03-14-2017, 03:22 AM
You don't give up do you. Well I'll give you points for persistence.
So your answer is that there is no instrument nor measurement for this consciousness. So therefore we can conclude that there is no empirical standard (other than associated phenomena) to determine if something is or is not conscious. Got it.
So from a spiritualist perspective, if you don't have an answer you make one up. Sounds and awful lot like theology. A blind man, in a dark room looking for a black cat, which isn't there, and proclaiming "I found it".
Yep A is still 0.
I'll grant you science and philosophy. Religion is less than useless in trying to understand anything beyond the religion. The arts typically are either expressions of the artist's emotional state or depictions of things which exist. Neither are a way of knowing anything.
Even still with those two ways of knowing you understand the first not at all, and well the second, you can maybe feign knowledge with the profoundly ignorant. But you don't fool me which is why I think you hate me so.
So idealists hold that objects which display no phenomena associated with consciousness are in fact conscious. So in short they're making shit up. Got it.
Actually the materialist perspective is the only perspective by which anyone can truly know anything.
It is not important to the analysis of history to incorporate every idea--even a widely held idea--if it has been largely found to be false. I don't see many expositions on history based upon blood letting for example, and yet many people of the time period thought that it was the cure for just about everything.
And you do worse than just ignoring irrelevant, and false ideas, you actively poo-poo relevant and correct ideas.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
It is truly amazing how you are so "self-aware" and yet not "self-aware" as to understand that this sentence reduces your entire ideology to solipsism.
I must say I'm truly amazed. I didn't think it was possible for someone over the age of 7 to be so clueless without also being mentally deficient.
If the self is "everything" (by which I take you to mean all of the things that have existed, exist now or will exist), then the knowlege of that self must be based solely on that self.
In that case you might want to study some. I suggest starting with the properties of the number Zero.
Irrelevant bullshit that most humans moved past during the 18th century.
As far as one can truly know we are all isolated self-contained objects. I only have observable phenomena to correlate with consciousness in others--the same is true for you. You just prefer to lie to yourself about that fact.
Many people also think that Water Ice only comes in one phase. It comes in comes in 17 different phases not all of them requiring special equipment to produce on Earth. So lots of people hold wrong ideas. That's nothing new.
1. Already knew that and didn't expect everyone to agree with me. Mostly those who don't, don't because they are ignorant, then there are the ones who actually are stupid, and then there those whose livelihoods depend on them not agreeing with me or my views.
2. Actually the fastest growing religion is agnosticism. Not just in the west but globally. Many people are finding "spiritualism" to be tedious. As for those who say they are "spiritual" but not religious--that's really code for the poll taker to go away.
3. Spiritualism is based on a religious dogma of some sort. Many are fine with the Abrahamic Faiths or other Traditional faiths. However, all of them require being taught to a person, often at a very young age prior to their ability to determine fiction from reality developing. As such I must conclude that agnosticism is the default philosophical setting.
If we are speaking of religion in particular then atheism (of the soft type) is the default setting.
You sure you want to debate Marxism with a former Marxist?
Marxism itself was not created in 1848, Marx wrote a pamphlet in 1848 for a minor left wing party. The manifesto only became important after Marx himself had already died in the 1880s and was pushed by Engels. The vast majority of Marxist work of the 19th century was produced from the 1860s to the 1880s (arguably a 1T/2T boarder line). Furthermore the Second International the main promulgator of Marxist thought until WW1 didn't really take off till the 1890s. There in the works of Marx and Engels were read, and interpreted and explained until you get to Lenin in around 1900 when he bursts on the scene.
By and large the heavy lifting was done not by Marx, and Engles but by others in the Second International. Marxism-Leninism is a rejection of those ideas which are felt to be too idealistic. It was a Reformation within socialism if you will.
And incidentally 1848 was some 33 years after 1815 which was the end of the European 4T for Revolutionary Saeculum.
S&H focused on America and the War of 1812 was clearly a 1T in that case.
If you disbelieve me about the Napoleonic wars being 4T events you should probably read the Hornblower books.
Either 2Ts are when religions get founded or they are not. It is clear that they are not, so you're attempting to obfuscaste. And even if you've changed your precept to "well they get popular then" you'd still be wrong. The Nation of Islam started gaining major popularity in NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago in the 1940s, and really took off when Malcolm X came on the scene in the mid-1950s. 4t and 1T respectively.
