Pure Consciousness?

[Blaggard]

Ginkgo has the right idea here, but the wrong reasoning. That said at least he is in the right ballpark.

Hi Blaggard

Your comment has got me interested. Can you give me an outline of your position?

My position is that what you said is right, and is indeed the position of current scientific theory, in that it is not religious, but it does seem to be a combination of top down and bottom up over generations in a sort of continual cycle, whilst nothing ever devolves, they can produce the same organisms over and over again given similar environmental concerns, hence say a snake can go back to being a lizard and likewise a lizard can evolve into a snake given the right selective pressure, legs are fit in some circumstances a detriment in others. The only way we can tell if there has been a change that aggregates is by looking at the genome, and not I hasten to add looking at like some dumb idiot who thinks complexity means greater complexity and more evolutionary, just that it denotes a time line. I guess though agreeing with evidence that is well founded and looking at an extensive fossil record and then seeing where and how species developed and perhaps posing the question why and for what environmental reasons. and not arm waving is so passé these days.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/god-on-the-brain/

You should watch this:

Epilepsy induced psychosis.

Leading to the hypothesis that religion is encoded in our genetics.

Mind you I doubt not a single person watched this, which is fine but it is interesting...

[Greylorn Ell]

Ginkgo,

How big an ass will you kiss if it tells you that you are right?

G

Yours is so far buried up your own you'd have to get your head out of it before someone else could kiss it.



Religion it's like what most people feel when they have done too many drugs, but not enough to either pass out or to actually make any sense even when they do pry themselves eventually off the ceiling.

I usually skim past your drivel, but this caught my attention. Thank you for the thoughtful exchange of philosophical ideas and the personal insights.

It's rare to get a definitive self-portrait of an otherwise anonymous blogger, so I appreciate your openness in providing it. No doubt you did so to demonstrate your considerable flexibility, although not in the venue of ideas. Perhaps you also offered it as a show of strength? Not many men are powerful enough to stick their head up their ass without first removing their pants. Ah! I understand! You need to preserve some semblance of anonymity. In respect of your preference, I invite you to keep your visage and mind, whatever, well concealed.

My main curiosity is, how do you extract it? It seems rather firmly inserted, and with your spine stressed at an awkward angle, physiologically speaking, there does not seem to be enough leverage to remove it with muscle power alone. Of greater concern-- since you seem to have had your head up your dorsal orifice for rather a long time, oxygen levels must be depleted. Do you just drink beer and eat a lot of beans and sauerkraut before the exercise and then fart to free your mind, or must you force it back out with the ejection of fecal matter? Whatever, you are clearly passing up an opportunity to get rich by demonstrating your act on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News' "The 4 and 1/2," where you could fill in for the missing half.

Transferring from humor to objectivity, we know that the photo really isn't of you, because the depicted image is shown wearing a suit and tie.

And did you notice that the pinhead who created this anti-religion slur is an illiterate nincompoop who does not know the difference between "your" and "you're?" One of your intellectual mentors?

(Yes, I've fed the troll, in the absence of not-feeding support from friends of the animals. I could learn to enjoy this as an occasional afternoon exercise. It's slightly more fun than throwing rubber peanuts to zoo baboons.)

[Blaggard]

Ginkgo,

How big an ass will you kiss if it tells you that you are right?

G

Yours is so far buried up your own you'd have to get your head out of it before someone else could kiss it.

img

Religion it's like what most people feel when they have done too many drugs, but not enough to either pass out or to actually make any sense even when they do pry themselves eventually off the ceiling.

I usually skim past your drivel, but this caught my attention. Thank you for the thoughtful exchange of philosophical ideas and the personal insights.

It's rare to get a definitive self-portrait of an otherwise anonymous blogger, so I appreciate your openness in providing it. No doubt you did so to demonstrate your considerable flexibility, although not in the venue of ideas. Perhaps you also offered it as a show of strength? Not many men are powerful enough to stick their head up their ass without first removing their pants. Ah! I understand! You need to preserve some semblance of anonymity. In respect of your preference, I invite you to keep your visage and mind, whatever, well concealed.

My main curiosity is, how do you extract it? It seems rather firmly inserted, and with your spine stressed at an awkward angle, physiologically speaking, there does not seem to be enough leverage to remove it with muscle power alone. Of greater concern-- since you seem to have had your head up your dorsal orifice for rather a long time, oxygen levels must be depleted. Do you just drink beer and eat a lot of beans and sauerkraut before the exercise and then fart to free your mind, or must you force it back out with the ejection of fecal matter? Whatever, you are clearly passing up an opportunity to get rich by demonstrating your act on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News' "The 4 and 1/2," where you could fill in for the missing half.

Transferring from humor to objectivity, we know that the photo really isn't of you, because the depicted image is shown wearing a suit and tie.

And did you notice that the pinhead who created this anti-religion slur is an illiterate nincompoop who does not know the difference between "your" and "you're?" One of your intellectual mentors?

(Yes, I've fed the troll, in the absence of not-feeding support from friends of the animals. I could learn to enjoy this as an occasional afternoon exercise. It's slightly more fun than throwing rubber peanuts to zoo baboons.)

You're the one spamming and trolling up threads mate, your advertising is against the general theme of forums. If you see me as a troll for attacking your self righteous drivel then so be it. As I say mote from my eye mate.

(Yes, I've fed the troll, in the absence of not-feeding support from friends of the animals. I could learn to enjoy this as an occasional afternoon exercise. It's slightly more fun than throwing rubber peanuts to zoo baboons.)

So you flame me and your the one who is not trolling?

G you're just digging yourself a bigger grave mate by trolling yourself, take that handful of peanuts and chew on that.

And yeah I spelt your wrong, who cares, Grammarian also are we, how droll.

My position is a scientific one and I have attacked you're thought experiments and proven they are complete nonsense, which you took as trolling. If being sincerely sick of hearing mindless drivel passed off as something scientific instead of the half baked philosophy of someone with too much time on their hands and too little science knowledge counts as trolling then so be it, but I think you'll find the fact that I am 100% sincere and I couldn't give a monkies if you are upset, positively delrious with joy and bouncing off the walls or not should tell you something.

Some people just don't like proseltysing and spam, you are abusing this forum, so you can say what you like but I am not the one spamming my book all over every thread and preaching a religion. You don't like people taking you to task on your nonsensical and circular reasoning, a priori assumptions then don't make them in the public domain and certainly don't have the nerve to call people trolls when that's exactly what you are doing yourself, and you know it.

Add hypocrite to the long list of imagined titles that your divine majesty has picked up from his years gliding through the matrix like Keanu Reeves on crack, you most certainly are the one. One what I have no idea, one self righteous self absorbed pseudo prophet with no scientific understanding and a crackpot hypothesis that can never be proven or disproven making it not even wrong. Good luck with that, but can the preaching and self righteous holier than though bilge, you post on a public forum, advertising some bible of yours, you should expect people to say that's not what forums are for, and not get all in a tizzy if people rubbish your inane babble. Play the game G, it's not cricket.

And I don't buy Gee is anyone but yourself either. I mean I could be wrong but he seems a set up a dupe, a patsy.

Thank you for the thoughtful exchange of philosophical ideas and the personal insights.

No thank you for entertaining me with your charlatan shenanigans.

Yes everyone's a moron G we get it, because no one understands your mighty wisdom, stroll on mate, and change the record while you are at it, we've heard that song too many times before.


If you want to debate the consciousness I am all ears if you want to rattle off a priori assumptions followed by a series of non sequiturs and then throw your toys out of your pram when someone honestly tries to point out the flaws in your arguments, I couldn't give a monkeys but don't expect me to eat those peanuts.

Skim away mate, it's not like anyone cares.

[Gee]

Greylorn;

I was very offended by that post by Blaggard, but your humor has repaired my mood. Your post regarding Blaggard's post made me laugh out loud. Thank you.

As you can see, Blaggard has gone back to deciding that you are me, or maybe I am you, who knows? S/he will say almost anything to create an argument and has no desire to discuss the actual topic.

I saw a video in another forum and thought that it would be very appropriate here as it explains the thinking of someone like Blaggard with regard to philosophical arguments.

This is what Monty produced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Hope it gives you a laugh too.

G

[Gee]

This is no doubt the case, but this doesn't exclude science from from also saying the consciousness 'resides' with in the brain. There is no logical necessity that says one must exclude the other.

Science can state whatever they want, but the above is wrong. Consciousness does not reside in the brain, and there is no evidence to support this position. This is a stupid word game. The rational mind (consciousness) emerges in the brain, so science is talking about being aware that we are aware, or conscious of our consciousness. THAT consciousness emerges from the brain.

All life is sentient. All life does not have a brain. Sentience is awareness. Awareness is consciousness. These are simple truths. When we forget these simple truths and start thinking of consciousness as only in our brains/minds, we end up with theories that state that our minds create everything. From solipsism to universal hologram theories, they are all about the human ego.

Eventually someone realizes that our minds come from our brains, and brains developed over a long period of evolution, so our minds were not here to create everything. So what does that leave us with? The Big Mind in the sky -- "God" -- must have done the creating. So the scientific nonsense that consciousness resides exclusively in the brain ends up proving the necessity and existence of "God". Do you really want to go there? This is circular nonsense.

This thread was started to explore the levels and types of consciousness, so that we can avoid the circular nonsense. Consciousness is not pure, it is not simple, it is extremely complex. And I am looking for actual evidence, not interpretations, opinions, or nonsense.

Do you understand the difference between philosophy and science? Or do I have to explain it

I believe I do, but I would be interested in your explanation.

Science and philosophy divided a long time ago, and for good reason. Philosophy still studies the unknown; science deals with the known. When science tries to study the unknown, it has a problem because one can not test an unknown -- so they guess. They call this speculation, but it is just guessing. Science does not seem to know that the rational mind is the greatest liar on the planet, and has not studied Descartes, so it does not know that we need to doubt ourselves. So science has begun to blithely go about the business of proving that their guesses are correct even though they are not. This can be easily demonstrated by comparing the number of advertisements on TV from pharmaceutical companies, who offer us drugs, with the number of advertisements on TV from law offices offering to help us sue pharmaceutical companies. I think it's 2 to 1.

Philosophy is having just as much trouble with studies of the unknown. Philosophy will use observation, experience, and evidence to study the unknown. But some wannabe scientist will pop up and say, "That's not proof". Of course it is not proof, as proof comes after something is known. Or Gingko will state, that it not scientifically acceptable. Of course it is not scientifically acceptable, this is philosophy. So no observations, experience, or evidence will be accepted for study, because they are not already proven? So apparently, one can not study the unknown unless they know what the unknown is and prove it, so proof of the unknown by means of the known is acceptable, but because the unknown is in fact unknown, then no proof is possible. The unknown can not become known.

This is the kind of circular reasoning that has had the brain v "God" wars going for a thousand years, because the brain is known scientifically and "God" is known historically. So consciousness can not be studied -- only argued about. Nonsense, all of it.

Philosophy provides the basic premises and truths to begin a study; science proves that study. So if philosophy forgets sciences "proofs", it makes a fool of itself and produces nonsense. If science forgets philosophy's "truths", it makes a fool of itself and produces nonsense.

The problem is that many philosophical theories are not testable by way of science. For example, there have been many good ethical arguments put forward over the centuries for the existence of God. In exactly the same way there have been equally good numbers of ethical arguments put forward for the non-existence of God. Both types of arguments are equally valid in their reasoning process. However, both cannot be correct. Science has no way of putting any of these arguments to the test.

Ethical arguments are religious arguments and science has no business in them because science is not noted for wisdom and, except for the "soft" science of psychology, does not understand emotion. In fact hard science avoids emotion.

But this does not prevent science from testing for "God". Apparently you did not view Blaggard's video. Of course, I doubt that Blaggard viewed all of it because it starts out attacking religion and ends up stating that religious belief seems necessary, evolved as a survival trait, and believers live longer, healthier, and happier lives. Don't think that Blaggard intended that.

The same problem exists for the philosophy of consciousness. Quite simply, most arguments cannot be tested in any scientific way. This is not to say that a small number don't have the potential for testability. The unity theory and the binding theory of consciousness spring to mind.

Not true.

The problem arises when people will deny evidence because they don't like it, even though they know that the current theories are WRONG, they will not look for further evidence, because they don't want to. Again we have belief doing science and philosophy, which is a tragedy.

True, but not always the case. Some people simply don't like the type of evidence presented.

Don't like the "type of evidence presented"? Are you serious? If we are going to pick and choose our evidence, then we don't need science or philosophy. We can just have religion and faith. This may be the most idiotic thing you have ever stated.

Evidence is evidence, whether it is fact or truth, it can not be ignored because you don't like it. If you stop and think for just one minute, you will realize that throwing out evidence is the same as throwing out truth. An intelligent person does not throw out evidence, we just look at how the evidence was interpreted, and maybe adjust the interpretation.

G

[Blaggard]

Greylorn;

I was very offended by that post by Blaggard, but your humor has repaired my mood. Your post regarding Blaggard's post made me laugh out loud. Thank you.

As you can see, Blaggard has gone back to deciding that you are me, or maybe I am you, who knows? S/he will say almost anything to create an argument and has no desire to discuss the actual topic.

I saw a video in another forum and thought that it would be very appropriate here as it explains the thinking of someone like Blaggard with regard to philosophical arguments.

This is what Monty produced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Hope it gives you a laugh too.

G

Yeah you do nothing but flame and troll and mince around like I am the troll and you guys are not.

You were offended how do you think I feel, I am not allowed to poo poo your hopeless drivel because I am not part of the inner circle, offensive, you don't know what that word means.

I'm here to take part in a sincere way and voice my opinions, this childish you're a troll because you contend with me, trolling is not what I am here for, if you think I am trolling fine, but you are just indulging in a completely biased view and you wont let anyone in who is not of your sort. This is not an argument, this is not even a discussion this as I said before is 69.

Science can state whatever they want, but the above is wrong. Consciousness does not reside in the brain, and there is no evidence to support this position. This is a stupid word game. The rational mind (consciousness) emerges in the brain, so science is talking about being aware that we are aware, or conscious of our consciousness. THAT consciousness emerges from the brain.

All life is sentient. All life does not have a brain. Sentience is awareness. Awareness is consciousness. These are simple truths. When we forget these simple truths and start thinking of consciousness as only in our brains/minds, we end up with theories that state that our minds create everything. From solipsism to universal hologram theories, they are all about the human ego.

Eventually someone realizes that our minds come from our brains, and brains developed over a long period of evolution, so our minds were not here to create everything. So what does that leave us with? The Big Mind in the sky -- "God" -- must have done the creating. So the scientific nonsense that consciousness resides exclusively in the brain ends up proving the necessity and existence of "God". Do you really want to go there? This is circular nonsense.

This thread was started to explore the levels and types of consciousness, so that we can avoid the circular nonsense. Consciousness is not pure, it is not simple, it is extremely complex. And I am looking for actual evidence, not interpretations, opinions, or nonsense.

Not a single scientist on this Earth believes that conciousness resides only in the brain, not even remotely and never has not even when there were philosophers and or people who were not of the religious persuasion, they know now anyway more to the point it is a two way process between the CNS, ANS and perception, that doesn't make it a dualist position but it does make it not solely brain derived. Why you keep trotting out these straw men is beyond me, no one believes in a brain only consciousness, no one at all, not even the most ardent materialist and they have not since it became clear the whole body is an interactive source of input.

I've provided links that show it is not brain based, I have linked documentaries but still you trot out pointless contentions and straw men, because let's face it reading and understanding is hard, and just talking shit is easy. Good luck with that.

Circular it is because once you find someone who does not agree with you you ban them from consideration, and no matter how apposite their points you just ignore them. If you genuinely wanted to discuss anything at all other than your dualist bent, you are sincerely doing nothing at all but discussing it. Which is fine, but why not post in the OP: only dualists may post because I just want to reinforce my own biases and don't really want to have to take the trouble to delve into things or arguments that don't support my view. That's fine but when people provide links and evidence against your own views don't then throw a massive wobbly about how you religionists are oppressed and the soul is real. I am super serial!

You're just self reinforcing your views by confirmation bias, if you had an ounce of philosophy in you, you would see that. I can look at cognitive dissonance for only so long before it becomes a stupid waste of time.

Don't like the "type of evidence presented"? Are you serious? If we are going to pick and choose our evidence, then we don't need science or philosophy. We can just have religion and faith. This may be the most idiotic thing you have ever stated.

Evidence is evidence, whether it is fact or truth, it can not be ignored because you don't like it. If you stop and think for just one minute, you will realize that throwing out evidence is the same as throwing out truth. An intelligent person does not throw out evidence, we just look at how the evidence was interpreted, and maybe adjust the interpretation.

He's spot on there if you don't like scientific evidence you just ignore it, it's a facile game played by apologists and has been since the first day Jesus said there will come many false prophets amongst you. You cherry pick what you want, and you ignore the rest. And when people point that out the toys are thrown so vociferously out of your respective prams that you would think people had claimed God does not exist and you're all just delusional fools indulging in a group think fantasy, when all in fact they are saying is: the evidence says this it does not say this. No one is claiming God does not exist, nor is anyone attacking your faith; you are doing a far better job of attacking your faith by this insistence on being unable to be wrong ever than any scientist or philosopher could ever do, trust me, people like Dawkins and Dennett are not even necessary you are just killing yourselves by circular apologetics. We might as well stand back and watch you tear yourselves a part, it is certain science needs no input and philosophers certainly are basically just looking at your logic and or reason and laughing at it. You are killing yourselves for want of reason, and it's sad to see, I genuinely without a doubt think religion has a purpose in this world, and I see the good works and moral philosophy some of the better churches do as a good thing. But this contention with science and fact is but another fall of man. And it seems pointless...

Now nothing I have said, let me make this clear, means God does not exist, what it means is that the evidence is key. If you want to play with the big boys you have to look at all the evidence not just accuse people of being trolls who point out most eruditely where your arguments are wrong. If you want a discussion let people present counter views, if you want a simple I am right and you are wrong faith based nonsense then carry on accusing everyone who is not you as being trolls, and just ignoring all the other arguments out there. It's not my funeral.

Does that make sense?

[Greylorn Ell]

Question for non-participants:

This thread has a surprisingly high 50-to-1 hit vs. reply ratio, which seems excessive for a somewhat arcane subject. I'm curious about what it is that those 49 readers who observe but do not participate find interesting?

Do you read from curiosity about the subject? If so, whose posts engage your mind?

Do you read for the soap-opera drama? If so, who do you hate, who do you like, and whose posts do you skip?

Any other comments, negative or positive. I promise not to reply, either way. My curiosity is directed toward how to make threads interesting, in general. I will value your feedback, friendly or otherwise. Thanks!

Greylorn

[Arising_uk]

...
And yeah I spelt your wrong, who cares, Grammarian also are we, how droll.
...

He wasn't talking about you but the pinhead who made the image.

[Greylorn Ell]

...
And yeah I spelt your wrong, who cares, Grammarian also are we, how droll.
...

He wasn't talking about you but the pinhead who made the image.

Was I now?

What might anyone say about the grammatical skills of the person who posted "spelt your wrong?" There is probably a study or two relating linguistic skills to intelligence, but who reads that crap? From personal experience I'd guess that the person who posted that grammatically incompetent sentence is either far below average in intelligence, or is just plain sloppy. Whatever, I would not trust him to screw a nut on a bolt.

He's what he is, but you? Why would someone with an apparent 3-digit IQ want to engage a nitwit in formal conversation? Are you seeking friends in low places? Do you imagine that you are on this planet, granted life and consciousness, to reduce your intelligence?

[Arising_uk]

Many have had dyslexia which Blaggard admits too. I guess thats why he likes physics as it uses maths.

He can bang on and does get the wrong-end of the stick at times bit upon the whole I doubt he's a nitwit. I don't find talking to anyone reduces ones intelligence as one should be able to explain ones thoughts with anyone. That you can't doesn't bode well for your intelligence despite your IQ.

No one granted me anything.

[Gee]

Arising_uk;

Is there some reason why you have not responded to my last post to you? Did you miss it?

G

[Blaggard]

...
And yeah I spelt your wrong, who cares, Grammarian also are we, how droll.
...

He wasn't talking about you but the pinhead who made the image.

I know. And his trolling whilst insulting is hardly elegant let alone even offensive tbh. It's like being talked down to by an infant.

[Blaggard]

...
And yeah I spelt your wrong, who cares, Grammarian also are we, how droll.
...

He wasn't talking about you but the pinhead who made the image.

Was I now?

You were trolling so you basically called me an idiot in a circumspect manner that was implicit and obvious. Since everyone is an idiot on Earth except you though, apparently, I didn't take it seriously your divinity is without doubt so you must be omniscient and omnipresent, who am I to judge a prophet of God or wot not himself? Or I hasten to add our Beon overlords aka Reptillian masters.

What might anyone say about the grammatical skills of the person who posted "spelt your wrong?" There is probably a study or two relating linguistic skills to intelligence, but who reads that crap? From personal experience I'd guess that the person who posted that grammatically incompetent sentence is either far below average in intelligence, or is just plain sloppy. Whatever, I would not trust him to screw a nut on a bolt.

He's what he is, but you? Why would someone with an apparent 3-digit IQ want to engage a nitwit in formal conversation? Are you seeking friends in low places? Do you imagine that you are on this planet, granted life and consciousness, to reduce your intelligence?

You think just because you made up some vacuous fantasy bs that no one can remotely follow and that by its nature can never be refuted, you are somehow special. The only difference between you and a novelist is they have the decency to admit theirs is fantasy but you try to defraud people into buying nonsensical non scientific horse shit as if it's some noble endeavour, proselytising nonsense on the net and flagrantly advertising your pseudo psychological book on magic, as if you are bringing light into peoples lives, when all you are really doing is deluding yourself and anyone else who you meet with your pathological need to believe your own delusions. Strikes me as rather the etiology of a schizophrenic or maybe as in the documentary I linked you suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy which makes you prone to see religious visions. I have no idea but it does strike me that you might not be all together sane.

My IQ is 160 despite having dyslexia or it would probably be higher, which probably means I am quite intelligent and can hence string a sentence together that is somewhat erudite, although not always spelt 100% correctly: suffice to say: why I have discourse with psychotic loonies of the kind that used to stand on street corners with John 3:3 on a bit of cardboard and bellow about the end being nigh at passers by, and self professed supra geniuses on the internet is a source of much concern, nevertheless it intrigues me to watch people who probably spend most of their time as a voluntary patient on a psyche ward, who no doubt is on several anti psychotics which prevent him bouncing off the walls, gesticulate wildly all hot air and noise sounding brass. I am willing to put up with the odd charlatan because hell it probably beats TV at this time of day and ex mental patient or not you are quite funny although in a schardenfreuder sort of way. Suffice to say if you've even close to a genius level IQ or are as half as intelligent as you claim to be I will eat my hat, trousers and socks too with a cherry on top. Because they way you present your arguments is so unconvincing you either have to be typing this in a padded cell or on a prison computer, if the latter presumably working off a sentence for fraud.

[Blaggard]

Many have had dyslexia which Blaggard admits too. I guess thats why he likes physics as it uses maths.

Dyslexics tend to be pretty awful at maths too, it's called discalcula and most dyslexics perform poorly at maths.

He can bang on and does get the wrong-end of the stick at times bit upon the whole I doubt he's a nitwit.

I bang on because it's a good way of reinforcing my own understanding, as for getting the wrong end of the stick, well I am dyslexic, it's a good day if I can find the stick let alone pick it up by the right end.

I don't find talking to anyone reduces ones intelligence as one should be able to explain ones thoughts with anyone.

I tend to agree although I do feel my intelligence leaking out of my ears any time El posts some nonsense biology backed up with shamefully specious maths or whatever fantasy word salad it is he is wanging on about.

As someone who has studied biology to a level where I feel I can discourse fluently about evolution and DNA and so on, I find it mildly insulting that someone who has never studied it, and clearly doesn't remotely understand either speciation or the models, and presumably didn't and hasn't bothered to look at any of the links I gave on actual speciation models, rather an insulting character. IF you don't understand evolution or DNA or how it works, it's a good idea not to reinvent the wheel and put the horse before the cart.

That you can't doesn't bode well for your intelligence despite your IQ.

If his IQ is half as smart as his shoe size I would be amazed. But then you can't judge a persons intelligence by his prose. So who knows maybe he is a supra genius whose mighty intellect transcends all of science and all Scientists in the proffession, but to be brutally honest, I sincerely doubt it.

No one granted me anything.

Me neither.

He's what he is, but you? Why would someone with an apparent 3-digit IQ want to engage a nitwit in formal conversation?

I have found myself asking the same question every time you post, and I am forced to correct your insipid scrabble and word salad.

Are you seeking friends in low places? Do you imagine that you are on this planet, granted life and consciousness, to reduce your intelligence?

Delusions of grandeur, I take it you have never been diagnosed as psychopathic or NPD? Because there seem to be a lot of people on this site, who think they are the messiah? Bob springs to mind, you two should get together and have a proselytising competition, see who can silence whom with magical thinking.

[Blaggard]

Question for non-participants:

This thread has a surprisingly high 50-to-1 hit vs. reply ratio, which seems excessive for a somewhat arcane subject. I'm curious about what it is that those 49 readers who observe but do not participate find interesting?

Do you read from curiosity about the subject? If so, whose posts engage your mind?

Do you read for the soap-opera drama? If so, who do you hate, who do you like, and whose posts do you skip?

Any other comments, negative or positive. I promise not to reply, either way. My curiosity is directed toward how to make threads interesting, in general. I will value your feedback, friendly or otherwise. Thanks!

Greylorn

It beats tossing yourself off to Trishia probably.

Other than that I'd put your mindless babble on my to watch list, if for nothing else to give me something humorous and fantastical to pass the time. Day time TV is pretty dull and there's probably only so much chavs you can watch who done it with Tracy's sister and wont admit it, munching dorritoes. And staring blankly at Jeremy Kyle as he self righteously talks some cobblers at the unwashed masses that builds to a crescendo just before some hairless numb nut storms off the stage and his so called girl friend with her 9 kids and chronic work shyness nods smugly- can get old fast...

But on a more serious note it's because you and your protégé Gee wont actually discuss anything with anyone else because they are not buying the dualist clap trap, so you have labelled everyone as trolls except your vanishingly small cadre of cronies. If I had to guess...

Do you read for the soap-opera drama? If so, who do you hate, who do you like, and whose posts do you skip?

Any other comments, negative or positive. I promise not to reply, either way. My curiosity is directed toward how to make threads interesting, in general.

Now that we can be sure of because anyone who disagrees with your soap box proselytising is as likely to see Jesus riding a unicycle and juggling Buddah's head as they are to get a response from you. Unless its to troll and flame anyone who isn't buying your magic thinking or your book or the insipid way with which you abuse science like its your bitch.

I will value your feedback, friendly or otherwise. Thanks!

No you will not, and mores the pity it strikes anyone who reads the long monologue you are having with yourself presumably or one of your monkey disciples or whatever.