• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another "Chi" demonstration

a==a!

The calculations doesn't exist in the things itself, but in a dimension. The physical world is just an empty shell providing a movie before our eyes. Mass is an illusion, it is calculations that makes it the way we perceive it.

I didn't say the world is a computer.

Please explain apparent contradiction. Without insult? That reads like A==A! to me.
 
Hypernicus not Indigo

When I asked if you were an Indigo Child, you responded:

Are you psychopath?

I guess that's your way of saying you aren't. So, how then did you become a world class guru in paranormal truths?
 
Oh, no wonder he didn't get that joke. I forgot about the additional "=" sign!!

So here it is. Insert it where you want.

=
 
Either something has free will or it hasn't. The way you answers just shows that you reject A==A, something is what it is and nothing else. Free will == instincts!. If animals had free will they could commit suicide which they never do, even when they are badly hurt or very near dying. They can't feel pain because that would assume they would have consciousness.

You still haven't defined the words. Are you chickening out?


Here it is. No arguments just statements from his own non-existent world. Read what he replies on and it is obviously he defends his likeness anytime. The definition of psychopath is that they think they have the right to sacrifice innocents; as in bullying, harassing, violently, stealing, raping etc. It is easy to see what the basis for all humans are regardless of what they do, and it is to achieve happiness and to avoid misery. If humans had no basis in life then everyone could do whatever they wanted to one another without consequences. Everyone acts to be in a more positive state it has nothing to do with survival which can be proven with 1 example and that is that man can (and have) commit suicide. Since humans have soul it is their body to own and no one has the right to harm it. Abortion hypocrisy thinks that fetus are humans. The definition as I have already said is to reason; thinking rational and logical. Fetus is just a body without a soul. The soul doesn't enter the body until it is ready. Whatever that is in the mother is their own property as the soul of the woman owns whatever is in her body she can do whatever she wants with the fetus, meaning abortion if she has to. Or else it would be murder. Murdering who? Fetus doesn't have a soul.

Yes, that's nice. That Norwegian thingie? Remember?

Is this chemical process capable of perceiving?

Why isn't a triangle 180 degrees?
 
Yes, that's nice. That Norwegian thingie? Remember?

Is this chemical process capable of perceiving?

Why isn't a triangle 180 degrees?

Come on Claus, (may I call you Claus?) you're never going to get a straight answer out of this guy. He'll just keep ignoring your (and everyone else's) questions and replying with more unreadable, unrepliable bull.
 
Can you kill any animal with no remorse since they have no soul
If you mean act as you wish, no. Everything has consequences, but I am not going into that.

Why isn't a triangle 181.4 degrees
One has to use limit value. 180 degrees only fit as a good value at human level, when we build something f.ex.
 
Either something has free will or it hasn't. The way you answers just shows that you reject A==A, something is what it is and nothing else.
Meffy asked you to explain why "consciousness and instincts are two different things that can't coexist." You said that consciousness presuposes free will and instincts are deterministic.

This answer does not explain why they can't co-exist. For example, a newborn instinctively suckles its mother's milk. There are other instinctive behaviors in humans, and humans are undeniably conscious.

You really need to learn predicate logic. Having free-will and having instincts are predicates. You are saying that "if has_free_will(A) then !has_instincts(A)", which does not follow from A==A. You are using the wrong logical formalism.

Free will == instincts!
Let me put it differently: let's say that A is a man, and A has black hair. Can you say that since A is a man, it cannot have black hair, because man==black hair! ?

I am stating that A has free will and A has instincts. Please show why this leads to A==A!

If animals had free will they could commit suicide which they never do, even when they are badly hurt or very near dying. They can't feel pain because that would assume they would have consciousness.
This peer-reviewed publication disagrees: "Although care should be given to drawing direct parallels, the clear conclusion is that humans are not alone in exhibiting self-initiated behaviors that ultimately produce self-harm or death." (By the way, if animals don't feel pain, they fake very well.)

Here it is. No arguments just statements from his own non-existent world.
And yet, when we ask for your arguments, you refuse to provide them.
 
Come on Claus, (may I call you Claus?)

Well, that is my name... ;)

you're never going to get a straight answer out of this guy. He'll just keep ignoring your (and everyone else's) questions and replying with more unreadable, unrepliable bull.

That, in itself, is also an answer. Not to his claims, but that he can't answer the questions.

If you mean act as you wish, no. Everything has consequences, but I am not going into that.

Here, making claims has consequences: You can either back them up, or you can't.

One has to use limit value. 180 degrees only fit as a good value at human level, when we build something f.ex.

???

When is a triangle not 180 degrees?


Who do you think you are kidding? That is a site for basic philosophy. Where, on that site, can I find answers to these questions:

Is this chemical process capable of perceiving?

Why isn't a triangle 180 degrees?

Quotes, please. Or, you could just answer the questions yourself. It takes far less time than coming up with one evasive non-answer after another.
 
newborn instinctively suckles its mother's milk.
This is your way of defining: Apes looks very much alike human, it must be human!

You do not have a definition for human, ergo psychopath language - nominalism.

There are other instinctive behaviors in humans
Assertion without argument.

By the way, if animals don't feel pain, they fake very well.
Fake what? Pain is not necessary for animals where they eat each other. Humans are not animals and don't exist for survival, but to achieve happiness.

This peer-reviewed publication disagrees
Nothing philosophical or schientifical there.
 
That is what the "!" is there for, but you don't seem to know what the law of identity is. What it also means is humans never came from apes. Evolution is full of fallacies.

Indeed, human does not come from apes. Humans shares a common ancestor with apes.

And what "fallacies" would evolution be full of?
 
Apes/animals, no difference. Consciousness and instincts are two different things that can't coexist.


How is this demonstrated?

Shared ERVs between humans/apes.
DNA comparisons between humans/ape.
The chimp 2p/2q chromosome/human chromosome 2 and its extra telomeres in tyhe middle of the chromosome.
Morphology.
Fossil record.


Hypernicus said:
The arrogance of jumping to conclusions.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
 

Back
Top Bottom