So Xenu did not invade Earth with a feet of space ships that looked remarkably like Boeing 707s! Are you sure about that cause it is in the very book the whole cult is based on. Shit South Park did an entire episode on what Scientologists believe!
On the first part of the sentence, no cause it doesn't work. On the second part...yes it is a con-job but so is the Catholic Church and your Astrology gig.
Is more studying as to what they believe than you ever did. Which you're proving by claiming that they are not in fact a UFO Cult when they really are.
Do you plan on claiming the Raelians are a sect of Christianity next?
[pretend there is a rolling on floor laughing my ass off emoji here] {{Dan we need one of those}}
No they are a UFO cult precisely because they assert that, and precisely because they assert that human souls were put here on earth by some Xenu guy with a fleet of 707 like space ships (never mind that such a device would never actually be able to fly in space--but hey L. Ron Hubard wrote really bad science fiction [oh he was a GI btw, I'm surprised you're defending his work]).
The fact that they claim that human "souls" were delivered here by Xenu on space ships is enough to be categorized as a UFO cult. Perhaps not the wackiest UFO cult out there but still it is so stupid only brain dead celebutards could believe it.
It eludes me because your statements are in direct contradiction to their written materials.
My materialist beliefs stipulate that I kinda have to believe that I'm actually seeing very things they have written when I see them. The evidence of one's own eyes is often the best evidence. But you should know that already seeing as your consciousness knows all the universe and all that.
True on Sunni Islam. But here's the thing Eric I expressly said in my last post that the NOI was not in fact Islam. Were it to be Islam it would be impossible for Malcolm X to convert to Islam. One might change a sect in Christianity but one does not convert from a Baptist to a Methodist. They just change who they pay their tithes to.
Reading comprehension is not your friend is it. Yet more evidence for my hypothesis that you're lying about going to University. No way you could get past the third grade without knowing the meaning of the word "not".
It is not an opinion. Not that the post-modernist "well, that's just your opinion, man." cop out works with me. Walk up to a random stranger and ask them about Emmerson or Thoreau. I'm willing to bet they're going to say "Who?" Especially walk up to any Black, Asian or Latino (I know CA has lots of them) and ask them that. I'll give you 99 to 1 odds that they're going to say "Who?"
Now if you ask any local black about going to Church I guarantee you that you'll get either an affirmative answer or "My Mama does".
Sorry but reality is not an opinion, man.
He's free to view them as influential. As I said, he's probably from New England stock where they were influential. Out side of that little section of the country no one knows about them besides some stuff they learned long enough for a test in school.
Non-Christian religions are not relevant in a majority Christian country. Were I to work up a saeculum for Saudi Arabia I'm likely to completely ignore non-Islam religion and spirituality from their Awakenings too. Why? Because no one cares what happens to a sect of 10 people when you're dealing with generations with millions of people. It is like a drop of fresh water in the ocean.
If We are all one, and not a collection of separate individuals then there is no we. So either there is a We, and therefore a collective. Or there is not a One.
I'm not sorry to burst your bubble like this, but that entire phrase is meaningless gibberish. Either there is a We, or there is a One. But never the twain shall meet.
Seriously if I have to define words like "we" and "one" for you it would be better for you to just go back to first grade. I bet if I said that to my five year old nephew "We are all one" he'd look at me, shake is head and say "you be trippin'" (meaning that I'm clearly insane).
And yet you keep coming back for more. I'm beginning to wonder if you're a masochist the way I've been thrashing you. But then again you would have to be smart enough to know that I am thrashing you, which I'm not convinced you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGAMbNKcN1U
That is how most of our debates go..except you're not as smart as Tyrell.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you over Liberatarianism. But if you want to debate it, I'm sure Galen would be game. Considering I'm not a Libertarian--but rather a Classical Liberal.
I wouldn't exactly call it "non-violence" rather I subscribe to the non-aggression principle. I reserve the right to use violence in self-defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Yes it is considered part of Libertarianism, but is not exclusive to them.
GPS stands for Great Power Saeculum. Just like CWS stands for Civil War Saeculum. I do not claim credit for these abbreviations. I believe I first saw them being used on the old forum by Mr. Horn.
So are you admitting my long time charge that New Age is just a repackaging of the same old occult?
But it good that you recognize the GPS had an awakening. I'd go further that since many of the religions/ideologies/technologies and so on from that era are with us today and still extremely relevant today that the whole saeculum on a Mega-level serves as an awakening..
Of course I know you're going to say "No its not because reasons."
