03-17-2017, 03:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2017, 04:04 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-17-2017, 04:12 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:EtI Wrote:It's research scientists and researchers have done
Okay where is this "science" and "research"? It seems strange to me that one never hears about these awesome discoveries except from cranks like you.
The old archive is not gone as far as I know. I'm not going to find it either. But the new thread has some info here.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Silly, being conscious "does not prove the existence of some external mystical force." LOL Where did you get such a crazy notion? It proves the existence of an internal mystical force, that's YOU.
UH....not sorry to burst your bubble here but having a functioning brain is not a mystical force.
The brain is an object; not consciousness.
The so-called materialist explanations of consciousness do not explain it. You just assume that they do.
If you look inside a brain, there's no-one there. You are not there.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Whatever you claim is detected, you can call it dog shit if you want. You can call it spirit or matter.
We're pretty sure that the moon is made of rocks which makes it matter. And yes it does matter if you call it spirit or matter. Matter is important, the basis of all that we can truely know. Spirit is at best some mystical force crack pots like you dream up to fleece the gullible.
Whatever you claim is detected, you can call it dog shit if you want. You can call it spirit or matter.
Quote:EtI Wrote:No detection can determine whether what you detect is matter or spirit. None!
If something can be detected it is most likely matter or energy which is also a form of matter. I've yet to see anyone detect spirit and the second someone does it will be on the nightly news.
I doubt that.
No, matter is a form of energy. They are interchangeable.
And what is energy?
Quote:YOu have supplied no basis for your claim that what exists is matter.EtI Wrote:YOu have supplied no basis for your claim that what exists is matter.
I shouldn't have to. But if you want evidence look at the chair you are sitting in, the computer you're typing at, the very air you are breathing. All matter, all require no spirit woo-woo to exist. All will exist long after you shift off this mortal coil.
So, admit you don't know, rather than label people like me crazy or to be reviled.
Quote:EtI Wrote:But you show no curiosity about your awareness.
Why should I be curious about such a thing? It is no great mystery to me why I'm aware of the things I see, hear, smell, taste and touch. Just because you failed 1st grade science doesn't mean I did.
you show no curiosity about your awareness.
"An unexamined life is not worth living" -- Socrates.
Your life is not worth living, unless you show curiosity about your awareness. Which you have not, at all.
Quote:Still completely right. What you brought up was wrong.EtI Wrote:Marx founded Marxism, and he did not do it in a 2T. And he had a following before the 2T.
Still completely wrong. I've been over this several times with you already. Bring something new or don't bring anything.
Quote:EtI Wrote:I didn't quarrel with your definition. That's fine.
It has nothing to do with the fact that Marxists seek political power. They do, and they did, especially in the last saeculum.
Whether or not you quarreled over the definition of materialism is irrelevant. The quarrel was over the process of Marxism--Dialectical Materialism. Marxism was, is, and shall be a school of materialism. The day it ceases being materialist in philosophical outlook it becomes dead solipsism which is all idealism can ever offer.
Idealists cannot be solipsists, because they know every human being and every being is connected to all beings, or they believe in the universal mind called God. No-one can say that's solipsism.
Well, YOU can, but,,, well..... you're kinser.
According to you and other naive materialist Marxists.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Your current philosophy, all of it, has been proven not to work for a long time now. Trickle-down doesn't trickle. Classical liberalism is even more dated and falsified than Marxism. You have regressed.
Reaganomics is just the type of classical liberalism that Reagan and his crazy followers like you adopted, and which has ruled our country for 40 horrible years.
Classical liberalism is also economics. Just ask David Ricardo and Adam Smith. Oh, you haven't read the creators of classical liberalism then?
Quote:EtI Wrote:There is no such thing as "agency" in materialism. Everything is claimed to be explained by the behavior of nerve cells and muscles, as you claimed above. No, there is no free will in materialism at all. Liberty is strictly denied. YOu can be a classical liberal and a materialist, but not without accepting complete contradiction and cognitive dissonance in your mind.
It is my view that each man has agency, within his physical limits, to act on the material world. I suppose you will say this makes me an idealist. That's fine, I really don't care what you say. Since I already know that you are wrong.
It is just the truth that you can't claim you have agency, and be a materialist. Your "agency" is supposedly explained by movements in your brain and nerves, which are explained by something else. There's no agent anywhere. All your behavior is caused by something else, in your view.
Agency is not a gallon of fluid. That's just a piece of matter that does nothing. So is your brain.
Your alternative to behaviorism is just another form of behaviorism that suits your prejudices. You can't explain the agency that you claim for yourself; not even one little bit.
Quote:EtI Wrote:You are so misguided. I and others everywhere have discussed this ad nauseum. The notion of "job creaters" (Dubya pronunciation) is so false it has long wooden noses growing out of it.
ROFLMAO!
I've never gotten a job from a poor man. Simply put the poor lack the capital to hire anyone.
It is also obvious you didn't read my post. I said that it is ludicrous that that surplus value (the basis of exploitation/oppression/etc) under Marxism and all other derivative lines of thought (one of which you obviously subscribe to--and no I don't care if you recognize that fact or not, you do) comes up with the whole "exploitation of the working class" thesis operates. A man who takes a job sells his labor power for a given period--it is not rented it is sold. As such after he is paid he is no more entitled to his labor power than Ford Motor Company is entitled to my car.
There are no "job creaters." (Dubya pronunciation). You are so naive to believe that they are. Ford is NOT going to hire you. Ford is going to hire a machine.
But that makes no difference to you, because as a materialist, you think you are a machine, and that there's no difference.
And workers are entitled to a living wage; and ideally should own the company together, and not greedy Mr. Ford.
Name the stupidist ideas in the world, and Dummy Kinser believes it.
Quote:EtI Wrote:True, but they still happen, and such Marxists are as left still want, as they did before, to take over the means of production and put it in the control of the state, allegedly for the benefit of the working class.
And in every case where they are successful the results will be the same. Everyone will be equal. Equally poor, equally exploited, equally desperate, and equally depressed.
If the goal was merely employee ownership of the means of production it is far easier to get that under a classical liberal regime than it is after a communist revolution. I would have thought a century of such revolutions would have proved that already.
No argument with all that, but you entirely missed the point; whatever it was.
Quote:EtI Wrote:(on employer "exploitation") As a classical liberal, you now DENY this fact.
No I deny that it is a fact. Employers are going to try to extract as much labor power out of their employees as they can, that is their interest. Employees are going to try and extract as much compensation from their employers as they can, that is their interest.
What I deny is that this is exploitation. Both parties know the game, and the rules of the game going in. The presence of contradictory interests does not exploitation make.
You as a classical liberal DENY that bosses exploit their workers and abuse the people. You think bosses are pure of heart, and have no profit motive. Under classical liberalism, workers have no power to extract anything. Classical liberals suppress unions and all laws that favor workers. They issue injunctions to suppress strikes. Classical liberals are only interested in bourgeois property, capital and power.
Whatever stupid thing Daddy tells you, you believe it. He shouts "believe me," and like a reflex, you believe him. You are a monkey.
Quote:EtI Wrote:It just means there are lots of Americans who prefer non-traditional spirituality.
Actually it doesn't. Ever met these "spiritual but not religious" people? I have. I'm related directly to one, my sister. She's neither religious nor spiritual (Like literally does not think about anything remotely spiritual, unless going to the weave shop is some how spiritual) but says she is because she thinks it is what she's supposed to say. I could go on with other examples but the point remains with her alone, she is but one example.
So we should go by your sister, and not by a study by Pew Research? OK LOL
She belongs in the category "neither religious nor spiritual." That's on the graph.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Definition one agrees with me
No it doesn't. It is the study of the interactions of separate identities and their physical surroundings. If they are "all connected" if the nonsensical statement "we are all one" is true then it is impossible for there to be separate identities to exist much less study.
To study them is to separate them for the purposes of language and study. An ecologist knows that every organism is mutually dependent on all the others. Physics knows this too. As a classical liberal, you prefer the discredited 18th century atomist view that there are such things as separate identities. It is simply stupid, and obviously false.
Quote:EtI Wrote:And yet you claim to know for certain that matter exists, and you are SO certain of this that you ALSO claim that anyone who disagrees with you about this is insane.
Everyone with eyes and has seen, everyone with ears and has heard, everyone who has a nose and has smelled, everyone who has a tongue and has tasted, everyone who has skin and has felt knows that matter is real. They know it is real because they have seen it, heard it, smelled it, tasted it, and touched it. Anyone who denies this reality must be insane by definition.
Insane: in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.
So VERY open minded of you LOL
YOU are simply a naive materialist who has no interest in reflective thought. You just buy whatever Daddy Lenin or Daddy Drump tells you.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Even despite the fact that science no longer claims that matter exists.
ROFLMAO.
I'll be sure to inform MIT's physics department that they are no longer needed because what they study does not exist.
Sure it exists. It just isn't what YOU think it is.
Quote:Literally, bullshit. You have no idea what the EPA does. Of course cow shit is poison, and it doesn't belong in rivers.EtI Wrote:<snip> rant about EPA</snip>
I take it you've never had to deal with the EPA then. Having worked in agriculture myself I can tell you point blank they do regulate such a thing. And no cow shit isn't poison. It isn't particularly pleasant either, but it isn't poison.
But over all I want the whole works shut down. If Commiefornia wants a big expensive bureaucracy because people there can't help but shit in their mess kit let them pay for it. Also have I mentioned that the EPA is unconstitutional? Environmental protection (if that is what they even do--doesn't seem like it to me) is not an enumerated power.
Your destruction is reprehensible.
Quote:EtI Wrote:You don't give a tinker's damn about the environment we all depend on. Even less than a tinkle damn.
And you don't give a tinker's damn about the economy we all depend on. Was that supposed to shame me or something? That juju doesn't work on me Eric.
And you don't give a tinker's damn about the economy OR environment we all depend on.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Your point does not refute MY point. Paul wrote wisdom in the Bible.
No your point was that he preached wisdom which he did not. He preached salvation, the wisdom came later in his letters.
The Letters are what's in the Bible. Checkmate.
Quote:EtI Wrote:"No, you made a statement. I want some statistics. Statements =/= statistics."
Come on, pony up.
Don't need to....schizophrenia is a psychotic condition everyone knows that. Mystical experiences being psychotic episodes is nothing new. Next.
"No, you made a statement. I want some statistics. Statements =/= statistics." You claim all schizoids are mystics, then. You have no basis for your claim; period.
Quote:EtI Wrote:You haven't read my works. If you had, you'd know that YHWH is the name of God that means "I am that I am."
I knew that before I even knew you existed Eric.
Then why do you accuse "I am that I am" of wiping out populations, silly?
Quote:EtI Wrote:You can call that "asshole," but that's just uninformed interpretation.
Apparently you've never read the Old Testament. When he isn't bothering someone in the middle of the night he's wiping out whole populations. How that is not the very definition of being an asshole I don't know what is.
Stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally by anyone with half a brain.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Christianity at its root, is mysticism.
Actually there is a branch that thinks that. They were proclaimed as heretics in the second century. Christianity is best understood as an Hellenistic version of Judaism designed for gentiles. Which you should already know since you apparently like Paul so much.
All religions are mysticism at their root. That is 20th-21st century scholarship. Haven't you heard of Aldous Huxley? Some of you Xers are so uninformed. It's like the 2T never happened for you guys. You can't absorb anything from before your time. Jesus was a mystic; Buddha was a mystic. All religious founders are mystics. And you call them insane. Your privilege I guess. There are Christians today who "thinks that." I belong to a group which does.
Quote:EtI Wrote:No generation "runs the show" at any time. I don't care who runs the show. It doesn't matter, despite what generation theory says.
In that case why are you even here? Why even bother if apparently you don't even believe in the most basic of tenants of the theory. And you have the temerity to tell me I don't understand it. I don't know if I should laugh, cry or roll my eyes.
False. You can't use the generation theory to claim that things will go according to your ideology when your one generation is of a certain age. There are always three or four generations in power, and their ideology is not determined by which generation they are from.
All that is obvious. Why are you so dense that you can't understand the obvious?
Quote:EtI Wrote:If Silents now have more than two in the Senate now, it's reasonable to predict that Boomers will have more than two in the 1T.
Yet you still persist in using the phrase "one or two in the Senate." You don't listen, or you can't. I'm not sure which.
Apart from McConnell those Silents are irrelevant.
They are in positions of power. Your comments are irrelevant.
According to you, only a few people are in power. They don't represent entire generations. McConnell's policies don't represent the views of all Silents, nor Trump's of all Boomers, nor Ryan's of all Xers.
Quote:EtI Wrote:I did though. I switched 180 degrees, but from materialism to spiritualism. I switched in the right direction. You switched from Marxism to classical liberalism. Both are wrong, but you regressed a century.
If I regressed a century you regressed far more than a mere century. Assuming you're not being full of shit when you say you were a materialist, then you should have had a mid-20th century understanding of the world, and yet you changed that for philosophies and methods that were given up in the late middle ages!
Which one of us is going backward here? Not me, I'm acting exactly as the regulator predicts I should....I'm going for the Classical Liberal tradition which runs deep in America.
No, spiritualism does not have a century.
Classical liberalism is 18th century. Marxism and socialism (even the watered-down version here called liberalism) is late 19th/20th century. You have regressed three centuries. You are naive and deceived, silly boy. Your philosophy is very harmful.