Chaos Magic

[tsig]

Well gosh, I’d hate to jeopardize your esteemed opinion of me. How about a little insight Zanders. There are countless really irritating skeptics who actually contribute something (Pixy, for example). Tsig seems to have decided that it is his singular raison-d’etre to spend all his time at JREF spitting out one or two line posts that quite predictably say absolutely nothing. IOW… some people seem to want the attention that being put on ignore (or deserving to be) gives them. A bit paradoxical perhaps, but such is life.

Yet you respond to posts that you say say absolutely nothing.

 

[Resume]

You’re becoming incomprehensible Resume…and are risking my generally favorable assessment of your abilities (obviously I won’t pretend that matters). If you really want me to understand your points, then make them understandable (does that matter?). For now I’ll take your light-hearted admonishment as a light-hearted admonishment. Further infractions will, though, be met with the full fury of a force five rebuttal, or, at the very least, egg on your face….or someone’s face (perhaps mine).

The topic of this thread is chaos magic, or something like that. Do you have evidence, or an argument that might advance our understanding of this phenomenon or are you going to just continue with "there's junk we don't know" ad infinitum?

 

[dafydd]

Just as a reminder, the OP encouraged us to construct a sigil, and learn chaos magick for ourselves. Have you done this?

You can draw a sigil,but that's the end of the story. It doesn't do anything.

 

[dlorde]

...why do you even ask if you have no interest in an answer? Oh, I get it now, you are trying to emphasize how incoherent I am.

That was just the most memorable incoherency. I apologise if that post embarrassed or upset you, it wasn't done with malice - it was more a rhetorical exclamation that I posted without thought. My bad.

So why don’t we ask the question since you seem so concerned about the answer: How normal is it to be a creature that did not create itself, does not create itself, does not understand it’s own existence, yet at the very same time is fundamentally defined by a phenomenon known as ‘understanding', seems to function within a reality known as a universe that nobody really understands the true nature of, and for the most part has the ability to behave as if none of this is even relevant. I guess, dlorde, that some things are just not apparent to the naked eye.

Many things are not apparent to the naked eye, and many things that are apparent are not as they seem. I don't follow what you're trying to say about normality - existence seems to me quite normal - I grew up with it, as did everyone who ever lived. The fact that we don't understand all of it (though I think we understand more than you give us credit for) doesn't make it abnormal or unusual - it just means there is still plenty to discover.

... Pixy presents this absurd new scientific methodology (…because we can measure some things, we must be able to measure all things, therefore if we can’t measure it, we may justifiably conclude it does not exist)…and nobody makes a peep. Pixy suggests that we have instruments that can determine the definitive conscious state of any human being anywhere anytime…and nobody makes a peep. I point out these blatant absurdities (…which, come to think of it, bears a remarkable resemblance to something called a ‘point’…but not, understandably, to those who…in over twelve thousand posts…have yet to achieve a single coherent point of their own), and am accused of incoherence. Fine, if nonsense (or as you so obsequiously refer to it: 'confidence') is the metric by which we adjudicate the value of a statement, I’d suggest you gravitate to Pixy’s ravings. Somehow methinks the proverbial shoe is on the wrong proverbial foot.

If that was all you wanted to say, it was a rambling and incoherent way to say it. If you think Pixy's statements are absurd or nonsensical, why not simply explain why you think that - if they really are absurd or nonsensical, they should be easy enough to demolish briefly and concisely.

Having said that, I don't think your paraphrasing of his statements is accurate, so you may end up demolishing straw men. Probably best to clarify with Pixy first.

 

[annnnoid]

Yet you respond to posts that you say say absolutely nothing.

Doubtless it has escaped your attention tsig but whether those here agree with what I say or not I invariably will make some effort to take a stand, present a position, point, or opinion in every post I make (why I make this effort is another matter). You typically say nothing other than to seemingly defend your right to say nothing. 12,000 posts of nothing. If I were an acquaintance I would suggest you get a life, but I’m not and I wouldn’t presume to suggest such a thing.

