Conquer Club

saxitoxin wrote:Well it's not really a theory anymore than it's a theory the Earth revolves around the Sun. This is scientific fact. Of course, you are free to disagree that the Earth revolves around the Sun or that consciousness is a neurobiological process.

The mind and brain are co-existent. When electric functions in the brain cease the mind terminates and consciousness is permanently erased.

This is nothing spectacularly new. Every New Age guru and voodoo witch doctor terminates the discussion when presented with science on the excuse that they are privy to some great, esoteric secret that cannot be divulged but proves all that has been claimed, we just have to trust them. Recently the New Age camp - like the witch doctors at the UVA medical school - have been trying to "explain" reincarnation in faux scientific terms, all of which is simply putting a new coat of paint on an old idea. It's pseudo-science, junk science. It belongs in the realm of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

Yawners, gang.
*Saxi Yawns and Stretches Out to Rest His Feet on His Big Furry Wolfound, Big Bo Bop; Big Bo Bop Barks Loudly and Saxi sits back, startled. Then Saxi plays Tumble Tornado with Big Bo Bop and Big Bo Bop WINS!*

Saxi.
Would you say that you maintain the same conciousness over your entire life?
I assume you've heard that every 6 or so years, you're a completely new person, right?
How, then, would you say that this process is still you?
And why can't the same process that currently defines you become whole again?
Is this process unique to you?
If it isn't, why can't you have control of multiple beings?
There are so many questions to be asked, and I, for one, think you have never asked yourself about them.
I think you have just taken what you have learned and dismiss any thoughts of anything other than that.
You stop the thought process before it begins.

Please, quit trying to label this as psuedo-science. It's merely a theory. You can choose to not believe in it if you want-it's clear that you don't.
And for the record, I stated that I would not go into my reasons in my first post in this thread. I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself for you, either.
I suppose I can try and hint to you where my logic flows here and there.
I will not paint the entire picture because it is my idea, not yours.
I encourage you to speculate on the idea more so than you have already.

Maugena wrote:Would you say that you maintain the same conciousness over your entire life?

Consciousness develops as new environmental experiences are intaked and processed by the brain organ.

Maugena wrote:I assume you've heard that every 6 or so years, you're a completely new person, right?

You assume incorrectly. Who said that, Rick Warren?

Maugena wrote:And why can't the same process that currently defines you become whole again?
Is this process unique to you?
If it isn't, why can't you have control of multiple beings?

"Multiple beings?" Is Bigfoot going to come into this discussion shortly? ACK, gang!

Maugena wrote:There are so many questions to be asked, and I, for one, think you have never asked yourself about them.
I think you have just taken what you have learned and dismiss any thoughts of anything other than that.
You stop the thought process before it begins. Please, quit trying to label this as psuedo-science.

So here's the thing. We don't need a theory to explain why the plant on Saxi's desk doesn't suddenly transform into hot molten lava before ejecting peaches from the stem and then growing a pair of legs and walking away. We don't need a theory to explain why lightening doesn't strike in rhythm to Rihanna songs.

You are committing an atrocious logical fallacy which self-labels any notion of reincarnation as pseudo-science (which it is).

Maugena wrote:And for the record, I stated that I would not go into my reasons in my first post in this thread. I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself for you, either.

Hon, if you're going to give someone a handjob don't act all shocked when your fingers get sticky.

Maugena wrote:I suppose I can try and hint to you where my logic flows here and there.
I will not paint the entire picture because it is my idea, not yours.
I encourage you to speculate on the idea more so than you have already.

Please don't.

Either make a clear case or don't make any case at all.

No one wants to be "hinted" at.

When you "hint" at your "great, esoteric secret" of ancient knowledge revealed only to you and that you can't "reveal" it just throws you in the junk science camp of every other two-bit guru and witch doctor.

Thanks, Malaguena!
- Saxi!
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

I seriously don't think you've done any philosophical thinking.
Either that or you're just getting caught up in the discussion at hand and feel as though you must post these ridiculous notions of yours in an attempt to mock me and appear to be a 'logical victor' of sorts.
I am a bit displeased with your mockery, but I will press on.

saxitoxin wrote:

Maugena wrote:Would you say that you maintain the same conciousness over your entire life?

Consciousness develops as new environmental experiences are intaked and processed by the brain organ.