But there are plenty of references to political, social, cultural and religious ideas and formulations. In modern English we call these things "ideologies". Just because you have the understanding of a 14th century peasant doesn't mean the rest of us do as well.
Ideals is just an other way of saying ideologies. In order to implement in the 4T an ideal (doesn't matter what it is) it has to be first formed into an ideology.
It wouldn't be up to my generation to implement them anyway according to S&H. But have you stopped to consider that those things conceived in the 2T have been found to be garbage and not worth implementing? No of course not, that would mean laying blame on your generation and by extension yourself.
And yet you're doing that anyway. Since your consciousness expands to the whole of the universe and beyond, by knocking Xers you're really knocking yourself. I know you'll never admit that--it might for a tiny millisecond expose your whole worldview to be the fraud that it is.
I hope he destroys all of it. The whole rotten structure must go. Before we build our nice new Trump Style condo complete with gold toilet seats we have to bulldoze a lot of shit.
I'm not ashamed...of winning. Winning is good. I plan on winning so much I'll get tired of winning.
Not quite. Salvation through faith alone is a Lutheran precept and as such was a major feature of the Reformation. All the awakenings that followed just changed the window dressing.
So both you and Berkeley are wrong. Not much new about that. Seriously does that school still have its accreditation and if so why? Nothing good has come from it since maybe the 1940s.
Because there isn't any unless it is you posting some crackpot whose been thrown out of any school which cares about its academic reputation.
So Consciousness cannot be measured.
Space is considered to be infinite and yet we can measure part of it. But since it is not measurable (IE Immeasurable--your own words) how can we even know that it is even close to infinite.
If it can be measured or proved indirectly it is not then immeasurable, being as it has been measured though indirectly.
Translation the difference between a spiritualist and a theologian is nothing. Both are blind men in dark rooms looking for black cats that aren't there and shouting that they have found it.
For someone who likes TSWSRN to call my music objectively bad either is completely tone deaf or has no understanding that TSWSRN produces schlock for the lowest common denominator. Smashing Pumpkins these days is considered "Classic Rock" just ask any 17 year old...Stay away from mine.
You shouldn't care, but you do. Don't tell me you don't, cause that only tells me you do.
EtI Wrote:Use any measure that you like. Idealism/spiritualism only says that WHATEVER you measure is consciousness, since that is what exists.
So your answer is that there is no instrument nor measurement for this consciousness. So therefore we can conclude that there is no empirical standard (other than associated phenomena) to determine if something is or is not conscious. Got it.
EtI Wrote:Within your materialist philosophy, all that may work for you. In a spiritualist perspective, it does not work. In idealism, "my own mind" includes the entire universe and beyond; whatever exists. My individual mind is simply a focus point for that cosmic mind.
So from a spiritualist perspective, if you don't have an answer you make one up. Sounds and awful lot like theology. A blind man, in a dark room looking for a black cat, which isn't there, and proclaiming "I found it".
Yep A is still 0.
EtI Wrote:Scientific measurements can tell us many things, and it cannot tell us many other things. There are 4 basic methods of knowing, in my perspective: science, religion/mysticism, the arts, and philosophy.
I'll grant you science and philosophy. Religion is less than useless in trying to understand anything beyond the religion. The arts typically are either expressions of the artist's emotional state or depictions of things which exist. Neither are a way of knowing anything.
Even still with those two ways of knowing you understand the first not at all, and well the second, you can maybe feign knowledge with the profoundly ignorant. But you don't fool me which is why I think you hate me so.
EtI Wrote:Yes, idealists hold that all objects are conscious
So idealists hold that objects which display no phenomena associated with consciousness are in fact conscious. So in short they're making shit up. Got it.
EtI Wrote:You have your materialist perspective, which is valid in your opinion, but others have other perspectives. The point is that no analysis of history can be correct if it excludes perspective held by vast numbers and whole nations and eras. I do not do this, but you do.
Actually the materialist perspective is the only perspective by which anyone can truly know anything.
It is not important to the analysis of history to incorporate every idea--even a widely held idea--if it has been largely found to be false. I don't see many expositions on history based upon blood letting for example, and yet many people of the time period thought that it was the cure for just about everything.
And you do worse than just ignoring irrelevant, and false ideas, you actively poo-poo relevant and correct ideas.
EtI Wrote:Good luck with that
Luck has nothing to do with it.
EtI Wrote:Yes, because the "self" is everything. Everything outside my body and my sense perception is also me. The personal self is only an aspect of reality; it does not exist separately.
It is truly amazing how you are so "self-aware" and yet not "self-aware" as to understand that this sentence reduces your entire ideology to solipsism.
I must say I'm truly amazed. I didn't think it was possible for someone over the age of 7 to be so clueless without also being mentally deficient.
If the self is "everything" (by which I take you to mean all of the things that have existed, exist now or will exist), then the knowlege of that self must be based solely on that self.
EtI Wrote:I don't entirely disagree with you that everything is mathematics
In that case you might want to study some. I suggest starting with the properties of the number Zero.
EtI Wrote:Of course, astrology is...
Irrelevant bullshit that most humans moved past during the 18th century.
EtI Wrote:But you remain an isolated object, in your view.
As far as one can truly know we are all isolated self-contained objects. I only have observable phenomena to correlate with consciousness in others--the same is true for you. You just prefer to lie to yourself about that fact.
EtI Wrote:Many people today hold views like Emerson's
Many people also think that Water Ice only comes in one phase. It comes in comes in 17 different phases not all of them requiring special equipment to produce on Earth. So lots of people hold wrong ideas. That's nothing new.
EtI Wrote:Welcome to the real world. Not everyone agrees with you. A big majority of people are spiritualists today. Many of those are traditionalists, but not all of them. Spiritualism is the default philosophy, or perennial philosophy.
1. Already knew that and didn't expect everyone to agree with me. Mostly those who don't, don't because they are ignorant, then there are the ones who actually are stupid, and then there those whose livelihoods depend on them not agreeing with me or my views.
2. Actually the fastest growing religion is agnosticism. Not just in the west but globally. Many people are finding "spiritualism" to be tedious. As for those who say they are "spiritual" but not religious--that's really code for the poll taker to go away.
3. Spiritualism is based on a religious dogma of some sort. Many are fine with the Abrahamic Faiths or other Traditional faiths. However, all of them require being taught to a person, often at a very young age prior to their ability to determine fiction from reality developing. As such I must conclude that agnosticism is the default philosophical setting.
If we are speaking of religion in particular then atheism (of the soft type) is the default setting.
EtI Wrote:No, that is not when ideologies are created. Marxism, for example, dates from 1848 in what was likely a 3T or borderline 4T, but certainly not a 2T.
You sure you want to debate Marxism with a former Marxist?
Marxism itself was not created in 1848, Marx wrote a pamphlet in 1848 for a minor left wing party. The manifesto only became important after Marx himself had already died in the 1880s and was pushed by Engels. The vast majority of Marxist work of the 19th century was produced from the 1860s to the 1880s (arguably a 1T/2T boarder line). Furthermore the Second International the main promulgator of Marxist thought until WW1 didn't really take off till the 1890s. There in the works of Marx and Engels were read, and interpreted and explained until you get to Lenin in around 1900 when he bursts on the scene.
By and large the heavy lifting was done not by Marx, and Engles but by others in the Second International. Marxism-Leninism is a rejection of those ideas which are felt to be too idealistic. It was a Reformation within socialism if you will.
And incidentally 1848 was some 33 years after 1815 which was the end of the European 4T for Revolutionary Saeculum.
S&H focused on America and the War of 1812 was clearly a 1T in that case.
If you disbelieve me about the Napoleonic wars being 4T events you should probably read the Hornblower books.
EtI Wrote:No, founding dates don't necessarily matter. It's when they become much more popular than before, that counts the most.
Either 2Ts are when religions get founded or they are not. It is clear that they are not, so you're attempting to obfuscaste. And even if you've changed your precept to "well they get popular then" you'd still be wrong. The Nation of Islam started gaining major popularity in NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago in the 1940s, and really took off when Malcolm X came on the scene in the mid-1950s. 4t and 1T respectively.
EtI Wrote:Scientology has nothing to do with UFOs
So Xenu did not invade Earth with a feet of space ships that looked remarkably like Boeing 707s! Are you sure about that cause it is in the very book the whole cult is based on. Shit South Park did an entire episode on what Scientologists believe!
EtI Wrote:It is a method of clearing past traumas and discovering that you are a spiritual being, and applying that to your life. And paying lots of money for it.
On the first part of the sentence, no cause it doesn't work. On the second part...yes it is a con-job but so is the Catholic Church and your Astrology gig.
EtI Wrote:Your reading of that wikipedia page
Is more studying as to what they believe than you ever did. Which you're proving by claiming that they are not in fact a UFO Cult when they really are.
Do you plan on claiming the Raelians are a sect of Christianity next?
[pretend there is a rolling on floor laughing my ass off emoji here] {{Dan we need one of those}}
EtI Wrote:It is not a UFO cult, just because it asserts that we have had other lives on other planets.
No they are a UFO cult precisely because they assert that, and precisely because they assert that human souls were put here on earth by some Xenu guy with a fleet of 707 like space ships (never mind that such a device would never actually be able to fly in space--but hey L. Ron Hubard wrote really bad science fiction [oh he was a GI btw, I'm surprised you're defending his work]).
EtI Wrote:Their belief, which they claim to demonstrate by helping people recall their life experiences, is about reincarnation-- not travels in spaceships.
The fact that they claim that human "souls" were delivered here by Xenu on space ships is enough to be categorized as a UFO cult. Perhaps not the wackiest UFO cult out there but still it is so stupid only brain dead celebutards could believe it.
EtI Wrote:Why did that distinction elude you? Because it does not conform to your own materialist beliefs.
It eludes me because your statements are in direct contradiction to their written materials.
My materialist beliefs stipulate that I kinda have to believe that I'm actually seeing very things they have written when I see them. The evidence of one's own eyes is often the best evidence. But you should know that already seeing as your consciousness knows all the universe and all that.
EtI Wrote:Baloney. NOI is Islam. Sunni Islam dates from the 660s CE.
True on Sunni Islam. But here's the thing Eric I expressly said in my last post that the NOI was not in fact Islam. Were it to be Islam it would be impossible for Malcolm X to convert to Islam. One might change a sect in Christianity but one does not convert from a Baptist to a Methodist. They just change who they pay their tithes to.
Myself, Last Post Wrote:The Nation of Islam is a religion. It is also not Islam. Were the NOI simply Islam it would be impossible for Malik Al Shabazz (also known as Malcolm X) to convert to Sunni Islam. Sunni Islam is the form practiced in most Islamic countries by the way.
Reading comprehension is not your friend is it. Yet more evidence for my hypothesis that you're lying about going to University. No way you could get past the third grade without knowing the meaning of the word "not".
EtI Wrote:Your opinion;
It is not an opinion. Not that the post-modernist "well, that's just your opinion, man." cop out works with me. Walk up to a random stranger and ask them about Emmerson or Thoreau. I'm willing to bet they're going to say "Who?" Especially walk up to any Black, Asian or Latino (I know CA has lots of them) and ask them that. I'll give you 99 to 1 odds that they're going to say "Who?"
Now if you ask any local black about going to Church I guarantee you that you'll get either an affirmative answer or "My Mama does".
Sorry but reality is not an opinion, man.
EtI Wrote:others quite disagree and consider it influential, including obviously Mr. Howe.
He's free to view them as influential. As I said, he's probably from New England stock where they were influential. Out side of that little section of the country no one knows about them besides some stuff they learned long enough for a test in school.
EtI Wrote:YOu have been excluding non-Christian religion and spirituality from Awakenings here in these posts.
Non-Christian religions are not relevant in a majority Christian country. Were I to work up a saeculum for Saudi Arabia I'm likely to completely ignore non-Islam religion and spirituality from their Awakenings too. Why? Because no one cares what happens to a sect of 10 people when you're dealing with generations with millions of people. It is like a drop of fresh water in the ocean.
EtI Wrote:Wrong. "we are all One" means that we are One, not a mere collection if separate individuals.
If We are all one, and not a collection of separate individuals then there is no we. So either there is a We, and therefore a collective. Or there is not a One.
I'm not sorry to burst your bubble like this, but that entire phrase is meaningless gibberish. Either there is a We, or there is a One. But never the twain shall meet.
Seriously if I have to define words like "we" and "one" for you it would be better for you to just go back to first grade. I bet if I said that to my five year old nephew "We are all one" he'd look at me, shake is head and say "you be trippin'" (meaning that I'm clearly insane).
EtI Wrote:I'm already on your bad side
And yet you keep coming back for more. I'm beginning to wonder if you're a masochist the way I've been thrashing you. But then again you would have to be smart enough to know that I am thrashing you, which I'm not convinced you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGAMbNKcN1U
That is how most of our debates go..except you're not as smart as Tyrell.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you over Liberatarianism. But if you want to debate it, I'm sure Galen would be game. Considering I'm not a Libertarian--but rather a Classical Liberal.
EtI Wrote:But if you now embrace non-violence (and perhaps you still don't), I consider that an improvement for you.
I wouldn't exactly call it "non-violence" rather I subscribe to the non-aggression principle. I reserve the right to use violence in self-defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Yes it is considered part of Libertarianism, but is not exclusive to them.
EtI Wrote:Isn't it the GPS Awakening (Great Power Saeculum)? Or is this your own name for it?
GPS stands for Great Power Saeculum. Just like CWS stands for Civil War Saeculum. I do not claim credit for these abbreviations. I believe I first saw them being used on the old forum by Mr. Horn.
EtI Wrote:Obviously not, since my own current religious affiliation descends from the GSP Awakening.
So are you admitting my long time charge that New Age is just a repackaging of the same old occult?
But it good that you recognize the GPS had an awakening. I'd go further that since many of the religions/ideologies/technologies and so on from that era are with us today and still extremely relevant today that the whole saeculum on a Mega-level serves as an awakening..
Of course I know you're going to say "No its not because reasons."
EtI Wrote:There is little or no reference to ideologies by S&H
But there are plenty of references to political, social, cultural and religious ideas and formulations. In modern English we call these things "ideologies". Just because you have the understanding of a 14th century peasant doesn't mean the rest of us do as well.
EtI Wrote:But yes, ideals are conceived in 2Ts which are put into effect in 4Ts
Ideals is just an other way of saying ideologies. In order to implement in the 4T an ideal (doesn't matter what it is) it has to be first formed into an ideology.
EtI Wrote:But the effect on this 4T may not happen this time, because of your cynical generation that has rejected everything that was conceived in the 2T.
It wouldn't be up to my generation to implement them anyway according to S&H. But have you stopped to consider that those things conceived in the 2T have been found to be garbage and not worth implementing? No of course not, that would mean laying blame on your generation and by extension yourself.
And yet you're doing that anyway. Since your consciousness expands to the whole of the universe and beyond, by knocking Xers you're really knocking yourself. I know you'll never admit that--it might for a tiny millisecond expose your whole worldview to be the fraud that it is.
EtI Wrote:As YOU have now done to an astonishing and exaggerated degree by supporting someone who totally opposes the ideals of the 2T, and is destroying every trace of it to the best of his ability.
I hope he destroys all of it. The whole rotten structure must go. Before we build our nice new Trump Style condo complete with gold toilet seats we have to bulldoze a lot of shit.
I'm not ashamed...of winning. Winning is good. I plan on winning so much I'll get tired of winning.
EtI Wrote:You didn't read S&H. Salvation through faith rather than works is the major perspective of Christian revivals during 2Ts.
Not quite. Salvation through faith alone is a Lutheran precept and as such was a major feature of the Reformation. All the awakenings that followed just changed the window dressing.
EtI Wrote:And I claim Descartes proved it well enough, and so did Berkeley. We disagree. So what?
So both you and Berkeley are wrong. Not much new about that. Seriously does that school still have its accreditation and if so why? Nothing good has come from it since maybe the 1940s.
EtI Wrote:I am not going to do a search for scientific evidence for "consciousness" right now.
Because there isn't any unless it is you posting some crackpot whose been thrown out of any school which cares about its academic reputation.
EtI Wrote:On the other hand, asking for consciousness, which is immeasurable
So Consciousness cannot be measured.
EtI Wrote:since it is infinite
Space is considered to be infinite and yet we can measure part of it. But since it is not measurable (IE Immeasurable--your own words) how can we even know that it is even close to infinite.
EtI Wrote:If it can be measured, it probably can only be measured or proven indirectly.
If it can be measured or proved indirectly it is not then immeasurable, being as it has been measured though indirectly.
EtI Wrote:From a spiritualist point of view, it doesn't matter. We know spiritually by experience that everything is one, and it's all spirit. So anything that is measured, is also spirit. And that every human being is connected to the environment, is physical fact.
Translation the difference between a spiritualist and a theologian is nothing. Both are blind men in dark rooms looking for black cats that aren't there and shouting that they have found it.
EtI Wrote:Why should I care about your opinion of that-singer-who-shall-remain-nameless? Your view of objectively-bad music speaks for itself.
For someone who likes TSWSRN to call my music objectively bad either is completely tone deaf or has no understanding that TSWSRN produces schlock for the lowest common denominator. Smashing Pumpkins these days is considered "Classic Rock" just ask any 17 year old...Stay away from mine.
You shouldn't care, but you do. Don't tell me you don't, cause that only tells me you do.
It really is all mathematics.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out ofUN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of