

True, but don't the atoms make up the body as well as the mind?

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne. :bugeye:

Ok...you might want to take some anger management classes....

If you would've read, I dismissed your petty insolence for it was not even witty. It was just weak. Me acknowledging it as beign weak does not warrant anger management classes.

P.S. Would you like some cheese to go with that wine?

 

[Chalaco]

Sorry that you didn't get my point. I was simply using those as examples to explain how you can't explain experiences to others who haven't experienced an experience close to that experience.

I got your point, I was patronizing. My gosh, nothing gets past you, does it :bugeye:

Calm down...please stop using the profanity (I do understand that you're angry)

Hmmm..... YUP, I'll do what I want

and also try to make some sense.

I've made perfect sense, why bother making a claim if you can't back it up. Shouldn't have brought it up then.

Ok, how is there a contradiction? Can you explain the emotion of happiness to someone who's never been happy (if you do get the point)?

Nowhere in my example did I say there was going to be a contradiction (not sure if you're even using the word in the right context; go read a book). Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered, or felt, happiness, it's not a very important debate... the likelihood isn't great, stick to practical examples, alright. First the blind man, the deaf person, now someone who's not happy? I'm going to expose all this once and for all...


Let's have fun with quotes, shall we...


From page four, the very first post was yours, and you said...

Quote:
If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life. You are saying that its "wrong" to be attached to life? I would argue that not being attached to your life and your happiness is the worst evil that their could possibly be. Being attached to things is what causes the happiness is the first place. If one were "attached" to nothing at all, what would he value? A value is what one seeks to obtain and keep. In " not wanting things" that makes you free? THAT is the reason why I strongly feel buddhism is a terrible system. It makes you not "want things" . If you dont want things for you, then what makes you think that you will do things for you? Where is the VALUE OF YOURSELF.

If you remove the fear of death, you will be happier. Do you like fearing death? Does it make you feel good? If you remove that, you'll feel more secure. Have you removed the fear of death from yourself? If you haven't experienced it don't assume things. You do not need to be attached to something material in order to be happy. If one were not attached to anything material they would value the non-material things. Again, you must experience it, and not assume things (what you're doing). You sound like a complete moron (no offense) who has only read things and has experienced nothing. I can't explain an experience, you need to feel it. Once you experience it, it will answer all of your questions. You will still value yourself. You see, you have a euro-centric mind. You can't imagine life without desire. You think it'll be horrible

Now, I'm going to take a stab in the dark here - correct me if I'm wrong - but Squashbuckler didn't ask IdleOne - I mean VitalOne - if he could explain a feeling. Could it be because you made it up in hopes that it would justify why you put that that a feeling could not be explained? I think so, as a matter of fact, I KNOW SO.


I've also read through the whole page looking for him asking you to explicate a feeling to him; didn't find anything. I'll venture a guess and say you've been caught with your ankle in your mouth and you're trying to expatiate yourself out of this one by making up a story that he asked you to explain a feeling when, in fact, he did no such thing. He didn't ask you anything of that nature, you still brought it up and since you can't explain it, you shouldn't have came with it. If you're not going to be backing up any claims, what's the point of posting - don't answer that question, actually.


I read the third page again, to refresh my memory, he posed a lot of questions to you and they all fell on deaf ears, you just continued to expatiate on the whole fear of death issue (which I have already debunked and gotten you to admit that you fear death; like me, but we've already established that I fear death, so don't think you can use that against me). Learn to read, learn to remember, and learn to know when to stop posting (hint: now would be a good time).

He was asking me about how can someone feel selfless, and not be selfish, so I was trying to say that you have to experience that feeling, it can't really be explained.

No, he wasn't, I've already pasted your post, and what you were answering, he didn't ask you no such thing, get over yourself, you're a fraud. Furthermore, explaining what it is to feel selfless is impossible, for I have already debunked altruism. And an experience CAN be put into words; with limits. Whether vicarious or first hand, it can be done. It's done on a contant basis, you tell your friends about your trip to where ever, for instance. I could go on, but you wouldn't get the point even if I did.

 

[Chalaco]

Ok, how is there a contradiction? Can you explain the emotion of happiness to someone who's never been happy (if you do get the point)?

You're strawmanning, setting up an imaginary argument that you think you can easily prove, whilst ignoring my point completely. If that KID, a little KID, in the article you gave link to, can expliain how he feels he's a re-incarnate, then I think you can manage to explain this feeling you speak of (which squashbuckler never asked you about, mind you). You brought it up, to merit your point, now back it up.

He was asking me about how can someone feel selfless, and not be selfish, so I was trying to say that you have to experience that feeling, it can't really be explained.

I want to know WHEN and WHERE he asked you this! :bugeye:

 

[Chalaco]

I'll try explaining something. Desire -> Suffering. If you take away desire, you also take away suffering. For instance, let's say you desire food, while desiring this food, you are suffering, when you get the food, and the desire is gone, the suffering is also gone (unless a new desire emerges). Selfishness, attachement, materialism are all related to desire. We naturally desire things, so to eliminate desire, in Buddhism you desire to not desire. This desire will ofcourse cause suffering also, but after you achieve a state where you no longer even think about thinking about desiring anything, then there will be no suffering.

Also, while in the sleeping state (that's not REM) we don't desire, we're not aware, we're not selfish, we're not happy, sad, etc..nothing exists for that period, not even time (to the person experiencing it). The best way to explain the state where you're completely unselfish, is like that sleeping state, except you're aware. I know you'll probably argue, or redicule [SIC] this, but I'm just sharing information, you don't have to believe this.

Great. Now I'LL TRY EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU. I never brought up any of this desire crap, Squashbuckler did, you did, Canute did, Lucysnow did, NOT ME. Come at ME, or don't come at all. Fairly simple.

 

[Chalaco]

VitalOne, you can take your time with these, as I'm sure you'll postulate some form of bollocks in hopes that it will give you, or your argument (if you can even call it that) validity. Don't bother, stay idle. You can't beat me.

 

[VitalOne]

I know there will always be change, that's just my point; life will never be linear. There will never be peace or constant war, there will always be both, all ends of the spectrum, life does not discriminate. I told you, you can't have peace all the time, you need the counterbalance, the contrast to remind what peace is. Learn to read, nudnick.

Agreed (except about the learning to read part).

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Well, stumpy, if you would've read rather than look for something to use against me, you would've seen how I told you that it is my opinion that nothing would get done if the whole world was buddhist, and I made that a point when I first posted...

Ok, it's your opinion.

And for the record, you CAN have a healthy amount of peace (though never totality because I've already showed you how life is neutral and not linear) and still get things done. That's YOUR own complexity that has you thinking because I said my opinion if the whole world was buddhist nothing would get done as being I would rather get things done than have peace. However, NOTICE I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PEACE in that comment. Just that the world would stay much like you - idle. Well, actually, that's just being hyperbolical, I still aver that if the WHOLE world was buddhist, not much would get done. And I expect you to either twist my words around and take it as meanign something I made no reference to (much like that 'peace' card you tried playing on that one) or retort with, "well, what needs to get done?". As I said, all too predictable.

Yes, you can have a healthy amount of peace, and get things done. Buddhists get things done, in fact since they support altruism, they would get a lot done for others. Can you clarify what you mean by "getting things done"?. Oh, and I don't idle, it's just that I don't check these forums every hour of everyday. I stopped checking them for a while. Everytime I check the forums, I reply to your messages.

Hmmm..... n0! As a matter of fact, I DID counteragrue, I showed you through the anti-skeptical arguments why YOU'RE the one not making a claim; if you say nothing can be known, and when asked if you KNOW THIS, you reply with no, then you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you. I didn't just say, "it isn't". I've already debunked your "reality is subjecive" notion

No you didn't. You said something like "I don't even know why I have to explain why reality is objective". You didn't even use any evidence. In fact, you can't prove it at all. Our subconscious controls it, not our conscious, so you can't consciously close your eyes and go to China. You must not know anything about the mind. Your subconscious controls things that your conscious can't (normally) control. You did counterargue, but with horrible arguments. Oh yeah, and THINGS CAN BE KNOWN.

Now, allow me to debunk AGAIN with the help of Epicurus (link here)

Anti-skeptical Arguments

1. The "lazy argument"


Epicurus says that it is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

2. The self-refutation argument


If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

3. The argument from concept-formation

Let me clarify this, THINGS CAN BE KNOWN.

If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses


Hmmm, not only are you an idiot, but as it turns out, you say that nothing can be known, and to top it off, when I asked you if you KNOW that nothing can be known, you said, "no"... well, in that case, you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you, NOBODY DOES! You're an idiot. Look, I come and say, "oh it's going to rain tomorrow", my friend turns to me and goes, "what, you serious, do you know that it's going to rain tomorrow?", then I go, "no". Why on earth would anyone pay me mind that way. If your grammer follies weren't enough for me to chide you with, you've now exposed yourself as being the worst type of debator - one who doesn't make any claims, just says stuff. Congratulations, you're mediocre!

You say that nothing can be known, and we only use our sense but even we can't trust them, and only aver them to be reliable because the other six billion people on this planet share the same sense..... well, if you can't trust the sense, where do you get your knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as you claim, then you are not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating your thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.

Just read what I've pasted for the second time rather than have me fit it into this situation, if you can't see past your own follies, you're beyond help and not worthy of my time. Do you like having someone make you look this stupid? Not that it took much, though. It was actually quite facile.

No one needs to listen to you either, as you are an even bigger idiot. We can "know" or believe things, but we can never be certain that these things are true. So I can know or believe in that statement, but never know that it's absolutely true. And how can you be absolutely sure that it's going to rain tommorow? Even the weathermen have their % chances for predictions, and the percent is never 100 (as almost anything can happen).

I get my knowledge from my mind, and my senses. I said we couldn't trust our senses, not that we weren't entitled to use them, what are you, stupid? You are quite ignorant.

Oh, and I can't tell that it didn't take much, it always seems like you're not using your brain at all.

You really can't just partially agree with that altruism bit, it's plain and simple, humans do what is in their interest. Always. Plain and simple. If it is in your interest to help othrs, then you do so, but you are not being unselfish; you are sufficing your own interests, thus making it selfish (which is not bad, mind you). If it makes you happy to help others, then you are doing you. Sounds selfish to me. If you do somethign you don't like, it's because you fear the reprucussions (spelling) if you DON'T do it, the distres of not doing (i.e. going to school/work) or because you know it will not be productive and conducive to your interests later on in life. See a pattern here, people. Also, you go to work though you may not enjoy it because not doing so will leave you unemployed, stressed and pauper, so you avoid pain and agony, and suffering. Hedonism again. And if it doesn't pain you to lose your job, then you're attaining pleasure; hedonism again.

Altruism = specious.

Ok, I don't partially agree, I totally agree. When I explained the unselfish feeling in a previous post, you arrogantly said

Great. Now I'LL TRY EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU. I never brought up any of this desire crap, Squashbuckler did, you did, Canute did, Lucysnow did, NOT ME. Come at ME, or don't come at all. Fairly simple.

 

[Canute]

I'm not sure I understand the precise disgreement here but just to clarify a couple of things that seem to be muddled. This is how I see it anyway.

'Suffering' is not a good translation of the original term. 'Unsatisfactoriness' is closer (but clumsier). Losing one fear of death does not bring an end to 'suffering'. Transcendence of self does that.

Reducing desire is part of achieving detachment. But detachment is not indifference. The desire doesn't go away, it just isn't important. Much of this is common sense in a way, it's better to enjoy an occasional drink than be a dependent alcaholic.

It is claimed that it is possible to have experiences that provide direct knowledge of reality, (and that once thought is subdued it's difficult to have any other kind). Millions of people (and I think Vitalone) claim this.

However it is not possible to describe the experience in any meaningful way to anyone else. Either you know it or you don't, no argument about it is possible. Perhaps it is all a matter of delusion, perhaps it isn't. There's only one way to find out. It is possible to share the experience to some extent with people who have experienced something similar, or the same, as it is for other kinds of experiences, but not with someone who has not been there. This isn't elitism, anyone can do it, nor is it evasiveness. It just follows inevitably from the first-person nature and 'incommensurability' of experiences.

 

[Chalaco]

but then it's pointless to bring it up in an argument if you're not going to put it into detail, isn't it

and canute, I said nothing of the suffering bit, neither did idle, no one really has for a coupelof pages, but thanks for clearing it up same way.

 

[VitalOne]

NO, I was not strawmanning (What is referred to as straw-manning: setting-up imaginary arguments that are easy to disprove, while ignoring the ACTUAL criticisms) as I have already told you that if this article has merit, as does every nut who claims to have seen Elvis.

Does every nut who claims to have seen Elvis have forensic science to back up their claim? Do they have the concrete evidence layed out right there?

I swear you must be slow... do you know what it is to have a scientific basis to claim something, or what the words forensic and science mean?

The subsequent definitions are for science and forensic, respectively. Both are from dictionary.com so you too can reference them, simpleton.

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

Now, I could have some scientific basis to claim that trees make plastic bags because I saw one hanging off a branch from a tree the other day. However, there's already a science to the making of plastic bags, and little sense in the possibility of trees making plastic bags, so the probability of this claim interesting me enough to take it seriously is little to none. Just because a claim is made don't make it scientific. The science happens when scientists go and check the science of it. Meaning, anyone could have some scientific basis to claim almost anything they want.


Forensic Science is the application of science to law, also known as "medical jurisprudence". And, as a point of interest, the definition for "forensic" is...



fo·ren·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-rnsk, -zk)
adj.
Relating to, used in, or appropriate for courts of law or for public discussion or argumentation.
Of, relating to, or used in debate or argument; rhetorical.
Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.



