What if there really is no "You"
-
Yah sure, you are too stupid to know that Descartes is one of those credited with the founding of modern scientific thinking and that fact is not disputed anywhere, and you want us to believe that you actually understand any of those words you googled...Originally posted by Demonight:
Man you give the word 'dense' a whole new definition. You know zilch about philosophy, which I can easily gather from the lack of philosophical terms, Cartesian or otherwise, that you use. To add to that you call me an idiot bandying about what you assume to be 'big words'. Please pull the other one. It has bells on. Oh yeah, one more thing. In Philosophy, NOTHING is undisputed except your stupidity.
What an idiot, when he says "In Philosophy, NOTHING is undisputed" he is implying that it was wrong for me to say "undisputed", the fact that Descartes is credited as one of the founders of scientific thinking.
What a confused idiot, to confuse "Descartes is credited as one of the founders of scientific thinking" (undisputed) as "philosophy" (where NOTHING is undisputed)
What an idiot. It does not matter how many clones you have and how many new accounts you register... your stupidity will follow you ...
Classic case of an idiot that has no understanding and in trying to look smart makes a fool of himself... -
*sigh* ... "Cogito Ergo Sum" is superseded with the advent of new scientific knowledge.... why do you cling on to 400 years old philosophy?Originally posted by sgFish:Cogito Ergo Sum
COOKIE
OM NOM NOM NOM
Basically Descartes argument was that if he was fooled into thinking that he exists, there must be someone to fool and that someone is him, and that proves his existence.
... the problem with that is that he had no idea, at that time that it was possible that consciousness could emerge from simple interaction of neurons communicating at breakneck speed.
... there are now two main schools of thought and that is whether consciousness is purely an emergence of neurons or there is an ether in the universe (this ether being consciousness) that affects the neurons.
... sort of like, the voice you hear coming out of a radio does not come from a spirit or soul inside the radio but it comes from radio "electronics" but besides the radio electronics, there are radio waves that the radio electronics receives.
... so there are two things at work... the radio electronics and the radio waves in the ether...
... and if the radio "dies" it cannot receive the radio waves just as when a man dies, he cannot receive the "consciousness that permeates the universe"...
... nobody is looking at "Cogito Ergo Sum" anymore... it is superseded. -
... and Descartes, having engendered scientific thinking, is making philosophy, that which he relied on to come to his conclusions, dependent on science to provide the answers....
... philosophers everywhere are waiting for scientist to solve the hard problem of consciousness....
... so you see, actually, the fact that there is no "self" and the "self" that you perceive is an illusion because the self that you perceive is simply an aggregate of many changing parts and components.... is well established. -
AEN should be excited with this because Buddhists too, believe in a universal consciousness.....
-
Demonight don't bother arguing with Andrew, he's honestly the most arrogant and stuck up sonofabitch. I've argued with him before, he's an intellectual nazi who calls everyone who doesn't agree with him an idiot even though he's obviously the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. How a man like this learns anything I don't know because he just refuses to accept the opinions of others.
-
... but Mr AEN... we are waiting for the evidence hor... and after the evidence comes out, usually, the thinking is modified....
....without the evidence what you have are beliefs... and please do not confuse beliefs with truths... -
hello, I learn because I never accept the opinions of idiots... is it any wonder that you learn nonsense when you consider idiotic opinions?Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:Demonight don't bother arguing with Andrew, he's honestly the most arrogant and stuck up sonofabitch. I've argued with him before, he's an intellectual nazi who calls everyone who doesn't agree with him an idiot even though he's obviously the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. How a man like this learns anything I don't know because he just refuses to accept the opinions of others. -
That's exactly what I mean, you label any thoughts or ideas differing from your own as idiotic. Not exactly what a philosopher would doOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:hello, I learn because I never accept the opinions of idiots... is it any wonder that you learn nonsense when you consider idiotic opinions? -
... just because I pointed out to you how stupid it was for you to consider that people are simply robots and that there might be a monkey controlling the person, you get annoyed... hello, it is stupid to think like that and whether it annoys you or not when I pointed that out to you, the fact remains.
-
Well you must be really really stupid if you think I was being serious, that post was obviously sarcastically tongue-in-cheek.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... just because I pointed out to you how stupid it was for you to consider that people are simply robots and that there might be a monkey controlling the person, you get annoyed... hello, it is stupid to think like that and whether it annoys you or not when I pointed that out to you, the fact remains. -
oh really?Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:Well you must be really really stupid if you think I was being serious, that post was obviously sarcastically tongue-in-cheek. -
How true. It's like talking to a brick wall, except the wall would probably have something more to offer than the drivel Andrew does.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:Demonight don't bother arguing with Andrew, he's honestly the most arrogant and stuck up sonofabitch. I've argued with him before, he's an intellectual nazi who calls everyone who doesn't agree with him an idiot even though he's obviously the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. How a man like this learns anything I don't know because he just refuses to accept the opinions of others. -
Yes reallyOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:oh really? maybe if your head weren't so far up your arse you'd have picked up on that -
i think for atheist.... they common belief is there is no afterlife, so there is no 'soul' lingering on after you die....
'soul' or 'you' is simply a product of physical body, brain and the chemical and biological processes. It is pretty obvious conclusion therefore that there is no 'me' that exist beyond my death.
People will continue to argue for ages because there are always stupid people around who think that there is pernamant soul and people who are trying to sell the idea of soul over body. -
You're like Bizzarro. Everything is upside down to you. When you call someone an idiot you're actually labelling them geniuses. And for that I thank you. Or in Bizzaro talk "I don't thank you. Hello!"Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:hello, I learn because I never accept the opinions of idiots... is it any wonder that you learn nonsense when you consider idiotic opinions? -
... but I do not think that idiot was joking when he said
because he followed up his stupidity withOriginally posted by Demonight: 24 December 2007 · 06:16 PMHis arguments don't form the basis of scientific thinking but the criticisms against him do
(instead of like you clarifying it was a joke...Originally posted by Demonight: 24 December 2007 · 06:33 PMOh yeah, one more thing. In Philosophy, NOTHING is undisputed except your stupidity.
.... that he is a clone shows that he was proven an idiot before and he thinks he can erase his stupidity with a new nick... but unfortunately his stupidity continued with his new nick... -
Calling him an intellectual nazi is an insult so grave that I can't help but feel a pang of guilt for Hitler and co.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:Yes really maybe if your head weren't so far up your arse you'd have picked up on that -
well it was difficult to tell because you proved yourself an idiot before...Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:Yes really maybe if your head weren't so far up your arse you'd have picked up on that -
ahhhh... but is there a me, and if there is, what sort of a me, is there, before death?Originally posted by january:i think for atheist.... they common belief is there is no afterlife, so there is no 'soul' lingering on after you die....
'soul' or 'you' is simply a product of physical body, brain and the chemical and biological processes. It is pretty obvious conclusion therefore that there is no 'me' that exist beyond my death.
People will continue to argue for ages because there are always stupid people around who think that there is pernamant soul and people who are trying to sell the idea of soul over body. -
You seem to be under some unfounded impression that I'm a clone and those two quotes were not in relation to each other you dumbass. Do I need to do the Bizzarro talk again? Will that work for you?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... but I do not think that idiot was joking when he said
(instead of like you clarifying it was a joke...
.... that he is a clone shows that he was proven an idiot before and he thinks he can erase his stupidity with a new nick... but unfortunately his stupidity continued with his new nick... -
You want us to believe that after I said, "it is undisputed that Descartes was credited with the founding of modern scientific thinking" and you followed up with "Nothing in philosophy is undisputed" and you claim it is not related just as you claim that you actually understand the big words you googled and put in your posts?Originally posted by Demonight:You seem to be under some unfounded impression that I'm a clone and those two quotes were not in relation to each other you dumbass. Do I need to do the Bizzarro talk again? Will that work for you?
... and you claim you are not a clone? You stupidity betrays you.... -
Classic! The words of an idiot that tries to look smart and made a fool of himself....Originally posted by Demonight: 24 December 2007 · 06:16 PMHis arguments don't form the basis of scientific thinking but the criticisms against him do
ROFLMAO! -
Stop this bickering, it's christmas. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Classic! The words of an idiot that tries to look smart and made a fool of himself.... ROFLMAO! -
there's still ME around Mmerry Christmas
-
Merry Christmas to all!!
Not... really.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:AEN should be excited with this because Buddhists too, believe in a universal consciousness.....
All manifestation are inseperable in one taste, but there is no such thing as a One Absolute All Pervading Consciousness or Soul behind manifestation. This belongs more to the Hindu concept.
Awareness/consciousness cannot be separated from conditions... There is no 'One Absolute' behind everything... but rather every conditioned arising, dependent arising is an absolute in itself!! The chirping of the bird outside... is an arising of an absolute... is itself pristine awareness...
Understanding this, thoughts is the universe, the experiences arising in the 'field' of the individual being is the universe... there is no 'universe' apart from that arising.. When you eat an apple, it is the entire universe that eats the apple.
The problem when nonduality is glimpsed but not the nature of emptiness and dependent arising is that the practitioner will be inclined to form concepts of a Monistic all pervading subtrate behind all things... and make funny concepts like "you are me" and "i am you" as if we share the same soul... In fact if nonduality is seen very deeply, one would see that this is false..
You'll never see anything about a universal soul in Buddhism. Yet, our true nature is all pervading and all manifestation have one taste, the manifestation of our pristine awareness.