A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, that is not the reason I am saying this. If you can't understand his reasoning, or you don't have any reason to believe that his premises are correct, the only thing left if we're going to make any headway is to assume that he is right. That's why I said "temporarily". You can always reject his claims if you feel he is wrong, but not until a thorough investigation (which includes testing) is performed.

Ah so you assume any theory is right until it is proven wrong? Or just your fathers? Because if it works for any theory then I have a perfectly good bridge, only one previous owner, that I would like to sell to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

That science is trying to keep him down (its all a vast conspiracy of intellectuals), that light is efferent, and that this somehow equates with us having no free will and that this in turn means that if anyone will join the Godhead then humanity will be saved by his divine mandate.

That about cover it?

Efferent vision does not equate with no free will. They are two different discoveries. Where you got that idea is beyond me. Furthermore, no one is asking anyone to join the "Godhead". You are so off in your interpretation that it's no use discussing.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

• Since no scientist has peer reviewed his work, the first premise is the paranoid ramblings akin to Hitler's writings in Mein Kampf

• I cannot believe you are making such a sick comparison. I can't even respond to something as underhanded as this.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Sidhe

  light cannot be efferent it would break all fundamental natural laws, including special relativity, quantum mechanical laws et al. Not to mention the fact and this is in fact key: it does not and is not supported by any known experiment, and cannot be by the nature of its premises

  Actually there is no definitive proof that sight is afferent because there is no proven technology that is dependent on afferent vision for that technology to work.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Sidhe

  free will is not decided on determinism existing or not for a start

  Oh really?
  
  

  Originally Posted by Sidhe

  and even if it were just stating that it does not exist is in conflict with sound logical reasoning, especially when set up as either an axiom or what he calls a mathematical argument. Sure if we agree on the axiom that white is black then white is black: news flash: we do not. His argument about us not being able to be forced to do anything against our will is a tautology also, another way of saying axiomatically untouchable.

  Where is it a tautology? He was just stating a fact that the majority of people would know intuitively is true. It wasn't even set up as a logical construct so how can you come to this conclusion?
  
  

  Originally Posted by Sidhe

  yes David Koresh, we know.

  but you assume humanity needs some trite Buddhist doctrine that is Zen to save it? Or that it is even now not progressing

  Never did I say that we aren't progressing. Humanity is always progressing, but this knowledge would cause a major paradigm shift in our way of thinking and behaving.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Sidhe

  if you strive to save humanity you must first learn to save yourself.

  I think we're all trying to do both.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Sidhe

  "To reach Nirvana and break the chains of fate one must learn to free oneself from the chains of desire that bind. Once broken then we are free - what happens next is not written." The Siddhartha Guatma, The Buddha.

I will never stop desiring certain things; but it is true that when our desires or wants are not met, we lose our joy, which is not a good place to be.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

"Was Atman then not within him? Was not then the source within his own heart? One must find the source within one's own Self, one must possess it. Everything else was seeking - a detour, error."

The Siddartha, Hermen Hess.

I loved that book. I just found an original copy. I'm gonna read it again. This discovery does not conflict with Zen or Buddhism.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I loved that book. I just found an original copy. I'm gonna read it again. This discovery does not conflict with Zen or Buddhism.

Of course it doesn't it is the Zen Buddhism to your Christianity, Lessan's book.

They say Jesus took a lot of his ideas from the Buddhists, I always dismissed it as idle speculation but perhaps there is some truth to it. in some apocryphal or heretical works like The Acts of St Thomas he travels to the far East to learn from wise men. Who knows eh?

Just Google The Siddharta and its available free on the web site.

It's out of copyright.

I particularly like the bit where he meets The Budha (Himself) in the future and The Budha tries to teach him how to become enlightened and they merely end up thinking each other are idiotic or deluded.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

You have been taken over by the fear. To have free will all you have to do is give in to your happiness.

Once you realise that what you desire is in itself a chain that binds, then you are free to mess with clowns like Dr X and Vivisectus until blood comes out of their orifices, you are one, Atman. Nirvana. When I die I will no longer be tied to the wheel that is karma or fate. It is the journeys end, where we go after is unknowable.

"I shall remain Galadriel and diminish and go into the West."

A Dark Queen.

"It is only for the Pied Piper to play, I cannot lead you all to the river and have you drink but I can play the music."

Jesus H Sidhe.

"I shall make you fishers of men."

Jesus H Corbet.

"Christ on a fucking bike that was some serious fucking acid."

Jesus H Christ.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually there is no definitive proof that sight is afferent because there is no proven technology that is dependent on afferent vision for that technology to work.

Unlike the efferent camera that can magically capture an image without light having to travel, which we accidentally designed thinking we were designing a camera that worked the opposite way.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Unlike the efferent camera that can magically capture an image without light having to travel, which we accidentally designed thinking we were designing a camera that worked the opposite way.

Irony it's certainly ironic that's one thing I can say.

You are a fool, it's the space weevils that control your thoughts?

Wake up numb nuts!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so you assume any theory is right until it is proven wrong? Or just your fathers? Because if it works for any theory then I have a perfectly good bridge, only one previous owner, that I would like to sell to you.

No, I don't believe any observation is accurate, but Lessans was. Why do you compare him to those who had nothing to offer instead of comparing him to those who had something to offer?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I don't believe any observation is accurate, but Lessans was. Why do you compare him to those who had nothing to offer instead of comparing him to those who had something to offer?

If no observation is accurate how do you know what to believe?

Think about it, carefully mind this will make everything High Definition Pinsharp Crikey Vision TM®

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Of course it doesn't it is the Zen Buddhism to your Christianity, Lessan's book.

There is no comparison Sidhe.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

They say Jesus took a lot of his ideas from the Buddhists, I always dismissed it as idle speculation but perhaps there is some truth to it. in some apocryphal or heretical works like The Acts of St Thomas he travels to the far East to learn from wise men. Who knows eh?

Who knows, you could be right as long as your reasoning is sound. Mmmm.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Just Google The Siddharta and its available free on the web site.

It's out of copyright.

That's cool for those who don't have the book. I'm sure sales will go up.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I particularly like the bit where he meets The Budha (Himself) in the future and The Budha tries to teach him how to become enlightened and they merely end up thinking each other are idiotic or deluded.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I think it's funny too. In fact, I hope you are laughing right now.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You have been taken over by the fear. To have free will all you have to do is give in to your happiness.

You have it all wrong.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Once you realise that what you desire is in itself a chain that binds, then you are free to mess with clowns like Dr X and Vivisectus until blood comes out of their orifices, you are one, Atman. Nirvana. When I die I will no longer be tied to the wheel that is karma or fate. It is the journeys end, where we go after is unknowable.

You are always going to be tied to your nature Sidhe. How can you not be?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

"I shall remain Galadriel and diminish and go into the West."

A Dark Queen.

"It is only for the Pied Piper to play, I cannot lead you all to the river and have you drink but I can play the music."

Jesus H Sidhe.

"I shall make you fishers of men."

Jesus H Corbet.

"Christ on a fucking bike that was some serious fucking acid."

Jesus H Christ.

I am not on acid so stop accusing me of something I am not doing. I ask you also to stop comparing Lessans to these false thought systems. Give him a chance, and you may be pleasantly surprised, but if you don't, you will create the message you are determined to hear to prove that you are right. How can I compete with that?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not on acid so stop making something I am not. I ask you also to stop comparing Lessans to these false thought systems. Give him a chance, and you may be pleasantly surprised, but if you don't, you will create the message you are determined to hear to prove that you are right. How can I compete with that?

You can't I control all the ladders.

Galadriel in the film is immortal wisest and fairest of the Elves bearing this in mind. Now go back and read what I said again.

Arwen in the film has a choice to follow her Elf blood and like Elrond be immortal but henceforth as all Elves tied to the wheel of fate, or she can chose to follow here human side and not be bound, live to a ripe old age and watch all whom she loves die.

Difficult choice. But I am not saying these things to hear my own voice:

"Do not take me for some cheap Conjuror of tricks Frodo! I am not trying to rob you, I'm trying to help you."

All Shall Love Me and Despair - YouTube

&feature=related
I think I actually dropped a lung laughing at that, Elrond looking at her at the end just made piss myself almost literally.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Unlike the efferent camera that can magically capture an image without light having to travel, which we accidentally designed thinking we were designing a camera that worked the opposite way.

Noooooo, don't you see what you're doing? I said all along that the picture the camera is recording is in real time, therefore light has already reached the camera's lens. Please don't try to make yourself look good and Lessans bad. That would be philosophy at its worst.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooooo, don't you see what you're doing? I said all along that the picture the camera is recording is in real time, therefore light has already reached the camera's lens. Please don't try to make yourself look good and Lessans bad. That would be philosophy at its worst.

But that is impossible in real time.

That is the problem.

I have no time to pander to your image or anyone's if you say dumb things then don't expect me to reply with wisdom based on your dumbery btw, 9/10 I am going to say something clever, 9/10 you wont understand it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

But that is impossible in real time.

That is the problem.

I have no time to pander to your image or anyone's if you say dumb things then don't expect me to reply with wisdom based on your dumbery btw.

Not if sight is efferent. If you are basing your observations on afferent vision, then it's true it would be impossible. You would also do what you're doing right now; telling me I'm saying dumb things. I don't expect anything from you except some respect, which you have not given me, and please don't tell me I'm undeserving.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if sight is efferent. If you are basing your observations on afferent vision, then it's true it would be impossible. You would also believe AI'm saying dumb things. I don't expect anything except some respect, which I have not been given.

A tautology again.

If something is something it must be something but since it is nothing it is therefore not nothing.

This is circular and worthless Peacegirl.

"God exists because there is nothing that is more powerful than gods and nothing is more powerful than one God."

Anselm's ontological argument mangled by me.

Essentially it tries to logically prove God exists by claiming God exists. It's a tautology that Even other great Christian philosophers saw as ultimately futile: St Thomas Aquinas for example being one who critiqued it robustly as well as Kant and Nietzsche and others.

Respect must be earned.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

If no observation is accurate how do you know what to believe?

Think about it, carefully mind this will make everything High Definition Pinsharp Crikey Vision TM®

I agree with you. But this observation is accurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

A tautology again.

If something is something it must be something but since it is nothing it is therefore not nothing.

This is circular and worthless Peacegirl.

"God exists because there is nothing that is more powerful than gods and nothing is more powerful than one God."

Anselm's ontological argument mangled by me.

Essentially it tries to logically prove God exists by claiming God exists. It's a tautology that Even other great Christian philosophers saw as ultimately futile: St Thomas Aquinas for example being one who critiqued it robustly as well as Kant and Nietzsche and others.

Respect must be earned.

OMG, that is not what he's saying and you know it.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG, that is not what he's saying and you know it.

OMG! That so is.

I tell you what instead of just waiting for a gap in the conversation why not actually click on some of the links I gave you and read them. You would find that you will learn a hell of a lot more if you understood the subject in the first place.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is simply Pascal's Wager with Lessans' Golden Age substituted for Heaven.

I think I may have mentioned that a few dozen pages ago. (Please don't ask me to look for it.)

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with you. But this observation is accurate.

How do you know that you already said no observation is accurate?

So now I have basically revealed your desire to make paradoxes will I be crowned the winner of the internet?

"Let's play a game."

Jigsaw: Saw.

Live or Die...Make Your Choice - YouTube

I want to play a game... - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

OMG! That so is.

I tell you what instead of just waiting for a gap in the conversation why not actually click on some of the links I gave you and read them. You would find that you will learn a hell of a lot more if you understood the subject in the first place.

None of the links have to do with this knowledge, so why should I get off track? Why don't you take a piece of your own advice and read the book in its entirety. You only read part of the first chapter. Do you see why we are in constant disagreement?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think I may have mentioned that a few dozen pages ago. (Please don't ask me to look for it.)

In this case, there is a point to Pacal's wager even though it has nothing to do with betting on the existence of God.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

None of the links have to do with this knowledge, so why should I get off track? Why don't you take a piece of your own advice and read the book in its entirety. You only read part of the first chapter. Do you see why we are in constant disagreement?

So free will treatese have nothing to do with free will.

Do you ever not say paradoxical things.

The laws of nature have utterly everything to do with everything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Unlike the efferent camera that can magically capture an image without light having to travel, which we accidentally designed thinking we were designing a camera that worked the opposite way.

Vivisectus, after all this time you know that is not what I am implying. I said that if sight is efferent, then the light is already here because the object is within view (not just the light reflecting off of said object). That's why a picture from a camera is the same exact image we see with the naked eye.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, after all this time you know that is not what I am implying. I said that if sight is efferent, then the light is already here because the object is within view (not just the light reflecting off of said object). That's why a picture from a camera is the same exact image we see with the naked eye.

It isn't though.

We can actually prove that too.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

So free will treatese have nothing to do with free will.

Do you ever not say paradoxical things.

The laws of nature have utterly everything to do with everything.

Free will has nothing to do with determinism. That's what I said Sidhe. This conversation is beginning to be an embarrassment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

It isn't though.

We can actually prove that too.

Only time will tell. I'm not getting into this discussion again.