Queries

[Ruth]

Yet all you are doing is regurgitating the same answer over and over again. Why can you not give me any reason that any of this work has any validity or logical argument to it at all, when all I have read has none?

What, and do your research for you? Tell you what to think, believe and 'know'? You can do all your research yourself, but only if you chose to do so. That is how it is with all people. If you want to find anything out, find it out for yourself, don't expect to be 'told' what to think and try not to be such a pathetic timewaster! I suppose this is not altogether your fault if you come from a society that 'thinks' brainwashing is 'good' and runs around expecting to be told what to think, how to think and when to do what its told to do.

Who would have thought it was that bad?!

 

[noise]

Wow, I had really taken his initial questions, comments and statements as valid, honest and real. Post #27 from Deckard I guess put everything into context. That's a shame. I guess I learned something.

I run a saviour program, thinking that "no matter what someone can be or will find the willingness to be saved" (whoevers trolling can take that out of context). I of course in reality may be only barely able to save myself. This program I run helps with the other integrated circuits/components - the Ol' "there is hope for psychopaths" as if it was a wrong way of thinking only. I'm glad to be hear in the company of others who have left the lie of their false security bubbles or are practicing or moving toward that act. Thanks for the lesson(s) all!

Edit: One thing I want to say to Laura in particular is, How much of the work do people want from you? How simple and easy and small of a package do they want? I know your not a saviour but I damn well know your a caring and sharing person. Does everyone want truth to be a one liner.. it seems more and more apparent they do from what I've witnessed. Few are they who seem willing to do any Work, this also includes myself, I want to go faster but there are many factors.

How fast I read - How much actually gets understood, then integrated into my wiring - Occasional overloads cause slowdowns.. and on and on. I used to (in my OPINION) be alot like vamp-food. If you can't point me to the paragraph that aswers all the questions in the universe, well I don't know. Vamp-food your name mocked yourself as you really are/were the one trying to sponge from others. The Universe may fit in the palm of your hand but how would you recognize it happening without knowledge of the internal external parts and differences, STS/STO, Good/Evil, introversion/extroversion.. so many preconcieved notions and no self analysis to look at or beyond your/our own prejudices it seems.

Edit: Edit: I guess I know the answer to my own questions to Laura. Saving them is perhaps something that can't be condensed down and given to a person to simply digest and they are saved. The person actually has to save themselves and realize for themselves they are/have tool(s) of their own saving, "if" they can develope that tool(s), at least that is my thinking on it.

edit:edit:edit: :D

 

[anart]

A little late to the conversation I am, but just wanted to say that either a person is driven to find out the truth about themselves and about this life or they are not. If they are driven, then nothing will stop them - and, although, if lucky, they will find a network of like minded people to work with, they will never tell someone else to explain things for them, they study and work and toil to find the truth where it can be found. Most importantly, when they find pieces of the truth, they tend to recognize them right away; a recognition born of the lonliness and despair of understanding that everything they have ever known is not good enough, is not the truth; a recognition born of Work.

Then, there are those people who think everything is a game of 'one-upmanship' - these people tend to never find the truth because they get lost in their own constructed maze of subjective impressions - distracted by a shiny bobble in the palm of their hand that they label as everything from faith to logic.

We're not here to convince anyone of anything - ever - we are here to shine a light on the door that leads to a working hypothesis of the basis and future of our shared 'reality' - it's just a light on a door - if that door scares you or doesn't match the shiny bobble in your hand, keep on walking by.

 

[Nathan]

I shake my head in amazement at the patience everyone has demonstrated here. Particularly Ark, who continued to answer the same questions over and over, despite vampire_f00d's refusal to understand. The irony is, by the time vampire_f00d was banned, s/he could have already been well into reading the Wave series. Anart hit the nail on the head, I think, when she said, "If they are driven, then nothing will stop them". Obviously, vampire_f00d was not driven. If s/he really was driven, then this thread would have been 2 or 3 posts long.

And, vampire_f00d and others like you, if you're going to create multiple personalities online, say a) superficially neutral personality here in this forum, and b) another on Shoutwire calling SOTT "fruitcakes"; you might want to use different nicknames to avoid being busted.

