Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Heaven and Hell


Guyver
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, third_eye said:

So your incessant claim to having speed reading skills is also another or just one more of your multitude of lies... 

~

Pretty sure one of our members tried to test that claim of his one time (I think it was @Liquid Gardens) and he respectfully declined.

Who knows why? :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Pretty sure one of our members tried to test that claim of his one time (I think it was @Liquid Gardens) and he respectfully declined.

Ha, mine was actually a test of his astral travelling to address his misbelief that he is travelling anywhere outside of his head.  He declined to astral travel to my work office and tell me a three-letter word I was going to write nice and large for him on our whiteboard. 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Ha, mine was actually a test of his astral travelling to address his misbelief that he is travelling anywhere outside of his head.  He declined to astral travel to my work office and tell me a three-letter word I was going to write nice and large for him on our whiteboard. 

My mistake. :)

Maybe his astral vehicle needed repairs that day?

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • I don't think we need language to be  'fully human" .. If you don't believe that,  ask any baby.  ^_^ 
  •  
  •  ...not a BIG point I guess,  . .all these pages and that's what I come up with ? ! :lol:
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, eight bits said:

You fail to show that human language is required for abstract and conceptual thinking. At best, you offer a fallacious argument from ignorance, thet you personally can't understand how such thinking could occur without human language.

Who cares what you personally can't understand?

Since that is supposedly your "argument" (as opposed to the preaching of religious dogma that it so obviously is), and you're not going to back it up, then we need to move on.

No I use modern knowledge to explain tha t abstract and conceptual thinking  (by their very nature) require "language" The y can't exist without it.

  Further I offered evidences that  no non  human animals demonstrate behaviours which result from  abstract and conceptual/symbolic thinking 

Third i argue tha t there is no  other evidence FOR that ability in other animals 

I agree tha t, without getting inside an animals mind it i hard to be absolute BUTr we CAN get inside human minds and we can do similar scans on other  animal brain activity.

While there are some similarities there are also huge differences  indicating that  non human animals don't think like humans can

The problem is that most humans use their own self awareness to assume and judge how much non human animals have.  That is misleading 

We have the capacity for  cognitive (not behavioural) empathy and cognitive  (not biological) love   Non humans do not, thus we can feel for other animals in ways the y simply cannot feel for us  we canfeel a form of grief love empathy for our animal partners which the y cannot feel for us   eg we KNOW the y are going to die  and tha t we will suffer loss, long before they do  .  

 

Lastly, it intrigues me why some people have such an investment in believing that  non human animals  are like us in their mental capacity. If that was true, we could not eat them, kill them, harm them, or use them as unpaid labour.

They would have the same rights as all self  aware beings, for the same reasons that humans have those rights.

'And if any animal or artificial intelligence ever demonstrates human level self  awareness I will be a strong advocate for giving it those rights. 

and I dont even know what religious dogma you have in your mind

I formulated my opinion on animal cognition as an adolescent from  reading, and at uni from  my studies in cognition and language.

I was an atheist and humanist at the time  

I haven't altered my opinion since then.  

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lightly said:
  • I don't think we need language to be  'fully human" .. If you don't believe that,  ask any baby.  ^_^ 
  •  
  •  ...not a BIG point I guess,  . .all these pages and that's what I come up with ? ! :lol:

Babies are not  "fully human"  

Indeed, by law, unborn babies don't have any  human rights  in many jurisdictions. 

Young children don't have the rights  (or responsibilities) of an adult 

IMO animals, as the y evolve self  aware consciousness, will go through a legal stage where the y are treated like human infants and children, before reaching adult hood  

How does this tie back to the OP ?

Simple.

 Only humans have the abilty to construct the concepts of heaven and hell, and only we have the abilty to choose which we live in, while we live here on earth.

You can construct heaven as a state of mind or hell, while you are living.

  No other animal can do this.  

Other animals don't have the costs or benefits of belief. and don't have faiths or religions .

Why? 

Simple.

They don't have the cognitive capacity needed to construct and maintain those concepts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, third_eye said:

So your incessant claim to having speed reading skills is also another or just one more of your multitude of lies... 

~

 There is no connection between reading speed and typing skills 

I think very fast.

i type as fast as I can, to get my thoughts down. Then I go back and draft the words i wrote 

I read at around 700 wpm , and think possibly 10 times faster than that. eg in my mind i can construct a narrative of around 7000 words in a minute  (although that is  hard to measure) 

i can only type about  40 wpm,  and am entirely self  taught 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 There is no connection between reading speed and typing skills 

So you don't read what you write... 

