A Non-Violent Solution?

[Cosmic Ape]

Dear Cosmic Ape,

Genkaus make a very specific claim to me. He demanded that I must accept his "proof" that no possible concept of spirituality can exist and all possible concepts of spiritual have already been "ruled-out".

I knew immediately that his claim was totally bogus and lame. It's nothing more than an overly-arrogant personal opinion on his part. I told him that I don't accept his axioms. Then he tried to ram his axioms down my throat demanding that I must accept them. I pointed out why his axioms were not applicable in an absolute sense that he thought.

He continued to RAM his opinions down my throat demanding that I must accept them. I've showed him clearly why I do not need to accept his petty limited axioms. He's claims are totally ungrounded in modern knowledge.

So now you're jumping on the Genkaus bandwagon. Are you fully aware of what you are supporting?

You are supporting the idea that there cannot be any possible spiritual essence to reality and that this can be proved in a way that no one can deny.

That's what you need to support in your jump on Genkaus' bandwagon.

So you're taking Genkaus' position that spiritual agnosticism has been RULED OUT? There can be no possible spiritual essence to reality. And therefore spiritual spiritual agnosticism is no longer a valid view because we now KNOW that spirit cannot exist in any possible imaginable form.

I mean, if you too hold that view, fine.

But the TRUTH is that neither the scientific community nor the philosophical community proclaim this to be the case, nor would they be stupid enough to even pretend to. They know that we simply do not yet have enough information about the true nature of reality to make such an absurd and outrageous claim.

So if you're supporting Genkaus' position, then you too are supporting false information being spread to the public.

---

Stop for a moment and think about how lame Genkaus' position truly is:

Here's the position:

1. The only example of consciousness that we are aware of is biological consciousness.
2. Consciousness appears to require a physical brain in this case.
3. Therefore we can rule out any and all spiritual philosophies because we don't think there could be any other kind of consciousness.

That's got to be the lamest argument ever given in all of history.

Bob Ross will class up the place for us.

[Abracadabra]

---

Stop for a moment and think about how lame Genkaus' position truly is:

Here's the position:

1. The only example of consciousness that we are aware of is biological consciousness.
2. Consciousness appears to require a physical brain in this case.
3. Therefore we can rule out any and all spiritual philosophies because we don't think there could be any other kind of consciousness.

Complete and total misrepresentation. My actual position is as follows:

1. Consciousness, by its very definition, is a phenomenal entity.
2. Therefore, there cannot be a non-phenomenal consciousness.
3. Therefore, any spiritual philosophy that proposes a non-phenomenal consciousness (as Abra's does, when he's not hastily retreating from that very accusation), is bullshit.

---

Well, there you go Genkaus, lying again. Which you'll absolute have to do continue to hold your position.

I have not proposed a non-phenomenological consciousness, and never have. On the contrary my position all-along has been that there are many phenomenological opportunities for consciousness to exist that most certainly cannot yet be ruled out.

You're not listening at all. All you're doing it blindly trying to ram your arrogant views down the throats of other people without any justification whatsoever.

One very simple fact that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that your asinine position is totally worthless is the following:

You claim that any concept of spirit must be phenomenological. Fine, I have no problem with that myself. But where argument falls flat on it's face is that you claim that you can rule out that there is any room for any such phenomenological spirit to exist based on our current knowledge of reality.

That is clearly false. You simply cannot make that claim. Our scientific community is proposing many idea of phenomenon that cannot be ruled out, in fact, scientists are spending billions of dollars proposing and searching precisely for that very thing.

The most popular of these are the hidden dimensions of String Theory. According to this scientific theory our universe may consist of 11-dimensions instead of the 4 that we currently know about.

That 7 new hidden dimensions that we know nothing about. More than enough room to harbor all sorts of consciousness. In fact, based on this alone it means that we currently only know about 40% of our current phenomenological universe, and 70% of it is completely hidden to us.

So you're claiming to be able to rule out any form of consciousness in that scientifically proposed 70% of reality.

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to claim to be able to rule out things that clearly cannot be known to us at this time.

So you're caught red-handed holding a false claim that could never be supported using our current understanding of reality.

You can't rule out anything that might be happening in 7 hidden unseen dimensions.

And that's just one area that you can't rule out.

You also can't rule out possible structures beneath the very fabric of spacetime itself such as the quantum world.

You can't rule out parallel universes or a multiverse. More ideas being given serious consideration by the sciences.

In short, humanity simply doesn't have the kind of knowledge that would even be required to propose a claim like you're proposing.

You claim to have 'proof' that every imaginable model of spirituality has already been ruled out is nothing short of complete idiocy on your part.

And anyone who accepts your nonsense can't be thinking very deeply about these issues either.

You're simply not in any position to make the claims that you're making. And you're certainly not in any position to arrogantly proclaim that everyone else must accept your bull shit because it cannot be denied.

That's utter hogwash.

The knowledge of Humanity in general (i.e. the best science we have today) cannot even remotely begin to rule things out on the scale that you claim to be able to rule them out.

You are a FRAUD! Preaching grossly false information to the public that cannot even remotely be supported by our current knowledge of reality.

You're a Fraud Genkaus. You're spreading false opinions whilst proclaiming that they are absolute truths that no one can deny.

Utter hogwash!

There is nothing in the knowledge of humanity that could be used to support your utterly absurd claims.

[genkaus]

Well, there you go Genkaus, lying again. Which you'll absolute have to do continue to hold your position.

I have not proposed a non-phenomenological consciousness, and never have. On the contrary my position all-along has been that there are many phenomenological opportunities for consciousness to exist that most certainly cannot yet be ruled out.

And without missing a beat!

As predicted in my argument, Abra always talks about consicousness independent of space-time (phenomenology), UNLESS, he's confornted with it. Then his argument becomes "I never said that".

You're not listening at all. All you're doing it blindly trying to ram your arrogant views down the throats of other people without any justification whatsoever.

One very simple fact that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that your asinine position is totally worthless is the following:

You claim that any concept of spirit must be phenomenological. Fine, I have no problem with that myself. But where argument falls flat on it's face is that you claim that you can rule out that there is any room for any such phenomenological spirit to exist based on our current knowledge of reality.

And here are the lies and the misrepresentations. I specifically said that I can rule out any non-phenomenological spirits.

That is clearly false. You simply cannot make that claim.

And I haven't. Your position is not the same as that.

Our scientific community is proposing many idea of phenomenon that cannot be ruled out, in fact, scientists are spending billions of dollars proposing and searching precisely for that very thing.

The most popular of these are the hidden dimensions of String Theory. According to this scientific theory our universe may consist of 11-dimensions instead of the 4 that we currently know about.

That 7 new hidden dimensions that we know nothing about. More than enough room to harbor all sorts of consciousness. In fact, based on this alone it means that we currently only know about 40% of our current phenomenological universe, and 70% of it is completely hidden to us.

So you're claiming to be able to rule out any form of consciousness in that scientifically proposed 70% of reality.

Is that 70% phenomenological or not?

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to claim to be able to rule out things that clearly cannot be known to us at this time.

So you're caught red-handed holding a false claim that could never be supported using our current understanding of reality.

You can't rule out anything that might be happening in 7 hidden unseen dimensions.

And that's just one area that you can't rule out.

You also can't rule out possible structures beneath the very fabric of spacetime itself such as the quantum world.

You can't rule out parallel universes or a multiverse. More ideas being given serious consideration by the sciences.

In short, humanity simply doesn't have the kind of knowledge that would even be required to propose a claim like you're proposing.

Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap.

Don't you get tired of talking this much and not saying a single thing that is relevant. You should've learned by now that these attempts at obfuscation and argument by verbosity don't work.

You claim to have 'proof' that every imaginable model of spirituality has already been ruled out is nothing short of complete idiocy on your part.

No, not every imaginable model. Just the one imagined by you. Which happens to be complete idiocy on your part.

And anyone who accepts your nonsense can't be thinking very deeply about these issues either.

Anyone who accepts your nonsense, cannot be thinking at all.

You're simply not in any position to make the claims that you're making. And you're certainly not in any position to arrogantly proclaim that everyone else must accept your bull shit because it cannot be denied.

No, I'm saying that people should either accept the undeniable as undeniable or find a way to deny it. You haven't been able to do either.

That's utter hogwash.

The knowledge of Humanity in general (i.e. the best science we have today) cannot even remotely begin to rule things out on the scale that you claim to be able to rule them out.

It can rule out the bullshit you are peddling.

You are a FRAUD! Preaching grossly false information to the public that cannot even remotely be supported by our current knowledge of reality.

You are a MORON. Imagining wild fantasies and assuming them to be real, without even understanding the nature of this reality.

You're a Fraud Genkaus. You're spreading false opinions whilst proclaiming that they are absolute truths that no one can deny.

Utter hogwash!

There is nothing in the knowledge of humanity that could be used to support your utterly absurd claims.

Total bullshit.

There is nothing at all and there can never be anything at all that could be used to support your stupid fantasies because your fantasies are false.

[Violet]

* Violet watches the name-calling fest in kindergarten recess from the safety of the teacher's lounge.



Can't we all just get along?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTBPdVpdMc

[Abracadabra]

As predicted in my argument, Abra always talks about consicousness independent of space-time (phenomenology), UNLESS, he's confornted with it. Then his argument becomes "I never said that".

Well, clearly you've lost the argument if your only comeback is to try to misrepresent my position.

I do not talk about consciousness as being independent of "structure".

However, YES, I most certainly do reject your limitations on what you demand "space-time (phenomenology)" to be restricted to.

In order for your proposed epistemological/philosophical "proof" to hold, you must demand that" space-time (phenomenology)" must be restricted to a very simplistic pre-modern era.

You must rule-out extra hidden dimensions of space-time.

You must rule-out any and all quantum information that might exist beneath the fabric of Einstein's space-time.

You must also ignore the consequences of Einstein's Relativistic theories and their implications concerning the weird nature of 'past, present, and future', and how these theories expose huge problems in our very understanding of the true nature of time.

You must also ignore scientific proposals of the existence of parallel universes, and or a multiverse.

In short, for you out-dated philosophical claims to hold, you must basically return to a Newtonian picture of absolute time and space (perhaps pretending to simultaneously accept an extremely naive view of relativity, ignoring all of the philosophical and scientific implications of that)

And forget about Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, or even Inflation theory, because all of those theories would necessarily need to also be "ruled-out" by your claims.

Otherwise, you would be stuck with having potential phenomenological places where spirit (or consciousness) could exist that you can't rule out.

So contrary to your false accusations, I haven't changed my position one iota.

You're claim to have ruled out all possible spiritual philosophies simple cannot stand in the face of modern scientific knowledge.

There are simply too many scientifically proposed places where such a consciousness could exist that you can't "rule out".

Hell's bells, if the scientific implications that parallel universes, or a multiverse may exist, then there would be more than enough phenomenological places to hide an entire Kingdom of Zeus and company.

And you couldn't "rule that out".

There are many phenomenological ideas being proposed by the scientific community that even they cannot rule out. Yet you claim to be able to rule those concepts out?

You simply have no basis for you demands.

You demands couldn't possibly be supported be modern scientific arguments.

Scientists themselves are simply proposing far too many phenomenological "hiding places" for potential consciousnesses to reside.

So you have no scientific basis for "ruling them out"

You're dead in the water Genkaus. You lost this debate already.

Give it up.

[Violet]

Alright, I warned y'all. (My gods... I'm going southern)

Well, clearly you've lost the argument if your only comeback is to try to misrepresent my position.

If you're talking about comebacks... I'd say you have quite clearly represented your position. Let's hope that your representation ins't to scale.



Is this a contest to you?

You're claim to have ruled out all spiritual philosophies simple cannot stand in the face of modern scientific knowledge.

To rule something out is to exclude the possibility. It requires absolutely nothing more than a denial of the possibility.

There are simply too many scientifically proposed places where such a consciousness could exist that you can't "rule out".

Can too. Albeit the notion of 'proof' makes some absurdists laugh.

You simply have no basis for you demands.

Perhaps not seeing any 'evidence' of 'metaphysics'?

You demands couldn't possibly be supported be modern scientific arguments.

Would that be you ruling out the possibility?

Scientists themselves are simply proposing far too many phenomenological "hiding places" for potential consciousnesses to reside.

I bet they feel proud of themselves.

You're dead in the water Genkaus. You lost this debate already.

Give it up.

'Losing' debates is not possible. In a debate, you always win, simply for learning.

An informal argument on the other hand...

[Abracadabra]

Is this a contest to you?

No, and it never was.

Genkaus is the one who arrogantly demanded that I must accept his conclusions and his demand that all notions of spirit have been absolutely ruled out.

I have never demanded that anyone must accept my views.

Genkaus "lost" only in the sense that he failed to ram his views down my throat on the grounds that I must accept them.

I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who takes such arrogant approach to trying to shove their views onto others.

He lost any an all respect from me the moment he proclaimed that I must accept his views as being absolutely irrefutable. And he did that way back in another thread, and he hasn't let up since.

So fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

I won't stand for that kind of ignorant arrogance.

And I'm truly surprised that anyone would support such an ignorant stance.

[Violet]

Is this a contest to you?

No, and it never was.

Genkaus is the one who arrogantly demanded that I must accept his conclusions and his demand that all notions of spirit have been absolutely ruled out.

Good Word-choice can make a girl wonder sometimes.

And you're the one who in response to his jeering (or was it the other way around?) began a namecalling fest. At the least: you continued it when it could have stopped with just him.

If you truly believe he is a fool: then you should know that arguing with him only makes a fool of you too.

I have never demanded that anyone must accept my views.

Fantastic

Genkaus "lost" only in the sense that he failed to ram his views down my throat on the grounds that I must accept them.

Then cordially let him know that, and call it a day.

I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who takes such arrogant approach to trying to shove their views onto others.

Sympathy isn't what I ask, reasonability is.

He lost any an all respect from me the moment he proclaimed that I must accept his views as being absolutely irrefutable. And he did that way back in another thread, and he hasn't let up since.

If you're certain you will never see eye to eye with someone, and they are pissing you off: I recommend you put them on ignore.

I do not recommend you make yourself out to be no better than them by doing to them what they do to you.

So fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Well, I don't know why you'd want to fuck someone you don't like (and his horse, wow)... but I guess people do stay married when they hate each other's guts for some reason.

I won't stand for that kind of ignorant arrogance.

And I'm truly surprised that anyone would support such an ignorant stance.

Hey now, if he keeps up the name-calling, I'll cap him too.

[Abracadabra]

If you're certain you will never see eye to eye with someone, and they are pissing you off: I recommend you put them on ignore.

I do not recommend you make yourself out to be no better than them by doing to them what they do to you.

You're right Lilly. I forgot this forum has an ignore function.

I'll makes good use of that right now.

Thanks.

[genkaus]

Well, clearly you've lost the argument if your only comeback is to try to misrepresent my position.

Clearly, you are still using your imagination to decide what reality is.

I do not talk about consciousness as being independent of "structure".

No, but you do talk about a non-phenomenological structure.

However, YES, I most certainly do reject your limitations on what you demand "space-time (phenomenology)" to be restricted to.

Space-time phenomenology is restricted to space-time phenomenology.

In order for your proposed epistemological/philosophical "proof" to hold, you must demand that" space-time (phenomenology)" must be restricted to a very simplistic pre-modern era.

No, the epistemological proof holds even in modern era.

You must rule-out extra hidden dimensions of space-time.

Check again.

You must rule-out any and all quantum information that might exist beneath the fabric of Einstein's space-time.

No, I simply point put that in quantum mechanics, information is simply another word for your structure. It has nothing what soever to do with consciousness.

You must also ignore the consequences of Einstein's Relativistic theories and their implications concerning the weird nature of 'past, present, and future', and how these theories expose huge problems in our very understanding of the true nature of time.

You must also ignore scientific proposals of the existence of parallel universes, and or a multiverse.

Neither the existence of parallel universes, nor any of the "theories of time" go against the axiom of primacy of existence. So there is no need for me to rule them out.

In short, for you out-dated philosophical claims to hold, you must basically return to a Newtonian picture of absolute time and space (perhaps pretending to simultaneously accept an extremely naive view of relativity, ignoring all of the philosophical and scientific implications of that)

And forget about Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, or even Inflation theory, because all of those theories would necessarily need to also be "ruled-out" by your claims.

Bullshit. All of these theories implicitly accept primacy of existence, since they are all based on observational evidence.

Otherwise, you would be stuck with having potential phenomenological places where spirit (or consciousness) could exist that you can't rule out.

Nonsense. There are many potential phenomenological (spatio-temporal) places where consciousness could exist and they are not ruled out. What is ruled out is your bull-shit claim of non-phenomenal (non-spatio-temporal) consciousness.

So contrary to your false accusations, I haven't changed my position one iota.

Ofcourse you haven't. You still subscribe to the stupid idea of consciousness in a non-phenomenological structure.

You're claim to have ruled out all possible spiritual philosophies simple cannot stand in the face of modern scientific knowledge.

Lies. Not all, just yours.

There are simply too many scientifically proposed places where such a consciousness could exist that you can't "rule out".

Ofcourse, there are. Your proposal isn't one of them.

Hell's bells, if the scientific implications that parallel universes, or a multiverse may exist, then there would be more than enough phenomenological places to hide an entire Kingdom of Zeus and company.

And you couldn't "rule that out".

Definitely. But that's not what the "eastern mystic philosophies" propose.

There are many phenomenological ideas being proposed by the scientific community that even they cannot rule out. Yet you claim to be able to rule those concepts out?

Nope, just your bullshit.

You simply have no basis for you demands.

Ofcourse I do. That your ideas are crap.

You demands couldn't possibly be supported be modern scientific arguments.

Then how come they are?

Scientists themselves are simply proposing far too many phenomenological "hiding places" for potential consciousnesses to reside.

Tell me when they propose a non-phenomenological (non-spatiotemporal) hiding spot.

So you have no scientific basis for "ruling them out"

Not them, you.