Scientists declare consciousness not exclusive to humans

[Stosh]

The negativity is your good intent turned back upon itself

You would defend the tadpoles by attacking or depriving the heron.

As it relates to people , it is the choosing of sides, with the inherent hostility it carries.

To understand that ones own perspective is JUST their own illusion and the perspectives of

Everyone else as well, one need not be compelled to hostility to any party nor deny themselves

The perspective they harbor.

Once a person thinks they have some moral superiority the feel their hostility is

justified beyond that. Theism does that, it says that one is doing the bidding

Of some righteous power who's rectitude is beyond reproach.

The crusades and inquisitions were justified by saying god sanctioned it,

a man's heart can be assuaged his concerns addressed a gentle way found ,

More often if he doesn't think he has moral superiority, a justification for his violence.

As for the other questions reread the conversation the data is there already.

 

[narveen]

The negativity is your good intent turned back upon itself You would defend the tadpoles by attacking or depriving the heron.

 

yes, i would defend the tadpoles to give them a fighting chance against the heron.

 

it’s not a zero sum game. but we are not talking about tadpoles. we are talking about people mindlessly bringing kids into a dangerous world.

 

As it relates to people , it is the choosing of sides, with the inherent hostility it carries.

 

does it have to be choosing one side against the other? you need to learn the win-win approach to conflict resolution.

 

To understand that ones own perspective is JUST their own illusion and the perspectives of Everyone else as well, one need not be compelled to hostility to any party nor deny themselves The perspective they harbor.

 

don’t you think it is better to never get into a conflict situation?

hostility is always present when there is a difference in perspective between two people and there is only one parachute.

you either explode and deprive the other guy

or implode and see him leap to safety at your expense.

 

Once a person thinks they have some moral superiority the feel their hostility is justified beyond that.

 

doesn’t have to be that way. hostility can never arise if know how to avoid conflict.

 

Theism does that, it says that one is doing the bidding Of some righteous power who's rectitude is beyond reproach. The crusades and inquisitions were justified by saying god sanctioned it,

 

then you had better chuck your belief in things beyond your senses.

i don’t share your belief that this reality is extrapolated from a true reality.

you are the theist, not me.

 

a man's heart can be assuaged his concerns addressed a gentle way found , More often if he doesn't think he has moral superiority, a justification for his violence.

 

knowing right from wrong is not moral superiority but an imperative of those with a sense of responsibility.

how do you teach your kid?

let him figure out for himself?

tell him not to feel so damn superior when he comes home to say he stopped his friend from breaking his pet bird’s legs?

 

As for the other questions reread the conversation the data is there already.

 

i have done that and am getting to know you better each day.

[Stosh]

yes, i would defend the tadpoles to give them a fighting chance against the heron.
Why a fighting chance? are you going to be fair or are you going to rescue the frogs.
it’s not a zero sum game. but we are not talking about tadpoles. we are talking about people mindlessly bringing kids into a dangerous world.
Yes it is , we all die

does it have to be choosing one side against the other?

Thats my point , youre getting confused.

you need to learn the win-win approach to conflict resolution.
I already know the win win scenario ,it doesnt starve herons to death.
don’t you think it is better to never get into a conflict situation?
It doesnt happen , and even if you thought it did, it still doesnt.
hostility is always present when there is a difference in perspective between two people and there is only one parachute.
you either explode and deprive the other guy or implode and see him leap to safety at your expense.
My point exactly. (or you can both die overweighting the chute)

doesn’t have to be that way. hostility can never arise if know how to avoid conflict.

BS!

then you had better chuck your belief in things beyond your senses.

i don’t share your belief that this reality is extrapolated from a true reality.

you are the theist, not me.

Its called inference

knowing right from wrong is not moral superiority but an imperative of those with a sense of responsibility.

Your imperative which drives you into conflict. Thats irresponsible.

how do you teach your kid?

Kids arent developed enough conceptually or emotionally enough to equate to adults

let him figure out for himself?

Yes some things, and with boundaries.

Tell him not to feel so damn superior when he comes home to say he stopped his friend from breaking his pet bird’s legs?

Yes.

i have done that and am getting to know you better each day.

Youre hardened against what Im saying , knowing me isnt going to change it, but it passes time.

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2013 by Stosh

[steve]

..nonshared experience is the proof of nonshared existance.

You havent overcome this point I made , and so the work is yours to still do,

not mine.

Sorry - I just saw this.

What is there to overcome?

Are you saying that anything and anyone that does not share your specific experience does not exist?

[steve]

 

 

 

narveen; individual; human being; a member of the ape specie; inhabitant of planet earth; creation of almighty god.

 

let's see if you can cut through all that.

I have some more time this morning and thought it would be fun to reply to this.

 

Absolutely trivial...

- narveen: a name, if you changed your name, would you change the one that sees through your eyes?

- individual: adjective, describes your bag of skin and sensory apparatus; verbal convention that reinforces the illusion. Does this word really define who it is that types on your keyboard?

- human being: scientific classification that further describes your biology; are you identical to every other human being? If not, who are you?

- member of the ape species: see above

- inhabitant of planet earth: if you relocated to the moon, would you be someone else? Is every inhabitant of the planet earth identical to you?

- creation of almighty god: verbal convention defining your belief system; if you changed your belief system, the one who believes would still be there. The sad irony is that this verbal convention prevents you from getting closer to the god you imagine...

 

it doesn't matter whether or not I can cut through all of that.

And frankly, the toughest for me so far was 'the brain'...

What matters is whether you are compelled to try for yourself.

 

If not... what does it matter? That's fine too.

[Stosh]

Sorry - I just saw this.What is there to overcome?Are you saying that anything and anyone that does not share your specific experience does not exist?

Not a:)t at all! I'm saying that we think ourselves individuals because we don't have a hive mind. The old logical standby is "I think therefore I exist." Yes there's variations on that, but its a starting point for western philosopy, (indeed it is also consistent with the personal experience philosophy of Gatito) anyhow the next line could be-"but I am not sure about you" because that would require an indirect means of proving it( because I don't have direct means) so that means you are not me. Now we have gotten to , " there is me, and there is NOTme, which includes you.

If you zip along through all that it is easier to digest.

[Songtsan]

I love you guys! Your'e both so cool. I think you are nearly unified. Here's another true story: I met my real father once when I was 18, for about an hour… Then, I went and had dinner with him and his new wife and met my half-brother at that time. I kept in contact with my father over the years by phone, but generally the conversations were very boring. I could tell he was depressed. His voice sounded like the voice of the dead; his inflections and tones suggested to me that he had very low dopamine levels, just like me! Unfortunately, he didn't know how to deal with it. He is a shell of a man. I hope he never reads this, but at the same time I hope he does. I would like to care for him, but I really don't know him at all. I have probably spent about, maybe 10 hours of my life interacting with my biological father. I know that he is extremely intelligent. I also know he that is emotional wreck, and that he doesn't feel much emotion at all. I know that it is like this, because I have his genetics (~50%). I feel his pain, and in a way I am his pain. I am the result of his pain. I am the karma he created in this lifetime. I exist because he existed. Basically we all exist because everyone else existed. We are all interminably intertwined. Please know this. I tried to contact my half-brother maybe two weeks ago. I haven't heard from him yet.it's possible that he didn't receive my Facebook request… I don't know… I have a sneaking suspicion that he is not interested in talking with me. Maybe he thinks I'm some kind of foreigner, trying to influence him? I have no idea. I just wanted to see what's up, maybe see what the rest of my family is like out of pure curiosity… Anyways, I think you guys are really on the level, you are very supportive of me, and you see straight through to the truth. I like you both, and I think that the herons should eat the frogs, but the frogs should start getting loco on them der herons! There is no winner when there is a battle, there are only souls that eat, and the soul that gets eaten. The soul that eats a soul, eats the same soul as itself. Snake eating its own tail. It always ends in this. Nothing matters overmuch. Until the snake head comes around and you get eaten AGAIN.

Personally, I like being the snake, and I even like being eaten in some kind of a way. It's not about time, as time is infinite and there is no end, it's more about pain! We all avoid pain. Every day, in every way, we are all eating ourselves. Our pain is ourselves. Many others are afraid to eat themselves, because we think that this pain is someone else's self attacking us, when in actuality, it is ourselves attacking ourselves in our mind. This is how the wheel works. We fight ourselves all day long.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Songtsan

[steve]

Not a:)t at all! I'm saying that we think ourselves individuals because we don't have a hive mind. The old logical standby is "I think therefore I exist." Yes there's variations on that, but its a starting point for western philosopy, (indeed it is also consistent with the personal experience philosophy of Gatito) anyhow the next line could be-"but I am not sure about you" because that would require an indirect means of proving it( because I don't have direct means) so that means you are not me. Now we have gotten to , " there is me, and there is NOTme, which includes you.

If you zip along through all that it is easier to digest.

 

And that perspective exists in every living thing.

There is no one who is not 'me'...

And yet, show me your 'me' - have you found it yet?

[narveen]

yes, i would defend the tadpoles to give them a fighting chance against the heron.

Why a fighting chance? are you going to be fair or are you going to rescue the frogs.

 

no i won’t rescue the frogs.

if every tadpole born is given the best chance to live a great life,

they will grow into good frogs

the heron won’t have a chance.

it will have to eat other things like insects, lizards and bad frogs.

 

it’s not a zero sum game. but we are not talking about tadpoles. we are talking about people mindlessly bringing kids into a dangerous world.

Yes it is , we all die

 

it doesn’t have to be that way.

the world we live in doesn’t have to be made dangerous by people

dying doesn’t have to be unpleasant and untimely

 

does it have to be choosing one side against the other?

Thats my point , youre getting confused.

 

what point is that?

i am not theorizing.

i actually am living a life that does not present me untenable situations

i never had to choose sides in a conflict.

i have always been able to side-step conflicts which are dead ends.

 

you need to learn the win-win approach to conflict resolution.

I already know the win win scenario ,it doesnt starve herons to death.

 

herons can eat other things.

herons are not like people who insist on getting their own way regardless.

take the palestinian/israeli situation

neither would just get out of there and live elsewhere

 

don’t you think it is better to never get into a conflict situation?

It doesnt happen , and even if you thought it did, it still doesnt.

 

of course it happens, if you are intelligent.

not getting into a conflict is the smart thing to do.

for instance, your wife (let’s suppose she ain’t a good mom) decides to leave you

it’s not your fault.

she’s adamant on leaving and taking the kid whom you will never see again.

not getting into the conflict is to let her have her way

even if the kid doesn’t want to leave and will have to grow himself up the way songtsan did.

 

hostility is always present when there is a difference in perspective between two people and there is only one parachute.

you either explode and deprive the other guy or implode and see him leap to safety at your expense.

My point exactly. (or you can both die overweighting the chute)

 

well, like i said, only a fool will get stuck in a conflict situation.

surely you know the tao te ching.

a sage never gets between a rock and a hard place.

a sage would have seen it coming and avoid taking the flight

 

doesn’t have to be that way. hostility can never arise if know how to avoid conflict.

BS!

 

the tao te ching is BS then?

read chapter 50, it’s all there.

the hostile situation that is the lot of the fool

never entraps the sage.

[narveen]

then you had better chuck your belief in things beyond your senses.

i don’t share your belief that this reality is extrapolated from a true reality.

you are the theist, not me.

Its called inference

 

inference?

that's a nice word for divine revelation or encounter of a third kind?

the mind is devious.

knowing right from wrong is not moral superiority but an imperative of those with a sense of responsibility.

Your imperative which drives you into conflict. Thats irresponsible.

 

what conflict?

even our debate is not a conflict.

there are no conflicts festering in my life.

nor am i in conflict with this mess of a world i live in

a world i will surely sort out

if given the mandate of heaven

 

how do you teach your kid?

Kids arent developed enough conceptually or emotionally enough to equate to adults

 

i don’t mean conventional parenting where kids are taught

i meant natural parenting where the way of living is the teaching

the way baby animals take after their parents

teaching without talking (tao te ching)

the way a kid becomes an american, a swede or japanese

 

let him figure out for himself?

Yes some things, and with boundaries.

 

do what i say but not what i do?

 

Tell him not to feel so damn superior when he comes home to say he stopped his friend from breaking his pet bird’s legs?

Yes.

 

what if it wasn’t a feeling of moral superiority that prompted your kid to act?

what if it was empathy with his friend’s bird getting its legs broken?

 

i have done that and am getting to know you better each day.

Youre hardened against what Im saying , knowing me isnt going to change it, but it passes time.

 

i am not hardened against you.

knowing you enables me to see why you are saying strange stuff

Edited July 11, 2013 by narveen

[Marblehead]

And yet, show me your 'me' - have you found it yet?

Hehehe. Been there, done that.

[Stosh]

inference?

that's a nice word for divine revelation or encounter of a third kind?

the mind is devious.

 

It can be.

 

what conflict?

even our debate is not a conflict.

there are no conflicts festering in my life.

nor am i in conflict with this mess of a world i live in

a world i will surely sort out

if given the mandate of heaven

 

 

 

how do you teach your kid?

i don’t mean conventional parenting where kids are taught

i meant natural parenting where the way of living is the teaching

the way baby animals take after their parents

teaching without talking (tao te ching)

the way a kid becomes an american, a swede or japanese

 

do what i say but not what i do?

let him figure out for himself?

Yes some things, and with boundaries.

 

what if it was empathy with his friend’s bird getting its legs broken?

Then Id warn him about the consequences of interfering which would go in one ear and out the other

because he did it out of empathy.

Because Kids arent developed enough conceptually or emotionally enough to equate to adults

 

 

i am not hardened against you.

knowing you enables me to see why you are saying strange stuff

 

If you arent hardened against it then youd have to explain why it is you keep asking questions that

were just answered and contradicting yourself, "knowing" me is the last thing thats happening here.