~

Quote

I think very fast.

You lie even quicker... 

~

Quote

i type as fast as I can, to get my thoughts down. Then I go back and draft the words i wrote 

That's not what you said the last time... Try again 

~

Quote

I read at around 700 wpm , and think possibly 10 times faster than that. 

You breathE at around 64 Bpm and lie 12 times per breath, quite possibly 100 times speedier than that. 

You win. 

~

 

Quote

i can only type about  40 wpm,  and am entirely self  taught 

Too bad for your lies, if only it were 40 million wpm or better yet 40 wps... Your lies would go by so fast no body would be able to bat at a vowel. 

~

Edited by third_eye
'E'
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lightly said:
  • I don't think we need language to be  'fully human" .. If you don't believe that,  ask any baby.  ^_^ 
  •  
  •  ...not a BIG point I guess,  . .all these pages and that's what I come up with ? ! :lol:

It is an excellent point, I noted this too. Babies also aren’t self aware until 18 months old, either. 
 

And, we don’t need language to be fully human, try telling a family member that their loved one is not fully human now that they have Alzheimer’s a disease that wipes them out cognitively. 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

It is an excellent point, I noted this too. Babies also aren’t self aware until 18 months old, either. 
 

And, we don’t need language to be fully human, try telling a family member that their loved one is not fully human now that they have Alzheimer’s a disease that wipes them out cognitively. 

 

Very well said, and thanks for sharing your thoughts you made a beautiful point that can't be denied!:tu:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I read at around 700 wpm , and think possibly 10 times faster than that. eg in my mind i can construct a narrative of around 7000 words in a minute  (although that is  hard to measure) 

In the past you have said:

Quote

 but I can easily read 1000 wpm  (that is not even  real speed reading its just fast reading )

Quote

a bit over 600 wpm

Quote

it might drop as low as 500 wpm

So you can read "easily" up to 1000 wpm, but it can "drop as low as 500 wpm".

Interesting. Seems like you're all over the map with yourself.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 There is no connection between reading speed and typing skills 

I think very fast.

i type as fast as I can, to get my thoughts down. Then I go back and draft the words i wrote 

I read at around 700 wpm , and think possibly 10 times faster than that. eg in my mind i can construct a narrative of around 7000 words in a minute  (although that is  hard to measure) 

i can only type about  40 wpm,  and am entirely self  taught 

What point are you trying to make, that you are special, that you are super human.

Do you think that anyone believes what your saying about?

I have a question, are you human or are you a Android?

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

In the past you have said:

So you can read "easily" up to 1000 wpm, but it can "drop as low as 500 wpm".

Interesting. Seems like you're all over the map with yourself.

 

4 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

In the past you have said:

So you can read "easily" up to 1000 wpm, but it can "drop as low as 500 wpm".

Interesting. Seems like you're all over the map with yourself.


Typing 40 words a minute with his errors is truly nothing to brag about. 
Reading at his word count is low too, compared to the standards now. 


 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I was an atheist and humanist at the time 

Hi Walker

And yet you claim your god is an alien so really what kind of atheist are you?:lol:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

That being said, I think you're seriously missing the point. It has nothing to do with the inherent nature of the claim being made--whether the claim is actually true or not is irrelevant, but without evidence your truth claims may or may not be true, and in the absence of evidence I reserve the right to claim it as false until you, the initial claimant, provides evidence to substantiate the claim.

Correctamundo!  The claim could be anything from alien abduction to juggling bowling balls.  Without evidence, all we have is belief.  If you tell me you can juggle bowling balls, I won't believe you.  But if you juggle bowling balls in front of me...that is evidence.  I won't believe you can juggle bowling balls...because once you provide irrefutable evidence, we are no longer in the realm of belief, rather, we are in the realm of knowing.  Once I see you juggle the bowling balls...I know you can do that.

So, in the end, we only have two avenues...one is belief...the other knowing.  Without evidence...it becomes a matter of belief.  Evidence provides proof of knowing.  Non-evidence provides an avenue of belief.  Personally, I like to know things.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

And yet you claim your god is an alien so really what kind of atheist are you?:lol:

Back then I  was a person who didn't believe in the existence of "gods."

 Now I know that such beings exist 

Of course a god is alien  (unless it happens to be human)

"god"  is just a name/ label which  humans attach to a certain class of being.  Humans have had  thousands of gods 

Jehovah is an alien. Thor is an alien. Ra is an alien.  Kali is an alien.(I think)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

What point are you trying to make, that you are special, that you are super human.

Do you think that anyone believes what your saying about?

I have a question, are you human or are you a Android?

No I am neither Those abilities are hard learned and won, from  teaching  by my parents and others as a child, and practice over life  My brother is even faster in some of those areas  All my family including my nieces and nephews read  as much as I do and often as fast or faster  Thus they have done very well at university, in courses ranging from  nuclear biology through  law and environmental science to  an advanced degree in   writing, film and  literature , including a scholarship to a university in Canada 

 

I've known a couple of other teachers who were as fast /skilled. 

Anyone could do the same, with a bit of time and effort. 

I was responding to 3rd eyes  poorly constructed link between speed reading and typing skills .

If  you  don't believe  me, then you don't accept what an ordinary human can do, given time, discipline, and effort. 

Unfortunately, this will also limit a person who doesn't believe the y can do these things. My parents raised me to try anything and to  believe I could succeed  a t almost anything 

On the other hand, I am tone deaf, and cant play a chord on any musical instrument, and admire the posters here who can.

While I cant do it, I don't disbelieve their claims 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Anyone could do the same, with a bit of time and effort. 

You mean learning skimming techniques and then passing it off as reading? Yeah, I have seen the same goofy claims that you’re touting, being made by companies trying to sell ridiculous speed reading products/courses. Get over yourself.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

This is just not true. You don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do when it comes to people making truth claims, thanks. :)

If no evidence is provided to support the claim then I have no obligation to accept the claim as a possibility, nor do I have an obligation to accept it as true. I can claim the initial as false until proven otherwise as the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the claimant, not on me.

You love skirting along the edges of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I can remain unconvinced and assert your truth claim as false until you provide evidence otherwise. To be certain you are wrong could take an infinite amount of time, depending on the claims being made. That doesn't mean that I can't claim it as false, though.

That being said, I think you're seriously missing the point. It has nothing to do with the inherent nature of the claim being made--whether the claim is actually true or not is irrelevant, but without evidence your truth claims may or may not be true, and in the absence of evidence I reserve the right to claim it as false until you, the initial claimant, provides evidence to substantiate the claim.

Might be that chunky 180 IQ of yours not being able to understand my simpleton logic. ;)

And understanding the burden of proof seems to be something that you don't get. Perhaps you just don't understand the burden of proof. Perhaps you don't understand that I can make a negating counter-point in the absence of evidence to support the initial truth claim. There are no grounds on which I am required to accept your claim as true. 

Maybe you just don't like that because you're a controlling, manipulative person who is used to people accepting their claims as gospel, like an SDA pathfinder would? 

Who knows? :)

You can't claim that you are factually correct without providing evidences for that claim. See what I did there?

Then it's your opinion that you've read 30000 books.

Good for you. I don't give a damn. I'm not you. I don't care about you or how you perceive things. To me, your claims are wide as an ocean and as deep as a puddle.

Maybe you did read 30,000 books. To me, though, it's a false claim. I don't believe you. I am under no obligation to change my views, either.

Tough luck.

I can point out the rules of debate, logic and argument 

You are using one which was made up to justify disbelief  in anything 

If you cant prove a claim false you may disbelieve it but cant claim tha t it s false.

That requires proof, just as a truth claim does.  

You have no obligation to do anything including using logic or the rules of debate. 

Ok i accept your disbelief  That is fair and logical .

I accept your counter claim that my claim is false 

BUT until you can prove it false both claims have equal validity and strength .nk 

EXCEPT that there is little or no evidence for human level self  awareness in non human animals, or an abilty to think in abstract conceptual terms, and considerable evidence that they cannot  ,making my claim more likely to be correct 

Not my opinion that I've read 30000 books. That is knowldge Thats a minimum number over the last  65-70 years  it is less than 500 books per year

It is interesting how anti religious bias is evident from  you and 8bits.

In fact i was never a pathfinder and I haven't set foot in a chirch for about 30 years.

I have no religious faith or beliefs.

    Dogmatic?  Yes. That is my nature and part of why I was teacher for almost 45 years.

  Certain of self,   strong in self  esteem and ego?

Yes.

Indeed I believe that is essential for a happy healthy  successful life 

Given that I have no religious beliefs or drivers,  I wonder what other means you  can use to justify your prejudices. 

Your disbelief doesn't hurt or affect me .

However ,anyone who disbelieves a true claim,   self limits their own knowledge and understanding of people and the world the y inhabit . Knowledge is power, and truth will set you free. :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

You mean learning skimming techniques and then passing it off as reading? Yeah, I have seen the same goofy claims that you’re touting, being made by companies trying to sell ridiculous speed reading products/courses. Get over yourself.  

No.

I also learned, and taught, skimming techniques, which is very different to true speed reading, and has a different purpose.

The way it worked for me was that I looked a t  a page for a second or two.  I saw every word and punctuation mark on that page in one glance,  and memorised it.

Later, I could rewrite the page exactly,  with the same words and punctuation. I used this technique in exams at uni., where i could recall every page of notes taken in lectures over the full year,  (about   30-5000 words)  if i read through them  before an exam 

This was the extreme.   More usually i could do this and have a 90% accurate recall.

I've slowed down a bit as I've stopped needing the skill and got older, but last week I did an online test. This maxed out at 700 words in a minute.

I completed 700 words in about 50 seconds 

In the test given afterwards, I got 80% recall/accuracy,  which is about the same for most people  reading at an average speed.   I did 3 separate  tests including JFK's inaugural address, and got similar speeds and results 

There are two techniques involved 

 1. Being able to see a whole page in the same way a beginning  reader sees and identifies one word, then a sentence.

  Thus, reading page by page, not word by word.

 2. The abilty to memorise that all, and recall it, like an actor learning their lines  

The eidetic memory will  decay over time but if you  transfer it to long term memory, you will remember the basics, 50 years later. 

I cant speak for companies seeking money. I taught myself  back in the 60s, after reading how JFK learned to speed read and getting a scholarship to complete my high school education  

I'd been reading since age 3 and was always a fast reader  (same for all my siblings and their own children  ) 

Ps 700 words is my recreational reading speed.  If i really concentrate, and give myself a headache, I can double that but this will reduce comprehension. eg one lunch time at school I sat down and read ,"T he English Patient "'cover to cover in 40 minutes. That's over 80000 words in 40 mins or 2000 words a minute 

I had a headache and a dry throat when I finished, but i could understand it all, and tell you about the characters, storyline etc. with as much accuracy as a person who took many hours to read it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

It is an excellent point, I noted this too. Babies also aren’t self aware until 18 months old, either. 
 

And, we don’t need language to be fully human, try telling a family member that their loved one is not fully human now that they have Alzheimer’s a disease that wipes them out cognitively. 

 

Well the y are not, and thus they have certain rights and responsibilities removed from  them, because they are no longer fully human. ie the y cant function as a normal adult human is expected to function. 

This is the logical/rational response not one based on emotion .

Hence, of course, those of us who do possess full functionality have a responsibility to care for those of us who do not, including babies and the mentally infirm 

There are a number of animals who are similar in cognitive function to an infant   We do, or at least should, treat them as we might a human infant, but they will never  grow  further in abilty, while a human child normally will 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I was responding to 3rd eyes  poorly constructed link between speed reading and typing skills .

Why do you lie so much? 

I pointed out that you said that you don't read what you type, which was what you said, which was also more lies nested among your many lies. 

~

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s the down side of it in a nut shell. Don’t believe and it’s going to be real hot in you’re afterlife. Have a little faith and either way you can’t go wrong.

Once you leave this life there is no backing up. We are here to live by a simple set of rules that betters humanity. Unfortunately not everyone thinks along the same line. So we have prisons to house some and the electric chair for others. And even these people can find their way into Heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Back then I  was a person who didn't believe in the existence of "gods."

 Now I know that such beings exist 

Of course a god is alien  (unless it happens to be human)

"god"  is just a name/ label which  humans attach to a certain class of being.  Humans have had  thousands of gods 

Jehovah is an alien. Thor is an alien. Ra is an alien.  Kali is an alien.(I think)   

Hi Walker

So either you are lying to yourself or us about being an atheist and in all the years of reading your posts you have yet to demonstrate that you are an atheist as you preach your belief in a god.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

You have no obligation to do anything including using logic or the rules of debate. 

 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I have no religious faith or beliefs.

 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Given that I have no religious beliefs or drivers, 

Hi Walker

What logic have you applied as you have a god and claim to be an atheist?

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.