Now, in this article, it states that the handwritings are identical, so this leans to the possibility of re-incarnation. But since there's no edict or layout of "what traits make someone a re-incarnate", there would have to be more and more evidence to this possibility. That his handwriting is identical to that of the former boy could simply mean somthing totally different than re-incarnation. And all of the other oddities could mean something else, as well. There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it.

There's forensic science to the fact that the boy's handwriting is identical to the next boy's but there isn't forensic evidence to the issue of the boy being a re-incarnate.

Are you some type of complete utter moron? Obviously if the handwritings are identical it must mean that their conscious minds are at least similar. And it wasn't a former boy, it was a former adult man. Also, it wasn't his handwriting alone that was the same, he also had memories of confirmed events in the former man's life. This is disputable, but you said there was no evidence, and simply gave you some. Also, what are the chances that he would remember events that occured in the former man's life, and have handwriting identical to the other mans? It would be nearly impossible by random coincidence. What else could it mean if the boy claims he is the other man, has handwriting identical to the other man, and has memories of confirmed events that the other man experienced other than their two minds are identical, or at least very similar? The argument isn't about "what traits make someone re-incarnate" but "is he a reincarnation". The easiest way to find out if he is a reincarnation is to find out if the two conscious minds are the same, and what better way than forensic science. Also, lots of accepted theories in science are disputable, yet they are widly accepted.

How else could you prove reincarnation true or false? The only logical way would be comparing the minds of the dead and living and finding out if they are identical. As the doctrine of reincarnation states the mind moves to a different body after death.

That was not pertinent, thanks for wasting time.

You wasted your own time as you consciously made the decision to argue.

I don't think you, nor anyone, can really say that with certainty. You don't know what you will fear later, stop fooling yourself.

Like I said, nothing can be known as the 100% absolute truth.

Ahhh Sad are you? Awwwwww........ :bugeye: cry me a river, boo hoo, if you miss the point of pontification, not my fault, if I seem curt, dry your eyes, it's not that serious. Booo hooo hooo! Hey IdleOne, heed MY advice and stop crying about "what a mean person" I am; it makes you sound like a milksop. Sadly, I think you actually thought this was going to evoke sympathy; way to fuel the fire!

Actually I expected this, it's so predictable from your character. I'm not crying , I'm actually laughing.

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne. :bugeye:

Exactly.

If you would've read, I dismissed your petty insolence for it was not even witty. It was just weak. Me acknowledging it as beign weak does not warrant anger management classes.

P.S. Would you like some cheese to go with that wine?

You didn't simply acknowledged it as weak, it's pretty obvious that you're repressing some type of anger.

 

[VitalOne]

I got your point, I was patronizing. My gosh, nothing gets past you, does it :bugeye:

I was thinking the same thing about you.

Hmmm..... YUP, I'll do what I want

Go ahead.

I've made perfect sense, why bother making a claim if you can't back it up. Shouldn't have brought it up then.

You've perfectly made no sense.

Nowhere in my example did I say there was going to be a contradiction (not sure if you're even using the word in the right context; go read a book). Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered, or felt, happiness, it's not a very important debate... the likelihood isn't great, stick to practical examples, alright. First the blind man, the deaf person, now someone who's not happy? I'm going to expose all this once and for all...


Let's have fun with quotes, shall we...


From page four, the very first post was yours, and you said...




Now, I'm going to take a stab in the dark here - correct me if I'm wrong - but Squashbuckler didn't ask IdleOne - I mean VitalOne - if he could explain a feeling. Could it be because you made it up in hopes that it would justify why you put that that a feeling could not be explained? I think so, as a matter of fact, I KNOW SO.


I've also read through the whole page looking for him asking you to explicate a feeling to him; didn't find anything. I'll venture a guess and say you've been caught with your ankle in your mouth and you're trying to expatiate yourself out of this one by making up a story that he asked you to explain a feeling when, in fact, he did no such thing. He didn't ask you anything of that nature, you still brought it up and since you can't explain it, you shouldn't have came with it. If you're not going to be backing up any claims, what's the point of posting - don't answer that question, actually.


I read the third page again, to refresh my memory, he posed a lot of questions to you and they all fell on deaf ears, you just continued to expatiate on the whole fear of death issue (which I have already debunked and gotten you to admit that you fear death; like me, but we've already established that I fear death, so don't think you can use that against me). Learn to read, learn to remember, and learn to know when to stop posting (hint: now would be a good time).




No, he wasn't, I've already pasted your post, and what you were answering, he didn't ask you no such thing, get over yourself, you're a fraud. Furthermore, explaining what it is to feel selfless is impossible, for I have already debunked altruism. And an experience CAN be put into words; with limits. Whether vicarious or first hand, it can be done. It's done on a contant basis, you tell your friends about your trip to where ever, for instance. I could go on, but you wouldn't get the point even if I did.

Ok then, why did you bring it up if their was no contradiction? Also, he never directly asked me what the feeling was, but implied it by rejecting that if you remove your attachement towards life, you'll be happier.

 

[VitalOne]

You're strawmanning, setting up an imaginary argument that you think you can easily prove, whilst ignoring my point completely. If that KID, a little KID, in the article you gave link to, can expliain how he feels he's a re-incarnate, then I think you can manage to explain this feeling you speak of (which squashbuckler never asked you about, mind you). You brought it up, to merit your point, now back it up.

Why did you bring it up if there was no contradiction? It seemed like you were trying to point out some type of contradiction that's all.

I want to know WHEN and WHERE he asked you this! :bugeye:

He never did. It was completely wrong to say it the way I did. I was simply challenging his statement

If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life.

 

[VitalOne]

Great. Now I'LL TRY EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU. I never brought up any of this desire crap, Squashbuckler did, you did, Canute did, Lucysnow did, NOT ME. Come at ME, or don't come at all. Fairly simple.

You wanted to me explain the feeling. That's cool anyway.

 

[Chalaco]

Agreed (except about the learning to read part)

You seem to be doing that a lot these days - agreeing with me.

Ok, it's your opinion.

This I can't stand, see. I done told you more than once that it is my opinion, if you're going to retort by repeating what I already put, why bother. Either state that you concur or leave it be, but don't repeat what I was trying to tell you. You're just stating the obvious, of course I would know it is my opinion, that was my point entirely and what it was I trying to tell you.

Yes, you can have a healthy amount of peace, and get things done. Buddhists get things done, in fact since they support altruism, they would get a lot done for others. Can you clarify what you mean by "getting things done"?. Oh, and I don't idle, it's just that I don't check these forums every hour of everyday. I stopped checking them for a while. Everytime I check the forums, I reply to your messages.

You're beyond help, I feel sorry for you, really. I really do. You've already stated that you agree with me that altruism is specious, yet you aver that because buddhists support altruism they get things done for others? Wow! The very altruism you agreed as being specious. Tsk tsk.