Ugh. I suppose there isn't a 'correct' term for what I'm trying to get at, it's hard to explain it.
The best thing I could come up with is that it is your conciousness.
You could call it your 'soul', your 'conciousness', w/e.
The best way I can express the idea is...
What makes it so that YOU can see through YOUR eyes, feel through YOUR body, etc.
Why are you 'in' that body?
You didn't have those experiences throughout your entire life, and yet, you have kept your 'being' since the beginning of your creation and it remains so until your end.
Being able to interact with things through reactivity is merely a plus.
-There is something in each of us that has been pre-determined in our creation that makes each of us have 'ownership' of our own bodies. It isn't developed, it doesn't change, it is a constant in our lives.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in an intangible source of our 'being'-such as a soul.

saxitoxin wrote:You assume incorrectly. Who said that, Rick Warren?

Actually, it's supposedly 7 years... "Every cell in your body dies and must be replaced at some point in time."

On a side note, I really do wonder if anyone in this forum has a good idea of what I'm getting at here without actually spelling it out completely... that is, unless you did just so happen to catch a glimpse of it in that one thread...

Edit:
I'm going to bed now, I need sleep for work tomorrow...
Will continue discussion tomorrow...

Woodruff wrote:
You're saxitoxin's multi, aren't you?

Pretty sure that's pimpdave..

pimpdave wrote:Shit I believe that I done came to by my own damn self:

1. Magnets are fuckin' miracles.
2. Fuckin' pelican always be eating my cell phone, damn.
3. Fuckin' scientists be lyin' and makin' me pissed.
4. Fuckin' rainbows.

Word

PLAYER57832 wrote:Bill Devall is perhaps the ultimate erm... person who puts other things above humans, I suppose is a reasonable way to put it. Anyway, I once talked to him about the extreme mideval asthetic tradition within Christianity.. monks who would sit on pillars so as not to disturb the microbes, etc. Anyway, he was aware, but 99% of his followers were not. And he certainly could not be bothered to inform them.

Did they even have knowledge of microbial life in medieval times?

That's news to me..

Maugena wrote:Just woke up...
Will respond later today to these new posts...
I'm heading over to a friend's place for a while, then working.
I'd just like to state that I forgot one of my philosophies.

• Sixth, I believe that there was no beginning and that there is no end.

I can agree with that..

Props for the topic. It's a little pretentious but it's definitely got everyone's attention.

As for non-conformist philosophies, try pragmatism.

Maugena wrote:I seriously don't think you've done any philosophical thinking.
Either that or you're just getting caught up in the discussion at hand and feel as though you must post these ridiculous notions of yours in an attempt to mock me and appear to be a 'logical victor' of sorts.

"ridiculous notions" = "science"

Maugena wrote:I am a bit displeased with your mockery

Oh no!

Maugena wrote:Ugh. I suppose there isn't a 'correct' term for what I'm trying to get at, it's hard to explain it.
The best thing I could come up with is that it is your conciousness.
You could call it your 'soul', your 'conciousness', w/e.
The best way I can express the idea is...
What makes it so that YOU can see through YOUR eyes, feel through YOUR body, etc.
Why are you 'in' that body?

Yes, nature is interesting.

Maugena wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:You assume incorrectly. Who said that, Rick Warren?

Actually, it's supposedly 7 years... "Every cell in your body dies and must be replaced at some point in time."

Your original quote, omitted here, said that you became "a new person." Apoptosis doesn't create "new people" anymore than you are a "new person" when you lose some dandruff.

Maugena wrote:On a side note, I really do wonder if anyone in this forum has a good idea of what I'm getting at here without actually spelling it out completely... that is, unless you did just so happen to catch a glimpse of it in that one thread...

I do.

You're trying to mystify and dazzle us with an "esoteric secret" that doesn't exist. This is symptomatic of a psychopathological condition, possibly merely a monothematic delusion but one that, nonetheless, requires treatment. Unlike others, I do not consider this to be a chemical/neurological disorder but a cognitive error that can be corrected through talking therapy as opposed to pharmacological intervention.

These delusions cannot be allowed to infect others, however. In the former DDR this type of behavior was subject to quarantine because of the very real threat of shared psychotic disorder in a population still trying to free itself from superstitious religious nonsense that suppresses the immutable desires of working families for freedom from religion, regardless of what disguises it clothes itself in or how furiously it protests it is really a "scientific theory."

In the words of L'Internationale: "away will all your superstitions - servile masses, arise! arise!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blU0slaziY8&feature=related

saxitoxin wrote:

Maugena wrote:I am a bit displeased with your mockery

Oh no!

lol

Anyhow Maugena, I think I've figured out your secret philosophy..

You believe that time repeats itself. You believe that consciousness and thoughts are not random, that they have always been, and are predetermined and repeating. It's very Slaughter House 5...

You may or may not believe in a God. You may or may not believe that people will experience the consciousness of others at other points in "time," much like reincarnation (not sure about this one).


If these are the tenets of your philosophy it's really not all that original. Either way, stop patronizing us by alluding to some book which you haven't actually written.

Tell us what you're talking about or stfu.

I'm a phenomenological existentialist.

GabonX wrote:Anyhow Maugena, I think I've figured out your secret philosophy..

You believe that time repeats itself. You believe that consciousness and thoughts are not random, that they have always been, and are predetermined and repeating. It's very Slaughter House 5...

You may or may not believe in a God. You may or may not believe that people will experience the consciousness of others at other points in "time," much like reincarnation (not sure about this one).


If these are the tenets of your philosophy it's really not all that original. Either way, stop patronizing us by alluding to some book which you haven't actually written.

Tell us what you're talking about or stfu.

*Saxi Cyber High-Fives GX* Well put, GX!

Maugena wrote:I assume you've heard that every 6 or so years, you're a completely new person, right?

Say whatthefuck?

Do you regularly sacrifice chickens also?

Woodruff wrote:

Maugena wrote:I assume you've heard that every 6 or so years, you're a completely new person, right?

Say whatthefuck?

Do you regularly sacrifice chickens also?

Just to focus the discussion, I believe he refers to the various molecules in your body being replaced by different molecules over a certain period of time. Theoretically after a certain number of years you don't have any of the atoms left that you started out with.

Correct. Cells die and are expelled from the body. New ones form, replacing the dead ones. It is estimated that the slowest replacement rate for any human cell is approximately 7 years.

Although, if you have more than 7 years worth of hair growth, this might not be entirely true.

Timminz wrote:Correct. Cells die and are expelled from the body. New ones form, replacing the dead ones. It is estimated that the slowest replacement rate for any human cell is approximately 7 years.

Although, if you have more than 7 years worth of hair growth, this might not be entirely true.

Well those cells are dead...


anyway, the cells-thing doesn't apply to braincells.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Timminz wrote:Correct. Cells die and are expelled from the body. New ones form, replacing the dead ones. It is estimated that the slowest replacement rate for any human cell is approximately 7 years.

Although, if you have more than 7 years worth of hair growth, this might not be entirely true.

Well those cells are dead...


anyway, the cells-thing doesn't apply to braincells.

Really? That makes sense.

Frigidus wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Maugena wrote:I assume you've heard that every 6 or so years, you're a completely new person, right?

Say whatthefuck?

Do you regularly sacrifice chickens also?

Just to focus the discussion, I believe he refers to the various molecules in your body being replaced by different molecules over a certain period of time. Theoretically after a certain number of years you don't have any of the atoms left that you started out with.

How does that constitute "being a completely new person" when the discussion is regarding philosophies, rather than physical component molecules?

Woodruff wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Maugena wrote:I assume you've heard that every 6 or so years, you're a completely new person, right?

Say whatthefuck?

Do you regularly sacrifice chickens also?

Just to focus the discussion, I believe he refers to the various molecules in your body being replaced by different molecules over a certain period of time. Theoretically after a certain number of years you don't have any of the atoms left that you started out with.

How does that constitute "being a completely new person" when the discussion is regarding philosophies, rather than physical component molecules?

Apparently we'll have to wait and check a neighborhood Barnes & Noble in 2012.

Ol' Sax is gonna hafta remember this strategem. In the future, next time Old Tom II corners ol' Saxi in a convo, ol' Saxi is gonna say "I can't discuss it further, Old Tom II, because of a pending book deal - but,just trust me, I'm right!"

Woodruff wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Maugena wrote:I assume you've heard that every 6 or so years, you're a completely new person, right?

Say whatthefuck?

Do you regularly sacrifice chickens also?

Just to focus the discussion, I believe he refers to the various molecules in your body being replaced by different molecules over a certain period of time. Theoretically after a certain number of years you don't have any of the atoms left that you started out with.

How does that constitute "being a completely new person" when the discussion is regarding philosophies, rather than physical component molecules?

It doesn't. Molecules being replaced has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The hardware being replaced doesn't mean the software isn't the same.

saxitoxin wrote:"ridiculous notions" = "science"

I was referring to...

saxitoxin wrote:Is Bigfoot going to come into this discussion shortly? ACK, gang!

saxitoxin wrote:We don't need a theory to explain why the plant on Saxi's desk doesn't suddenly transform into hot molten lava before ejecting peaches from the stem and then growing a pair of legs and walking away. We don't need a theory to explain why lightening doesn't strike in rhythm to Rihanna songs.

saxitoxin wrote:When you "hint" at your "great, esoteric secret" of ancient knowledge revealed only to you and that you can't "reveal" it just throws you in the junk science camp of every other two-bit guru and witch doctor.

saxitoxin wrote:You're trying to mystify and dazzle us with an "esoteric secret" that doesn't exist. This is symptomatic of a psychopathological condition, possibly merely a monothematic delusion but one that, nonetheless, requires treatment. Unlike others, I do not consider this to be a chemical/neurological disorder but a cognitive error that can be corrected through talking therapy as opposed to pharmacological intervention.

Seriously?
Let's set the record straight here.

• I'm not a guru.
• I'm not a witch doctor.
• It's not a secret.
• It's probably not original.
• I'm making this book just to tell the world what I think of reality as we know it. I never said it was the truth.
• It's a disorder you say? Perhaps not believing in reincarnation is also a disorder?
• This is what I believe in. I'm not trying to convert you. I simply want you to think about those questions I had posted for you earlier.

saxitoxin wrote:Yes, nature is interesting.

That's all you have to say?
It's a miracle of nature?

saxitoxin wrote:These delusions cannot be allowed to infect others, however. In the former DDR this type of behavior was subject to quarantine because of the very real threat of shared psychotic disorder in a population still trying to free itself from superstitious religious nonsense that suppresses the immutable desires of working families for freedom from religion, regardless of what disguises it clothes itself in or how furiously it protests it is really a "scientific theory."

I'm sorry, do you think I'm trying to start a cult?
Do you assume you are right in everything?
You're merely a human, as we all are.
No one knows the correct answer to everything.

You are closed-minded. And that is not how progress is made.

ANYWHO...

GabonX wrote:As for non-conformist philosophies, try pragmatism.

Cool. I briefly skimmed what it was about... I'll look into it in more detail when I get the time.

GabonX wrote:You believe that time repeats itself.

Actually, I don't think time repeats itself. I have considered it and figured because (I believe) the universe is infinitely large (not in the sense that it stretches on, infinitely, with nothing but darkness and void of matter), things may or may not be able to ultimately repeat themselves in an exact fashion.

GabonX wrote:You believe that consciousness and thoughts are not random, that they have always been, and are predetermined and repeating.

The first part of that I agree with, the repetition part, not so much.

GabonX wrote:It's very Slaughter House 5...

I've never seen or heard of that movie. O_o I highly doubt the idea originated from a movie(?), anyway.

GabonX wrote:You may or may not believe in a God. You may or may not believe that people will experience the consciousness of others at other points in "time," much like reincarnation (not sure about this one).

I don't believe in a god. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at in the second sentence... I think any living being or being to-be will experience conciousness, period. Not only that, but guaranteed more than once because I believe that there is no end.

If these are the tenets of your philosophy it's really not all that original. Either way, stop patronizing us by alluding to some book which you haven't actually written.

I never said it was original. I said I wasn't going to give you all my thoughts on my philosophies.

Woodruff wrote:How does that constitute "being a completely new person" when the discussion is regarding philosophies, rather than physical component molecules?

Sorry, my philosophies are intertwined with theories of mine.

Snorri1234 wrote:It doesn't. Molecules being replaced has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The hardware being replaced doesn't mean the software isn't the same.

Actually. The purpose of that sentence I posted was to make you think about it.
The reason being, I don't think it's entirely true.

Maugena wrote:Seriously?
Let's set the record straight here.
[list][*]I'm not a guru.

mmmkay

Maugena wrote:[*]I'm not a witch doctor.

sure thing

Maugena wrote:[*]It's not a secret.

Whether or not you want "it" labeled as a "secret" is irrelevant. You've just said you're not going to tell anybody your theory. Ergo, it meets the dictionary definition of a "secret." It's fine we refer to it as such.

Maugena wrote:[*]It's probably not original.

true

Maugena wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Yes, nature is interesting.

That's all you have to say?
It's a miracle of nature?

No, that's what you said. I never used, and would never use, the word "miracle" to describe a functional, widely understood scientific process.

I understand you think natural processes like lightening are "miracles" and "magic", I understand it as a straightforward process of electrostatic induction.

Maugena wrote:Do you assume you are right in everything?

The only thing "I" assume is that the vast breadth of knowledge generated by mainstream science is right in commonly and widely understood principles.

Maugena wrote:No one knows the correct answer to everything.

You appear to be confused. When I said the Earth revolves around the Sun, that wasn't something I was taking credit for discovering. Nor was it a process I was taking credit for creating.

These concepts may be best discoursed in a high school Basic Science course.

Maugena wrote:You are closed-minded. And that is not how progress is made.

That's the common refrain of all voudon witch-doctors, shamans and magicians when confounded with very, very, very ... very ...

very ...

... very basic science.

I'm sure we've all had to suffer that stigmata!

saxitoxin wrote:Whether or not you want "it" labeled as a "secret" is irrelevant. You've just said you're not going to tell anybody your theory. Ergo, it meets the dictionary definition of a "secret." It's fine we refer to it as such.

Whatever, fine, have it your way.

saxitoxin wrote:No, that's what you said. I never used, and would never use, the word "miracle" to describe a functional, widely understood scientific process.

I understand you think natural processes like lightening are "miracles" and "magic", I understand it as a straightforward process of electrostatic induction.

No, I was simply trying to put words in your mouth, I won't do that again for the sake of not setting you off again.

saxitoxin wrote:The only thing "I" assume is that the vast breadth of knowledge generated by mainstream science is right in commonly and widely understood principles.

Would you have thought the world was flat if you were alive in the era where people started thinking the world was a sphere?

saxitoxin wrote:You appear to be confused. When I said the Earth revolves around the Sun, that wasn't something I was taking credit for discovering. Nor was it a process I was taking credit for creating.

I wasn't, but I am now... where did you come to the conclusion that I thought you took credit for coming up with that?

saxitoxin wrote:That's the common refrain of all voudon witch-doctors, shamans and magicians when confounded with very, very, very ... very ...

And probably every single person that actually discovered something new was mocked just like how you are mocking me. Not assuming that I have discovered something new, but, just saying...

(Honestly, though, this witch doctor, shaman, magician thing is getting old... not to mention incredibly goofy.)

Edit: Geez. Now look what you've gone and done. I'm no longer on-topic.

Maugena wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Whether or not you want "it" labeled as a "secret" is irrelevant. You've just said you're not going to tell anybody your theory. Ergo, it meets the dictionary definition of a "secret." It's fine we refer to it as such.

Whatever, fine, have it your way.

saxitoxin wrote:No, that's what you said. I never used, and would never use, the word "miracle" to describe a functional, widely understood scientific process.

I understand you think natural processes like lightening are "miracles" and "magic", I understand it as a straightforward process of electrostatic induction.

No, I was simply trying to put words in your mouth, I won't do that again for the sake of not setting you off again.

saxitoxin wrote:The only thing "I" assume is that the vast breadth of knowledge generated by mainstream science is right in commonly and widely understood principles.

Would you have thought the world was flat if you were alive in the era where people started thinking the world was a sphere?

saxitoxin wrote:You appear to be confused. When I said the Earth revolves around the Sun, that wasn't something I was taking credit for discovering. Nor was it a process I was taking credit for creating.

I wasn't, but I am now... where did you come to the conclusion that I thought you took credit for coming up with that?

saxitoxin wrote:That's the common refrain of all voudon witch-doctors, shamans and magicians when confounded with very, very, very ... very ...

And probably every single person that actually discovered something new was mocked just like how you are mocking me. Not assuming that I have discovered something new, but, just saying...

You haven't established you've "discovered" ( ) anything at all (!), let alone something new. Let's not put the cart before that big ol' horse!

As for the flat world, people thought the world was flat in a pre-scientific era before the wide acceptance of Reason and the scientific process. We live in a post, pre-rational world so the juxtaposition is sophistic.

The world is overpopulated and this is the cause of most of the problems we are facing today. For humans to live in balance with nature the population will need to drop dramatically. By studying the populations of various animals we can see that this dramtic drop in population usually occurs due to widespread famine or disease. We are not smart enough to avoid the next pandemic. We are not smart enough and there are not enough reasources to avoid the next huge famine. I do not know if these events will occur during our lifetimes, but I am certain they will occur.

No mush headed liberalism (carbon trading) will prevent global warming from occuring if it is due to human activity. No mush headed liberalism (wealth spreading) will prevent widespread civil unrest when the next pandemic or large scale famine occurs. A liberal world view (foreign aid and lack of "heavy" diplomacy) will not prevent desperate people from resorting to terrorism. So why give in to those ideas? Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die and don't give an inch of ground because if you give an inch they will take a mile.

Or you could just drive around drinking 18 beers and kill off random strangers.

Maugena wrote:

Woodruff wrote:How does that constitute "being a completely new person" when the discussion is regarding philosophies, rather than physical component molecules?

Sorry, my philosophies are intertwined with theories of mine.

Which you, of course, won't discuss here.