The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31609
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Gord » Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:11 am

AmeliaMichelle wrote:
Gord wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:
Gord wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:irideocorneal angular space in the optic chasm to project particle to firmament in radiative aliasing bias based on autonomous space and its potential absorption and digestion of projected pathways.

The spaces of iridocorneal angle are irregularly shaped endothelium-lined spaces within the trabecular tissue, through which the aqueous filters drain into the sinus venosus sclerae.

irideocorneal angular space isn't 'in' the optic chasm. sorry. if I understand, it's like the part of the space occupied by occipital nerves that cross over one another before connecting to the occipital lobe in the back of the head.

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the IMAIOS website to which I linked. It claims it is "[m]edical and e-learning websites for healthcare professionals."

It also doesn't say the spaces of iridocorneal angle are in the optic chasm -- it says they're within the trabecular tissue. But to be fair, I don't even know what the "optic chasm" is unless it's the optic chiasma, the spot in the head where the optic nerves cross over. But there's a huge difference between a chasm and a chiasm; "chiasm" is from "chi", meaning "cross", and "chasm" is from "khasma", meaning "gaping hollow".

If you'd prefer, here's something from an online dictionary: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/trabecular-reticulum

trabecular reticulum

n.

1. A network of fibers involved in the drainage of the aqueous humor of the eye and located at the iridocorneal angle between the anterior chamber of the eye and the venous sinus of the sclera.

I wasn't arguing. that's very interesting to me. sorry i misspelled that, and I didn't understand those root words before, neat. do you think that's where sight actually exists?

"Sight" is a complicated subject. I mean, can it be said to only occur when you're conscious, or can an unconscious person "see" something?

If so, then all vision can be said to occur in the brain, although the brain requires input from the optic nerves, which requires a whole wackload of other things to happen, including having light reflect off of an object, pass through the iris, and hit the retina.

I don't think "sight" happens in the optic chiasma, although it's involved in the whole process.

Like this kind of thing, but more complicated: http://discoveryeye.org/the-brain-and-the-eye/
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:38 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:....do you think that's where sight actually exists?

When you say "sight", do you mean the gathering of environmental electromagnetic frequencies between 390 to 700 nanometers, by the eyes or the evolved human brain's evolved representation of those frequencies as different colours in the visual cortex? Visual-Cortex0.jpg


could be accumulative and projecting upon structures like the thymus at the same time the occipital lobe is being activated? Maybe the amygdala and occipital cortex are places to look specifically for mental imagery, but I've also heard these energetics are seen in hugely varying tissues, even as far as the part the pineal and astrocytes/pinealocytes play from spinal chord influence in the presence or sense of space, which could have a tremendous amount to do with our ability to actually see and digest image as part of perspective as well.
"the evolved representation of those frequencies and colors in the visual cortex", is the visual cortex a sublimation in the process of sight? the thymus and hippocampal looping medium are also thought to play huge parts, as well as so many other major and minor components. (I'm not going to quote at you from a physiology website, I find this interesting.)

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:49 pm

Gord wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:
Gord wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:
Gord wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:irideocorneal angular space in the optic chasm to project particle to firmament in radiative aliasing bias based on autonomous space and its potential absorption and digestion of projected pathways.

The spaces of iridocorneal angle are irregularly shaped endothelium-lined spaces within the trabecular tissue, through which the aqueous filters drain into the sinus venosus sclerae.

irideocorneal angular space isn't 'in' the optic chasm. sorry. if I understand, it's like the part of the space occupied by occipital nerves that cross over one another before connecting to the occipital lobe in the back of the head.

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the IMAIOS website to which I linked. It claims it is "[m]edical and e-learning websites for healthcare professionals."

It also doesn't say the spaces of iridocorneal angle are in the optic chasm -- it says they're within the trabecular tissue. But to be fair, I don't even know what the "optic chasm" is unless it's the optic chiasma, the spot in the head where the optic nerves cross over. But there's a huge difference between a chasm and a chiasm; "chiasm" is from "chi", meaning "cross", and "chasm" is from "khasma", meaning "gaping hollow".

If you'd prefer, here's something from an online dictionary: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/trabecular-reticulum

trabecular reticulum

n.

1. A network of fibers involved in the drainage of the aqueous humor of the eye and located at the iridocorneal angle between the anterior chamber of the eye and the venous sinus of the sclera.

I wasn't arguing. that's very interesting to me. sorry i misspelled that, and I didn't understand those root words before, neat. do you think that's where sight actually exists?

"Sight" is a complicated subject. I mean, can it be said to only occur when you're conscious, or can an unconscious person "see" something?

If so, then all vision can be said to occur in the brain, although the brain requires input from the optic nerves, which requires a whole wackload of other things to happen, including having light reflect off of an object, pass through the iris, and hit the retina.

I don't think "sight" happens in the optic chiasma, although it's involved in the whole process.

Like this kind of thing, but more complicated: http://discoveryeye.org/the-brain-and-the-eye/



that's interesting, I've wondered if there's actually a sublimation at all, like if there's ever actually a point at which we'll be able to say oh, there's that structure and there's why we see. there was an experiment in a journal by Oxford that actually found image like netting in monkey brains, that seemed like an image had been imprinted on some part of tissue, and that could be measured, that was Kosslyn, Thomson and Ganis in a book called The Case For Mental Imagery. unconscious imagery is especially interesting in a lot of ways, when there is no chance of a permanent external physical apex to affix an idea of realistic logic to, and the sight itself doesn't have actual representation, how do we record or recognize it? Imagination and imaginary sight is especially interesting.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28525
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:57 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:When you say "sight", do you mean the gathering of environmental electromagnetic frequencies between 390 to 700 nanometers, by the eyes, or the evolved human brain's evolved representation of those frequencies as different colours in the visual cortex?
Visual-Cortex0.jpg


AmeliaMichelle wrote: could be accumulative and projecting upon structures like the thymus at the same time the occipital lobe is being activated?
"What" can be "projected"? You are not making any sense. Brains don't have little movie projectors in their head. We have synapses, nerve cells and so on.

AmeliaMichelle wrote:I'm not going to quote at you from a physiology website,
Please start quoting and adding citations from any physiology paper, website or textbook. That way you will learn the proper words and stop using words like "digest" for synapse exchanges and other brain functions.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28525
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:04 am

AmeliaMichelle wrote: ..... like if there's ever actually a point at which we'll be able to say oh, there's that structure and there's why we see.
You do this at university by studying the light receptors and processing in the nerve system of the most simple animals.

Steve Klinko refuses to acknowledge other animals and their sight, as only a handful have the cones in their eyes and evolved brain functions to receive 400–484 THz electromagnetic waves and visualise those wave frequencies as red. That destroys his whole religious claim.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:48 am

The Lying and other Insanity that I see here is obviously due to the frustration of Physicalists who believe that there is no Hard Problem of Consciousness because Science has already solved the Hard Problem. They say that the experience of Red is just an Illusion and that it does not really exist. They don't even understand what they mean when they say Consciousness is just an Illusion. The basic question remains ... What is Red? Think about the Redness of the Red. What is that? You cannot explain what Redness is. It is purely a Conscious Phenomenon. But the Physicalists show that they cannot think more Deeply about this question because they are still stuck talking about wavelengths of Physical Light. Physical Red Light is a Physical Phenomenon. The question is about the Conscious Experience. To suggest that Conscious Experience is something different than anything Science understands is not being Religious but rather it is recognizing a fact of the state of our understanding of Consciousness at this point in time.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby mirror93 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:43 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:The Lying and other Insanity that I see here is obviously due to the frustration of Physicalists who believe that there is no Hard Problem of consciousness because science has already solved the Hard Problem. They say that the experience of red is just an Illusion and that it does not really exist.

Red is not an illusion, and it's NOT an experience. red is a color that you see with your eyes, if you do have the cones to perceive it, period.

SteveKlinko wrote:They don't even understand what they mean when they say consciousness is just an Illusion.

Who's saying that?

SteveKlinko wrote:The basic question remains ... What is Red? ̷T̷h̷i̷n̷k̷ ̷a̷b̷o̷u̷t̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷r̷e̷d̷n̷e̷s̷s̷ ̷o̷f̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷r̷e̷d̷.̷ ̷W̷h̷a̷t̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷t̷h̷a̷t̷?̷ ̷Y̷o̷u̷ ̷c̷a̷n̷n̷o̷t̷ ̷e̷x̷p̷l̷a̷i̷n̷ ̷w̷h̷a̷t̷ ̷r̷e̷d̷n̷e̷s̷s̷ ̷i̷s̷.̷ ̷I̷t̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷p̷u̷r̷e̷l̷y̷ ̷a̷ ̷c̷o̷n̷s̷c̷i̷o̷u̷s̷ ̷p̷h̷e̷n̷o̷m̷e̷n̷o̷n̷.̷

red
red/Submit
adjective
1.
of a color at the end of the spectrum next to orange and opposite violet, as of blood, fire, or rubies.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/red

red has nothing to do with consciousness, it has nothing to do with "experience".

main-qimg-be1bb03cd88e9be304c27f9ab6f00846.png


I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?


SteveKlinko wrote:But the physicalists show that they cannot think more deeply about this question because they are still stuck talking about wavelengths of ̷p̷h̷y̷s̷i̷c̷a̷l̷ ̷l̷i̷g̷h̷t̷.̷ ̷p̷h̷y̷s̷i̷c̷a̷l̷ ̷r̷e̷d̷ ̷l̷i̷g̷h̷t̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷a̷ ̷p̷h̷y̷s̷i̷c̷a̷l̷ ̷p̷h̷e̷n̷o̷m̷e̷n̷o̷n̷.̷

why do you need to add the word "physical"? light is not "physical" the way you imagine "physical". You use these jargons only to keep BS your gibberish premise of "we are physicalists" and you are the "spiritual wooist advaita guru who is trying to enlighten us of your garbage. Go away mate. , You don't even know what the heck you're talking about, do you?

SteveKlinko wrote: ̷T̷h̷e̷ ̷q̷u̷e̷s̷t̷i̷o̷n̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷a̷b̷o̷u̷t̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷c̷o̷n̷s̷c̷i̷o̷u̷s̷;̷ ̷e̷x̷p̷e̷r̷i̷e̷n̷c̷e̷.̷ ̷T̷o̷ ̷s̷u̷g̷g̷e̷s̷t̷ ̷t̷h̷a̷t̷ ̷c̷o̷n̷s̷c̷i̷o̷u̷s̷ ̷e̷x̷p̷e̷r̷i̷e̷n̷c̷e̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷s̷o̷m̷e̷t̷h̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷d̷i̷f̷f̷e̷r̷e̷n̷t̷ ̷t̷h̷a̷n̷ ̷a̷n̷y̷t̷h̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷S̷c̷i̷e̷n̷c̷e̷ ̷u̷n̷d̷e̷r̷s̷t̷a̷n̷d̷s̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷n̷o̷t̷ ̷ ̷b̷e̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷R̷e̷l̷i̷g̷i̷o̷u̷s̷ ̷b̷u̷t̷ ̷r̷a̷t̷h̷e̷r̷ ̷i̷t̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷r̷e̷c̷o̷g̷n̷i̷z̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷a̷ ̷f̷a̷c̷t̷ ̷o̷f̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷s̷t̷a̷t̷e̷ ̷o̷f̷ ̷o̷u̷r̷ ̷u̷n̷d̷e̷r̷s̷t̷a̷n̷d̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷o̷f̷ ̷c̷o̷n̷s̷c̷i̷o̷u̷s̷n̷e̷s̷s̷ ̷a̷t̷ ̷t̷h̷i̷s̷ ̷p̷o̷i̷n̷t̷ ̷i̷n̷ ̷t̷i̷m̷e̷.̷

more repetitive garbage
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
:paladin:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28525
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:40 am

SteveKlinko wrote:The Lying and other Insanity that I see here is obviously due to the frustration of Physicalists who believe that .........
No son. The problem you are having, is that you made some very insane religious claims on a Skeptic forum which pulls apart insane claims.

SteveKlinko wrote: "(Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
SteveKlinko wrote:"The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience."


If you are going to post insane claims that require time travel, you can't blame the skeptics for asking how this time travel would work. :lol: :lol:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:16 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Lying and other Insanity that I see here is obviously due to the frustration of Physicalists who believe that .........
No son. The problem you are having, is that you made some very insane religious claims on a Skeptic forum which pulls apart insane claims.

SteveKlinko wrote: "(Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
SteveKlinko wrote:"The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience."


If you are going to post insane claims that require time travel, you can't blame the skeptics for asking how this time travel would work. :lol: :lol:

You Lied and Vandalized the text of the website again. You add (Human) in front of the word Consciousness. This completely distorts the meaning of a more generalized Consciousness concept that was being suggested.

Here's what the website really says about Evolution:
The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience. Any organism that experiences Pleasure will seek out that Pleasure. Any organism that experiences Pain will try to avoid that Pain. Without the existence of these basic Conscious experiences there would be no motivation for any organism to react. There's nothing like a little Pain to motivate you to adjust what you are doing. This applies to simple organisms and to Humans. It would seem that Evolution is directly guided by Conscious experience.

I think this is completely sensible. Just seems to be a statement of fact. Where is the Religion in this?

Here's what the website really says about Consciousness and the Big Bang:
Since Science is unable to say what Consciousness is we can and should speculate what it could be and how it could have developed. We can, for example, speculate that Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang. The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness. We can also speculate that the ultimate goal of Physical Evolution is to provide a better and better host for Consciousness. We can speculate that maybe the very Existence of the Physical Universe is pointless without Consciousness. Maybe the Physical Body is just some sort of incubator for the Conscious Mind and the Conscious Mind is the more important part. Maybe the Physical Mind creates a Connection to Conscious Space in order to create a Conscious Mind in that Conscious Space. The Conscious Mind would then strictly exist only in that Conscious Space. All speculations are still on the table. Remember that the only thing we know about the Physical Universe is through our Conscious experiences. Conscious Experiences are Primary to what we are.

This specifically states that the ideas are Speculations. Nothing is being Claimed here. The purpose of the paragraph was to get people to think about Consciousness in a larger way. It was meant to be a little Philosophically playful. Science seems to try to hide or at least minimize the importance of Conscious experience. But anyway where is the Time Travel? It specifically states that Consciousness (doesn't say Human Consciousness) might have existed before the Big Bang. The implication of course is that Consciousness has always existed. No Time Travel is necessary and no Time Travel was even implied by these words.

What the website does Claim is that Science does not know what Consciousness is yet. It also Claims that the Hard Problem of Consciousness has not been solved by Science yet. You have Claimed that Science has already solved the Hard Problem but yet you cannot show how it has done so. I think you Physicalist Monists are out of any real ammunition and have gone to using Distraction, Distortion, and Obfuscation because that's all you have.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:24 am

mirror93 wrote:I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?

I See Red in Dreams. No eyes are needed or involved with that.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:34 am

There seems to be an inability of the Physicalists on the forum to recognize that there is a difference between Physical Light and Conscious Light.

Physical Red Light has Wavelength as a property and Conscious Red Light has Redness as a property. Physical Red Light does not have Redness as a property and Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a property. Physical Red Light and Conscious Red Light are two different things.

We commonly think that Redness is a property of Physical Red Light but it is only a property of Conscious Red Light. The Conscious Red Light exists only in our Minds. The real Physical Red Light does not Look like anything. So here we have a Thing, the Conscious Red Light, that has a property that is purely a Conscious property. This Redness property must be Explained. It isn't an Illusion but rather it is a property of a Conscious phenomenon. So a Conscious phenomenon can have properties. We just don't know how to analyze them yet.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9578
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:31 pm

A thought occurs to me, Steve. When you've finished with red light, do you intend to follow the same procedure for green light and then blue light?

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:58 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:When you say "sight", do you mean the gathering of environmental electromagnetic frequencies between 390 to 700 nanometers, by the eyes, or the evolved human brain's evolved representation of those frequencies as different colours in the visual cortex?
Visual-Cortex0.jpg

AmeliaMichelle wrote: could be accumulative and projecting upon structures like the thymus at the same time the occipital lobe is being activated?
"What" can be "projected"? You are not making any sense. Brains don't have little movie projectors in their head. We have synapses, nerve cells and so on.

AmeliaMichelle wrote:I'm not going to quote at you from a physiology website,
Please start quoting and adding citations from any physiology paper, website or textbook. That way you will learn the proper words and stop using words like "digest" for synapse exchanges and other brain functions.


we digest information, irregardless, and we may very well 'project' image or imprint onto tissue, like netting in monkey brains. We must at least partially digest electric to chemical and chemical to electric within nerve cells, and they do digest information as well. The idea of 'projecting' mental imagery comes from the idea that a neuron is able to fire an image and simultaneously digest that image in radiative projection according to medium and its surrounding gradients and autonomous space. I find it interesting, what you're maybe saying, and brains don't have a head, and I really enjoy the information you're sharing--
The Case for Mental Imagery, by Kosslyn, Ganis, and Thompson
Conversations on Mind Matter and Mathematics, by Connes and Changeux
Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett
here's some books, if you're into that sort of thing or whatever.

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:00 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?

I See Red in Dreams. No eyes are needed or involved with that.



removable eyes. just for nighttime.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby mirror93 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:29 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Lying and other Insanity that I see here is obviously due to the frustration of Physicalists who believe that .........
No son. The problem you are having, is that you made some very insane religious claims on a Skeptic forum which pulls apart insane claims.

SteveKlinko wrote: "(Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
SteveKlinko wrote:"The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience."


If you are going to post insane claims that require time travel, you can't blame the skeptics for asking how this time travel would work. :lol: :lol:

̶H̶e̶r̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶b̶s̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶i̶g̶ ̶B̶a̶n̶g̶:̶
̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶L̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶V̶a̶n̶d̶a̶l̶i̶z̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶e̶x̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶b̶s̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶ ̶(̶H̶u̶m̶a̶n̶)̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶i̶z̶e̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶c̶e̶p̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶u̶g̶g̶e̶s̶t̶e̶d̶.̶ ̶

Here's what the website really says about Evolution:
̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶E̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶l̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶P̶l̶a̶n̶e̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶r̶i̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶.̶ ̶A̶n̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶g̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶k̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶e̶.̶ ̶A̶n̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶g̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶P̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶v̶o̶i̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶P̶a̶i̶n̶.̶ ̶W̶i̶t̶h̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶s̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶i̶c̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶m̶o̶t̶i̶v̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶g̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶c̶t̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶r̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶t̶t̶l̶e̶ ̶P̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶m̶o̶t̶i̶v̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶d̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶i̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶l̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶g̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶H̶u̶m̶a̶n̶s̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶E̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶g̶u̶i̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶.̶ ̶
None of this makes any sense. Your premise of "consciousness//experience" doing anything is complete nonsense, it isn't even real, let alone driving evolution

̶I̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶.̶ ̶J̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶.̶ ̶W̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶i̶g̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶?̶ ̶
The fact is that this is a complete BS and you're a spammer troll.

̶H̶e̶r̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶b̶s̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶i̶g̶ ̶B̶a̶n̶g̶:̶
̶S̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶S̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶u̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶v̶e̶l̶o̶p̶e̶d̶.̶ ̶W̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶,̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶,̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶u̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶i̶g̶ ̶B̶a̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶i̶g̶ ̶B̶a̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶.̶ ̶W̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶u̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶u̶l̶t̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶a̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶E̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶h̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶.̶ ̶W̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶u̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶E̶x̶i̶s̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶.̶ ̶M̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶B̶o̶d̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶r̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶u̶b̶a̶t̶o̶r̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶M̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶M̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶o̶r̶t̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶.̶ ̶M̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶n̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶/̶ ̶s̶p̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶s̶p̶a̶c̶e̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶c̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶s̶p̶a̶c̶e̶.̶ ̶A̶l̶l̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶.̶ ̶R̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶/̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶.̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶P̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶.̶
Have you EVER noticed that you give your own fake premises and solve them with more BS? Did you ever realized that none of us agree with any of this to begin with? "conscious; space conscious blah conscious this and conscious that, conscious mind vs physical mind.. none of this makes any sense... you're making up all this idiocy and trying to solve with more foolishness. Are you sure you're in the right forum? Why don't you try Rupert Spira? Deepak Chopra? Maybe David Icke... There your premises may make sense to some other loonies

̶H̶e̶r̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶b̶s̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶i̶g̶ ̶B̶a̶n̶g̶:̶
̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶.̶ ̶N̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶C̶l̶a̶i̶m̶e̶d̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶u̶r̶p̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶a̶g̶r̶a̶p̶h̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶a̶r̶g̶e̶r̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶t̶t̶l̶e̶ ̶P̶h̶i̶l̶o̶s̶o̶p̶h̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶y̶f̶u̶l̶.̶ ̶S̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶i̶m̶i̶z̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶o̶r̶t̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶.̶ ̶ ̶B̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶w̶a̶y̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶T̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶T̶r̶a̶v̶e̶l̶?̶ ̶I̶t̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶(̶d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶)̶ ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶i̶g̶ ̶B̶a̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶l̶i̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶w̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶e̶d̶.̶ ̶N̶o̶ ̶T̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶T̶r̶a̶v̶e̶l̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶e̶c̶e̶s̶s̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶T̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶T̶r̶a̶v̶e̶l̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶l̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶s̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶d̶s̶.̶ ̶
Never forget to separate consciousness from experience. no, human consciousness did not exist before the big bang, did you ever read the theory?

̶H̶e̶r̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶b̶s̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶i̶g̶ ̶B̶a̶n̶g̶:̶
̶W̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶b̶s̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶c̶l̶a̶i̶m̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶S̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶y̶e̶t̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶C̶l̶a̶i̶m̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶H̶a̶r̶d̶ ̶P̶r̶o̶b̶l̶e̶m̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶s̶o̶l̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶S̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶y̶e̶t̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶C̶l̶a̶i̶m̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶S̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶r̶e̶a̶d̶y̶ ̶s̶o̶l̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶H̶a̶r̶d̶ ̶P̶r̶o̶b̶l̶e̶m̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶y̶e̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶.̶ ̶I̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶D̶i̶s̶t̶r̶a̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶D̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶t̶i̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶O̶b̶f̶u̶s̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶.̶
I'm not a physicalist monist.


I don't care how many times I have to do that, if you continue to spam your garbage, you'll be corrected and debunked.
Last edited by mirror93 on Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby mirror93 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:36 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?

I see red in dreams. No eyes are needed or involved with that.


Ohh you idiot, if you had never seen any color before you WOULDN'T NEVER DREAM IN COLOR......
Is this so hard to get? Are you really pretending to be dumb ?

" Yes, blind people do dream. What they see in their dreams depends on how much they could ever see. If someone has been totally blind since birth, they only have auditory dreams."
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=765

People that are born blind might dream, but not as people who lost their sight, because their memory isn't filled with visual data, thus the brain creates different type of dreams based on sound and touch, i.e, if you don't have eyes to see light and colors that are outside of you, you can't dream visually about anything internally
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

The Inter Mind is a hoax.

Postby mirror93 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:54 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:There seems to be an inability of the physicalists on the forum to recognize that there is a ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶t̶w̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶ ̷p̷̶̷h̷̶̷y̷̶̷s̷̶̷i̷̶̷c̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̶;L̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶ ̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷s̷̶̷c̷̶̷i̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̶;l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶.
There is none of this.

̶P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶;̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶W̶a̶v̶e̶l̶e̶n̶g̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶;̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶R̶e̶d̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶.̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶;̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶L̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶w̶a̶v̶e̶l̶e̶n̶g̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶.̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶;̶ ̶R̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶L̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶w̶o̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶.̶ ̶
There is none of this. No one is accepting any of your BS premises. learn to separate 'consciousness' from the color red, 'physical' from the color red, and you will have no confusion anymore about the lunacy about us being "physicalists" and you being the "spiritual wooist"

̶W̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶ property of ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ; red light
No, we don't commonly think any of this.

̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶. red light.
More BS.

̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶;̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶d̶s̶.
More BS.

̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶;̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶.̶
More BS.

̶ ̶S̶o̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶ ̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷s̷̶̷c̷̶̷i̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̶;̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶,̶ ̶ ̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷r̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷t̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷u̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷l̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷s̷̶̷c̷̶̷i̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷r̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷t̷̶̷y̷̶̷.̷̶̷
No, here you have more of your made up BS, solving with more of your own BS, which isn't even wrong, it's completely delusional.

̶ ̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶m̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶l̶a̶i̶n̶e̶d̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶I̶l̶l̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶r̶a̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶p̶h̶e̶n̶o̶m̶e̶n̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶S̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶p̶h̶e̶n̶o̶m̶e̶n̶o̶n̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶i̶e̶s̶.̶ ̶W̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶n̶a̶l̶y̶z̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶ ̶y̶e̶t̶.̶
None of what you're saying makes any sense, you don't know how the eyes work, you don't know what 'experieence' means, what is physical...........you don't know nothing about consciousness, you don't know {!#%@}. All you're doing here is spamming your confused garbage, you should join David Icke forum.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:18 pm

Let me try it.
There is a difference between the Wooist light vs the Spiritual red, the redness of the Wooist light is Different and Quantum consciousness may play a role, You physicalists can't understand the difference between the Wooist light and the Spiritual light... the physical aspect of it is that the conscious part of the red that is detected by our minds through the Process of Inter mInd is not recognizable by the physicalists yet. Therefore the big bang was caused by human consciousness

Am I doing it right?
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:53 am

placid wrote:
Dimebag wrote:How could we experience anything if what we experience weren't in some sense, really out there? If it's not really out there, there is nothing there to affect us, for us to experience. We must assume, because we experience, that not only we exist, but the causes of our experience also exist. We may be mistaken about what caused our experience, but 99.9% of the time, we aren't. That's because in some sense evolution necessitates that our experiences coincide with external reality to a point that ensures optimal survivability. Bobbo and Matthew can correct me there if my evolutionary picture is inaccurate.


Forget about Bobbo and Matt...think for yourself....first hand knowledge is more reliable, it's the first witness, second hand knowledge is unreliable, it's only belief which is not and never absolute certainty.

Your answers to all your questions will be found in your own self through direct self-inquiry..
If you are not prepared to put in the work for yourself..and become lazy expecting to find your answers in a book, or from other people...aka heresy... then you will always be looking in the wrong direction.

First you must seek the answers for yourself within yourself ..then and only then will you and only you be available to bear clear and precise testimony to what it is you want to know...you will be the first hand witness to truth,your truth...not believed truth, that comes from another...but your truth from direct experience as witnessed by you alone....the truth is available at any time it wants to be known, it's always here for us like a loving parent...because it is the one aka truth that gave birth to us aka the truth....it knows we will always return to it for guidance..... but first you have to leg go of any false name-tag you are holding on to, the one you believe to be you...first you have to drop that in order for the real you to reveal itself...if you fail to collapse the label, the label will act as a veil...it will continue to obscure the truth you are searching for. It's really very easy, because what you are looking for is already what's looking.

__________

Now, in response to your reply...


There is ''we'' and experience is not related to it

Out-there is inseparable from in-here the perceiver.

subject and object are two........space IS EMPTY not infinity... in which everything......everything what?.

AM THAT.

Subject and object are one...an object cannot be the subject, because the object is only and ever the subject objectifying itself.

you're changing, you're moving, you're permanent

If you have any further interest in this irrefutable truth, then you must study the only knowledge worth knowing, which is Nonduality...the study of the self who wants to know...it's within your own self....if you have temporally forgotten yourself, then you can always refer back to the recorded knowledge of yourself in the form of a book or image.

Only when you know 'other' can you know your real self....what do I mean when I say know ''other''?
I mean knowing ''other'' aka your false name-tag to be the false self...and only when that collapses, can the real you reveal itself to you.

When that realisation dawns...you'll see that you are NOT your only teacher..you are NOT self taught.




.

consciousness appear in the "infinity" space? Nope, space isn't infinity, it has no consciousness. FORGET THE WORD "APPEAR" FOR A SECOND. Consciousness does not "appear" anywhere. it is in the brain, it's the brain that gives you consciousness. til you die. Consciousness is NOT who you are. CONSCIOUSNESS IS IN THE BRAIN, NOT IN SPACE. ... SPACE HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS........ I'll repeat it til you let it sink in, ,spammer like you and Steve deserves it. you both are sockpuppets spamming ur crap in other forums too. I got you. Hitler Lover.
:paladin:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby SteveKlinko » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:15 am

mirror93 wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?

I see red in dreams. No eyes are needed or involved with that.


Ohh you idiot, if you had never seen any color before you WOULDN'T NEVER DREAM IN COLOR......
Is this so hard to get? Are you really pretending to be dumb ?

" Yes, blind people do dream. What they see in their dreams depends on how much they could ever see. If someone has been totally blind since birth, they only have auditory dreams."
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=765

People that are born blind might dream, but not as people who lost their sight, because their memory isn't filled with visual data, thus the brain creates different type of dreams based on sound and touch, i.e, if you don't have eyes to see light and colors that are outside of you, you can't dream visually about anything internally

That's a developmental issue. When we understand more about Visual Consciousness we should be able to answer the developmental issues. The question that the website asks is, with a normally developed Visual System, how do we See the Red? Further, what is that Red that we See? It is irrelevant that some people cannot See Red. The question again is, that when you Can and Do See Red, what is that? My apologies to people with color blindness.

But even for people with color blindness there will be, we assume, shades of gray. Could be shades of Red. Who knows? The color blind person would never know they are seeing shades of Red. Lets assume shades of gray. The color blind person would still have a Conscious Visual experience of those shades of gray. So the color blind person might want to think about their internal shades of gray. As an analogy to studying Red the color blind person might study White. They could ask how do they See that White? What is that White. They should think about the Whiteness of the White.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:22 am

mirror93 wrote:Let me try it.
There is a difference between the Wooist light vs the Spiritual red, the redness of the Wooist light is Different and Quantum consciousness may play a role, You physicalists can't understand the difference between the Wooist light and the Spiritual light... the physical aspect of it is that the conscious part of the red that is detected by our minds through the Process of Inter mInd is not recognizable by the physicalists yet. Therefore the big bang was caused by human consciousness

Am I doing it right?

You are actually getting closer although with mangled terminology. But you had to end it with a Lie. There is no mention of Human Consciousness causing the Big Bang on the website anywhere. Do you think only Humans are Conscious? This would explain why you can't understand a generalized Consciousness concept. Are animals completely without Consciousness? There obviously was no Human Consciousness before the Big Bang but you continue to say that.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:37 am

mirror93 wrote:consciousness appear in the "infinity" space? Nope, space isn't infinity, it has no consciousness. FORGET THE WORD "APPEAR" FOR A SECOND. Consciousness does not "appear" anywhere. it is in the brain, it's the brain that gives you consciousness. til you die. Consciousness is NOT who you are. CONSCIOUSNESS IS IN THE BRAIN, NOT IN SPACE. ... SPACE HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS........ I'll repeat it til you let it sink in, ,spammer like you and Steve deserves it. you both are sockpuppets spamming ur crap in other forums too. I got you. Hitler Lover.

You think Consciousness is only in the Brain because that is the perspective that exists for you since you are currently trapped inside a Brain. If Science truly understood Consciousness then you could legitimately make the statements in your post. But you are just spewing your Beliefs about Consciousness. You know nothing about Consciousness. You don't even know that you don't know anything about Consciousness. Everything is still on the table with regard to Consciousness. Your Beliefs might be proven correct someday. That day is not here yet.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9578
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:45 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:You think Consciousness is only in the Brain because that is the perspective that exists for you since you are currently trapped inside a Brain. If Science truly understood Consciousness then you could legitimately make the statements in your post. But you are just spewing your Beliefs about Consciousness. You know nothing about Consciousness. You don't even know that you don't know anything about Consciousness. Everything is still on the table with regard to Consciousness. Your Beliefs might be proven correct someday. That day is not here yet.

If I were you, Steve, I'd read (very carefully) what you just posted, because everything you said applies equally to your own statements.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:01 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:Let me try it.
There is a difference between the Wooist light vs the Spiritual red, the redness of the Wooist light is Different and Quantum consciousness may play a role, You physicalists can't understand the difference between the Wooist light and the Spiritual light... the physical aspect of it is that the conscious part of the red that is detected by our minds through the Process of Inter mInd is not recognizable by the physicalists yet. Therefore the big bang was caused by human consciousness

Am I doing it right?

You are actually getting closer although with mangled terminology. But you had to end it with a Lie. There is no mention of human consciousness causing the Big Bang on the website anywhere. Do you think only humans are conscious? This would explain why you can't understand a generalized consciousness concept. Are animals completely without consciousness? There obviously was no human consciousness before the big bang but you continue to say that.


So now you're saying that animals caused the big bang :lol: :lol: :lol:
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:10 pm

But I see where you're going with this.. "god's consciousness caused the big bang"....but the question is, which one? glob? zeus? FSM?
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:16 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?

I see red in dreams. No eyes are needed or involved with that.


Ohh you idiot, if you had never seen any color before you WOULDN'T NEVER DREAM IN COLOR......
Is this so hard to get? Are you really pretending to be dumb ?

" Yes, blind people do dream. What they see in their dreams depends on how much they could ever see. If someone has been totally blind since birth, they only have auditory dreams."
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=765

̷ ̷̶̷P̷̶̷e̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷l̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷l̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷m̷̶̷i̷̶̷g̷̶̷h̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷a̷̶̷m̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷u̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷n̷̶̷o̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷l̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷h̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷s̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷i̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷i̷̶̷g̷̶̷h̷̶̷t̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷e̷̶̷c̷̶̷a̷̶̷u̷̶̷s̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷i̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷m̷̶̷e̷̶̷m̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷n̷̶̷'̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷f̷̶̷i̷̶̷l̷̶̷l̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷ ̷̶̷v̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷u̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷a̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷u̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷r̷̶̷a̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷i̷̶̷f̷̶̷f̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷n̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷y̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷a̷̶̷m̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷a̷̶̷s̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷c̷̶̷h̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷.̷̶̷e̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷y̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷'̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷v̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷e̷̶̷y̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷e̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷l̷̶̷i̷̶̷g̷̶̷h̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷t̷̶̷s̷̶̷i̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷y̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷y̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷'̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷a̷̶̷m̷̶̷ ̷̶̷v̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷u̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷l̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷b̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷y̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷g̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷n̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷l̷̶̷y̷̶̷[̷̶̷/̷̶̷q̷̶̷u̷̶̷o̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷]̷̶̷
̷̶̷T̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷'̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷v̷̶̷e̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷m̷̶̷e̷̶̷n̷̶̷t̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷s̷̶̷u̷̶̷e̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷W̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷u̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷s̷̶̷t̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷m̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷b̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷v̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷u̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷s̷̶̷c̷̶̷i̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷s̷̶̷n̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷h̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷l̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷b̷̶̷l̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷s̷̶̷w̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷v̷̶̷e̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷m̷̶̷e̷̶̷n̷̶̷t̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷s̷̶̷u̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷T̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷q̷̶̷u̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷t̷̶̷i̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷e̷̶̷b̷̶̷s̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷s̷̶̷k̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷ ̷̶̷n̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷m̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷l̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷v̷̶̷e̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷V̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷u̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̷̶̷S̷̶̷y̷̶̷s̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷m̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷h̷̶̷o̷̶̷w̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷S̷̶̷e̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷R̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷?̷̶̷ ̷̶̷F̷̶̷u̷̶̷r̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷e̷̶̷e̷̶̷?̷̶̷ ̷̶̷I̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷r̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷l̷̶̷e̷̶̷v̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷o̷̶̷m̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷l̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷n̷̶̷o̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷e̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷T̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷q̷̶̷u̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷t̷̶̷i̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷g̷̶̷a̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷y̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷ ̷̶̷C̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷D̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷e̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷?̷̶̷ ̷̶̷M̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷p̷̶̷o̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷g̷̶̷i̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷l̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷l̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷n̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷s̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷
̷̶̷
̷̶̷B̷̶̷u̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷e̷̶̷v̷̶̷e̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷f̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷o̷̶̷p̷̶̷l̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷l̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷n̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷i̷̶̷l̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷e̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷s̷̶̷s̷̶̷u̷̶̷m̷̶̷e̷̶̷,̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷g̷̶̷r̷̶̷a̷̶̷y̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷ ̷̶̷C̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷l̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷R̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷ ̷̶̷W̷̶̷h̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷k̷̶̷n̷̶̷o̷̶̷w̷̶̷s̷̶̷?̷̶̷ ̷̶̷T̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷l̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷s̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷l̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷n̷̶̷e̷̶̷v̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷k̷̶̷n̷̶̷o̷̶̷w̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷r̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷e̷̶̷e̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷g̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷R̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷L̷̶̷e̷̶̷t̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷s̷̶̷s̷̶̷u̷̶̷m̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷g̷̶̷r̷̶̷a̷̶̷y̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷T̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷l̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷s̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷l̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷t̷̶̷i̷̶̷l̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷v̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷ ̷̶̷C̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷s̷̶̷c̷̶̷i̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷V̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷u̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̷̶̷e̷̶̷x̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷i̷̶̷e̷̶̷n̷̶̷c̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷o̷̶̷s̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷g̷̶̷r̷̶̷a̷̶̷y̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷S̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷l̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷s̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷m̷̶̷i̷̶̷g̷̶̷h̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷w̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷k̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷b̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷i̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷n̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷d̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷g̷̶̷r̷̶̷a̷̶̷y̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷ ̷̶̷A̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷n̷̶̷a̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷g̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷t̷̶̷u̷̶̷d̷̶̷y̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷g̷̶̷ ̷̶̷R̷̶̷e̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷l̷̶̷o̷̶̷r̷̶̷ ̷̶̷b̷̶̷l̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷s̷̶̷o̷̶̷n̷̶̷ ̷̶̷m̷̶̷i̷̶̷g̷̶̷h̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷t̷̶̷u̷̶̷d̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷W̷̶̷h̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷T̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷c̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷l̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷s̷̶̷k̷̶̷ ̷̶̷h̷̶̷o̷̶̷w̷̶̷ ̷̶̷d̷̶̷o̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷S̷̶̷e̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷W̷̶̷h̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷?̷̶̷ ̷̶̷W̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷i̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷a̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷W̷̶̷h̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷.̷̶̷ ̷̶̷T̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷y̷̶̷ ̷̶̷s̷̶̷h̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷l̷̶̷d̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷k̷̶̷ ̷̶̷a̷̶̷b̷̶̷o̷̶̷u̷̶̷t̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷W̷̶̷h̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷n̷̶̷e̷̶̷s̷̶̷s̷̶̷ ̷̶̷o̷̶̷f̷̶̷ ̷̶̷t̷̶̷h̷̶̷e̷̶̷ ̷̶̷W̷̶̷h̷̶̷i̷̶̷t̷̶̷e̷̶̷.̷̶̷


If you insist in ignoring our answers, repeating your meaningless jargons, such as "whitness of white" ..that's all you gonna get.
:paladin:

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31609
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Gord » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:10 pm

AmeliaMichelle wrote:irregardless

regardless

Don't say "irregardless", that's not really a word. If it were a word, it would mean "without without regard" and that wouldn't make sense.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28525
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:04 am

SteveKlinko wrote: You think Consciousness is only in the Brain because that is the perspective that exists for you since you are currently trapped inside a Brain.
No Steve. It is because there is no scientific hypothesis that consciousness operates outside of the evolved physical brain. There is no evidence consciousness operates outside of the brain. You, yourself couldn't write a hypothesis and thus pretended you were making philosophical posts rather than a scientific hypothesis. Suck eggs. You tried to make a religious claim and ended up shooting yourself in the foot.


SteveKlinko wrote: Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
SteveKlinko wrote:There is no mention of Human Consciousness causing the Big Bang on the website anywhere.
Are you now claiming other evolved conscious animals, other than humans, on Earth went back in time to cause the big bang? You see, you haven't any evidence of other forms of consciousness do you? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Would that be hamster consciousness? No What about goat consciousness? What about very conscious otters?
:lol: :lol:
Dog god.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:36 pm

Gord wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:irregardless

regardless

Don't say "irregardless", that's not really a word. If it were a word, it would mean "without without regard" and that wouldn't make sense.


That's all? oh, not so bad this round then, thanks pal.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14661
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:54 pm

AmeliaMichelle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?

I See Red in Dreams. No eyes are needed or involved with that.



removable eyes. just for nighttime.

Hmmm....I've never wondered before: what do born blind people dream? I assume aural and touch/motor memories? Eyes are needed to perceive colors.... only then can they be dreamed on. ((I assume, not having been born blind.))
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:46 pm

If you read the letters of god backwards they spell dog (and vice versa), Steve be like,
'"omg, checkmata atheists!!!11 dogs causead teh big bang!11
hicks Image ! experiencae! Image hicks! redness of red! Image hicks! Conscioosness
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:00 pm

Maybe he isn't even saying dogs went back in time, maybe his religion really believes dogs are gods, who knows where his insanity is going? I don't doubt anything anymore
:paladin:

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:11 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?

I See Red in Dreams. No eyes are needed or involved with that.



removable eyes. just for nighttime.

Hmmm....I've never wondered before: what do born blind people dream? I assume aural and touch/motor memories? Eyes are needed to perceive colors.... only then can they be dreamed on. ((I assume, not having been born blind.))


I have no idea, that's very interesting. Wonder, what imaginary would seem like comparatively. but what sort of comprehensive organization for comparison of imaginary is there, already? I mean, there's information about the Case for Mental Imagery all over the place, but not a whole lot of unifying categorization method and organization of the information. Dream science and the naming of mental events conditions a lot of reality, I wonder how that would effect or affect the ability to describe these events at all (imaginary events) let alone accurately.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14661
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:15 pm

Why don't blind people post here more often?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby mirror93 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:16 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Lying and other Insanity that I see here is obviously due to the frustration of Physicalists who believe that .........
No son. The problem you are having, is that you made some very insane religious claims on a Skeptic forum which pulls apart insane claims.

SteveKlinko wrote: "(Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
SteveKlinko wrote:"The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience."


If you are going to post insane claims that require time travel, you can't blame the skeptics for asking how this time travel would work. :lol: :lol:


I think this nut is saying that hoomans are gods, not about time travel, something like humans existed prior the big bang??? that human consciousness wasn't evolving along the time, it existed as it is now since the beggining, and that we are not related to animals (which is false, we have all the proofs, DNA, fossils, etc that we indeed are and that Darwin was right) and even if Darwin wasn't right, his nonsense would still be wrong, we would have to change our theories, that's all. I think all of his gibberish is actually a rant against Darwin's theory, but he doesn't admit it.. he'd be better say he was a religious troll and leave the forum, but no, he prefers to be mocked and trolled. He didn't even make a single coherent statement, it's all babble
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby mirror93 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:21 pm

AmeliaMichelle wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?

I See Red in Dreams. No eyes are needed or involved with that.



removable eyes. just for nighttime.

Hmmm....I've never wondered before: what do born blind people dream? I assume aural and touch/motor memories? Eyes are needed to perceive colors.... only then can they be dreamed on. ((I assume, not having been born blind.))


Dream science and the naming of mental events conditions a lot of reality

what do you mean by that?
:paladin:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14661
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:29 pm

I took it to mean a substitution of "hardly at all" with "a lot of"....but I won't hold my breath looking for any confirmation.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28525
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:52 am

SteveKlinko wrote: "(Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
SteveKlinko wrote:"The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience."
mirror93 wrote:I think this nut is saying that hoomans are gods, not about time travel, something like humans existed prior the big bang???


Yes, sort of..... Steve Klinko "knows" that humans are somehow god, and has then tried to justify to himself a scientific sounding bull-shit story how this could be true. He isn't even original, as I have seen the same logic before.

1) If humans can think of something, then that something could be real (ie "red".)
2) If humans can make things real by thinking about them, then humans could also create the universe.
3) If humans can create the universe and the universe actually exist's then humans must have gone back in time to create the universe.


The Judaic-Christian religions all believe god is human. ("God created man in his own image"). It is simply a psychological behaviour called anthropomorphism, where humans give non-human things human characteristics.

It is not just religious. Most languages have gender (male chairs and female tables and so on). Even in English we still say things like "She is a lovely looking ship" and so on.

mirror93 wrote:I think all of his gibberish is actually a rant against Darwin's theory, ...
Steve's gibberish is against every form of science and logic. Steve doesn't actually know what the Big Bang is, as he claims consciouness existed at the same time, although nothing existed before the Big Bang.

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:18 am

mirror93 wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
AmeliaMichelle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:I think you may be under impression that you don't need eyes to see red, do you? Really?

I See Red in Dreams. No eyes are needed or involved with that.



removable eyes. just for nighttime.

Hmmm....I've never wondered before: what do born blind people dream? I assume aural and touch/motor memories? Eyes are needed to perceive colors.... only then can they be dreamed on. ((I assume, not having been born blind.))


Dream science and the naming of mental events conditions a lot of reality

what do you mean by that?


I think that rhetoric and the ways in which we are capable of communicating have shaped the ways in which we are capable of experiencing reality. The conditioning we have experienced in socio-cultural norms of exchange have decided what makes sense to us. And the ways in which we see information as applicable or sensible came about from the naming of mental events. like, imaginary we call imaginary: coincidences....we usually tend to try to name and claim according to some form of doctrine, which makes the recording and accuracy in dream and imaginary descriptions especially difficult to accurately report.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28525
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Steve Advaita Spammer is addicted to being debunked.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:53 am

AmeliaMichelle wrote:I think that rhetoric and the ways in which we are capable of communicating have shaped the ways in which we are capable of experiencing reality.
This is the Sapir Whorf theory, which is sometimes also called Linguistic relativity. We had to study this in Anthropological pre-history to allow interpretation of objects within the original culture's.....culture.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest