Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #101 Share Posted December 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Mr Guitar said: To me, nothing is sacred. To me - everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted December 5, 2017 #102 Share Posted December 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Mr. Argon said: To me - everything. So there is nothing profane? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #103 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Just now, stereologist said: So there is nothing profane? A bit less sacred. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysippos Posted December 5, 2017 #104 Share Posted December 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, stereologist said: Another ploy to cover up your falsehoods about a contradiction? How about this. I'll point out the contradiction, if you answer my question. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted December 5, 2017 #105 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Just now, Scepticus said: How about this. I'll point out the contradiction, if you answer my question. LOL. Go ahead point out the contradiction. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted December 5, 2017 #106 Share Posted December 5, 2017 29 minutes ago, stereologist said: The propositions A and B are given. They are not related propositions. These propositions are assigned numerical values in the middle, but something else on the right side. Then the bottom asks if the solution is one of the propositions leading to a numerical assignment for spirit. I don't see that there is anything connected here. ~ That's the part where the arguments must provide with the 'proofs' by which they arrive at A or B ... doofus ( look, it was meant to be a bit of a some light hearted fun ... ) ~ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysippos Posted December 5, 2017 #107 Share Posted December 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, stereologist said: LOL. Go ahead point out the contradiction. Answer the question then. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted December 5, 2017 #108 Share Posted December 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scepticus said: Answer the question then. This simply tells us all that there was no contradiction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysippos Posted December 5, 2017 #109 Share Posted December 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, stereologist said: This simply tells us all that there was no contradiction. Actually it doesn't. But I am fascinated how you draw conclusions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted December 5, 2017 #110 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Just now, Scepticus said: Actually it doesn't. But I am fascinated how you draw conclusions. Your reluctance shows that you were untruthful. It is funny that you are fascinated by being caught. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #111 Share Posted December 5, 2017 The sacred–profane dichotomy is an idea posited by French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who considered it to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden."[1] In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the sacred–profane dichotomy was not equivalent to good/evil. The sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysippos Posted December 5, 2017 #112 Share Posted December 5, 2017 1 minute ago, stereologist said: Your reluctance shows that you were untruthful. It is funny that you are fascinated by being caught. That a very unscientific way to draw a conclusion. Do you always use this method? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #113 Share Posted December 5, 2017 try to understand each other. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #114 Share Posted December 5, 2017 stereo is a good logician and so are you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysippos Posted December 5, 2017 #115 Share Posted December 5, 2017 20 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said: try to understand each other. I always do, hence my responses. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #116 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Just now, Scepticus said: I always do, hence my responses. i know. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #117 Share Posted December 5, 2017 it's nice to try to focus on truth in what a person is saying. interpretation is a very messy thing - perceptions are connected to emotions. flame is sparked easily. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #118 Share Posted December 5, 2017 but of course we have to deal with perceived fallacies. very complicated. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #119 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scepticus said: I'll now ask you, is everything in the universe energy? i view it as consciousness, but energy is also acceptable term. physical plane is a certain densed range of this consciousness (energy). Edited December 5, 2017 by Mr. Argon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted December 5, 2017 #120 Share Posted December 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said: i view it as consciousness, but energy is also acceptable term. Energy in physics is not synonymous with consciousness. There is a law that appears to always be true and that is the law of conservation of energy. Energy is not created or destroyed, but is changed from one form to another. Do you believe that is true about consciousness? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #121 Share Posted December 5, 2017 1 minute ago, stereologist said: Energy in physics is not synonymous with consciousness. There is a law that appears to always be true and that is the law of conservation of energy. Energy is not created or destroyed, but is changed from one form to another. Do you believe that is true about consciousness? yes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted December 5, 2017 #122 Share Posted December 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said: yes. Interesting. With the world population increasing, how do you propose that consciousness is not increasing? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #123 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, stereologist said: Interesting. With the world population increasing, how do you propose that consciousness is not increasing? it is not increasing or decreasing. it is evolving. world population only means more (human)souls present on a material plane of existance. Edited December 5, 2017 by Mr. Argon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted December 5, 2017 #124 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said: it is not increasing or decreasing. it is evolving. world population only means more souls present on a material plane of existance. So how do you know that consciousness is conserved? You did say that it is like energy in physics in which it is not created or destroyed. Edited December 5, 2017 by stereologist 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrius Posted December 5, 2017 #125 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, stereologist said: So how do you know that consciousness is conserved? i don't. it is a hypothesis. by studying a nature of universe the most likely explanation for me is that is one vast consciousness on different levels of evolution. in that respect i view a consciousness of a man as a consciousness on a certain cosmic level of development on a voyage through physical realm. i view a physical life as a cosmic dream and true higher self as being on different plane of existance. this dream is a way of evolving, of learning. physical brain in this respect is a sort of organ on physical plane which enables a contact with higher consciousness in a limited way. analogy may perhaps be as a brain being a tv set and higher consciousness a tv signal. Edited December 5, 2017 by Mr. Argon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts