Please Heed My Advice And Save Yourselves.

What is happening here is a mechanical thing like in a computer. It is mechanically operating, trying to find out if there is any information stored in the computer (pointing to his head) related to what we are talking about. "Let me see," " Let me think;" these are statements you are just making, but there is no further activity and no thinking taking place there. You have an illusion that there is somebody who is thinking and bringing out the information.Look, this is no different from the extraordinary instrument we have, the word-finder. You press a button and "Ready," it says. Then you ask for a word; "Searching," it says. That searching is thinking. But it is a mechanical process. In that word-finder or computer there is no thinker. There is no thinker thinking there at all. If there is any information or anything that is referred to, the computer puts it together and throws it out. That is all that is happening. It is a very mechanical thing that is happening. We are not ready to accept that thought is mechanical because that knocks off the whole image that we are not just machines. It is an extraordinary machine. It is not different from the computers we use. But this [pointing to his body] is something living, it has got a living quality to it. It has a vitality. It is not just mechanically repeating; it carries with it the life energy like that current energy.
U.G. Krishnamurti


There is no mind anywhere!
 
Chalaco said:
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.
So you're saying that you'd refuse to believe something even if there was concrete evidence to support it? Oh, and I'm not the type to call miss cleo.


Chalaco said:
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 :D
.
.
I forgot the comma, it should be "complete, utter moron". Sorry that you couldn't figure that one out.

Chalaco said:
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..
Hmmm....your personality and thoughts strongly influence your handwriting. Also, in a lot in criminal cases they compare handwriting to confirm if someone did write something like a letter. Now why would they do that if it "by no means, infers" that the same person wrote a document, letter, etc..?

Chalaco said:
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.
Ok, it was a boy. Also, everyone has rights to be however intelligent they want to be. Why do you always insist on adding in comments not related to the discussion at all?




Chalaco said:
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.
Ok, it supplied evidence (which is what you were asking for), I never said it was factual. Hmm...you're saying that someone could've told the boy to continously tell his parents he was someone else, runaway from home, learn how to read and write in multiple languages (before learning it in school), memorize a group of events, and force his handwriting to appear identical to the former boy's? This is possible, but unlikely. Yes it could be a hoax, but there is more evidence than just this to suggest reincarnation.

Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be undergoing mass investigation. Most scientists don't like investigating cases like these.

We don't know what makes up the mind, but we do have ways of finding out if someone's mind is similar.


Chalaco said:
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.

Well, reincarnation says that the mind travels from one body to another. The simplest thing to do would be comparing the minds of the dead with the minds of the living.

There isn't "indisputable proof" of a lots of theories accepted in modern science. Also, your last sentence basically says there is no way to prove reincarnation because there hasn't been indisputable proof of reincarnation.

Chalaco said:
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 must not understand. They can both have conscious minds because they're the same person. I meant the former conscious mind compared to the living conscious mind. Like you said, the whole idea of reincarnation is that it's the same mind. So they'd be comparing the traces of the former mind to the living mind. Obviously any idiot could see that I meant this.




Chalaco said:
Made the decision to debunk.
Debunk, waste time, what's the big difference?



Chalaco said:
We're not going to get into that just yet.
Ok.

Chalaco said:
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:
Lot's of people don't know because it's repressed anger, anger that get's stored into the subconscious because of some frustrating event. People often release a portion of this subconscious anger over little things that don't matter. Insulting someone is a form of releasing anger. You seem to not be able to argue without insulting.
 
Chalaco said:
As oppose to imperfectly making no sense? :bugeye:
Yes.


Chalaco said:
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.


Almost everytime you bring up quotes you point out contradictions. I wasn't strawmanning, I was using those as examples to point out how you can't explain the experience (and when I do further explain it you get angry and ask why I brought it up). My thought process is linear? Yours seems to be linear, as you have your mind set on proving me wrong (while I agree occaisonally) no matter what.

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

You didn't answer any of those questions.
I didn't answer the questions? You should be the one learning to read as I clearly stated in my previous post (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=27068&page=4&pp=20):

VitalOne said:
And to answer your question, simply because its forced on us. We have to deal with this. You could argue why do anything at all, aren't you just going to die anyway? The reason why people do things is because most can't live without doing something. It brings them happiness to do something.

I even said "And to answer your question" with his quote above. Looks like you were completely wrong about this one (though you won't admit it, your mind's to weak to do that).

Chalaco said:
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.

He implied it simply here:
Squashbuckler said:
If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate 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.
I trying to tell him that you have to experience not fearing death to know if you would be happy or appreciate life. Again, you can't go without insulting during an argument, can you?
 
Chalaco said:
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.
Congratulations! You have just wasted another paragraph.


Chalaco said:
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:
Your mind is too weak to be able to admit when you're wrong, my mind isn't :) . So it's a good thing that I can admit when I'm wrong.
 
"experience that feeling, it can't really be explained"
"Desire> suffering"

Do we really need to go any further on those statements? The man is lost.
 
Chalaco said:
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.).
Well dummy, I meant "So what?" as in So what if I agree? Do you have some type of subconscious desire to want me to disagree with you?



Chalaco said:
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.
Wow, congratulations, you just argued about me agreeing with you that it was your opinion. I can waste all the time I want BTW.

Chalaco said:
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?
I accidently included the "Altruism is specious" in the quote. Also, that's why in my previous post I said I partially agree, then I said I totally agreed because I didn't feel like explaining which parts I agreed to.

I already explained the unselfish feeling in the post you said didn't ask me about. It's not impossible to be unselfish. News Flash - People can do what's in their interest, and altruism can still not be specious. I never said all people do what's in their interest.


Chalaco said:
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):

Everything we do isn't selfish (Concerned chiefly or only with oneself). In altruism you're concerned more about the other person than yourself.

Chalaco said:
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.

selfish - Concerned chiefly or only with oneself. If she isn't concerned only with herself, then she isn't selfish. She wasn't only concerned about her happiness.







Chalaco said:
Yeah, and I was correcting you.
What's there to correct?




Chalaco said:
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, you didn't think that I meant the second definition did you? I meant the first, not the second. It's a matter of differing definitions.

Chalaco said:
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?
I see no contradiction. Again, I was using definition one for know and known, not definition two, can't you get that through your head? By definition two there would a contradiction, but not by definition one. I can know reality is subjective, and I wouldn't be contradicting myself.





Chalaco said:
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

Ok....Epicurus was an ancient philosopher...why should I believe him? Why do you keep bringing him up? I know that saying it is subjective is saying it exist only the mind.



Chalaco said:
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...


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



No, you actually said:
Chalaco said:
First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality beign subjective, so no one would need to listen to me.

It seems like when you try to make your point you do it with insults, twisting arguments, and taking everything literally.



Chalaco said:
I think you just did.
I didn't argue about it (but you just did).


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


Chalaco said:
The weather wasn't my argument, it was the vessel to hammer home my point. You're a bright one, huh.
But it was used to illustrate your point, so how is arguing about the example used to illustrate your point strawmanning?




Chalaco said:
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.
Easy, I strongly believe I can't trust the senses, yet I use them anyway. My senses may have lead me to the conclusion, so I can't trust the conclusion either. It just seems logical really.




Chalaco said:
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
. :D
Oh, ok, then you waste time decrying. Also, I could argue this entire argument is a waste of time as it seems that neither of us will change our views.


Chalaco said:
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 made it quite clear that it was background information. Yes, I didn't need to tell you, but it's just background information. Oh, and before you asked me to explain the experience/feeling, so I did. You don't have to get all excited over an extra paragraph. How could I be wrong to bring up background information? It's just background information.




Chalaco said:
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
Ok...sorry that you got all overly excited over an extra paragraph.
 
Chalaco said:
Now what the hell is that? You say 'exactly' as if that was your point when you first asked me this...
Exactly...
Chalaco said:
There is no objective proof to merit your claim, nor is there any empirical evidence to back your point up.
Yet you repeatly say that we don't know what makes up the mind, so how can you claim that your mind is dead if you get hit by a truck, if you don't know what makes up the mind?


Chalaco said:
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:
Objectively, atoms make up the brain, and at least effect the mind.
 
Squashbuckler said:
"experience that feeling, it can't really be explained"
"Desire> suffering"

Do we really need to go any further on those statements? The man is lost.

Hey Squashbuckler, glad you're back. I explained it more in this post:
VitalOne said:
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 this, but I'm just sharing information, you don't have to believe this.

Besides, you know you can't really explain a feeling to someone who hasn't experienced anything similar to it.
 
Chalaco, I seem to be getting mixed information from you...

Contradiction 1:
Chalaco said:
Now, I am very far from a buddhist but yet, I do not fear death.
Yet when I say I don't fear death you reply with:

Chalaco said:
Really, it's simple hedonism here, if you don't want to do it, it's because you fear it will not bring you anything good. Hedonism. Plain and simple.

Chalaco said:
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.

So you DO fear death, according you.

Contradiction 2:
Chalaco said:
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.

Chalaco said:
It's just that IdleOne -- I mean VitalOne -- didn't even attempt to put it into words, if even in a pithy manner, it would've sufficed and allowed for further congregation.

You say these things, implying that you want me to further explain myself...but then you say...

Chalaco said:
VitalOne said:
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

The feeling was directly related to desire (unselfish, desireless feeling), exactly what you said you didn't bring up. That was in my first reply to your post.

Then at the end you try to get out of it:
Chalaco said:
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).

By "taking it back". Also, no one directly asked you to post your views, so were you wrong in doing so?

Contradiction 3:
Chalaco said:
1. Death is annihilation.

Then you go on to say...

Chalaco said:
Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed

Now, how would you know if death is anihilalation (destruction), if you have stated that Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed?
So which is it?

These are just a few I quickly found. I'm sure you'll simply say something like "these are my new views".
 
IdleOne said:
So you're saying that you'd refuse to believe something even if there was concrete evidence to support it? Oh, and I'm not the type to call miss cleo.


Enough concrete evidence to get on TV; not enough to convince me.


IdleOne said:
I forgot the comma, it should be "complete, utter moron". Sorry that you couldn't figure that one out.



I obviously DID figure that one out. But the issue remains, "complete utter moron" even with the comma is nonsensical. Do I tell you, "you're veritably real.", or "an idiotic idiot", or "you're really real". No, for the simple fact that it's nonsensical. Saying something is complete, utter anything is ridiculous simply because 'utter' means complete/absolute. I'm sure you don't get all this, but take my word for it.




IdleOne said:
Hmmm....your personality and thoughts strongly influence your handwriting. Also, in a lot in criminal cases they compare handwriting to confirm if someone did write something like a letter. Now why would they do that if it "by no means, infers" that the same person wrote a document, letter, etc..?



I'd just as soon point out that you're typing like me (with your, "hmmm...") but that'll probably only encourage it more than it will perturb.

I said it does not infer me and the person with SIMILAR handwriting have the same conscious minds, duffer. Again, learn to read. I brought it up as a point of interest, and it is yet another example of your reading comprehension skills, or lack there of.




IdleOne said:
Ok, it was a boy.



You were wrong yet again. It was a boy, not "a former adult man".


IdleOne said:
Also, everyone has rights to be however intelligent they want to be. Why do you always insist on adding in comments not related to the discussion at all?


You're basically saying, "I have a right to be however intelligent or stupid I wish to be." because when you say 'everyone', that includes you. Good job, duffer; you've censured nothing. What does that say about what you think of your intelligence, that you're stupid but it's ok because you have the RIGHT to be that stupid? And they say high schools are doing a good job. This is just sad.




IdleOne said:
Ok, it supplied evidence (which is what you were asking for)


I never asked you for evidence, retard.


IdleOne said:
I never said it was factual
.


Then why are you using this to support your reincarnation pseudo theory then??? :bugeye:

Why are you arguing for this article then?

If you admit it's not factual, or admit that you yourself don't even know it's factual then we are wasting time here. I've done my part to show you this isn't factual, and all along you knew that. Consider this article no longer a part of the discussion (chalk up another victory for me).




IdleOne said:
Hmm...you're saying that someone could've told the boy to continously tell his parents he was someone else, runaway from home, learn how to read and write in multiple languages (before learning it in school), memorize a group of events, and force his handwriting to appear identical to the former boy's?


I'm not only saying that but I'm ALSO saying his parents could've told him, and the parents of the other dead boy could be in cahoots with them. They are poor, remember? Someone (anyone) could have told the boy all of those events, and I don't recall the article saying the boy handwrote something for Indian forensic scientist Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan to sample on the spot. It doesn't say whether he gave Chauhan an old putative piece of writing of his or something he wrote for him on the spot. I don't think I have to spell that one out for you. If you wish to consider all possible scenarios, consider those ones too. If you insist on dismissing them, then you're not being objective and your opinion is no longer pertinent (not that it ever was).


IdleOne said:
learn how to read and write in multiple languages (before learning it in school)


Someone could've taught the boy the ALPHABETS of multiple languages (because it doesn't say he could read and write, retard).


from your article: "but yet when I told him to write the English and Punjabi alphabet, he wrote them correctly"


That's the SECOND time you've misread the article you gave, and the umpteenth time you've misread my point. Your diction isn't exactly sublime neither. You're illiterate.





IdleOne said:
This is possible, but unlikely. Yes it could be a hoax, but there is more evidence than just this to suggest reincarnation
.


But reincarnation IS likely?? :rolleyes:

The scenarios and possibilities I made reference to have happened and have been proven to have happened; reincarnation cannot say the same.

And it doesn't matter, if there's evidence for both and neither scenario has yet to be PROVEN, then you must consider everything, if not you aren’t being an objective judge.





IdleOne said:
Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be undergoing mass investigation. Most scientists don't like investigating cases like these
.


And I wonder why :rolleyes:



IdleOne said:
We don't know what makes up the mind, but we do have ways of finding out if someone's mind is similar.


Similar, maybe; but not identical.



IdleOne said:
Well, reincarnation says that the mind travels from one body to another. The simplest thing to do would be comparing the minds of the dead with the minds of the living
.


I'm laughing, yet again, at your poor excuse for a rebuttal..... oh and good luck comparing the mind of a DEAD BOY to one who is alive. I believe in you, you can do it.



IdleOne said:
There isn't "indisputable proof" of a lots of theories accepted in modern science.


What exactly does "of a lots of theories" mean to say? Stupid. Here's the word for the day: axiom. I would suggest thinking before you post and doing more research before you speak on science.

IdleOne said:
Also, your last sentence basically says there is no way to prove reincarnation because there hasn't been indisputable proof of reincarnation
.


My last sentence was, "There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it". Which is to say, when actual, indisputable proof of reincarnation appears, then science will contrive a scientific way to prove reincarnation. Which is to say that there's no way to prove reincarnation YET, because if actual, indisputable proof were to appear then, obviously, there would be a way. Deduce the obvious conclusion next time, I'm getting tired of this.




IdleOne said:
You must not understand. They can both have conscious minds because they're the same person.

Funny, because you just contradicted yourself. Check, "Well, reincarnation says that the mind travels from one body to another". So how can "the mind travel from one body to another" if "they can both have conscious minds"??? The mind travelling means it's just one mind, but now you're saying that it's two minds because they "both have conscious minds". Well, which one is it, is it the one mind travelling or is it that they both can have conscious minds? And what's this I hear about conscious minds? Only ONE OF THEM HAS A CONSCIOUS MIND. The one that's alive. 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



Give it up, dummy. Only one has a conscious mind because the other is DEAD!


Why do you even keep posting, it's obvious you're struggling at this point.




IdleOne said:
I meant the former conscious mind compared to the living conscious mind
.


Stupid, how can you compare a former conscious mind (which means it is no longer conscious) to one that is living. Have fun trying to figure that one out.



IdleOne said:
Like you said, the whole idea of reincarnation is that it's the same mind. So they'd be comparing the traces of the former mind to the living mind. Obviously any idiot could see that I meant this.


Hmmm..... n0.


You have no idea what you mean, otherwise you wouldn't be struggling, searching for anything to use at this point. You can't compare the mind of a dead boy to one who is alive and expect to come out with actual, indisputable proof of reincarnation. Only one of them is alive, remember. All the "evidence" could simply mean something totally different than reincarnation. Any OBJECTIVE judge could see this. Your thought process is very linear, try thinking outside the box sometimes.




IdleOne said:
Debunk, waste time, what's the big difference?


I done told you before that what's considered wasting time is relative and subjective, not to mention different to everybody. You're a barrel of laughs, I laugh at you, then chide you subsequently. Making you look stupid is not wasting my time.

And for the record, here's what 'debunk' means...


de·bunk ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bngk)
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of



I see a BIG difference.



IdleOne said:
Lot's of people don't know because it's repressed anger, anger that get's stored into the subconscious because of some frustrating event. People often release a portion of this subconscious anger over little things that don't matter. Insulting someone is a form of releasing anger
.


I know what repressed anger is and I know the effects of it, save your speech for someone else. Insulting you is funny; your posts are so asinine they're funny. And I think I'd know if I'm repressing any anger, pseudo-psychologist.


IdleOne said:
You seem to not be able to argue without insulting.


Sort of like how you can't go a post without bollocks and contradiction.
 
IdleOne said:
Almost everytime you bring up quotes you point out contradictions.


Any idiot could see that I was not pointing out contradiction. I'm being serious now, you have no right to be this stupid. Try to brush up your skills on reading comprehension. Do you even know what contradiction means? Think back to that post, what in the world had you thinking I was trying to point out contradiction. There is just simply no excuse for all this. You're inept. Jut because I bring up contradictions (and not almost everytime) when I bring up quotes sometimes does not mean you should just ASSUME that everytime I bring up quotes that that's what I'm doing.

Speaking of which, I didn't bring up any quotes in that post. I made up a scenario to illustrate how inane it would be to use that cop-out.


In fact, how did you get me trying to point out a contradiction from this...
Chalaco said:
If you use the fucking experience garbage, then what is the point of posting in these forums.

person A: "Oh, I have something to say, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"

person B: "That's where I think you're wrong, why did you say that, explain it further".

person A: "You have to experience it, you need to feel it".



I can already see it now. Stay idle, kid. It does you good.


Reading just ain't your thing, is it.





IdleOne said:
I wasn't strawmanning, I was using those as examples to point out how you can't explain the experience (and when I do further explain it you get angry and ask why I brought it up). My thought process is linear? Yours seems to be linear, as you have your mind set on proving me wrong (while I agree occaisonally) no matter what.


I asked you why brought up that desire garbage, for the last time learn to read. I told you in when I retorted to not bring up desire. I don't give a good god damn if it's "background" information, it's not pertinent. You just wanted to seem smart by reciting some stupid buddhist book. I even said, "desire crap", why would you think I meant the feeling/experience when I said 'desire crap'. Since when does 'desire crap' mean the 'feeling/experience' you had originally idiotically brough up? I don't care if it's background information. All you had to do was explain what you meant by being "selfless".


Desire was somethng you and squashbuckler were arguing about, I never had any part in such foolishness. The feeling of being "selfless" (which is not possible, mind you) would have sufficed and can be explained without that desire crap. And you know it can. Quit arguing, you've been caught, move on.





IdleOne said:
I didn't answer the questions? You should be the one learning to read as I clearly stated in my previous post (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=27068&page=4&pp=20):




You said this...
IdleOne said:
And to answer your question, simply because its forced on us. We have to deal with this.


Nice answer, very thorough :rolleyes:



IdleOne said:
I even said "And to answer your question" with his quote above. Looks like you were completely wrong about this one (though you won't admit it, your mind's to weak to do that).



How about I meant you didn't provide THOROUGH answers; which is what answers SHOULD be anyways. Thought that went without saying, nudnick. You were just like because, "we have to...".


Sad.



IdleOne said:
He implied it simply here:

I trying to tell him that you have to experience not fearing death to know if you would be happy or appreciate life. Again, you can't go without insulting during an argument, can you?



Please :rolleyes:


Squashbuckler done told me he didn't imply that, you're searching. Quit now while you're behind, you're struggling at this point, it's almost vile.
 
VitalOne said:
Congratulations! You have just wasted another paragraph.



What'd I tell you about wasting paragraphs and time? :bugeye: It's subjective.




IdleOne said:
Your mind is too weak to be able to admit when you're wrong, my mind isn't :) . So it's a good thing that I can admit when I'm wrong.


More like you're wrong because your mind is weak.
 
VitalOne said:
Well dummy, I meant "So what?" as in So what if I agree? Do you have some type of subconscious desire to want me to disagree with you?



There you go again. I put, "well dummy" and your retort begins with, "well dummy". Well done.





IdleOne said:
I can waste all the time I want BTW.


Which is why 'IdleOne' is a very apt nom de plume. :D

Nice touch adding the internet colloquialism by the way; acronyms and abreviations are a nice touch, shows you're down with the internet lingo. :rolleyes:





IdleOne said:
I accidently included the "Altruism is specious" in the quote. Also, that's why in my previous post I said I partially agree, then I said I totally agreed because I didn't feel like explaining which parts I agreed to.



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:


You've been caught, yet again, with your ankle in your mouth. Only cop-out you know is to say you just said agreed because you were too idle to explain what you meant? No wonder 'IdleOne' is the pseudonym I have bestowed upon you; you're worthless.

Face it, you agreed with me and when you're caught in a web of calumny, you cower. Why the hell would you even agree if you don't agree, just leaves you open to slander. You're, quite possibly, one of the worst debators I've ever come across..... who knows, you may just agree with me on that, only to take it back in a later post saying you posted that "because I didn't feel like explaining which parts I agreed to". Dumbass






IdleOne said:
I already explained the unselfish feeling in the post you said didn't ask me about.


Correction, I said I didn't ask for the desire crap which was more than half of your post (reading classes start next week; sign up).


IdleOne said:
It's not impossible to be unselfish. News Flash - People can do what's in their interest, and altruism can still not be specious.


Altruism is now no longer specious, you say? Hmmm....have a read
01-31-04, 11:29 PM
IdleOne said:
You said something. I agree partially about the altruism thing.
02-02-04, 02:52 PM
IdleOne said:
Ok, I don't partially agree, I totally agree
.


And now you no longer agree? You sure know how to run around in circles, boy.






IdleOne said:
I never said all people do what's in their interest.


Actually, you did...02-03-04, 12:52 AM
IdleOne said:
I was agreeing that people do what's in their interest


If you didn't mean ALL people then you should have made that lucid, birdbrain. You're just lookign for an excuse not to look like a hypocrite.




IdleOne said:
Everything we do isn't selfish (Concerned chiefly or only with oneself). In altruism you're concerned more about the other person than yourself.



But why do you perform altruistic activities, because you obtain more pleasure from helping others than you would from serving your own interests. Ergo, you too are acting in a selfish manner. And also, you may feel guilty if you don't engage in altruism, you may feel like you're notbeing "moral", as they would have you believe. It can be said that happiness is a sense that everything is "right" happiness cannot exist with pain, fear, or guilt. You may fear that you're not "serving your fellow man" (as ridiculous as that notion is), you may feel guilty as a result of this, it may pain you emotionally. Altruists are happy when performing altruism, I think that's obvious. And if they're not, it may be because of a complexity they have that does not allow them to engage in other activities that without feeling pain, fear, or guilt.


Psychological Hedonism - people always act to maximize their own pleasure and avoid any pain, even if they fail to admit it.




IdleOne said:
selfish - Concerned chiefly or only with oneself. If she isn't concerned only with herself, then she isn't selfish. She wasn't only concerned about her happiness.


She was concerned only with herself, if she wasn't she wouldn't have gone to help all the indigent people she helped. She would've just stayed where ever she was and maybe got someone else to do it. You can't not be selfish. My oxford says selfishness is to be 'concerned chiefly or only with one's own interests or pleasure'. I've already shown you how this works with her, move on. I defy you to debunk my stance, don't just say it isn't, give me an example. Come with substance.


Oh and by the way, you contradicted yourself earlier and now you seem to think that denying it will make it go away. You run around in more circles than dogs on speed, you're worthless.








IdleOne said:
Now, you didn't think that I meant the second definition did you? I meant the first, not the second. It's a matter of differing definitions
.




There you go again, repeating my first sentence in your rebuttal (a term of endearment if I ever knew one).



It's not a matter of differeing definitions, it's a matter of different denotations. The connotations I used was for the second denotation. So, we were both using two different connotations thinking we were using the same one. Now, I've rephrased my question to fit the denotation I implied, so as to make my question more lucid. Go ahead and answer the damn flippin' question!




IdleOne said:
I see no contradiction. Again, I was using definition one for know and known, not definition two, can't you get that through your head? By definition two there would a contradiction, but not by definition one. I can know reality is subjective, and I wouldn't be contradicting myself.



Of course you don't, you're stupid, remember? Now, allow me to retort. Do you regard that as true beyond doubt?





IdleOne said:
Ok....Epicurus was an ancient philosopher...why should I believe him? Why do you keep bringing him up?


Oh, so you're going to ignore all that just because he "was an ancient philosopher"? Don't be stupid. What I cited debunked your "can't trust the senses" theory, and how reality is not subjective (reading classes are almost full, hurry and sign up).



IdleOne said:
I know that saying it is subjective is saying it exist only the mind.


Then why did you say, " How did you prove that reality isn't subjective (or exists only in the mind)?". You put "or" as if the two mean something totally different from each other. Give it up, you've been caught, yet again.


IdleOne said:
No, you actually said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality beign subjective, so no one would need to listen to me.




I put, "First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality being subjective, so no one would need to listen to me. I did, however, debunk your pseudo-theory". What I meant, was that when someone says something that is fraudulent, no one needs to listen to them. I know 'reality is subjective' to be fraudulent, so that's what I meant. People need to listen to me when I back things up, not when I go off on some specious metaphysics. Try deducing the obvious conclusion on your own next time, I've done it so many times for you, I think, by now, you can manage.





IdleOne said:
It seems like when you try to make your point you do it with insults, twisting arguments, and taking everything literally
.



So let me get this straight, I shouldn't take everything literally? I shouldn't take it in candour, should I take it in jest? This isn't comedy central, this is sciforums, get serious. If you're not going to post things that should be taken literally, then post them on your wall. I swear you're just so painfully dumb.



IdleOne said:
I didn't argue about it (but you just did).



No one said you argued about it, simpleton. You first said, "Ok....man you argue about every little worthless statement. Won't waste my time with this pointless one". I stated in my rebuttal, "I think you just did". Which is to say you wasted your time by giving your own "worthless statement". No one said you argued. I'm getting tired of inferring the obvious. Henceforth, prior to replying to my posts, read them three times, carefully and slowly.


IdleOne said:
You changed that after.



I didn't change anything, really. We were both using correct denotations, just not the same one. In that regard, we were both wrong. So, to avoid letting you use that scapegoat, I changed my question to specifically meet the connotation/denotation I meant. I'll ask 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.






IdleOne said:
But it was used to illustrate your point, so how is arguing about the example used to illustrate your point strawmanning?



If I use a pencil to show you a math equation, don't argue against the pencil, question the math problem. If you're going to point out the fact that no one can know for sure what the weather will be like, you're ignoring my point entirely. Which was, what's the point of paying mind to someone who will tell you something as being this or that, and then when asked if he/she regards this to be true beyond, he/she replies with, 'no'. It's inane. You're just nit-picking, going after the uncertainty that is obvious about the weather. Pay attention.




IdleOne said:
Easy, I strongly believe I can't trust the senses, yet I use them anyway. My senses may have lead me to the conclusion, so I can't trust the conclusion either. It just seems logical really.



AH HA! Por fin! You admit to your own folly. Now, tell me, IdleOne, if you can't trust your own conclusion, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, trust it, or you, as well? By now, you should be getting the point, if not, you're hopeless and a lost cause.




IdleOne said:
Oh, ok, then you waste time decrying. Also, I could argue this entire argument is a waste of time as it seems that neither of us will change our views
.


I actually save time as it saves me one less letter to type in. And you admitting to your own obstinacy just makes it more overt that you're not being an objective judge/debator.



IdleOne said:
I made it quite clear that it was background information. Yes, I didn't need to tell you, but it's just background information. Oh, and before you asked me to explain the experience/feeling, so I did. You don't have to get all excited over an extra paragraph. How could I be wrong to bring up background information? It's just background information.


Actually, you DIDN'T make it clear it was background information, and regardless of what information it was, it was not pertinent nor requested.



IdleOne said:
Ok...sorry that you got all overly excited over an extra paragraph.




I just don't like it when people feel the need to bring up redundant crap. And yes, it was redundant.
 
VitalOne said:
Exactly...


Again :rolleyes:



IdleOne said:
Yet you repeatly say that we don't know what makes up the mind, so how can you claim that your mind is dead if you get hit by a truck, if you don't know what makes up the mind?


There's empirical evidence that leans to the possibility/suggests that your mind will cease to exist after getting hit by a truck, sparky.



IdleOne said:
Objectively, atoms make up the brain, and at least effect the mind.



Said mind, not brain.
 
VitalOne said:
Hey Squashbuckler, glad you're back. I explained it more in this post:


Besides, you know you can't really explain a feeling to someone who hasn't experienced anything similar to it.



The man just called you "lost". Wrote why he feels you're lost. And you welcome him back by saying you're "glad" he's back? :eek:
Squashbuckler said:
"experience that feeling, it can't really be explained"
"Desire -> suffering"

Do we really need to go any further on those statements? The man is lost

Newsflash, Squashbuckler knows you're a charlatan (as do I).

Look at this sap trying to play it off as if he's still got some dignity left in him. :rolleyes:
 
VitalOne said:
Chalaco, I seem to be getting mixed information from you...

Contradiction 1:

Yet when I say I don't fear death you reply with:





So you DO fear death, according you.



Please :rolleyes: I've already stated that I fear death and already recanted my previous stance on the issue



Here's a thought, try looking up the words present in my posts if you don't understand them. I've posted before that I RECANT my previous stance on death, here's a memory refresher...
Chalaco said:
Apropos, I now recant my stance on death, I fear it will be of no interest to me and not conducive to my happiness, thus I do fear it. However, its inevitability does not cause me distress. I just feel that engaging in an activity that will lead to my death (i.e. suicide) as a conscious endeavour would be a step retroactive to my current interests. I fear I will not enjoy it and it will take time (an eternity's worth) away from my other - more important - interests.

Now, I shan't hear no talk of, "see, I told you so". I am man enough to put sapience ahead of pride, however, the one to prove Epicurus wrong and debunk his stance on death was me, not any of you. For you see, when I posted this...

Chalaco said:
You fear going to the store at four in the morning because you're too tired and maybe don't want to get up and be tired the next morning because of a late night trip to the store, or maybe you fear that it will be of no interest to you. I wouldn't dare, actually I just "don't right [SIC] my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times" because I do fear it, I fear it will be boring and tiresome. 'Sides, I'd rather LEFT my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times. Stupid.

Really, it's simple hedonism here, if you don't want to do it, it's because you fear it will not bring you anything good. Hedonism. Plain and simple. If this TOO goes over your head, I will begin to refer it as your dunce cap, it goes over your head, and indicates your level of intelligence (that's a good one, and to think, it came to me just now).


I came to realize it debunks Epicurus' whole stance on death and mine too. I've told you my new stance. Now, as for the whole desire bit, take that up with Squashbuckler because I have yet to bring that up or argue for or against any of that crap. I came into the game on the altruism, anti-skeptic arguments, and the fear of death. I've recanted on the latter, but if any of you wish to offer anything that even remotely resembles a rebuttal, make sure to bring up MY points, not squashbucklers, not anybody else's.
01-31-04, 03:27 AM



That takes care of that, consider this putative contradiction you speak of defenestrated (tossed out the window).




IdleOne said:
Contradiction 2:




You say these things, implying that you want me to further explain myself...but then you say...



The feeling was directly related to desire (unselfish, desireless feeling), exactly what you said you didn't bring up. That was in my first reply to your post.



Please :rolleyes:


EVERY feeling can be, and is, directly related to desire, you dope. There was no excuse for the redundance, stop searching.



IdleOne said:
Then at the end you try to get out of it:


By "taking it back".



I took it back because I realized you were lying when you said he asked you to explain this putative "feeling/experience" you spoke of. You even admitted to lying...
Chalaco said:
I want to know WHEN and WHERE he asked you this! :bugeye:
IdleOne said:
He never did. It was completely wrong to say it the way I did
.



IdleOne said:
Also, no one directly asked you to post your views, so were you wrong in doing so?


I don't digress; you do, there's a difference.




IdleOne said:
Contradiction 3:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

1. Death is annihilation



Yeah, I was citing Epicurus' stance on death, which I happened to share at the time. But then, here's the tricky part, you ready for this?............................ I RECANTED!. So there's no contradiction.


IdleOne said:
Then you go on to say...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed

Now, how would you know if death is anihilalation (destruction), if you have stated that Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed?
So which is it?



Hmmmm, considering I've since RECANTED that stance it doesn't make it a contradiction.

There's empirical evidence to the mind ending one the body passes away. I am an empiricist. Now, I don't know for sure, with certainty, and since I've recanted my Epicurian stance on death. And unlike you, or Epicurus, I shan't claim to know what happens to the mind once one passes away.




IdleOne said:
These are just a few I quickly found. I'm sure you'll simply say something like "these are my new views".


Funny, I make a post about YOUR contradictions (which you have yet to prove as being otherwise) and, lo and behold (and that is the correct spelling), you make a post about my putative "contradictions". Well guess what, stooge? They weren't contradictions and you look even stupider (didn't think that was possible up until now).


You're trying to do what I do, but there's just one problem: even if you wore size thirty six you couldn't fit in these shoes.


You struck out on this one. Three times you tried pointing out stuff that just wasn't there. All you did was libel me, and even that doesn't phase me. Better luck next time.


Just in case you're wondering, the definition for recant is as follows...


re·cant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-knt)
v. re·cant·ed, re·cant·ing, re·cants
v. tr.
To make a formal retraction or disavowal of (a statement or belief to which one has previously committed oneself).
 
Chalaco said:
Enough concrete evidence to get on TV; not enough to convince me.
Ok. So you're the type that only believes something if some higher class of scientists believe it?




Chalaco said:
I obviously DID figure that one out. But the issue remains, "complete utter moron" even with the comma is nonsensical. Do I tell you, "you're veritably real.", or "an idiotic idiot", or "you're really real". No, for the simple fact that it's nonsensical. Saying something is complete, utter anything is ridiculous simply because 'utter' means complete/absolute. I'm sure you don't get all this, but take my word for it.

Really? I found a writer using "complete, utter" - http://www.dailyevergreen.com/nn4/news/index.asp?Story_ID=7536. I also found it on U.S. Senator John McCain's site - http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=499. Now, it's obvious that you're wrong.



Chalaco said:
I'd just as soon point out that you're typing like me (with your, "hmmm...") but that'll probably only encourage it more than it will perturb.

I said it does not infer me and the person with SIMILAR handwriting have the same conscious minds, duffer. Again, learn to read. I brought it up as a point of interest, and it is yet another example of your reading comprehension skills, or lack there of.
Hmm...I know you said a person with similar handwriting, that's why I only quoted the "by no means, infers" part (that's so obvious). No other arguments?





Chalaco said:
You were wrong yet again. It was a boy, not "a former adult man".
That's why I said "Ok, it was a boy".



Chalaco said:
You're basically saying, "I have a right to be however intelligent or stupid I wish to be." because when you say 'everyone', that includes you. Good job, duffer; you've censured nothing. What does that say about what you think of your intelligence, that you're stupid but it's ok because you have the RIGHT to be that stupid? And they say high schools are doing a good job. This is just sad.
Yes (to the first sentence), and No (to the third sentence), I was simply answering your question. Old people really are grumpy.


Chalaco said:
I never asked you for evidence, retard.

True, but you clearly stated:
Chalaco said:
There is no objective proof to merit your claim, nor is there any empirical evidence to back your point up.
By challenging my statement, you were basically asking me to provide evidence to back my claims up.


Chalaco said:
Then why are you using this to support your reincarnation pseudo theory then??? :bugeye:

Why are you arguing for this article then?

If you admit it's not factual, or admit that you yourself don't even know it's factual then we are wasting time here. I've done my part to show you this isn't factual, and all along you knew that. Consider this article no longer a part of the discussion (chalk up another victory for me).
I was claiming that it was credible, but not completely factual. I was claiming that it was evidence. Another victory for me!




Chalaco said:
I'm not only saying that but I'm ALSO saying his parents could've told him, and the parents of the other dead boy could be in cahoots with them. They are poor, remember? Someone (anyone) could have told the boy all of those events, and I don't recall the article saying the boy handwrote something for Indian forensic scientist Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan to sample on the spot. It doesn't say whether he gave Chauhan an old putative piece of writing of his or something he wrote for him on the spot. I don't think I have to spell that one out for you. If you wish to consider all possible scenarios, consider those ones too. If you insist on dismissing them, then you're not being objective and your opinion is no longer pertinent (not that it ever was).
Like I said, These are possible, but unlikely.



Chalaco said:
Someone could've taught the boy the ALPHABETS of multiple languages (because it doesn't say he could read and write, retard).


from your article: "but yet when I told him to write the English and Punjabi alphabet, he wrote them correctly"


That's the SECOND time you've misread the article you gave, and the umpteenth time you've misread my point. Your diction isn't exactly sublime neither. You're illiterate.


Well, if he can write in other languages (correctly), then it's safe to assume that he can read in the others too.



Chalaco said:
But reincarnation IS likely?? :rolleyes:

The scenarios and possibilities I made reference to have happened and have been proven to have happened; reincarnation cannot say the same.

And it doesn't matter, if there's evidence for both and neither scenario has yet to be PROVEN, then you must consider everything, if not you aren?t being an objective judge.
It's like how the Big Bang theory is likely because other data corresponds with it. Or how the theory of evolution is likely because there's a lot of evidence to support it. As I said, it is possible that it is a hoax.



Chalaco said:
And I wonder why :rolleyes:
So you basically admitted that you were wrong (without saying it, like I said you would).


Chalaco said:
Similar, maybe; but not identical.
Yes.


Chalaco said:
I'm laughing, yet again, at your poor excuse for a rebuttal..... oh and good luck comparing the mind of a DEAD BOY to one who is alive. I believe in you, you can do it.

You use traces of the person's thoughts leftover.


Chalaco said:
What exactly does "of a lots of theories" mean to say? Stupid. Here's the word for the day: axiom. I would suggest thinking before you post and doing more research before you speak on science.
Typo, I meant "lot" not "lots". You have made typos as well, but I was kind of not to point them out (I'd rather concentrate on the real argument).

Chalaco said:
My last sentence was, "There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it". Which is to say, when actual, indisputable proof of reincarnation appears, then science will contrive a scientific way to prove reincarnation. Which is to say that there's no way to prove reincarnation YET, because if actual, indisputable proof were to appear then, obviously, there would be a way. Deduce the obvious conclusion next time, I'm getting tired of this.
Like I said you basically said, "there is no way to prove reincarnation because there hasn't been indisputable proof of reincarnation".





Chalaco said:
Funny, because you just contradicted yourself. Check, "Well, reincarnation says that the mind travels from one body to another". So how can "the mind travel from one body to another" if "they can both have conscious minds"??? The mind travelling means it's just one mind, but now you're saying that it's two minds because they "both have conscious minds". Well, which one is it, is it the one mind travelling or is it that they both can have conscious minds? And what's this I hear about conscious minds? Only ONE OF THEM HAS A CONSCIOUS MIND. The one that's alive. 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



Give it up, dummy. Only one has a conscious mind because the other is DEAD!


Why do you even keep posting, it's obvious you're struggling at this point.
Struggling? I don't think so. It's obvious that I meant their former conscious mind compared to the the living conscious mind (which are the same minds).

I even said:
VitalOne said:
I meant the former conscious mind compared to the living conscious mind. Like you said, the whole idea of reincarnation is that it's the same mind. So they'd be comparing the traces of the former mind to the living mind.



Chalaco said:
Stupid, how can you compare a former conscious mind (which means it is no longer conscious) to one that is living. Have fun trying to figure that one out.
Easy, use traces of the former conscious mind (eg...things written by that person), and compare them to traces of the conscious mind.




Chalaco said:
Hmmm..... n0.

You have no idea what you mean, otherwise you wouldn't be struggling, searching for anything to use at this point. You can't compare the mind of a dead boy to one who is alive and expect to come out with actual, indisputable proof of reincarnation. Only one of them is alive, remember. All the "evidence" could simply mean something totally different than reincarnation. Any OBJECTIVE judge could see this. Your thought process is very linear, try thinking outside the box sometimes.
I'm not struggling (I'm actually quite relaxed). I already said that it was disputable, so what are you arguing about?




Chalaco said:
I done told you before that what's considered wasting time is relative and subjective, not to mention different to everybody. You're a barrel of laughs, I laugh at you, then chide you subsequently. Making you look stupid is not wasting my time.

And for the record, here's what 'debunk' means...


de·bunk ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bngk)
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of



I see a BIG difference.
Again, I see no big difference (it is subjective, though).


Chalaco said:
I know what repressed anger is and I know the effects of it, save your speech for someone else. Insulting you is funny; your posts are so asinine they're funny. And I think I'd know if I'm repressing any anger, pseudo-psychologist.
A lot of people don't know if they are repressing anger or not. Hmm...you're saying that insulting me gives you pleasure....this still points toward some type of psychological disorder.


Chalaco said:
Sort of like how you can't go a post without bollocks and contradiction.
I could say the same about you.
 
Chalaco said:
Any idiot could see that I was not pointing out contradiction. I'm being serious now, you have no right to be this stupid. Try to brush up your skills on reading comprehension. Do you even know what contradiction means? Think back to that post, what in the world had you thinking I was trying to point out contradiction. There is just simply no excuse for all this. You're inept. Jut because I bring up contradictions (and not almost everytime) when I bring up quotes sometimes does not mean you should just ASSUME that everytime I bring up quotes that that's what I'm doing.

Speaking of which, I didn't bring up any quotes in that post. I made up a scenario to illustrate how inane it would be to use that cop-out.
You sound like a dictator, who wants to control everyones' actions (or at least mine). I thought you were trying to point out a contradiction because all you did was give your scenario, next to my quote, letting the example speak for itself.

Chalaco said:
In fact, how did you get me trying to point out a contradiction from this...
Stated above.

Chalaco said:
Reading just ain't your thing, is it.
No.


Chalaco said:
I asked you why brought up that desire garbage, for the last time learn to read. I told you in when I retorted to not bring up desire. I don't give a good god damn if it's "background" information, it's not pertinent. You just wanted to seem smart by reciting some stupid buddhist book. I even said, "desire crap", why would you think I meant the feeling/experience when I said 'desire crap'. Since when does 'desire crap' mean the 'feeling/experience' you had originally idiotically brough up? I don't care if it's background information. All you had to do was explain what you meant by being "selfless".


Desire was somethng you and squashbuckler were arguing about, I never had any part in such foolishness. The feeling of being "selfless" (which is not possible, mind you) would have sufficed and can be explained without that desire crap. And you know it can. Quit arguing, you've been caught, move on.
The experience is directly related to desire (desireless feeling). Uhm..I don't have any Buddhist books. Sorry for supplying background information, gosh. Again, why are you so pressed on controlling my actions ("All you had to do was explain what you meant by being "selfless".").

Chalaco said:
Nice answer, very thorough :rolleyes:
Strawmanning, and you will never admit when you're wrong, will you? Also, I answered with more:
VitalOne said:
And to answer your question, simply because its forced on us. We have to deal with this. You could argue why do anything at all, aren't you just going to die anyway? The reason why people do things is because most can't live without doing something. It brings them happiness to do something.


Chalaco said:
How about I meant you didn't provide THOROUGH answers; which is what answers SHOULD be anyways. Thought that went without saying, nudnick. You were just like because, "we have to...".

Sad.
Stop strawmanning. If your first statement is true, then why didn't you just "thoroughly" say so? Your second statement is your opinion. Also, my answer explains it clearly, it is forced on us, it's just like asking why do anything if we're just going to die.





Squashbuckler said:
Please :rolleyes:


Squashbuckler done told me he didn't imply that, you're searching. Quit now while you're behind, you're struggling at this point, it's almost vile.
He clearly did challenge my claim. And please, if Squashbuckler has to say something, he will.
 
Chalaco said:
What'd I tell you about wasting paragraphs and time? :bugeye: It's subjective.
Exactly, so that was my subjective opinion :rolleyes:





Chalaco said:
More like you're wrong because your mind is weak.
No, it takes a stronger mind to admit when they are wrong. Anyone can admit that they're right.
 
Chalaco said:
There you go again. I put, "well dummy" and your retort begins with, "well dummy". Well done.
I did it on purpose, dummy.

Chalaco said:
Which is why 'IdleOne' is a very apt nom de plume. :D

Nice touch adding the internet colloquialism by the way; acronyms and abreviations are a nice touch, shows you're down with the internet lingo.
English Please :D. You knowing that it was internet lingo, shows that you're also down with internet lingo (or you did some quick research).


Chalaco said:
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You've been caught, yet again, with your ankle in your mouth. Only cop-out you know is to say you just said agreed because you were too idle to explain what you meant? No wonder 'IdleOne' is the pseudonym I have bestowed upon you; you're worthless.

Face it, you agreed with me and when you're caught in a web of calumny, you cower. Why the hell would you even agree if you don't agree, just leaves you open to slander. You're, quite possibly, one of the worst debators I've ever come across..... who knows, you may just agree with me on that, only to take it back in a later post saying you posted that "because I didn't feel like explaining which parts I agreed to". Dumbass
Just as you were caught "with your ankle in your mouth" quoting me about the experience stuff. It was an accident, just as you accidently included an entire 2nd paragraph, I accidently included "altruism is specious". You're the one who constantly takes back their statements, and I'm the worst debator?




Chalaco said:
Correction, I said I didn't ask for the desire crap which was more than half of your post (reading classes start next week; sign up).
Desire is directly related to being desireless. The feeling is directly related to desire.



Chalaco said:
Altruism is now no longer specious, you say? Hmmm....have a read
01-31-04, 11:29 PM
02-02-04, 02:52 PM .


And now you no longer agree? You sure know how to run around in circles, boy.
Sheesh, I already cleared that part up (and you say I can't read). Just as you take back your statements (more than I have, BTW).







Chalaco said:
Actually, you did...02-03-04, 12:52 AM


If you didn't mean ALL people then you should have made that lucid, birdbrain. You're just lookign for an excuse not to look like a hypocrite.
It's quite obvious that I didn't say ALL people (again, and I can't read?). If I don't say all people, then you don't assume all people (this is just too obvious). That's like me saying "People brush their teeth" and you interpreting it as "ALL People brush their teeth".



Chalaco said:
But why do you perform altruistic activities, because you obtain more pleasure from helping others than you would from serving your own interests. Ergo, you too are acting in a selfish manner. And also, you may feel guilty if you don't engage in altruism, you may feel like you're notbeing "moral", as they would have you believe. It can be said that happiness is a sense that everything is "right" happiness cannot exist with pain, fear, or guilt. You may fear that you're not "serving your fellow man" (as ridiculous as that notion is), you may feel guilty as a result of this, it may pain you emotionally. Altruists are happy when performing altruism, I think that's obvious. And if they're not, it may be because of a complexity they have that does not allow them to engage in other activities that without feeling pain, fear, or guilt.


Psychological Hedonism - people always act to maximize their own pleasure and avoid any pain, even if they fail to admit it.
You don't necessarily obtain more pleasure out of it. No, you don't even think about expecting anything out of helping others, or feeling guilty. It's like doing without thinking about doing.




Chalaco said:
She was concerned only with herself, if she wasn't she wouldn't have gone to help all the indigent people she helped. She would've just stayed where ever she was and maybe got someone else to do it. You can't not be selfish. My oxford says selfishness is to be 'concerned chiefly or only with one's own interests or pleasure'. I've already shown you how this works with her, move on. I defy you to debunk my stance, don't just say it isn't, give me an example. Come with substance.


Oh and by the way, you contradicted yourself earlier and now you seem to think that denying it will make it go away. You run around in more circles than dogs on speed, you're worthless.
There really is no way to prove that she was or wasn't chiefly concerned with herself. But it is obvious that she was chiefly concerned about others. I didn't contradict myself earlier.


Chalaco said:
There you go again, repeating my first sentence in your rebuttal (a term of endearment if I ever knew one).



It's not a matter of differeing definitions, it's a matter of different denotations. The connotations I used was for the second denotation. So, we were both using two different connotations thinking we were using the same one. Now, I've rephrased my question to fit the denotation I implied, so as to make my question more lucid. Go ahead and answer the damn flippin' question!
I do it on purpose to mock you (obviously). I already answered the question.


Chalaco said:
Of course you don't, you're stupid, remember? Now, allow me to retort. Do you regard that as true beyond doubt?
No, I don't.



Chalaco said:
Oh, so you're going to ignore all that just because he "was an ancient philosopher"? Don't be stupid. What I cited debunked your "can't trust the senses" theory, and how reality is not subjective (reading classes are almost full, hurry and sign up).
That doesn't debunk how reality isn't subjective at all, it's just his belief that reality is external. You ignore the "desire crap" because you said no one ever asked for it. Well, no one never asked you to bring up Epicurus, yet you did, so you were wrong in doing so.




Chalaco said:
Then why did you say, " How did you prove that reality isn't subjective (or exists only in the mind)?". You put "or" as if the two mean something totally different from each other. Give it up, you've been caught, yet again.
No, I didn't, I put or as in a similar meaning. "Give it up, you've been caught, yet again."






I put, "First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality being subjective, so no one would need to listen to me. I did, however, debunk your pseudo-theory". What I meant, was that when someone says something that is fraudulent, no one needs to listen to them. I know 'reality is subjective' to be fraudulent, so that's what I meant. People need to listen to me when I back things up, not when I go off on some specious metaphysics. Try deducing the obvious conclusion on your own next time, I've done it so many times for you, I think, by now, you can manage.
I back things up, you don't and you constantly change your mind. "Try deducing the obvious conclusion on your own next time, I've done it so many times for you, I think, by now, you can manage."

Chalaco said:
So let me get this straight, I shouldn't take everything literally? I shouldn't take it in candour, should I take it in jest? This isn't comedy central, this is sciforums, get serious. If you're not going to post things that should be taken literally, then post them on your wall. I swear you're just so painfully dumb.
No, you shouldn't take everything literally. You should take it as it's obvious meaning. For instance, if I say "keep your eye on the clock" it does not mean to literally put your eye on a clock, but to look at the clock.





Chalaco said:
No one said you argued about it, simpleton. You first said, "Ok....man you argue about every little worthless statement. Won't waste my time with this pointless one". I stated in my rebuttal, "I think you just did". Which is to say you wasted your time by giving your own "worthless statement". No one said you argued. I'm getting tired of inferring the obvious. Henceforth, prior to replying to my posts, read them three times, carefully and slowly.
You didn't say which statement you were talking about (not being thorough with answers). "I'm getting tired of inferring the obvious."


Chalaco said:
I didn't change anything, really. We were both using correct denotations, just not the same one. In that regard, we were both wrong. So, to avoid letting you use that scapegoat, I changed my question to specifically meet the connotation/denotation I meant. I'll ask 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.
I already answered this question...no.


Chalaco said:
If I use a pencil to show you a math equation, don't argue against the pencil, question the math problem. If you're going to point out the fact that no one can know for sure what the weather will be like, you're ignoring my point entirely. Which was, what's the point of paying mind to someone who will tell you something as being this or that, and then when asked if he/she regards this to be true beyond, he/she replies with, 'no'. It's inane. You're just nit-picking, going after the uncertainty that is obvious about the weather. Pay attention.
I argued against the math problem, or the actual example. Many scientist don't think their statements are true beyond a doubt, but people listen to them. "Pay attention."






Chalaco said:
AH HA! Por fin! You admit to your own folly. Now, tell me, IdleOne, if you can't trust your own conclusion, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, trust it, or you, as well? By now, you should be getting the point, if not, you're hopeless and a lost cause.
No one can trust their conclusion, so believing me would be like believing any other person.



.

Chalaco said:
I actually save time as it saves me one less letter to type in. And you admitting to your own obstinacy just makes it more overt that you're not being an objective judge/debator.
I'm getting tired of this. I meant you waste time wanting call me "Idle".



Chalaco said:
Actually, you DIDN'T make it clear it was background information, and regardless of what information it was, it was not pertinent nor requested.
Well if it wasn't directly related, anyone could easily conclude that it was background information since it is indirectly related.



Chalaco said:
I just don't like it when people feel the need to bring up redundant crap. And yes, it was redundant.
[/QUOTE]
Like this redundant statement.
 
Back
Top