 

[tsig]

Zanders….I really shouldn’t have to point this out and I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to fatigue or something but when I say there are “countless skeptics I find annoying” it does not mean the same thing as “all skeptics are annoying”. Get it?

…as for ever expecting to encounter a post from tsig that would be worth reading…I would have to believe in miracles then wouldn’t I. And please don’t put words in my mouth, I’ve never said I am a believer of anything and whether I am or not (or what I do or do not believe in) is not something I will ever be discussing here.

So you came to a site that says it's a place for discussion and you refuse to discuss?

 

[tsig]

The topic of this thread is chaos magic, or something like that. Do you have evidence, or an argument that might advance our understanding of this phenomenon or are you going to just continue with "there's junk we don't know" ad infinitum?

Chaos magig looks reallly chaotic.

 

[Zanders]

Woops, I need to apologize for calling you a believer. I just thought that you were based on a quick glance at your thread history being "the case for God" and then a quick look at your post history. While you will cot confirm whether you are or not, I will not assume. I kind of based it on how hostile you were towards "skeptics".

 

[Resume]

Chaos magig looks reallly chaotic.

Haphazard even.

 

[Nonpareil]

Of course there’s no need to actually support massive generalizations with anything as inconvenient as evidence. You’re a skeptic….only woo woo’s actually have to provide evidence to support their claims. Skeptics are omnipotent and thus exempt from their own rules.

You're seriously asking for evidence that we can measure emotional activity in the brain?

Pathetic. Do your own homework.

So basically Argent, you are quite specifically stating that if an individual claiming to be experiencing a subjective state that they would describe using the words “I scintillate” (which is one of the words I presented….or any one of the billions of possible variations unique to every single human being) were given an MRI or a CT scan or some other variety of neurological test (care to name one) the MRI or CT scan or whatever would, after completing the test, produce the result…”this specific individual is experiencing the specific condition described by these words: “I scintillate”.

No, and if you had actually bothered to read my post (rather than responding to what you imagine I said) you would know that. Or maybe you wouldn't. I'm starting to have serious doubts about your ability to comprehend what is said to you.

I am saying that it is possible for such a machine to exist. Do we have such a machine right now? No. We don't yet have a complete map of the brain or a complete list of what neurons and chemicals combine in which area to produce which emotion. But that we can't yet state specifically what an individual is feeling doesn't mean that we can't tell that they are feeling anything. In many cases, we actually can narrow it down to a certain type of emotion, due to the reaction's location in the brain.

And no, I am not going to present you anything to present this. You might as well ask me to provide you with links showing that the sky is blue. If you want evidence for something so staggeringly simple and widely-known, you can spend your own time on Google. I don't feel like wasting my time "helping" you.

202-336-5500….that’s the number for the American Psychological Association. Doubtless they’ll want to hear about this breakthrough.

In fact, it should make our legal system a hell of a lot simpler as well. Plug in potential suspects and it should be easily possible to determine who is lying….or is that not one of the things we are currently capable of accurately detecting? Hang on…come to think of it, it isn’t. According to all available evidence, there does not even exist an accurate neurological test to adjudicate one of the most basic of human conditions: honesty …except under very rigorously controlled conditions (and why should your magical machine require rigorously controlled conditions…I don’t encounter most of the words on that list under rigorously controlled conditions and neither does anyone else [except maybe you and Pixy]), and even then there is a great deal of controversy about the results…which is why lie detector results are not admissible in the vast majority of legal jurisdictions anywhere in the world (and even when they are they are only admissible under the aforementioned rigorously controlled conditions).

I mean, how much more fundamental can you get than that? We have all these supposedly magical neurological tests that can determine everything that can possibly be known about a human being (according to Pixy…and now you) and yet we cannot even determine that most basic of human conditions: when is someone lying. Y’know what Argent…

..you…are…full…of…**** (as usual)….check your facts before you post something.

Oh, do shut up, won't you? You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to that, you have no idea what I am talking about, and until you do, your posts serve only to make yourself look like even more of a colossal buffoon.

In other words, you are full of ****. As usual. Read what you are responding to before you post something.

This is just too hilarious. “Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.” You’re kidding right! I mean, who woulda thunk it!

No, I am not kidding. Attempted ridicule does not constitute a rebuttal. It only serves to make you look childish.

So let me get this straight (because this is getting really complicated). What you’re saying is that if something exists, we should be able to theoretically detect it

Yes.

when?...tomorrow, in five hundred years?

Dunno. It's not important.

Really Sherlock….and how many decades of college did it take them to teach you that pearl of insight?

None, actually. How long did it take you? Oh, wait. You still don't seem to understand it. Never mind.

…and things might exist that we don’t have the instruments to detect but just because we don’t have the instruments to detect them does not mean that they don’t exist.

I didn't say otherwise.

Should I point out that this flatly contradicts Pixy’s position.

It doesn't. You don't understand Pixy's position.

So what you’re saying with your unique Argent-analogy type thing is that just because there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums, that does not actually mean there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums.

No. Again, try actually reading what I have said before you post a response.

Is this what you’re saying…or are you saying that it’s somehow irrelevant to point out that there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness (at JREF or anywhere else)…when it is quite specifically consciousness that we are discussing? Ok then. I hope you don’t work in any kind of management position Argent.

And I hope that you don't work in anything where any type of reading is required.

I am saying that it is irrelevant to point out that there are people who don't think that there is an adequate explanation of consciousness. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because there are people - even a lot of people - who support an idea does not mean that the idea is true. There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat, but we certainly don't take that as evidence that the Earth is flat.

Or do you actually think that it is?

Hang on, did I suggest Chomsky is infallible? …let me have a look. Nope.

Hang on, did I suggest that you suggested that? Let me have a look. Nope.

And usually when someone is described as ‘incredibly intelligent’ it implies that what they have to say carries substantial weight (like when they say there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness for example)….more so than people who have not earned that distinction.

No. It means that what they have to say carries substantial weight when it is backed by evidence. Newton was incredibly intelligent. He believed in alchemy. Do you believe in alchemy?

Of course. Chomsky has a lifetime of experience as a highly respected cognitive scientist yet somehow his conclusion is nothing more than ‘bare assertion’. Personally, I would be more likely to apply that description to your statement than his. IOW, I’d take Chomsky’s bare assertions over your voluble nonsense any day.

Yes, it is bare assertion, because there is absolutely no evidence backing it.

Chomsky is undoubtedly very intelligent. However, he is not always correct. Not even in his own field.

…oh it’s ‘roughly’ now is it? You quite explicitly stated at the beginning “Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.”…but now there are qualifications and conditions are there Argent? Care to actually clearly state what your position is, or do you even know?

I know exactly what it is, and it has been presented to you. Quite clearly, in fact.

Go back and read my post, then go and read some articles on neurology. Come back when you understand what's being discussed here.

We ‘KNOW’ this do we?

Yep.

This is simply a vast generalization of all but no value.

Nup.

Pixy did not say anything about ‘theoretically’ (did you read it?). That you don’t understand this is, I suppose, hardly surprising….and you’re not even worth laughing at.

Pixy said nothing about "theoretically" because Pixy is (understandably) not one of the people who finds it necessary to spend their time explaining their position to people like you.

Of course, you could prove me wrong rather easily. All you have to do is ask Pixy.

But you won't.

This is exactly what Pixy said:

If you mean that science can't detect them because they're hard to see, then you are talking the most astounding rubbish.

…and then he went on to explicitly and implicitly describe the apparently limitless range of phenomenon that we are able to detect.

…and then Pixy said the following:

Unless you are claiming that your phenomena can pass through far more than a light year of lead unaffected and last far less than a femtosecond, they are quite readily detectable by scientific instruments.

So Pixy is quite clearly implying that we have the ability to measure just about everything (in that all-but-limitless range of things that are detectable) and since we don’t measure anything when we try to measure for psi it must mean that there is nothing to measure for (I’m sure if I trolled though the thousands of Pixy’s posts I could find numerous examples of him either saying exactly that or something pretty close to it).

So you see that Pixy said that we can detect things which can pass through a light-year of lead in a femtosecond and you take that as confirmation that Pixy thinks that we can detect everything?

You really are talking complete and utter bull. Here's a hint: don't put words in people's mouths.

When you want to rage and sputter and accuse someone of introducing strawmen at least get your facts straight Argent.

You might want to do the same.

You know what you should do Argent, you should go and find that link I made to Scott Atrans talk about the atheist disease of rationality and read it from beginning to end. You just might learn something about how absurd your response is.

Well, I would, except that I seem to be having difficulty mustering the slightest amount of care.

Maybe if you showed that you were capable of formulating a coherent argument without attacking straw men I would be able to. Until then, though, I really don't see why I should give the slightest crap about any links you might bring up.

So, to sum up.

Stop strawmanning, go read about neurology, and try to respond to what has actually been said rather than what you want to hear. Maybe then people will stop regarding you as such a buffoon.

 

[PixyMisa]

Having said that, I don't think your paraphrasing of his statements is accurate, so you may end up demolishing straw men. Probably best to clarify with Pixy first.

Pure Argent got it exactly right:

Everything that exists has some effect on the universe. This effect can range from massive - Earth's gravity well, for example - to miniscule. The smallest of the small have effects so tiny that it's almost impossible to detect them - but they can be detected in theory. They exist. They have an effect. This means that the effect can, theoretically, be detected.

So the things which exist have an effect on the universe. That's not arguable. That's the definition of existence. Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.

This means that, theoretically, we can detect everything that exists in one way or another. We may not yet possess the instruments necessary to actually do it, but there is nothing actively preventing us from doing so.

But we can go further than that. The precision and accuracy and range of our present instruments puts specific and well-defined limits on what we are unable to detect. We can't detect, for example, the gravitational effects of small objects at significant distances, because gravity is such a very, very weak force. This makes it difficult to test the predictions of string theory.

But if telepathy were actually happening - to pick one example - we would know. It would be blindingly obvious. It would be an engineering problem. There is not the slightest possibility that we could miss it.

The flip side of this is that if these effects are so subtle that modern science, with its vast array of incredibly sensitive instruments, cannot begin to detect them.... How do they know this? It means that by definition they have no evidence. Which means that by definition we dismiss their claims. Which means that this thread is just going to run in circles forever - unfortunately, requiring a constant input of energy to do so.

 

[Bad vibe]

I'm no expert in anything paranormal but my take so far on this discussion would be:
A. mumbo jumbo + take drugs = hallucination
B. take drugs= hallucination
B would seem to suggest mumbo jumbo is irrelevent, from numerous snips I've read and documentories isn't this the same thing Shamen do? perfectly mundane cause (take drug) effect (get high) dress it up with ritual so people think its special and beyond mere mortals purely as a job protection measure.

 

[annnnoid]

Pure Argent got it exactly right:



But we can go further than that. The precision and accuracy and range of our present instruments puts specific and well-defined limits on what we are unable to detect. We can't detect, for example, the gravitational effects of small objects at significant distances, because gravity is such a very, very weak force. This makes it difficult to test the predictions of string theory.

But if telepathy were actually happening - to pick one example - we would know. It would be blindingly obvious. It would be an engineering problem. There is not the slightest possibility that we could miss it.

The flip side of this is that if these effects are so subtle that modern science, with its vast array of incredibly sensitive instruments, cannot begin to detect them.... How do they know this? It means that by definition they have no evidence. Which means that by definition we dismiss their claims. Which means that this thread is just going to run in circles forever - unfortunately, requiring a constant input of energy to do so.

So here we have Pixy quite clearly stating that if psi were happening, we would be able to detect it….because, purportedly, our instruments are capable of detecting every such variety of phenomenon (a blatant contradiction since, given the paucity of understanding relating to these phenomenon [not to mention the origins and nature of consciousness itself] it is the height of ignorance to claim that we know what it is we are even testing for….). Pixy’s logic essentially says that we can already test for every such phenomenon (even though we don’t know what these phenomenon even are) and since we cannot detect them, there must be nothing going on. Argent, on the other hand, suggests that there may be phenomenon that we have yet to detect because we have yet to develop instruments capable of detecting them. As I said, Argent and Pixy do not agree.

Pixy also would like to believe that our neurological instruments have the precision to fathom subjective consciousness sufficiently to detect the occurrence of any such phenomena. I merely point out the indisputable fact that we cannot even accurately adjudicate the most basic of human conditions with the current state of technology …when is someone lying, so we can hardly expect to reliably detect a range of phenomenon that we are not even certain of the existence of, let alone in any way clear about the signature of.

IOW….we are very far from having the ability to detect what it is that is occurring within the subjective consciousness of another human being (as is quite obvious from our complete inability to accurately determine when someone is encountering even that most basic of human experiences…a lie). Thus, the conclusion that there is a vast range of phenomenon that exist completely outside of our ability to detect them is unavoidable. Many many many people report the experience of psi phenomenon. Given the dimensions of phenomenon that conclusively exist outside of our ability to detect them, it is not at all unreasonable to consider that psi phenomenon occur within THIS range, and not the measurable range of which Pixy is so confident. The evidence speaks. Period.

 

[Nonpareil]

So here we have Pixy quite clearly stating that if psi were happening, we would be able to detect it….because, purportedly, our instruments are capable of detecting every such variety of phenomenon (a blatant contradiction since, given the paucity of understanding relating to these phenomenon [not to mention the origins and nature of consciousness itself] it is the height of ignorance to claim that we know what it is we are even testing for….). Pixy’s logic essentially says that we can already test for every such phenomenon (even though we don’t know what these phenomenon even are) and since we cannot detect them, there must be nothing going on. Argent, on the other hand, suggests that there may be phenomenon that we have yet to detect because we have yet to develop instruments capable of detecting them. As I said, Argent and Pixy do not agree.

Pardon me for indulging in a bit of levity, but there really isn't any response as appropriate as the following.

Pixy and I have been saying the same thing.

Yes, there are phenomena which we cannot detect. But the kind of effects described by psi believers are not among them. The nature of psi, as described, would make its effects painfully obvious if it were studied under controlled conditions. Since it has been, and they aren't, we dismiss it.

Of course, this does leave the possibility open for other, subtler psi effects, but they would have to be very, very subtle indeed.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that we don't know what psi is, so we can't test for it. That is patent nonsense. Each psi believer has given us their own definition of what psi is. While this does mean that there is no consensus definition, it doesn't keep us from testing the claims placed before us.

Pixy also would like to believe that our neurological instruments have the precision to fathom subjective consciousness sufficiently to detect the occurrence of any such phenomena.

Another straw man.

Psi should be detectable, but not necessarily so with EEGs and other neurological instruments. However, we would be able to detect its effects through other means.

For example, AkuManiMani's claim of psi giving us knowledge that we couldn't have otherwise should be easily testable. Ditto those who claim telekinesis or telepathy. But none of these tests would require the use of neurological instruments.

Many many many people report the experience of psi phenomenon. Given the dimensions of phenomenon that conclusively exist outside of our ability to detect them, it is not at all unreasonable to consider that psi phenomenon occur within THIS range, and not the measurable range of which Pixy is so confident. The evidence speaks. Period.

No, it doesn't. Period.

All you're doing is using a god-of-the-gaps argument to try and support bare assertion. That doesn't work.