 

[ark]

Well, to add to the patience: quantumfuture.net is back online, so here is the link for the vampire, in case he/she wants to travel in time without logical contradictions using proxy :)

Transdimensional Transfer Techniques

And once again: we do not believe is "talking to us in the future". But, based on scientific reasoning, we can not exclude such as a possibility.

 

[atreides]

I find it endlessly embarrasing as a human being the ego of such persons. So apparent that he had no idea whatsoever what he was talking about. It was painful to read because you can't imagine the horror of such a twisted world view. Truly inhuman suffering is going on there.

 

[Windmill knight]

As for natural phenomena that relates to the bible is simple, they have the turin shroud, there was the spear of destiny at some point but then that disappeared, and also they believe they have found the mountain where noah's ark resided when the rains stopped. For someone well briefed in Christianity I would of thought you would have known all this.

And then it's us who are called "cultists".

Deductive philosophy that makes sense is simple, it goes in a form:

If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q

I have yet to see such a syllogism that actually ADDS to knowledge about the world. If you try to apply that in practical terms, as in, for example:


"If Socrates is a man, then he is rational

Socrates is a man. Therefore he is rational"


What is it that we are actually learning in here? Nothing, since we already assumed that "all men are rational". That Socrates is rational is already implied in that assumption. Strictly speaking, by the way, that's only an assumption, and as such may be incorrect, cause we haven't had a look at "all men" to verify that they are all rational. (In fact, I can think of quite a few examples that seem to contradict this assumption!) To that you may add the problem of what is actually a "man" and what constitutes "rationality".

It is impossible to reach strict deductive proof outside the realm of mere abstractions (for example, outside pure logic or pure mathematics). Because on this world, EVERYTHING an ANYTHING can be doubted. You may want to read David Hume for that. A very smart guy; he shows there's no PROOF that neither the world, nor ourselves as individuals actually exist. We only have clues about these things, but they do not constitute deductive proof. Clues, observations and examples may add up to have a PROBABLE general conclusion about something. But that's not deductive "proof". That's the inductive method, and it's really all we've got on the material world.

It's the same for everything else. I don't even have proof that you are an actual human being behind a computer. You may be a hallucination of mine or an MIT computer program that mimics Internet users. But since I have seen many people using computers and the Internet, and my "hallucination" is rather consistent, I think there is a high probability that you are actually a real human being.

Anyway, the funny thing is that in spite of your defense of deductive logic, and in spite of the fact that deductive logic cannot strictly be applied to the material world, you take the alleged mountain of Noah's Ark as "proof" that Christian myths are correct. Go figure.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

It is impossible to reach strict deductive proof outside the realm of mere abstractions (for example, outside pure logic or pure mathematics). Because on this world, EVERYTHING an ANYTHING can be doubted. You may want to read David Hume for that. A very smart guy; he shows there's no PROOF that neither the world, nor ourselves as individuals actually exist. We only have clues about these things, but they do not constitute deductive proof. Clues, observations and examples may add up to have a PROBABLE general conclusion about something. But that's not deductive "proof". That's the inductive method, and it's really all we've got on the material world.

I'd also recommend for VampFood to read some Kant. If he honestly thinks that a priori and only a priori knowledge is valid, and that all else should be ignored when forming hypotheses on the universe and its observable phenomena, he's got another thing coming! Rationalism is SO 17th century.

I find it funny that VampFood comes on this forum trying desperately to sound 'learned', but only shows his complete ignorance of 'logic' and 'statistics'. Syllogisms may be 100% logical (duh!), but they are CONDITIONAL. IF a, THEN b. This kind of logic tells us NOTHING about the world. In fact, it is a very clever way of IGNORING the world. I can 'syllogize' all I want, saying, "Well, if (a) all governments aim for the greatest good for their countries, and (b) America has a democratic government, then (c) the US government must be working for the greatest good of the US, and conspiracy theories are stupid!" but that doesn't change the fact that I'm WRONG.