No you didn't. You said something like "I don't even know why I have to explain why reality is objective". You didn't even use any evidence. In fact, you can't prove it at all. Our subconscious controls it, not our conscious, so you can't consciously close your eyes and go to China. You must not know anything about the mind. Your subconscious controls things that your conscious can't (normally) control. You did counterargue, but with horrible arguments. Oh yeah, and THINGS CAN BE KNOWN.

No, I actually said, "I don't feel as if though I should even have to explain why reality isn't subjective". And I showed you why reality is not subjective before, you just didn't read. Allow me to quote and make you look stupid again (apropos, I'm getting tired of quoting myself because you didn't read; learn to read, stupid :bugeye: )...


Actually, why bother. You've stated that now, all of a sudden that you've been caught in a web of stupidity, things CAN be known. Ah, quite the turn around, charlatan. How did you manage to do the one eighty with such facility. Now let me see if I get this straight, things CAN be known, YET reality is subjective? Well, what the hell kinda shlt is that? If things can be known, then they are objective. Thus, reality is objective. You make my job easier by the post, stupid

Hey vital,I am saying this with absolute respect.... I guess if you stand in front of a semi-truck......your mind would be all over the front of it,...or is that just in your mind too?

Just in your mind too. And, I'm not sure, but pretty sure that your mind won't be over (won't test this).

Material things are really just electrical signals interpreted by our brains, nothing more. The only things that truly exists are our minds....

"Reality" is just another word for a constant dream or illusion. Without the mind, nothing exists. If everyone was deaf, blind, and paralyzed then nothing that we precieve would "exist"

If your brain does not create the rock then why do you need sight, and touch for the rock to "be". Without them, it would not exist. Your brain creates what you see and what you touch.

So material things are just signals interpreted by our brains

Interpretations of reality are what created the idea of reality (obviously)

Its all an elaborate illusion

Reality IS subjective

There is a reality beyond our interpretations. I'm sure that our minds exists. Oh yeah, and everything is just an illusion.

Let me clarify this, THINGS CAN BE KNOWN

Wow! Do your parents know you're this smart. But hey, being coherent is overrated, right..... wrong :bugeye: You've contradicted yourself into defeat.


Recognize the cognitive dissonance, kid. Seriously, what right do you have to be this stupid? Now that "things can be known" (which I agree with wholeheartedly) that debunks your whole reality is subjective notion. If YOU can't see that, then you are one of those people you spoke of earlier, the ones who don't have all senses - because you're blind!

I debunked your whole reality is subjective theory when I posted this...

It is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses

So, yes, I did use 'evidence', as you put it. Furthermore, I've put it probably three or four times already (including this time). I think it's back to school for you, old timer. Learn to read while you're there. There must be a school nigh; sign up, don't hold back.

No one needs to listen to you either

First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality beign subjective, so no one would need to listen to me. I did, however, debunk your pseudo-theory.

as you are an even bigger idiot.

You're basically saying "yes, I am an idiot, but you're 'an even bigger idiot.'" Good job imbecile, you've rebuked nothing. What difference does it make if the person calling you an idiot is one as well? You're still an idiot. And even if it were to make a difference (which it doesn't) I'm no idiot, so your putative "comeback" holds no weight regardless. You never cease to amaze me.

We can "know" or believe things, but we can never be certain that these things are true. So I can know or believe in that statement, but never know that it's absolutely true.

Well, then how can you say "THINGS CAN BE KNOWN" then? If they're never absolutely true, then how can they be known? You've contradicted yourself. Do you see the pattern here, you're skewed into the depths of stupidity. You're lost.

And how can you be absolutely sure that it's going to rain tommorow? Even the weathermen have their % chances for predictions, and the percent is never 100 (as almost anything can happen)

Stupid, that was just my point. If someone makes a claim yet doesn't know if what he/she is saying to be true, then the claim does not need to be heeded. Simple. And yes, even the weatherman don't know for sure, but it was a practical application to prove my point, STOP STRAWMANNING! (what is referred to as straw-manning: setting-up imaginary arguments that are easy to disprove, while ignoring the ACTUAL criticisms). Everyone knows the weathermen don't konw for sure or with certainty, but my point didn't have anything to do with that. It had to do with the inanity of paying mind to a claim that doesn't know it to be true or even believe it to be true, in my opinion it is inane to heed such a claim.

I get my knowledge from my mind, and my senses. I said we couldn't trust our senses, not that we weren't entitled to use them, what are you, stupid? You are quite ignorant.

"You are quite ignorant" If only you realized how effete that came across. Anyway, not to digress, back to the point. You said you can't trust the senses, what does using them have to do with your point. Thank you for stating that truism (hint: look that word up, you'd be surprised as to what it means). That acute observation is trite - we all use our senses. And it is these very same senses that have enabled you to postulate on whether you trust them or not. Do you KNOW FOR SURE that you can't trust them, I mean they are what has led you to this putative ontology of yours. If you can't trust what has led you to this spurious conclusion, then hwo can you trust the conclusion? Ahhh, funny how that works, huh.

Oh, and I can't tell that it didn't take much, it always seems like you're not using your brain at all.

That wasn't the very least bit clever; did you come up with that after you decided to "right [SIC] your name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times"? Then, maybe you'd have an excuse for coming with such an asinine display of an insult or repartee.

Ok, I don't partially agree, I totally agree.

Much better, I predict this will be a pattern in the posts to come.

When I explained the unselfish feeling in a previous post, you arrogantly said

I was referring to you attempting to kick knowledge to me on the whole desire crap. Whilst I never made any reference to desire, I'm still not the least bit surprised that you thought I was commenting on something totally different than I was actually commenting on - and that is because you can't read.

Great. Now I'LL TRY EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU. I never brought up any of this desire crap, Squashbuckler did, you did, Canute did, Lucysnow did, NOT ME. Come at ME, or don't come at all. Fairly simple

See, I made reference to the "desire crap". The post I replied to when I posted that was mroe than half full of you trying to drop knowledge on me about desire. It is not pertinent for I have yet to call you out on your thoughts on desire. As I've mentioned time and time again, I came in on the altruism, the death, and the anti-skeptic arguments. Those are the only topics I'm willing to discuss; reincarnation can be thrown out the window too. Since "what makes up the mind" is one of science's greatest mysteries, then we can't yet know for sure about reincarnation, for the mind and its makeup are variables in that case.

 

[VitalOne]

You seem to be doing that a lot these days - agreeing with me.

So what?

This I can't stand, see. I done told you more than once that it is my opinion, if you're going to retort by repeating what I already put, why bother. Either state that you concur or leave it be, but don't repeat what I was trying to tell you. You're just stating the obvious, of course I would know it is my opinion, that was my point entirely and what it was I trying to tell you.

And I said, "Ok, it's your opinion" (yet you can even make an argument out of that), thankyou for wasting a paragraph.

You're beyond help, I feel sorry for you, really. I really do. You've already stated that you agree with me that altruism is specious, yet you aver that because buddhists support altruism they get things done for others? Wow! The very altruism you agreed as being specious. Tsk tsk.

You're dodging the argument by changing the subject. Besides, I was agreeing that people do what's in their interest, not that altruism is specious.

No, I actually said, "I don't feel as if though I should even have to explain why reality isn't subjective". And I showed you why reality is not subjective before, you just didn't read. Allow me to quote and make you look stupid again (apropos, I'm getting tired of quoting myself because you didn't read; learn to read, stupid..

I said that you said something like that, not that you said those exact words (and I can't read?). You didn't show me anything. How did you in anyway prove that the reality we observe doesn't exist only in the mind?

Actually, why bother. You've stated that now, all of a sudden that you've been caught in a web of stupidity, things CAN be known. Ah, quite the turn around, charlatan. How did you manage to do the one eighty with such facility. Now let me see if I get this straight, things CAN be known, YET reality is subjective? Well, what the hell kinda shlt is that? If things can be known, then they are objective. Thus, reality is objective. You make my job easier by the post, stupid

How does the definition of know:

To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.

Contradict with reality being subjective? Yes, you can "know" things by that definition. That is the 1st definition of know & known (from dictionary.com), the one that I was referring to. I can percieve something directly, and grasp it in the mind with clarity/certainty, and reality can still be subjective. So things can be known, and reality can still be subjective. Thanks for making my job easier, you should use the dictionary once in a while.

Wow! Do your parents know you're this smart. But hey, being coherent is overrated, right..... wrong You've contradicted yourself into defeat.


Recognize the cognitive dissonance, kid. Seriously, what right do you have to be this stupid? Now that "things can be known" (which I agree with wholeheartedly) that debunks your whole reality is subjective notion. If YOU can't see that, then you are one of those people you spoke of earlier, the ones who don't have all senses - because you're blind!

I debunked your whole reality is subjective theory when I posted this...

Right....http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know definition one says it all.

So, yes, I did use 'evidence', as you put it. Furthermore, I've put it probably three or four times already (including this time). I think it's back to school for you, old timer. Learn to read while you're there. There must be a school nigh; sign up, don't hold back.

What evidence? How did you prove that reality isn't subjective (or exists only in the mind)?

If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses

How does this prove that reality doesn't exist only in the mind? The concepts are derived from the senses which are created by the mind...thus one can argue that reality still exists only within the mind (subjective). The truth and knowledge concepts wouldn't contradict at all.

First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality beign subjective, so no one would need to listen to me. I did, however, debunk your pseudo-theory.

Hold on let me get this straight...you're saying that if someone believes that reality exists externally then people should listen to them...but if someone believes that reality exists only within the mind people shouldn't? How does that make sense at all?

You're basically saying "yes, I am an idiot, but you're 'an even bigger idiot.'" Good job imbecile, you've rebuked nothing. What difference does it make if the person calling you an idiot is one as well? You're still an idiot. And even if it were to make a difference (which it doesn't) I'm no idiot, so your putative "comeback" holds no weight regardless. You never cease to amaze me.

Ok....man you argue about every little worthless statement. Won't waste my time with this pointless one.

Well, then how can you say "THINGS CAN BE KNOWN" then? If they're never absolutely true, then how can they be known? You've contradicted yourself. Do you see the pattern here, you're skewed into the depths of stupidity. You're lost.

Dictionary.com once again. There are multiple definitions of known (obviously). That's like saying, if they're never absolutely true, then how can they be percieved directly; grasped in the mind with clarity or certainty.

Stupid, that was just my point. If someone makes a claim yet doesn't know if what he/she is saying to be true, then the claim does not need to be heeded. Simple. And yes, even the weatherman don't know for sure, but it was a practical application to prove my point, STOP STRAWMANNING! (what is referred to as straw-manning: setting-up imaginary arguments that are easy to disprove, while ignoring the ACTUAL criticisms). Everyone knows the weathermen don't konw for sure or with certainty, but my point didn't have anything to do with that. It had to do with the inanity of paying mind to a claim that doesn't know it to be true or even believe it to be true, in my opinion it is inane to heed such a claim.

That wasn't strawmanning as I was arguing your argument about the weather. Nothing can be known as the 100% truth, but somethings are heeded to make sense out of things.

"You are quite ignorant" If only you realized how effete that came across. Anyway, not to digress, back to the point. You said you can't trust the senses, what does using them have to do with your point. Thank you for stating that truism (hint: look that word up, you'd be surprised as to what it means). That acute observation is trite - we all use our senses. And it is these very same senses that have enabled you to postulate on whether you trust them or not. Do you KNOW FOR SURE that you can't trust them, I mean they are what has led you to this putative ontology of yours. If you can't trust what has led you to this spurious conclusion, then hwo can you trust the conclusion? Ahhh, funny how that works, huh.

No, I don't know for sure (100% absolute truth) that we can't or can trust our senses, I just strongly believe that we can't trust our senses.

That wasn't the very least bit clever; did you come up with that after you decided to "right [SIC] your name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times"? Then, maybe you'd have an excuse for coming with such an asinine display of an insult or repartee.

Sheesh, argue about the real arguments not about petty statements (did it offend you ?). Why would I care if you think that it "wasn't the very least bit clever"?. I don't understand why you do care so much (you even waste time typing in IdleOne)...

Much better, I predict this will be a pattern in the posts to come.

I guess your prediction was completely wrong (I mean COMPLETELY wrong).

I was referring to you attempting to kick knowledge to me on the whole desire crap. Whilst I never made any reference to desire, I'm still not the least bit surprised that you thought I was commenting on something totally different than I was actually commenting on - and that is because you can't read.

And I was referring to you asking me to explain the experience -

Surely, that isn't the greatest cop-out you know. You can do better than this. Come on, is this the only scapegoat you know of? You "need to feel it", huh. You "can't explain an experience", huh. Whether vicarious or first hand, an experience can be explained, so please would ya, explicate it to us, all high and mighty senior metaphysician whose been studying metaphysics since days of yore. And if you can't, perhaps it is because you'd have people believe that you're bright and able to think alternatively, when you really can't.

I wasn't attempting to "kick knowledge" to you (you can choose to accept or reject it), sorry for not clarifying that.

See, I made reference to the "desire crap". The post I replied to when I posted that was mroe than half full of you trying to drop knowledge on me about desire. It is not pertinent for I have yet to call you out on your thoughts on desire. As I've mentioned time and time again, I came in on the altruism, the death, and the anti-skeptic arguments. Those are the only topics I'm willing to discuss; reincarnation can be thrown out the window too. Since "what makes up the mind" is one of science's greatest mysteries, then we can't yet know for sure about reincarnation, for the mind and its makeup are variables in that case.

I was using the desire stuff as background information, you wanted me to be detailed, so I tried to be. Besides, if you were only referring the desire portion, why did you quote both paragraphs.

 

[Chalaco]

Does every nut who claims to have seen Elvis have forensic science to back up their claim? Do they have the concrete evidence layed out right there?

I'm not even topical, yet I hear of nuts claiming to have seen Jesus, Mary, Elvis, all the time, some with enough concrete evidence to be in the press..... I bet you're the type to call miss cleo, huh..... stupid.

Are you some type of complete utter moron?

Chapter 3, Page 87, Sentence structure, 2nd grade.


Were you sick that day?


Utter means complete/absolute, you might as well have put "complete complete moron". You don't even know it, but you used a moronic sentence to call ME a moron. Good job. Although, you could've done it as a pardoy, a satire of sorts..... on second thought, NAH, you're not that cunning .

Obviously if the handwritings are identical it must mean that their conscious minds are at least similar

.


I can remember that in my youth, in school, there were a couple of kids with similar handwritings (and remember, the article is about two boys). I used it insidiously to my advantage as well. However, that, by no means, infers we had similar conscious minds. Take my word for it, or call up miss cleo, I'm sure she'd come to an accord with me on this one. And notice I said, similar handwritings, not identical..

And it wasn't a former boy, it was a former adult man

.


Ahhh, there you go again. Not reading... tsk tsk.

To quote the article: "Chauhan took samples of both boys’ handwriting and compared them" (first sentence, fifth paragraph).

I've said it before, I'll say it again. What RIGHT do you have to be this stupid? You claim to know how to read yet say it was an adult when the article states clearly it was two boys? You're so sub-intellect with your thinking, it's almost disgusting.

Also, it wasn't his handwriting alone that was the same, he also had memories of confirmed events in the former man's life. This is disputable, but you said there was no evidence, and simply gave you some. Also, what are the chances that he would remember events that occured in the former man's life, and have handwriting identical to the other mans? It would be nearly impossible by random coincidence. What else could it mean if the boy claims he is the other man, has handwriting identical to the other man, and has memories of confirmed events that the other man experienced other than their two minds are identical, or at least very similar?

Notice that while you aver this to be reincarnation, the article never states it as being factual, it says there is a possibility (granted, there's a possibility for ANYTHING). You're right, it IS disputable. The article features such words as "USUALLY" and "THEORY". But I know what you will retort with, and I will save you the trouble. If you wish to consider all possible scenarios, then consider these:

-- only one of them is alive, remember?

-- you say he knew of past events... so? somone could have told the boy

-- he's been talking about it since he was two,
right? do we know that? again, they could have told the boy

-- it could all be a hoax for fame and prosperity. they are poor, remember? They won't give him up, remember?


I could go on, but I think you get the point. Proof there is not, otherwise this wouldn't be an article on some stupid web site, it'd be undergoing mass investigation and all that by scientists around the world.


We don't know what makes up the mind, to figure out if two minds are the same we'd first have to know what makes up the mind. We don't know enough about the mind to prove reincarnation or what makes up a reincarnate.

The argument isn't about "what traits make someone re-incarnate" but "is he a reincarnation".

No. How can we determine if he is a reincarnate if we do not know what traits make someone a reincarnate? Marinate on that.

Since there's no edict or layout of "what traits make someone a re-incarnate", there would have to be more and more evidence to this possibility. That his handwriting is identical to that of the former bwoy could simply mean somthing totally different than re-incarnation. And all of the other oddities could mean something else, as well. There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it.

The easiest way to find out if he is a reincarnation is to find out if the two conscious minds are the same, and what better way than forensic science. Also, lots of accepted theories in science are disputable, yet they are widly accepted

Again, we don't even know what makes up the mind. Allow me to make you look stupid. Here's the definition for "conscious"


con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)
adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.


One's dead, how can they BOTH have conscious minds? :bugeye:

Oh and good luck comparing the mind of a boy who's dead to one who's alive.

Now, two boys are the subject of the article. The article talks about how it's possible that one could be a reincarnate of the other, who's DEAD. If one is dead, then where's the second conscious mind?

Furthermore, the whole idea of reincarnation (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not wrong) is that once one dies, the mind comes back in the form of another body, with the same MIND. The soul comes back, or so you would have us beleive. So this putative theory of the two conscious you keep bringing up is bollocks. It makes no sense, it goes against what you claim to be possible.

You wasted your own time as you consciously made the decision to argue

Made the decision to debunk.

Like I said, nothing can be known as the 100% absolute truth.

We're not going to get into that just yet.

Actually I expected this, it's so predictable from your character. I'm not crying , I'm actually laughing

.


That makes two of us.

You didn't simply acknowledged it as weak, it's pretty obvious that you're repressing some type of anger.

I think I would know if I repressed anger or not, mister I can read peoples minds and figure out if they repress some type of anger through what they post in a forum. :bugeye:

 

[Chalaco]

I was thinking the same thing about you.

good one

You've perfectly made no sense.

As oppose to imperfectly making no sense? :bugeye:

Ok then, why did you bring it up if their was no contradiction? Also, he never directly asked me what the feeling was, but implied it by rejecting that if you remove your attachement towards life, you'll be happier.

Again, nowhere did I say there was a contradiction, I brought it up and used it as an example to show how pointless it would be to make a claim if you're not prepared to back it up with substance (so to speak). It just seems pointless to me to make a claim if you're not prepared to back it up. Simple. Shouldn't have came with it in the first place. You kept strawmanning (and yes you were, bringing up explaining sight to a blind man, knowing full well no one could prove something like that to be otherwise; should've stuck to the topic at hand instead of ignoring it with strawman). I was using a practical application for my notion that using that experience/feeling garbage when asked to explain something (and you asked yourself because Squashbuckler didn't ask you, you brought it up and in that very same post you said it couldn't be explained). I want to know why you're so inept in reading. Anybody could've seen what I meant, but you had to take it as me infering a contradiction. Something is wrong with your thought process, it's very linear.


Give it up, you've been caught lying, he never asked you to explain anything.
He asked you this...

If reality is subjective, and nothing can be known, why are we wasting our time talking about things that cannot be known?
Why bother with science? why bother with anything?

You didn't answer any of those questions.

If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life.
You are saying that its "wrong" to be attached to life? I would argue that not being attached to your life and your happiness is the worst evil that their could possibly be.
Being attached to things is what causes the happiness is the first place. If one were "attached" to nothing at all, what would he value? A value is what one seeks to obtain and keep.
In " not wanting things" that makes you free?
THAT is the reason why I strongly feel buddhism is a terrible system.
It makes you not "want things" . If you dont want things for you, then what makes you think that you will do things for you?
Where is the VALUE OF YOURSELF.
"Material things dont control you"
Do they "control you"
I dont feel that they control me at all.
I studied buddhism for almost 2 years. Ive read many books on the subject. If everyone wants to say that " i have a muddled concept of buddhism", then i would suggest that maybe it is they who are confused.

Inner peace does not come from removing the mind and its desires. What thats called is " nothing". You are nothing. You are a dog without an ID

Where is the implication you said he made? You said, "he never directly asked me what the feeling was, but implied it by rejecting that if you remove your attachement towards life, you'll be happier", well where does he imply this? I've read it and I don't see where he intimates such an inquiry.


Congratulations, you're legally retarded and eligible for public charity.

 

[Chalaco]

Why did you bring it up if there was no contradiction? It seemed like you were trying to point out some type of contradiction that's all.

You seem to be under the impression that one can't bring up something up without trying to point out contradiction. Let me be the first to inform you that one can post something without trying to point out contradiction. I've already told you why I brought it up in a couple posts prior. Learn to read.

He never did. It was completely wrong to say it the way I did. I was simply challenging his statement

You might want to challenge with things you can back up more thoroughly. Just a suggestion :bugeye:


And it's high time you admit you were wrong. Took you long enough. :bugeye:

 

[Chalaco]

So what?

Well, dummy, I meant that you seem to be agreeing with me, meaning you are recanting a lot as a result of this (altruism, fear of death, life not being linear, etc.).

And I said, "Ok, it's your opinion" (yet you can even make an argument out of that), thankyou for wasting a paragraph.

You need not say it's my opinion for I know it to be such. That was exactly what I was trying to show you, don't concur as if you knew all along because you didn't. Stop wasting time.

You're dodging the argument by changing the subject. Besides, I was agreeing that people do what's in their interest, not that altruism is specious

.


You know, it's funny. It's funny because you've already agreed with me that altruism is specious (I will quote you as saying so hereinafter). It's funny because you say that people do what's in their interest, and that is exactly what selfishness is. You're looking out for your own interests, sounds selfish to me. And altruism is the practice of being unselfish as a tenet. So, how can you say that you agree with me that people do what's in their best interest yet don't think altruism is specious?? (note for the slow: specious = plausible but wrong). It's impossible to be unselfish.

Doing what's in your interests is looking after your own self, your own interests, for yourself. That's selfish. Concordantly, everythign we do is selfish. Now, altruism is about being unselfish. How can you deny altruism being specious if you agree what people do what's in their interest?? Don't you get it? You're stupid. Stupid, I tell you, stupid.

You agree with me on both counts, you're just too proud to admit you agree. You can't NOT agree because there's a contradiction then. Hypocrite.


Remember this?

You really can't just partially agree with that altruism bit, it's plain and simple, humans do what is in their interest. Always. Plain and simple. If it is in your interest to help othrs, then you do so, but you are not being unselfish; you are sufficing your own interests, thus making it selfish (which is not bad, mind you). If it makes you happy to help others, then you are doing you. Sounds selfish to me. If you do somethign you don't like, it's because you fear the reprucussions (spelling) if you DON'T do it, the distres of not doing (i.e. going to school/work) or because you know it will not be productive and conducive to your interests later on in life. See a pattern here, people. Also, you go to work though you may not enjoy it because not doing so will leave you unemployed, stressed and pauper, so you avoid pain and agony, and suffering. Hedonism again. And if it doesn't pain you to lose your job, then you're attaining pleasure; hedonism again.

Altruism = specious.

Ok, I don't partially agree, I totally agree.

I suggest you pick a stance and stand by. You're contradicting yourself. First you agreed after I posted that altruism is specious and people are naturally selfish and do what's in their best interest, you agreed with me on that. Now you say altruism is not specious? Come on now, which one is going to be? You probably mean that being charitable isn't specious. That's not what I'm talking about, though. How can altruism say to be unselfish if everything we do is selfish. It would prove to be an excercise in futility as it's not possible. I'll re-post what I've already posted (page four):

You see, to illustrate my point and make it as lucid as possible for all of you, I will use Mother Theresa (spelling) as my practical application. Many can look at her and say she was a very altruistic person, but even she got a kick out of what she did. It brought her happiness, if not for the fact that she was doing "God's will" and ensuring her place in "heaven", then to see the smiles of all the indigent people she helped, this must have brought her joy, otherwise she would not have engaged in such a conscious endavour (note for the slow: non-US spelling, US spelling would be endeavor). She didn't do it because it brought her pain, because it brought her agony. She did all her 'righteous' acts and deeds because she found joy in it, left her jovial.

People are naturally inclined to do that which brings them jubilance; some just have complexities (some inferior, some superior, and many other complexities) that has them percieve what's good and bad for them in a way we can't empathize with. But rest assured, despite the disparity between what you think is good for you and what somebody else thinks, they engage in hedonism, it is inescapable.

This is the practical application for what I'm saying: a masochist, he/she does that which brings him/her pain but it's really not pain since it brings them pleasure. Hedonism, along with causality, is inescapable. Altruism is specious! Everything we do is selfish, which is not a bad thing, we've all just been indoctrinated to believe selfishness is evil and a vice. It is not, selfishness is good (not to mention, inescapable and the only thing we do, at the root, the base of everythign we do, it is selfish). So long as you don't step on others, selfishness is good.

Marinate on that.

I said that you said something like that, not that you said those exact words (and I can't read?).

Yeah, and I was correcting you.

You didn't show me anything. How did you in anyway prove that the reality we observe doesn't exist only in the mind?

I'll re-iterate what I showed you hereinafter.

How does the definition of know:

Quote:
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.


Contradict with reality being subjective? Yes, you can "know" things by that definition. That is the 1st definition of know & known (from dictionary.com), the one that I was referring to. I can percieve something directly, and grasp it in the mind with clarity/certainty, and reality can still be subjective. So things can be known, and reality can still be subjective. Thanks for making my job easier, you should use the dictionary once in a while.


Right....http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know definition one says it all.

Simple, we can now look at the OTHER denotations for the word, "know". Let's do that now, shall we...


know ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n)
v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows
v. tr.
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
To have experience of: “a black stubble that had known no razor” (William Faulkner).

To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.



Now, you didn't think I meant the ninth denotation, did you? No, the connotation I was using was the second ("To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail").


Now, I'll ask you again, do you regard as true beyond doubt that nothing can be regarded as true beyond doubt? If you answer with no, then you are not making a claim. How myopic can you be? You answer no, then you're not making a claim. You answer yes, and you are contradicting yourself.


And you did contradict yourself for you stated in the beginning of this thread that reality is just our interpretations...

Quote:
Material things are really just electrical signals interpreted by our brains, nothing more. The only things that truly exists are our minds....

Quote:
"Reality" is just another word for a constant dream or illusion. Without the mind, nothing exists. If everyone was deaf, blind, and paralyzed then nothing that we precieve would "exist"

Quote:
If your brain does not create the rock then why do you need sight, and touch for the rock to "be". Without them, it would not exist. Your brain creates what you see and what you touch.

Quote:
So material things are just signals interpreted by our brains


Quote:
Originally Posted by IdleOne_second page post


Quote:
Interpretations of reality are what created the idea of reality (obviously)

Quote:
Its all an elaborate illusion

Quote:
Reality IS subjective


then, come the fourth page, you stated that "There is a reality beyond our interpretations. I'm sure that our minds exists. Oh yeah, and everything is just an illusion".


How can you not see the contradiction?

How does this prove that reality doesn't exist only in the mind? The concepts are derived from the senses which are created by the mind...thus one can argue that reality still exists only within the mind (subjective). The truth and knowledge concepts wouldn't contradict at all.

Idiot, allow me to point something out. Saying reality is subjective IS saying it exists only in the mind. If you're going to use words, know what they mean.


Directly quoting Epicurus...


source


[Epistemology


Epicurus' epistemology is resolutely empiricist and anti-skeptical. All of our knowledge ultimately comes from the senses, thinks Epicurus, and we can trust the senses, when properly used. Epicurus' epistemology was contained in his work the 'Canon,' or 'measuring stick,' which is lost, so many of the details of his views are unavailable to us.

The Canon: sensations, preconceptions, and feelings


Epicurus says that there are three criteria of truth: sensations, 'preconceptions,' and feelings. Sensations give us information about the external world, and we can test the judgments based upon sensations against further sensations; e.g., a provisional judgment that a tower is round, based upon sensation, can be tested against later sensations to be corroborated or disproved. Epicurus says that all sensations give us information about the world, but that sensation itself is never in error, since sensation is a purely passive, mechanical reception of images and the like by sense-organs, and the senses themselves do not make judgments 'that' the world is this way or that. Instead, error enters in when we make judgments about the world based upon the information received through the senses.

Epicurus thinks that, in order to make judgments about the world, or even to start any inquiry whatsoever, we must already be in possession of certain basic concepts, which stand in need of no further proof or definition, on pain of entering into an infinite regress. This concern is similar to the Paradox of Inquiry explored by Plato in the Meno, that one must already know about something in order to be able to inquire about it. However, instead of postulating that our immaterial souls had acquaintance with transcendent Forms in a pre-natal existence, as Plato does, Epicurus thinks that we have certain 'preconceptions'--concepts such as 'body,' 'person,' 'usefulness,' and 'truth'--which are formed in our (material) minds as the result of repeated sense-experiences of similar objects. Further ideas are formed by processes of analogy or similarity or by compounding these basic concepts. Thus, all ideas are ultimately formed on the basis of sense-experience.

Feelings of pleasure and pain form the basic criteria for what is to be sought and avoided


source

Hold on let me get this straight...you're saying that if someone believes that reality exists externally then people should listen to them...but if someone believes that reality exists only within the mind people shouldn't? How does that make sense at all?

Hmmm..... NOPE, I didn't say that. Let's take a history lesson, shall we...


I said that no one needs to listen to you because you make a claim and you're not sure of it yourself. You retorted with, "No one needs to listen to you either, as you are an even bigger idiot" which was not only an admittance of your idiocy, but a stupid thing to say. When I make claims, I do my best to illustrate my points with lucidity, with substance, with examples, with practical applications for the mesage I'm trying to convey. You say reality is subjective yet when asked...

If nothing can be known, do you KNOW that nothing can be known?

No.

You're not making a claim; you're not saying anything, really.

Ok....man you argue about every little worthless statement. Won't waste my time with this pointless one.

I think you just did.

Dictionary.com once again. There are multiple definitions of known (obviously). That's like saying, if they're never absolutely true, then how can they be percieved directly; grasped in the mind with clarity or certainty

.


I've already changed the wording of my question to "regard as true beyond doubt"..... why don't you quit strawmanning and answer.

That wasn't strawmanning as I was arguing your argument about the weather. Nothing can be known as the 100% truth, but somethings are heeded to make sense out of things.

The weather wasn't my argument, it was the vessel to hammer home my point. You're a bright one, huh.

No, I don't know for sure (100% absolute truth) that we can't or can trust our senses, I just strongly believe that we can't trust our senses.

Well then how can you STRONGLY BELIEVE you can't trust the senses? What has led you to your conclusion is your senses, if you can't trust what has led you to this conclusion then how can you trust the conclusion? And try answering for a change, other than state things and then recant and say, "I strongly believe, though not for sure" (I put it into my own words, by the way). You're not making a claim if you do so, and you look foolish trusting your strong belief that you can't trust the senses when those very same senses have led you to that. You don't get it, do you. There's no excuse for this kind of stupidity. There really isn't.

Sheesh, argue about the real arguments not about petty statements (did it offend you ?). Why would I care if you think that it "wasn't the very least bit clever"?. I don't understand why you do care so much (you even waste time typing in IdleOne)...

Now see, what is regarded as wasting time is subjective and different to everyone. The two seconds it takes to change the typing (which I would have to do anyway) from VitalOne to IdleOne not only does a good job to decry but it also saves me time in that I type in one less letter (though the time it saves me is not enough to be pertinent to anything, however). So no, I don't waste time, kid.

And how could it have offended me when I poked fun at your diction of prior posts. Think about that when you "right [sic] your name" next time.

I guess your prediction was completely wrong (I mean COMPLETELY wrong).

We'll see about that.

And I was referring to you asking me to explain the experience -

You did so in the second paragraph of your two paragraph post, the first was about desire; which was not pertinent to the topic at hand. I made it quite clear what I meant as I typed out "desire". You didn't need to tell me about desire, or even about the experience. Especially the experience/feeling crap because no one asked you to do so (except me, but I now take it back having realized no one asked you to do so prior to me, not squashbuckler, nobody). But if the desire bit had to do with your "experience" then let it stand, it is no longer pertinent because we've already established you were wrong having brought that up.

I was using the desire stuff as background information, you wanted me to be detailed, so I tried to be. Besides, if you were only referring the desire portion, why did you quote both paragraphs.

Well, because I figured that since I typed DESIRE, that what I meant would be quite lucid since I typed out DESIRE. Again, did I mention I put DESIRE as the subject of that particular post/paragraph..... well, yes, I think that goes without saying

 

[Chalaco]

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne.

Exactly.

Now what the hell is that? You say 'exactly' as if that was your point when you first asked me this...

Oh yeah, ever heard of the conservation of mass law? Nothing can created nor destroyed. Therefore there is no death of the mind or body.

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed, I'll let the death of the body argument percolate, give it some thought.

But, moving on...

then...

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed, I'll let the death of the body argument percolate, give it some thought.

But, moving on...

True, but don't the atoms make up the body as well as the mind?

then...

True, but don't the atoms make up the body as well as the mind?

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne. :bugeye:

then...

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne.

Exactly.

How can you come with "exactly" when you were the one inferring that atoms make up the mind? Are you trying to cover your tracks and not look stupid? Initially you thought atoms to make up the mind (evident in your rhetorical question) and asked me this as if to bring it to my attention. I retorted with the facts - we don't know what makes up the mind - and you try to save face by acting as if you knew that. Fraud. :bugeye: