The burden of proof relating to conciousness, free choice and rationality

[The Grand Nudger]

The fact that you cant answer my question and define your terms of nature shows me that you too 'can however bury any meaningful conversation under a literal mountain of garbage'. You clearly are using terms relating to your free will Rythm by all your assertions and statements or they are clearly not your own, they do not come from your conciousness because in your ideology this discussion is just an exchange of matter between one element of the universe and the other. The fact is that you cannot define your 'nature' as you put it and have to rely on whatever ego statements you have left.

We could sit around for ages opining about human nature, but why would I give you such an easy out? You don't get a pass because you use the word "clearly" in every claim. If these things were all so clear, you'd have an easier time demonstrating them to be the case, wouldn't you? You made a claim, you cannot demonstrate the veracity of the claim. End of.

This was your statement Rythm not mine and again you cant answer it but try and pass the ball back in my court. Its not my job to answer for you. Yet again you cant state clear definitions of what you mean just random sceptical BS.

Again, you wish for it to be so, do your own work. Skeptical bullshit? Really? I take it you've been burned by skepticism before?

Your arguing semantics now my friend and still you cant define what you really mean.

No, I was "politely" remarking that you've gone down the same road you did in the op in your comments. It's obviously in your nature.

I follow no religion so your not even close. And again this IS your opinion without any reason or logic behind it. Looks like those Kudos and sycophantic comments may not be as well deserved as you would like to think my friend.

You might want to reread the thread, because now you're starting to look like an ass. We have among us, in this thread, a member of the faithful. Sometimes I get tired of talking to you (lord only knows why that might be), and speak to other posters instead.

My evidence is that the quantum particles that you are observing right now depend on your conciousness to exist in the state that they do. Nuff said. Look it up!

Quantum is the "goddidit" for newagers.

The question is Rythm can you deny that modern scientific theories are revisionist?
You cant all you can do is choose to post you petty replies without any true substance.
You are by far the most annoying random accumulation of matter that does not think or choose, but does spout shit into universe.

And you have still absolutely ignored what you define as 'nature' like if you can ignore it for long enough you wont have to explain yourself.

No, I believe the question had something to do with free will. But don't let me stop you from arguing about anything except free will. I'm sure this all means you have solid evidence for your initial claims.

That doesn't change the fact that only a biological observer will change the outcome. And it doesn't change the fact that besides this forum the only interaction you have with the world is when your mom tells you to clean your spunk rags out the bathroom. Jerkoff. Thats not an insult its again what your mom told me to tell you to stop doing.

And how would you go about determining this to be the case, pick either. While you're at it, provide some evidence for the existence of free will.