Grow up, Vampire, and re-take that intro phil course you wiseacred your way through.

 

[Gimpy]

I recently read the article posted on shoutwire, and unlike a lot of people that are happy to take in one side of a story and believe it, I am more under the impression that you should never take one persons side of the story. Now they can label you what they like, but I am past labelling people as it serves no real purpose, but am curious about some of the things they mentioned in their article. I am aware that defamatory articles, even whole sites, have been put up in the past against you so am wondering if the following aspects about the cassiopean experiment are true:

Do you believe you talk to aliens through ouija boards
Do you use hypnosis to try and contact hidden parts of the mind

Although only two aspects at the moment, i'm curious about these mainly because of my knowledge of them. I'd like to hear your side of the story more due to the fact that like I said I will never take one side of an argument as correct, as it most of the time one side is never correct in an argument, or at least 100% correct. If you could answer those 2 pieces of information for me I would be very greatful as if they are/aren't true I will have more queries about yourselves, but either way look forward to a response.

[VaMpIrE^F00D]

Yeah, I'm way late in finding this thread.

This post raises red flags to me just with the posters name: "Vampire Food"

It tells me the individual had no intention of doing any work, he just wanted 'sound bytes', if you can forgive my pun.

Why respond to these guys? They don't really want to learn, so why engage them at all?



Gimpy

 

[noise]

FOr me it was from the thought that he was being sincere in the first place. I'd generally try and help anyone if I thought they were being sincere in their needs. I didn't want him to believe what I believe since my beliefs are still in a heavy need of rewiring I'm thinkin.' I might have had some selfish desires like some time from now maybe he would have offered some perspective(s) on something(s) that I had never imagined or taken into consideration and therefore learned from him.

I guess I am in my own little fantasy world on it but I thought I'd get back (from the giving is recieving concept). It seems though that you can't help someone learn who already has all the answers or (are therefore) closeminded and incapable of telling the difference between real concern and caring answers cause if they get a small dose of constructive criticism they turn it into - your talking like a totalitarian dictator who has nothing to offer me with your fancy facts or long term theoretical discoveries. It's sad cause I don't think he ever gave the info a chance at all.

Some years ago a friend told me you can't beat the ignorance out of someone no matter how hard you try, if they believe their ignorant belief they will just continue to defend it no matter how much fact and logic you toss at them. Seems he is still correct - one day I'll conserve the energy and not get emotionally involved with (overly) caring and thinking I can beat ignorance out of a person and maybe then I'll free myself from a similar ignorance of my own. :)

 

[Gimpy]

No worries noise. I like your friends saying "You can't beat the ignorance out of someone no matter how hard you try". lol

Learning takes effort, and I've learned the hard way that most folks really don't care to do the work it takes. That is one of the reasons I like this forum, the "go see and find out" attitude is very refreshing. I'm learning more about the Free Will Principle, and finding I've got a lot of programs that arn't so good for Free Will.

Maybe this is why, then, that its good to talk to folks even though we can 'see' they are insincere? To root out our own programs?

What you think?

Gimpy

 

[Mr. Premise]

That's like telling someone not to walk into quicksand. The problem is you don't know it's quicksand until you are already stuck. ;)

Why respond to these guys? They don't really want to learn, so why engage them at all?

Gimpy

 

[StrangeCaptain]

It is impossible to reach strict deductive proof outside the realm of mere abstractions (for example, outside pure logic or pure mathematics). Because on this world, EVERYTHING an ANYTHING can be doubted. You may want to read David Hume for that. A very smart guy; he shows there's no PROOF that neither the world, nor ourselves as individuals actually exist. We only have clues about these things, but they do not constitute deductive proof. Clues, observations and examples may add up to have a PROBABLE general conclusion about something. But that's not deductive "proof". That's the inductive method, and it's really all we've got on the material world.

I'd also recommend for VampFood to read some Kant. If he honestly thinks that a priori and only a priori knowledge is valid, and that all else should be ignored when forming hypotheses on the universe and its observable phenomena, he's got another thing coming! Rationalism is SO 17th century.

I find it funny that VampFood comes on this forum trying desperately to sound 'learned', but only shows his complete ignorance of 'logic' and 'statistics'. Syllogisms may be 100% logical (duh!), but they are CONDITIONAL. IF a, THEN b. This kind of logic tells us NOTHING about the world. In fact, it is a very clever way of IGNORING the world. I can 'syllogize' all I want, saying, "Well, if (a) all governments aim for the greatest good for their countries, and (b) America has a democratic government, then (c) the US government must be working for the greatest good of the US, and conspiracy theories are stupid!" but that doesn't change the fact that I'm WRONG.

Grow up, Vampire, and re-take that intro phil course you wiseacred your way through.

And of course, there is the fact that according to logic, the following statement is true:

"If every giraffe is blue, then my mom is George W. Bush."

Also, an entertaining statement on logic from "Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms" (Ark, I have had to make a strategic withdrawal to undergrad books. Just not ready for the big boy stuff... But if takes 5 lives, let this be the first, right?) by John H. Hubbard:

"However, by the same rules [referring to quantifiers and their negations], the statement, "All eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots" is true, since if it were false, then there would exist an eleven-legged alligator that is not orange with blue spots. The statement, "All eleven-legged alligators are black with white stripes" is equally true."

 

[outcydr]

dear vampire_f00d:

why does logic matter so much anyway? this is all not so much about aliens channeled through a ouija board as it is about history, philosophy, literature, art, humanity in all diversity in this world and whatever other worlds there may be. why not just read it because it is interesting and exciting and makes you "think" about things we all "think" about anyway? read it as fiction if you will. skip around and read what appeals to you. just read it and have fun with it and see if you learn anything. if nothing here really interest you, then i will just wish you to have a good trip wherever you go.

from wave page 11i:

... If you are looking for a new "prophet" or a new "system of belief," you might as well look elsewhere right now. Take the "blue pill" and be done with it!

 

[noise]

Hi Gimpy,

I'm partial I guess to what you said. Not to imply I disagree by anymeans but I think it is that and learning self awareness..
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=22&p=1 (a link I've been going over since I joined the forum)
Perhaps self awareness can tech freewill more fully. At different times or at differant speeds or levels (or simply everyones different at absorbing information). I'm not quite able to grasp fully all the freewill principles but I think as I become more self-aware those laws will to some degree come of their own(?) -become more clear. Could be that I'm confusing self-aware, self observation and self-conscious.. :) I still tend to do that a bit. The confusion is in which term means which concept - OK I'm on a limited vocabulary have some limited (brain damage) :D grasp thus making it easier to confuse the vast array of subjects.

I guess what I mean is that I believe when the self gets split between the I('s) and "it" and crystalization happens I believe then that alignment (sts/sto) becomes much more apperant to the it. From there I think one could gain the insight to know what freewill is in the truest sense.. and in my own fantasy (to include what I already stated) be able to see the essence of that law (freewill). Outside the fact that this may sound rather well on the road to the padded room hahahah! I don't mean it in terms of 'seeing it, there it is. Just to be clear. lol! ok maybe the padded room. ;) It's mostly some more I's floating around in there and alot of conceptual imagination.

/shrug

Sorry, I doubt that answered your question ':D' Since studying that link for a couple weeks now I've been having major bouts of the most simplest little joys about several things that I at one point used to waste time on stressing over.

Edit: I'm going to edit this and make clear what I mean.

"I guess what I mean is that I believe when the self gets split between the I('s) and "it" and crystalization happens I believe then that alignment (sts/sto) becomes much more apperant to the it."

What I mean by the above is although I know I live in an STS universe I believe through will and intent that I 'wish' to be or intend to learn to be geared more toward STO. It may be that in the end my perception of my 'supposed' orientation is completely selfish and anchored in STS. My "it" is dung so to speak. Then it would be obvious to me that freewill is of little importance. It seems to me very improbable as somehow I was drawn here and from what I see that is not the groups orientation nor my inclination. I (and there's an army of them) have been wrong before. To reference mysel(ves)f and not the groups orientation.