Try again.

 

[annnnoid]

As for you Argent, shall I quote you:

“ Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments”

What you seem to completely fail to appreciate with any degree of insight what-so-ever is just how much of a leap of understanding there is between ‘the test says this’ to ‘this is who I am’.

As for what you’re talking about…when you know, feel free to post it.

…but I just couldn’t pass up this little jewel:
"Just because lot’s of folks don’t think we have figured out consciousness, doesn’t actually mean we haven’t figured out consciousness."
So what are you actually saying their genius….it’s been figured out, it hasn’t been figured? What is it?

…and yet, we can’t even accomplish that most basic adjudication: determining whether someone is lying or telling the truth. Don’t know what world you live in Argent, but that tells me there’s an awful lot we don’t know about this thing that creates lies (and everything else that exists as ‘who I am’).

As for all the psi-related stuff. Your argument is a crock of B.S. and I've no intention of wasting any more time on it.

 

[annnnoid]

That was just the most memorable incoherency. I apologise if that post embarrassed or upset you, it wasn't done with malice - it was more a rhetorical exclamation that I posted without thought. My bad.


Many things are not apparent to the naked eye, and many things that are apparent are not as they seem. I don't follow what you're trying to say about normality - existence seems to me quite normal - I grew up with it, as did everyone who ever lived. The fact that we don't understand all of it (though I think we understand more than you give us credit for) doesn't make it abnormal or unusual - it just means there is still plenty to discover.


If that was all you wanted to say, it was a rambling and incoherent way to say it. If you think Pixy's statements are absurd or nonsensical, why not simply explain why you think that - if they really are absurd or nonsensical, they should be easy enough to demolish briefly and concisely.

Having said that, I don't think your paraphrasing of his statements is accurate, so you may end up demolishing straw men. Probably best to clarify with Pixy first.

….your bad…happens. Apology acknowledged.

Fact is, we take an awful lot for granted. Life is a vast mystery, the true dimensions of which are rarely illuminated for anyone, let alone everyone. Yet ‘normative’ is typically adjudicated based on the experience of the masses (by definition of course) but truth is another matter entirely. Is there human truth? What actually is a ‘normal’ human perspective? Whatever you may or may not believe about NDE’s one thing is certain, there are few human events that transform the perspective of those experiencing them to a greater degree…almost invariably for the better. IOW…a radically different perspective on life is achieved (‘how’ is not really relevant in this case, ‘what’ is what matters). So what actually is ‘normal’? If your ‘understanding’ could actually experience an accurate perspective of this condition so many take so much for granted (‘normal’), how would that perspective be characterized? I suggest it would have much more in common with those who enjoy the post-NDE perspective than the mass of men from whom the definition of ‘normative’ is typically derived. I was simply trying to point out (with my metaphor) the dimensions of what it is we live in relation to.

As for Pixy, Pixy is a special case. I’m sure Pixy knows this. You either play hardball with Pixy, or you don’t play at all (Pixy plays hardball with everyone else, we just return the favor). Pixy is prone to saying nutty things at times, maybe intentionally, maybe not, but they’re still nutty. IMO he has far more faith in science than it deserves. I’d say you do as well, though your position appears more balanced. Don't get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for this thing we call science, there's just way more to life and science far too often gets turned into dogma. Religion, IOW.

 

[Nonpareil]

As for you Argent, shall I quote you:

“ Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments”

Yep. And I shall quote you:

Adoration, fondness, liking, attraction, caring, tenderness, compassion, sentimentality, Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation, longing, Amusement, bliss, cheerfulness, gaiety, glee, jolliness, joviality, joy, delight, enjoyment, gladness, happiness, jubilation, elation, satisfaction, ecstasy, euphoria, Enthusiasm, zeal, zest, excitement, thrill, exhilaration, Contentment, pleasure, Pride, triumph, Eagerness, hope, optimism, Enthrallment, rapture, relief, Amazement, surprise, astonishment, Aggravation, irritation, agitation, annoyance, grouchiness, grumpiness, crosspatch, Exasperation, frustration, Anger, rage, outrage, fury, wrath, hostility, ferocity, bitterness, hate, scorn, spite, vengefullness, dislike, resentment, Disgust, revulsion, contempt, loathing, Envy, jealousy, torment, agony, suffering, hurt, anguish, Depression, despair, hopelessness, gloom, glumness, sadness, unhappiness, grief, sorrow, woe, misery, melancholy, Dismay, disappointment, displeasure, Guilt, shame, regret, remorse, Alienation, isolation, neglect, loneliness, rejection, homesickness, defeat, dejection, insecurity, embarrassment, humiliation, insult, Pity, sympathy, Alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror, panic, hysteria, mortification, Anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness, apprehension, worry, distress, dread.

All of these can be and have been detected by scientific instruments.

What you seem to completely fail to appreciate with any degree of insight what-so-ever is just how much of a leap of understanding there is between ‘the test says this’ to ‘this is who I am’.

And now you're just going off on a tangent. This has nothing to do with the opening of your post.

But whatever. I never said that the tests had anything to do with who I am - or who you are. Or who anyone else is.

Stop strawmanning. It's obvious, it's underhanded, and it's pathetic.

As for what you’re talking about…when you know, feel free to post it.

Same to you, buddy. Let me know when you come up with a post that actually manages to follow one line of thought for longer than a sentence.

…but I just couldn’t pass up this little jewel:
"Just because lot’s of folks don’t think we have figured out consciousness, doesn’t actually mean we haven’t figured out consciousness."
So what are you actually saying their genius….it’s been figured out, it hasn’t been figured? What is it?

Neither one. That sentence is simply a statement of fact: the opinion of the masses has no impact on fact.

However, I am of the opinion that we understand consciousness perfectly well. Do we understand every chemical and every section of the brain? No. Do we understand what every single neurological disorder is? No. But we understand perfectly well what consciousness itself is.

It's like a computer. We know exactly what a computer is and how it works. The fact that we can't always point to the exact switches which are simulating an if-then statement, or find the exact part of the registry which contains the virus, doesn't change the fact that we know what a computer is and how it works.

As for all the psi-related stuff. Your argument is a crock of B.S. and I've no intention of wasting any more time on it.

Ah, brave Sir Robin, how gallant you are.

 

[annnnoid]

So you came to a site that says it's a place for discussion and you refuse to discuss?

Of course tsig…I present posts thousands of words long and you respond with something like this? Are you terminally anal or just trying to hard?

 

[carlitos]

annnnoid, just a suggestion. If you think that someone is worth ignoring, ignore them. Otherwise, it looks like ...

 

[Zanders]

As for you Argent, shall I quote you:

“ Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments”

What you seem to completely fail to appreciate with any degree of insight what-so-ever is just how much of a leap of understanding there is between ‘the test says this’ to ‘this is who I am’.

As for what you’re talking about…when you know, feel free to post it.

…but I just couldn’t pass up this little jewel:
"Just because lot’s of folks don’t think we haven't figured out consciousness, doesn’t actually mean we haven’t figured out consciousness."
So what are you actually saying their genius….it’s been figured out, it hasn’t been figured? What is it?

…and yet, we can’t even accomplish that most basic adjudication: determining whether someone is lying or telling the truth. Don’t know what world you live in Argent, but that tells me there’s an awful lot we don’t know about this thing that creates lies (and everything else that exists as ‘who I am’).

As for all the psi-related stuff. Your argument is a crock of B.S. and I've no intention of wasting any more time on it.

Funny, you keep wasting your time talking to us about how much you are wasting your time talking to us. This doesn't seem very constructive does it? I think you need to calm down or just quit wasting your time already. It's like ranting at somebody about how you are ignoring them.

I await your next time consuming reply.