Posts by MrRoboto

18

God is not the creator

by venus in

every theory (including darwin’s) primarily proves someone has to design a theory; every product primarily proves someone has to design it.

when neil armstrong and buzz aldrin landed on the moon it primarily proved intelligence of many people had to design that moon-mission.. 1) if every machine primarily proves someone designed it, then a much more complex, wonderful, and living machine with reproductive feature would mean the same: someone with corresponding ability, of higher energy, designed it because effect explains the cause just like harvest explains the sowing (whether you saw sowing or not).

science shows human body is like a complex machinery with many departments/systems (such as respiratory, digestive, cardiovascular/circulatory, renal/urinary, endocrine, nervous, musculoskeletal, integumentary/exocrine, lymphatic/immune, reproductive etc.

MrRoboto

You remind me of Ralph Smart (infinite waters) on you tube, my first exposure to the ideas.

I'm leaning heavily to the Maya side of things based on my own observations as well as experimental evidence but at this point I can't quite make the jump over to the spiritual side of things (but I don't rule it out either, just can't find sufficient evidence)

I was wondering though, in your regression that you mention, do you thing there will be any long term effects of repressing the memories as you led her to do? Or is this a permanent overwrite of those memories?

Also, with everything being energy/brahma how would you feel about guiding a person through mind-over-matter type healing or other physical changes that should be impossible? (hair or eye color changes for example) just my idea of reality tampering/experiments.

Not really sure what any of this has to do with JW-land but incidentally, my awakening to the Maya was concurrent to my bORG awakening. I wonder if some dmt would help my eye at all.

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

MrRoboto

Outtahere,

You personally know what you have been programmed to think and 'believe' as a highly sophisticated AI system. I would expect you to say those things about your conscious mind but you are no different than a less cool (gotta wear the right sun glasses) version of Agent Smith. I, of course, am Neo.

I only say that because from my perspective, I cannot prove any different - I could measure your brain activity but.. And then again, I am your Smith, and you are my Neo - from your vantage point.

Consciousness if one of those things that people really don't have the words to describe on more than a superficial level. Any description we may want to use will inevitably lead to more questions and lack of clarity.

x. I think therefore I am.

y. wait, but I also think!

x. well, I'm not so sure about that, therefore you are NOT, possibly. But I most definitely am.

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

MrRoboto

Is that to say one mind as a fundamental feature..? or each particle, quark, sun, atom, human etc has a mind each? Where is the line drawn?

consciousness observing may collapse the waveform but that doesn't give the cat consciousness (even if it is alive, its' consciousness if not derived from the observer)

I'm not completely sure I understand their "experience" terminology but I would say that if a conscious observer collapses a waveform then that should be the test for consciousness. Can an atom always collapse the waveform for photons ? if not, is it because they can't "observe" them?

It has been shown that detectors (observers made of matter) can be used in experiments to collapse the waveform - but only when consciousness if involved - that is to say that if the data is erased before consciousness has a chance to observe it (i.e. humans) then the result is the same as if no consciousness was involved at all - I think that should tell us something about what is conscious and what isn't. (i'm referring to the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, if you want more info on that)

I, for one, would like to see the delayed choice quantum eraser performed with a dog as the observer. and also with many humans, to see if there is any change

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

MrRoboto

If a person was standing before you and you asked them if they were conscious, what is their answer?

Do you believe them? Why? You cannot verify the answer as being correct.

Sufficient AI would have you convinced that it is conscious, self-aware.

Would it actually be? if not, why not?

How can you show that your own consciousness is not simply a complex-enough AI system to fool others and even perhaps yourself? Would that mean you are not conscious?

Aside from complexity, what is the difference between you and Mario (from Mario Bros. games)

If consciousness cannot arise from non-conscious matter alone then there would have to be a conscious creator of us. Assuming we are actually conscious.

If it can arise from non-conscious matter alone then we should have seen some evidence of that already and we should perhaps be able to design conscious systems already. That would put us in the role of the conscious creator but then we have to ask ourselves: 1. are we perhaps just carefully adjusted matter arranged just so, on purpose by a higher-level conscious creator? or 2. are we the top-level of consciousness, somehow self-assembling from the soup of matter that is the "universe"? 2nd option there makes some folks more comfortable but it is less reasonable and more illogical than option 1.

How can we know?

Perhaps its turtles all the way down.

12

So, is it the publicity, or act itself that "brings reproach on Jehovah's name"?

by stuckinarut2 in

as we all sadly know, a common expression used by the society and elders in cases of abuse, or scandals, is "if you talk about this, you will bring reproach on jehovah's name!".

this is uttered in order to deter making something known.. but really, if it is a case of abuse, is not the act itself the thing that brings "reproach on jehovah"?.

making it known is not the problem.. rather hiding it, or not disclosing it to authorities is the thing that brings reproach!.

MrRoboto

Reproach: n - the expression of disapproval or disappointment.

I think part of the problem is that the term is used incorrectly by the bORG. What they mean is that you're making them (or GOD- same thing?) look bad, but notice that is not what reproach means.

for what reproach means:

It is strictly of a person's OWN doing to give an expression of disapproval or disappointment.

That is to say, a person is solely responsible for giving reproach, noone can make them do it.

For what THEY mean:

Personally, I would say that unless you are lying about someone (slander for example) then there is nothing you can do to give someone else a bad name or make them look bad. Your actions do not reflect on an individual 3rd party (i.e. GOD) but they could be a reflection of your group (employer, family, religious group etc) but even then I think most normal people realize that every group will have one-offs - the crazy guy, the stalker nut, the drunkkard, the racist, the klepto-maniac etc etc. If there are few compared to the many, then the group's reputation will generally fare just fine. The bORG is so self-centered and self-serving though, that every. single. thing. is about the bORG, therefore any 'bad' thing you do is seen as giving the bORG a bad name. The rest is just invoking their version of the name of GOD as a reason to punish you and make you feel guilty.

19

2018 Memorial and Special Talk Speculation

by SplaneThisToMe in

so we all know that the special talk titled "who really is jesus christ?

" will be given before the memorial next year which is very new.

also new this year is that the special talk will be prerecorded and given by a branch committee member rather than a brother from the local congregation.

MrRoboto

In the voice of Ant. Mo. III

"Who Really Is Jesus Christ?"

'Well, brothers, I know that the Chariot is moving lightning-fast these days, but please try to keep pace. By the way, you there, brother in the tight pants - it must be awfully difficult to run this race and keep up with the chariot wearing pants like that. Now where was I? Oh yes, you're in for a treat today brothers and sisters. Today you're going the next grade level of the Highest Learning(tm) acadamy when you see what we've go in store for you!

Yes so our theme is 'Who Really Is Jesus Christ?' And boy I just can't hold it back any longer, this light is just too bright not to share with you all right this second: Yes, it turns out after much prayerful consideration, Jehovah has made it quite clear to us that WE(!), yes, the entire Governing Body, are, in fact, a composite Jesus Christ! So now, when you think back on this special talk and it's title, you can proudly proclaim the answer to the question "Who Really Is Jesus Christ" - The Governing Body Really Is Jesus Christ! (confused applause from the crowds)

With this new light, thank Jehovah, we find that while it was just fine all the while, to end our prayers with the words "in Jesus name" or something similar - now, brothers, and when I say this, please try to keep up with the chariot everyone, no-one wants to be left behind, right? Now we used to end our prayers that way but going forward, we can show our faith in the composite Jesus Christ by ending our prayers with the words "in the name of the Governing Body" or you can even use our personal names - just please make sure to include each of us by name. If you do this and if your prayer is in harmony with God's will, there can be no doubt that Jehovah God - the Sovereign of the Universe(!) - will hear your prayer! (clapping - assumes audience is also clapping)

12

Important Question about Bible Examiner Vol. XXI No. 1 (whole No. 313), October 1876, pages 27, 28

by Saename in

so i was just comparing several quotes from different watchtower publications related to 1914. in my experience, pre–1914 publications point to this year as the end, and post–1914 publications point to this year as the start of the last days.

so i was reading awake!

from 1973 january 22 p. 8 where it claims that jehovah's witnesses have always pointed to year 1914 as the beginning of the last days.

MrRoboto

Absolutely - and the bORG knows this so yes this is dishonesty although usually it it put in the format of "..have always pointed to 1914 as an important year" or some such vagueness so Im surprised to see the one you pointed out (i havent looked yet but Im sure you're right about it's blatantness)

Also, yes, the bORG uses equivocation almost every time it discusses the past beliefs or teachings.

One last point though, the statement in question may actually be true - "Jehovah's Witnesses" have always pointed to year 1914 as the beginning of the last days - if you dont count the IBSA and whatever other names they went by in pre "J.W." times. When was it, 1935 I think, that they took the J.W. name so by then (I could be mistaken..?) they would have already revised the 1914 teaching... (?)

cant look it up now but seems that way to me. That would still be equivocation though.

21

Is the Bible truly inspired?

by MrRoboto in

so i was reading the book of daniel, starting with chapter 4 (nebuchadnezzar's famous tree chopping/banding dream where the 7 times is introduced) but i noticed that when you don't cherry pick verses and just read straight thru - it really seems like some children's book that was poorly written.

even though the borg says that this book as written by daniel, chapter 4 is clearly written by "king nebuchad·nezzar to all the peoples, nations, and language groups dwelling in all the earth" after the tree chopping business.

) of the rest of the chapters seem to be written in 3rd person (odd, if you are writing about your experiences).

MrRoboto

pbrow

I think if you would just take 5 minutes and check it... it says that it is.

haha that reminds me of a study article a few years ago that said that we can trust that Jesus was resurrected because the Bible says he was seen by upwards of 500 people after he came back.

If you dont believe other stuff in the bible (like all the other times his resurrection was mentioned) then why would you believe the 500 witnesses scripture?

The new 'reasoning book' will be a simplified version, and it's official title will be "Reasoning in the Circular"

4

The God of This System Of Things 2 Cor.4:4 is the same God of Rom 13:1-7

by smiddy3 in

aren`t these two scriptures talking about the one and same god ?.

2 cor.4:4 speaks about the god of this system of things blinding the minds of unbelievers .. this scripture has always been attributed as to applying to satan the devil.

he is not blinding the minds of believers but unbelievers and i think that is a critical point about 2cor.4:4. rom.13:1-7 states that christians should be in subjection to the superior authorities under the arrangement of god and whoever opposers the authority has taken a stand against god.

MrRoboto

And then you have scriptures like this where a voice came down from the heavens and told the King of Babylon "..seven times will pass over you, until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants.” - Dan 4:32

This seems to indicate that "Jehovah" was ruling the earth in the time of Daniel - so when did he "grant it" to Satan?

Apparently sometime after that but before Jesus words about the ruler of this world being judged (Jn 16:11)

19

My sister has a different view of shunning to my brother-in-law, but he doesn't know

by Xanthippe in

my library has volunteers who run the local history department.

they put up an exhibition last month called women at war and they asked for photos of people in uniform who aided the war effort in wwll.

i offered a photo of my mother in her red cross nurse's uniform but then i couldn't find it so i had to write to my sister asking if she had it.. i addressed it to her and her husband explaining why i wanted it and just wrote as if this is family property and i needed it.

MrRoboto

Can't go into details here but I've noticed a similar thought process as well. They don't want to push you further from "the truth" and don't want to be partially responsible for you not wanting to "return to jehovah" later on.

As they awaken more (if that happens) they may start letting their real thoughts slip through now and then, especially if they know how you feel (or have a strong inkling)