by slimboyfat 583 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
That's not the opinion of the two major advocates of Atheism.
So what? Atheism has nothing to do with what you and they have chosen to fall for.
Anyway, you've yet to show us how your definition of posovitism matches what nicolau wrote. Why are you afraid to show that what you wrote matches?
So what? Atheism has nothing to do with what you and they have chosen to fall for.
My point is to show that Bicameralism is a serious valid thesis about the origin of human consciousness. Even famous atheists consider it, I'm not just picking and choosing some "obscure hallucinations from a random guy".
This psychological thesis says that human consciousness is a very recent event in history. And human consciousness did not appeared side by side with anatomical evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens.
It's a very convincing hypothesis and I think you would enjoy to read it.
Viviane I don't understand your lack of education to me. I never insulted you and I'm just sharing some knowledge about the origin of consciousness and its relationship with the purpose of life. This is interesting because is compatible with the Catholic theology that says Genesis is an allegory about the origin of immortal soul in humans, and this soul is responsible to consciousness in man. Catholic theology says that about Genesis since the third century (Saint Augustine), and Catholic Church accepts entirely the anatomical evolution of man (officially since 1996 I think).
About the Positivism, I just classified you as a positivist because you seems just consider the scientific method as the only valid human knowledge. Am I right about this opinion of you? If not, tell me what other forms of human knowledge (beyond scientific method) do you accept as valid.
My point is to show that Bicameralism is a serious valid thesis about the origin of human consciousness.
Soz, Richard Dawkins saying it's probably rubbish but he's hedging his bets doesn't count as validation. Also, if it's a thesis, that means he's intending to prove it with science. Why are you promoting posotivism?
Speaking of which, you've yet to show that your definition of posotivism matches your claims. Why won't you do that?
It's a very convincing hypothesis and I think you would enjoy to read it.
I have read it. And if it is a "hypothesis", that means he is using science. Why are you promoting posotivism?
Viviane I don't understand your lack of education to me. I never insulted you and I'm just sharing some knowledge about the origin of consciousness and its relationship with the purpose of life.
You're not sharing knowledge, first. You're sharing woo and deepitys and calling it knowledge and making false claims about people and reality. Second, I have no idea what you mean by "lack of education to me".
About the Positivism, I just classified you as a positivist because you seems just consider the scientific method as the only valid human knowledge. Am I right about this opinion of you? If not, tell me what other forms of human knowledge (beyond scientific method) do you accept as valid.
You are wrong about me. You shouldn't make claims about people you don't know anything about. This isn't about me.
Also, if it's a thesis, that means he's intending to prove it with science.
Yes, he is. It's related to consciousness and that's the subject of Psychology. Some positivists doesn't consider Psychology as valid knowledge though.
You are wrong about me. You shouldn't make claims about people you don't know anything about. This isn't about me.
That's why I'd asked you. My apologies if I'd insulted you. I can only make claims about your positions based about what you writes here. Could you tell me what other kinds of knowledge do you accept as valid?
If it makes you feel better I can say I did a bad joke about you being a positivist.
I would not be comfortable if someone labelled me as a positivist. That's why I said maybe you even aren't aware to be one.
And if you says you're definitely not a positivist so that's it. I'll not call you a positivist anymore.
You're sharing woo and deepitys and calling it knowledge and making false claims about people and reality.Maybe. But if I'm wrong it will not make a significant difference in purpose of life if our destination is complete oblivion.
You know the real problem is if I'm right. That's makes one wonder about...
Nic' - waiting for enlightenment.
I like that nicolau as a purpose for life. fits with supple gradualism too
Yes, he is. It's related to consciousness and that's the subject of Psychology. Some positivists doesn't consider Psychology as valid knowledge though.
Except he doesn't have a hypothesis. It's just something he said. So.... you promoting an unscientific idea as something to be proven while trying to use it to say....well, whatever weird thing you've fallen for.
That's why I'd asked you. My apologies if I'd insulted you. I can only make claims about your positions based about what you writes here. Could you tell me what other kinds of knowledge do you accept as valid?
No, you made a claim about me with absolutely no knoweldge of whether or not it was true. You didn't ask until you got called out for it.
Yes, I could tell you.
If it makes you feel better I can say I did a bad joke about you being a positivist.
There is literally nothing you could do to alter any emotion I have any any amount,
I would not be comfortable if someone labelled me as a positivist. That's why I said maybe you even aren't aware to be one.
No, you assumed I didn't know what it was and chose to attempt to speak down to me. Sucks for you that I actually know what posovitism is. You've yet to produce any evidence that you do. This might be an excellent lesson for you, you aren't as smart as you think you are and you should go around talking down to people, making ignorant claims and assumptions about them and then promoting those ignorant claims and assumptions as fact.
Maybe. But if I'm wrong it will not make a significant difference in purpose of life if our destination is complete oblivion.
Nope, the problem is that sharing and encouraging people to fall for deepitys and woo encourages things like anti-vaxxers and parents that think prayer will heal their child. It actually costs people their lives.
You know the real problem is if I'm right. That's makes one wonder about...
Once you explain how your definition of posotovism matches the one Nicolau posted (something you seem very eager to avoid), then you can explain how it's a "problem" if you are right.
I mean, this isn't /r/Im14AndThisIsDeep.
Except he doesn't have a hypothesis. It's just something he said.
Yes, bicameralism is a hypothesis in Psychology. Like you or not.
Once you explain how your definition of posotovism matches the one Nicolau posted.(something you seem very eager to avoid), then you can explain how it's a "problem" if you are right.
Viviane, stop.
I was not talking about being right about definitions of positivism I'd made or if these definitions match with someone else's definition. I already said to you that I don't mind to be wrong about these definitions and matches.
I'm talking about if I am right about what you perceive as "woo and deepitys".
My "woo and deepitys" says that you have a part of your being that is immortal. And there's an eternal destination to this part of you.
And you alone is responsible for this destination.
That's what I really and sincerely care about you. My goal it's not offend you and fight for some virtual dialectical victory in this cyberworld.
I just want to plant a seed of reflection in your mind about the possibility that I can be right. You know there's at least a doubt about this possibility.
And it's useless for you to maunder as the shadows of doubt and denial gets more intricate and subtle. You know exactly what lies in the midst of this darkness.
Yes, bicameralism is a hypothesis in Psychology. Like you or not.
No, it isn't. A hypothesis is a testable, falsifiable prediction. Bicameralism is not that at all.
I was not talking about being right about definitions of positivism I'd made or if these definitions match with someone else's definition. I already said to you that I don't mind to be wrong about these definitions and matches.
You made a claim about people, calling them evil, using your definition as the basis of almost everything you've said.
Yet you can't even attempt to show that one thing is true even after you've said it was? Why not? Do you know it isn't true? Are you afraid to find out?
I just want to plant a seed of reflection in your mind about the possibility that I can be right. You know there's at least a doubt about this possibility.
I really couldn't care less what you want. Please refrain from making ignorant claims about me. You keep doing it, now that you know it's an ignorant (and false claim), it's a lie every time you repeat it. Dishonesty is not an appealing quality.
And it's useless for you to maunder as the shadows of doubt and denial gets more intricate and subtle. You know exactly what lies in the midst of this darkness.
I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to say about me. I am assuming it's wrong and uninformed based on past experience.
So, so sum up... JM can't show is central point is correct or makes sense, every single thing he has said about other people, philosophy and science has been wrong. But, there is a chance his specific woo, out of all of the woo in the world, might just be the one that's right, but you need to accept it involved bestiality and/or incest. And that you secretly know it's true, according to JM.
Good grief, JM, put up or shut up. And stop pretending you know anything about me.
No, it isn't. A hypothesis is a testable, falsifiable prediction. Bicameralism is not that at all.
You made a claim about people, calling them evil... Are you afraid to find out?... And stop pretending you know anything about me.
Yes, bicameralism is a hypothesis in Psychology. Like you or not.
Seriously, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
I belong to an ancient kind of knowledge. One that have been around since the dawn of consciousness and it will be around until the end of times.
We wrote the Bible, Viviane.
OK, you're just a nutter. Some wear tin foil, some are anti-vaxxers, some rage about clouds. You think you wrote the Bible.
Science cannot answer these questions and much more, Viviane. And these questions are not "woo and deepitys".
Thy hypocrisy of anti-science nutters is that they use science to spread their nuttery
You can prove this for yourself, you already knows that. You only have to accept what you already know, what you always knew.
They're also full of shit, evidence above. Nutty, nutty shit.
