Logical? Deism.

[Guest]

Frank

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are in a minority of 1 on the planet who thinks Soul and Ego are the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are wrong, lots of Christians, Jew, Muslims, Hindu’s etc. agree with me.

Hindus?

The most fundamental doctrine in Hinduism is :

Atman = Brahman

Atman is the root of personal consciousness and Brahman is the root of everything else (simplified). No room for ego there Frank. You have no idea what you are talking about. How can all consciousness be one if EGO = SOUL?

As for the theists, they do not believe that ego = soul either. Not unless they are the rather simplistic sort that think 'heaven' is a place where they go on being 'Frank'.

Because they aren’t logical and they don’t make any sense unless you are insane. You have put yourself in the position where you must argue that utter conformity is preferable to Individuality.

No Frank. I have put myself in a place where I argue that ego is the root of individuality and soul is the root of Unity. In doing so I align myself with all spiritual traditions throughout the entirety of history, including Christianity.
quote:

The LD don’t believe in an “Infinitely large” number

Infinity is not a number.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know one thing though - I have made a far better stab at explaining my beliefs logically and objectively than you have. At least I don't deliberately obscure things. But then I'm not playing a control game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could cut our entanglement this very instant, and that meme would still go on running in your head. At this point it is autonomous. It makes it easier and easier for me to crawl up inside your head. You can feel it in there – can’t you algorithm?

Oh so scary, Frank. No mass, Frank. No-one is taking you seriously anymore. They are trying to help you.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I frame it in terms you can understand : That which seeks control is EGO, and it does not survive physical death - it lives in permanent fear of annihilation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should it live in FEAR? And why FEAR of annihilation? Who is threatening it A-Theist?

DEATH is threatening it. DEATH of the body. DEATH of the brain. DEATH of the ego. DEATH, Frank.

DEATH

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That which survives physical death is SOUL, but soul does not seek to control - it does not need to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? A rock does not seek control either? Does that mean rocks are better Souls then Humans?

No, Frank. EGO seeks to control. Soul doesn't.

Is your CAR a better entity then YOU are Elephant? I mean YOU control your CAR, but your CAR does not seek control. Does that mean that CARs are more altruistic then HUMANS? How about TLOP? I don’t know whether TLOP was seeking control or not, but regardless TLOP has control. Does that make TLOP a bad Soul (or a bad EGO?)? Who invented Evil controlling TLOP Elephant? The Evil God you worship?

The laws of physics do not have a soul, Frank.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mixing up SOUL and EGO is about as serious a metaphysical mistake as it is possible to make.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet you seem to have a lot of trouble explaining why this is the case.

No, Frankie, you have a lot of trouble understanding it, because you don't want to understand it, because understanding it means accepting that.....

FRANK ROSS IS GOING TO DIE.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It renders the rest of your philosophy completely incomprehensible and puts it out of kilter with the whole of the rest of the spiritual world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

That is a hell of a lot more comprehensible then what you are saying Elephant.

The laws of physics are not conscious Frank.

Your beliefs seemed to be based entirely on your dread of Eternity, and your Fear of being controlled.

I do not dread eternity, Frankie, because I have accepted that I am going to die.

Elephant, if YOU aren’t still YOU in the “afterlife” then YOU have ceased to exist,

YOU = Your Soul
FALSE YOU = Your Ego.

and there is no afterlife.

=

Not for Franks ego there isn't, no. How many times do I have to tell you this before it finally sinks in?

Ohhh, now if only were Solipsism were True you could make it be so.

One Free Will choice, Frank.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Post deleted due to irrelevance, as pointed out by The Fool.

Hans

 

[The Fool]

I Don't Think Franks real Identity is anyones business. Unless he chooses to disclose something. I don't care who Frank Is and I'm pretty sure he doesn't care who I am.

Of course, If all was revealed it would be fate, wouldn't it? Nobodies fault? The Goddess's choice? So Frank, I will not post your D&D webpage.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I Don't Think Franks real Identity is anyones business.

You are right, I got carried away. I have deleted the post.

Hans

 

[wraith]

It's pretty simple really. Instead of everything being TRUE or FALSE things are defined as "90% TRUE and 10% FALSE" and so on. I am astonished you do not know what fuzzy logic is.

example please!

 

[Guest]

example please!

Hello sockpuppet.

Here is a simple example of how to use fuzzy logic :

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu....ry/ai/html/faqs/ai/fuzzy/part1/faq-doc-2.html

Your master insisted that all questions have TRUE/FALSE answers. This is of course nonsense.

From the link

Person Height degree of tallness
--------------------------------------
Billy 3' 2" 0.00 [I think]
Yoke 5' 5" 0.21
Drew 5' 9" 0.38
Erik 5' 10" 0.42
Mark 6' 1" 0.54
Kareem 7' 2" 1.00 [depends on who you ask]

Expressions like "A is X" can be interpreted as degrees of truth,
e.g., "Drew is TALL" = 0.38.

So if you ask "Is Mark tall? YES/NO" it does not have a YES/NO answer - it has a degree of tallness as its answer. This system of logic is far more adaptable and usable in the real world than limited aristotlean TRUE/FALSE logic. There simply isn't a correct YES/NO answer to this sort of question.



Goodbye sockpuppet.

 

[Upchurch]

So if you ask "Is Mark tall? YES/NO" it does not have a YES/NO answer - it has a degree of tallness as its answer. This system of logic is far more adaptable and usable in the real world than limited aristotlean TRUE/FALSE logic. There simply isn't a correct YES/NO answer to this sort of question.

I'm not all that familiar with fuzzy logic myself, but it sounds similar to quantum states (i.e. the system has .90 probability of being in state X and .10 probability of being in state Y). Do you know if they have a common root? Like one came from the other?

Upchurch

 

[Guest]

Well I types "fuzzy logic history" into google and this was the first hit

http://www.ch172.thinkquest.hostcenter.ch/fuzzy-logic7.html

When we look at the history of Fuzzy Logic, we find that the first important person for its development was Buddha. He lived in India about 500 BC and founded a religion called Buddhism. His philosophy was based on the thought that the world is filled with contradictions, that almost everything contains some of its opposite, or in other words, that things can be A and not-A at the same time. Here we can see a clear connection between Buddha's philosophy and modern fuzzy logic.

About 200 years later, the Greek scholar Aristotle developed binary logic. In contrary to Buddha, Aristotle thought that the world was made up of opposites, for example male versus female, hot versus cold, dry verus wet, active versus passive. Everything has to be A or not-A, it can't be both.

Over the centuries, these two philosophies developed and spread independently. Buddhism expanded as the religion of India and surrounding states. Aristotle's logic, however, was accepted by the Greek scholars and later got spread all over Europe; first by the Romans and then through Christianity. The Christian church created a devil to opposite God, talked about heaven and hell, and put a holly Maria against a sinful Eve.

Aristotle's binary logic became the base of science; if something got proven with logic, it was and still is accepted as scientifically correct. Like many others, Russell tried to reduce math to logic. When he discovered his paradox while working, he got scared himself. It did, however, give him the honor of being one of the fathers of fuzzy logic.

In 1964, professor Zadeh started wondering, if there wasn't a better logic to use in machinery.He had the idea that if you could tell an air-conditioner to work a little faster when it gets hotter, or similar problems, it would be much more efficient than having to give a rule for each temperature.

Anyway, that was the day fuzzy logic the way we know it today was born; with fuzzy logic you can tell an air-condidioner to slow down as soon as it gets chilly.

It took a long time until fuzzy logic got accepted even though it fascinated some people right from the beginning. Besides engineers, philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists soon became interested in applying fuzzy logic into their sciences.

In the year 1987, the first subway system was built which worked with a fuzzy logic-based automatic train operation control system in Japan. It was a big success and resulted in a fuzzy boom. Universities as well as industries got interested in developing the new ideas. First, this was mainly the case in Japan. Since the relegions in Japan acceped that things can contain parts of their opposites, it wasn't such a frightening idea as in most other parts of the world. And fuzzy logic promised lots of money to the industries, which was of course welcome too.

Today, almost every intelligent machine has fuzzy logic technology inside it. But fuzzy logic doesn't only help boast machine IQs. If we could give up the idea of everything having to be good or bad, we could also see the good things in other people. We wouldn't have to reduce all our fellow people to Gods or devils. Everyone has her or his good qualities. And it is our job to find them!

 

[Upchurch]

Well I types "fuzzy logic history" into google and this was the first hit

That was wonderful, UCE! Thank you!

Upchurch

 

[Franko]

Ele-pants:
It's pretty simple really. Instead of everything being TRUE or FALSE things are defined as "90% TRUE and 10% FALSE" and so on. I am astonished you do not know what fuzzy logic is.

I know EXACTLY what it is, and I even gave you a precise definition.

Franko:
Fuzzy Logic = Wishful Thinking

Can you show me a women who is 90% pregnant and 10% not pregnant?

Can you flip a coin and get it to land 90% heads and 10% tails?

How about a cat that is 90% alive and 10% dead?

How about a particle that went 90% through 1 slit and 10% through the other?

Can a bit on a computer be 90% set to zero and 10% set to one?

Upchump:
That was wonderful, UCE! Thank you!

Yeah, you two should get a room …

Well the Elephant and the Chimp agree about Warm Fuzzy Logic … what does that tell you?

 

[Guest]

Frannie :

Can you show me a women who is 90% pregnant and 10% not pregnant?

Can you flip a coin and get it to land 90% heads and 10% tails?

How about a cat that is 90% alive and 10% dead?

How about a particle that went 90% through 1 slit and 10% through the other?

Can a bit on a computer be 90% set to zero and 10% set to one?

The point is that many things are not like coin tosses and computer bits. A few specific examples work like that, but you tried to apply aristotlean logic to the question "Can you describe you describe all your beliefs logically and objectively? (YES/NO)". That isn't a coin toss. It is a complicated question and it has a complicated answer.

Frank, do you really believe we live in a world which is fully describable with Aristotlean binary logic?

Can you show me a person who is 100% happy or 100% sad?

Can you name a country whose climate is 100% dry or 100% wet?

Can you name a compound which is 100% reactive or 100% inert?

Can you flip a coin and be 100% certain it won't land on its edge?

 

[Franko]

Elephant:
No Frank. I have put myself in a place where I argue that ego is the root of individuality and soul is the root of Unity. In doing so I align myself with all spiritual traditions throughout the entirety of history, including Christianity.

Actually the Christians believe in an afterlife where YOU are still YOU after you die.

Like I said Elephant if YOU aren’t YOU after you die then YOU have ceased to exist and there is no afterlife.

But I don’t speak in “Fuzzy Logic” like you fanatically religious A-Theists.

Infinity is not a number.

Is that suppose to mean something to anyone or is this just another of your divine Solipsist proclamations?

No-one is taking you seriously anymore.

I don’t suppose you would care to explain how You managed to divine what everyone is thinking in their heads Ele-pants?

I didn’t think so. You never seem able to explain the nonsense you believe.

Oh so scary, Frank.

I know that I scare YOU. You make it obvious.

DEATH is threatening it. DEATH of the body. DEATH of the brain. DEATH of the ego. DEATH, Frank.

Hehehe … you’ll have to do better than that A-Theist.

Franko:
Really? A rock does not seek control either? Does that mean rocks are better Souls then Humans?

Elephant:
No, Frank. EGO seeks to control. Soul doesn't.

I notice that there are certain question which you avoid answering over and over again. It is pretty easy to tell why you avoid answer these questions.

That which survives physical death is SOUL, but soul does not seek to control - it does not need to.

So when You die you physical body will survive your Soul here, Your (dead) physical body (like a rock) won’t be seeking any control over anything … ergo … Your dead physical body is really your Soul according to you???

Like I said, rocks don’t seek to control anything. You specifically told me that things which don’t seek to control are more Altruistic, so does that mean a rock has a better more altruistic soul then You do Elephant?

No, Frank. EGO seeks to control. Soul doesn't.

Rocks don’t seek control either, so … ?

The laws of physics do not have a soul, Frank.

Yes we are ALL well aware that You A-Theist don’t believe there is a God. You all have magic unprovable “free will” powers, and the universe magically appeared out of no where … but it really wasn’t “magic”.

Yes, yes, Elephant I am very familiar with your whacky religion. Do you have anything new to say about it, or are you content being just another Upchurch, Thaifoodkenny, CWL, Evildave, MRC, etc, etc, ?

I smell another non-explanation coming …

Elephart:
Mixing up SOUL and EGO is about as serious a metaphysical mistake as it is possible to make.

Franko:
Yet you seem to have a lot of trouble explaining why this is the case.

Elephrance:
No, Frankie, you have a lot of trouble understanding it, because you don't want to understand it, because understanding it means accepting that.....

FRANK … IS GOING TO DIE.

Yet you STILL seem to have a lot of trouble explaining why this is the case.

Let me guess … because you are a highly cynical and pessimistic individual with a bleak outlook for the future?

The laws of physics are not conscious Frank.

Yes, I am well aware that you pretend to have magic powers in order to assist you pretend that there is no god, and there will be no consequences for your actions. It is a very sad and pathetic dogmatic belief system. Fortunately less than 10% of the overall population is sufficiently insane to accept it.

Franko:
Your beliefs seemed to be based entirely on your dread of Eternity, and your Fear of being controlled.

Eleprance:
I do not dread eternity, Frankie, because I have accepted that I am going to die.

In other words you are scared sh*tless at the thought of existing for Eternity (plus the utter lack of “free will”), so you find it more comforting to imagine that you will cease to exist.

Unfortunately the Logic is all against you.

I am still waiting for you to explain why an A-Theist (such as yourself) who does not believe there will be any ultimate consequences for his actions here will behave as morally as someone who does believe that there will be consequences?

You refuse to answer this question, and the reason you refuse is because we both know that you cannot answer it, at least you cannot without exposing yourself as the nutcase that you are.

Still hoping for the big disaster in 2012 Elephant?

Franko:
Elephant, if YOU aren’t still YOU in the “afterlife” then YOU have ceased to exist, and there is NO afterlife

Elephant:
Not for Franks ego there isn't, no. How many times do I have to tell you this before it finally sinks in?

YOU = Your Soul
FALSE YOU = Your Ego.

Ohhh, I see, so when I die, I will cease to exist, but I will persist at the same time, except it will no longer really be me …???

Is there anyone else here who that makes any sense to?

Franko:
Ohhh, now if only were Solipsism were True you could make it be so.

Elephant:
One Free Will choice, Frank.

… and you are going to use it to make Solipsism True?!?! If that is the case, then You really are ◊◊◊◊◊◊-up my little friend.

 

[Pahansiri]

When we look at the history of Fuzzy Logic, we find that the first important person for its development was Buddha. He lived in India about 500 BC and founded a religion called Buddhism. His philosophy was based on the thought that the world is filled with contradictions, that almost everything contains some of its opposite, or in other words, that things can be A and not-A at the same time.

Not fuzzy at all, it is reality. Nothing is in and of itself, self.
Your body as much as Franko would like to believe it is not self it is comprised of billions of non self elements and other life forms which are comprised of many non self elements.

The word “soul” is a word that need a clear definition to be functional as a clear debate subject. A soul in many beliefs would be an “I”, this is Mark’s/Pahansiri’s soul. That can not be, as it would have to be comprised of only Mark/Pahansiri and nothing else this is not possible as much of what you see in yourself is due to many, many causes and conditions, mother, father, teacher, friends, events etc.

All causative phenomena - our life, our body, our mind, our self, our possessions, our relatives and friends, all other people - are changing, not only day by day, minute by minute and second by second, but every tiny moment. They do not last for a fraction of a second. Because they are under the control of causes and conditions, they are in a state of constant decay and can cease at any time. This is the nature of our life.

We as Buddhist believe that the most important aspect of the mind, the intuitive or 'very subtle' mind, is non-physical and is reborn after this life. It is not Mark/ Pahansiri and is no different in anyway from all other what we see as primordial mind. That is just what I believe and ask no one to nor demand I am right and anyone wrong.

Back to the quote.

His philosophy was based on the thought that the world is filled with contradictions, that almost everything contains some of its opposite, or in other words, that things can be A and not-A at the same time

How is this not true?

The examples given that Aristotle used to developed binary logic. Aristotle thought that the world was made up of opposites, for example male versus female, hot versus cold, dry verus wet, active versus passive. Everything has to be A or not-A, it can't be both.


Well lets look first at male versus female.

Every human is conceived female this is why males have nipples and mammary glands, being in the field I am for so long and my years as a bodybuilder knowing or training many who use roids Gynecomastia is somewhat common. The mammary glands become active from too large amounts of testosterone aromatizing and in short converting to estrogen. The fact is all humans contain differing levels of both male and female hormones.
So here Aristotle is clearly wrong.

Lets look at dry versus wet.

Water is wet but are the molecules that make up water, separately is oxygen wet? Is Hydrogen wet? Break them down further are the smaller elements wet?

active versus passive.

Sit in your chair and do not move, are you truly not at all active? Has all body functions stopped? Thinking? Elements or other life forms contained in your body not active? All is in flux.

Just what I believe.

 

[Pahansiri]

Is that suppose to mean something to anyone or is this just another of your divine Solipsist proclamations?

You wrote that in responce to Elephant trying to help you understand Infinity is not a number. Why always anger when someone helps to correct a mistake in belief on your part?

Franko people who do not believe as you do, or show you mistakes in your "logic" are not doing so to harm you. Please relax.

Oh yes. Franko my friend still not taking a shot at my simple Questions, that does not bode well for your beliefs , do you know what you believe?

 

[Guest]

Frank

Most of your post is just repetitions which I will ignore.

Ohhh, I see, so when I die, I will cease to exist, but I will persist at the same time, except it will no longer really be me …???

Is there anyone else here who that makes any sense to?

You know exactly what this means, but I will explain it anyway. In terms of the Hindu mythology which expresses it best - "Atman = Brahman" / "Thou art That". This means that the true root of personal consciousness ("I") is the same as the root of the whole of existence - it is Everything - YOU are Everything. This is the essence of all mystical tradition, as you know only too well. Indeed you have even said it yourself many times in your own Christianised form of "YOU are God!". But you seem to have failed to grasp that this does not mean "Franko is God" because that would mean that "Geoff is God" and "Stimpson is God" and so on, and all those individual egos can't be God, because there is only One Source. So the thing you call "Franko" isn't really you. This is further reflected in the New Age mantra of "Finding out who you really are", in the Occult doctrine of "Know Thyself", in the Buddhist tradition of considering the ego to be an illusion, in the all the mystical traditions of 'transcending the ego and becoming One with All Things", and even in the Jewish mythology of "the Fall" which represents the human ego "eating of the tree" and falsely believing that it is the real 'I'. In fact this idea is central to every spiritual system except "logical deism" where it is insisted that "ego actually is the same thing as the soul", and thereby manages to acheive immortality without having to pay the price of ego-transcedence. Furthermore, whilst all those other spiritual traditions point to time being the ultimate illusion, part of the illusory world of physics, your inane "logical deism" turns this on its head and inists that TLOP is actually God and that time is the ultimate ground of all reality. You have your philosophy backwards my friend. You want to have your cake and eat it. You want the immortality promised by ego-transcedence but you do not want to pay the asking price of surrender of the ego. The atheists think their egos are themselves, but make no claim of immortality. The mystics know they are immortal but realise that their ego must surrender as the price. Only Franko thinks his ego is immortal.

YOUR EGO IS PHYSICAL AND IT IS GOING TO DIE.
YOUR SOUL IS NOT CALLED FRANK.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franko:
Ohhh, now if only were Solipsism were True you could make it be so.

Elephant:
One Free Will choice, Frank.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

… and you are going to use it to make Solipsism True?!?! If that is the case, then You really are ◊◊◊◊◊◊-up my little friend.

It's already true, Frank. Your worst nightmares are manifest. You have seen your own image in the mirror of reality. You can't un-see it once you've seen it. As within, so without. As above, so below. You can't escape it.

Peace, brother. Accept what is. It's not so bad.

 

[Franko]

Elephant,

Frank, do you really believe we live in a world which is fully describable with Aristotlean binary logic?

Translate: Frank, do you really believe we live in an Omniverse which is fully describable with binary (TRUE/FALSE) logic – mutually exclusive binary options?

Me – YES; YOU – NO.

Can you show me a person who is 100% happy or 100% sad?

I always thought that SAD and HAPPY were opposites???

Like a scale with SAD at one end, and HAPPY at the other OPPOSITE end. The more HAPPY you are the less SAD you are, and vice-versa.

But I guess YOU are claiming you can be very SAD and very HAPPY at the same time? Sure ( ) and I guess you see Cats which are both very ALIVE and very DEAD at the same time as well … ?

Can you name a country whose climate is 100% dry or 100% wet?

I have noticed that whenever it rains here in Maryland, that it is not, not raining at the same time. And when it is NOT raining, it is NOT raining simultaneously. It only seems to do one or the other, but it can’t seem to be raining and not raining at the same time. I guess the weather works a little differently where YOU live?

Can you name a compound which is 100% reactive or 100% inert?

Doesn’t whether it is inert or reactive depend on some other chemical and the conditions under which the two are mixed? Are you claiming that chemical reactions have “free will” and don’t behave consistently under controlled conditions?

Can you flip a coin and be 100% certain it won't land on its edge?

Yeah, I can.

So you are pulling out yet another staple from the A-Theists bag or tricks, when something is simple (Logic – TRUE/FALSE), and that simplicity is working against your pessimism and cynicism, then try and pretend that the thing is far more complicated than it actuall is. This way (if you are “lucky”) you can confuse anyone you are talking to, to such a degree that (hopefully) they won’t realize that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

So I was right about you. You STILL are a mystic. You cannot defend the absurd nonsense you believe with real Logic so you want to make up your own pretend version of logic where things can be True and False (or neither, or something else “other than” True or False) all at the same time!

Have fun with Pixychix, Elephant. I think Whitefork is a believer in your brand of Logic as well …

 

[Pahansiri]

You cannot defend the absurd nonsense you believe with real Logic so you want to make up your own pretend version of logic where things can be True and False (or neither, or something else “other than” True or False) all at the same time!

… [/B]

Franko my friend In all new dictionaries will be the above quote by you and your picture , this will be found when anyone looks for the definition or the phrase “ The pot calling the kettle black’

 

[Franko]

Elephant,

You know exactly what this means, but I will explain it anyway.

So you know what I know?

Is that because I am only a figment of your imagination?

In terms of the Hindu mythology which expresses it best - "Atman = Brahman" / "Thou art That". This means that the true root of personal consciousness ("I") is the same as the root of the whole of existence - it is Everything - YOU are Everything.

So Hindu mythology is the basis for you’re a-Theism?

What’s next Elephant, are you going to claim that the Bible is your evidence for “free will”?

This is the essence of all mystical tradition, as you know only too well. Indeed you have even said it yourself many times in your own Christianised form of "YOU are God!".

You are Falsely attributing quotes to me. You may be a Solipsist Elephant, but that only makes you a “God” of your own pathetic little fantasy world.

The LG is God. You are just a peon.

But you seem to have failed to grasp that this does not mean "Franko is God" because that would mean that "Geoff is God" and "Stimpson is God" and so on, and all those individual egos can't be God, because there is only One Source.

I have no idea what that means.

So the thing you call "Franko" isn't really you.

Ohhh, so I am not really me? Well I must say, my wife and children will certainly be surprised to hear that, of course I guess since figments of the imagination only have imaginary wives and children perhaps they won’t be?

Did you ever think that maybe the thing YOU call Franko isn’t really Franko? Maybe I am just a figment of your imagination, and beyond that I don’t exist at all? How do you know that I say anything when you aren’t around to hear it?

This is further reflected in the New Age mantra of "Finding out who you really are", in the Occult doctrine of "Know Thyself", in the Buddhist tradition of considering the ego to be an illusion …

Yeah, I’ve heard Yatzi claim that consciousness is just an illusion as well. Personally that sounds rather insane, but then again what would you expect a figment of your imagination to say?

… in the all the mystical traditions of 'transcending the ego and becoming One with All Things", and even in the Jewish mythology of "the Fall" which represents the human ego "eating of the tree" and falsely believing that it is the real 'I'.

Ohhh, eating of the Tree of Knowledge … I know all about that … You know -- the ability to perceive between Good and Evil (True and False). But I assure you my little friend, there were no “fuzzy logic apples” on that tree.

In fact this idea is central to every spiritual system except "logical deism" where it is insisted that "ego actually is the same thing as the soul", and thereby manages to acheive immortality without having to pay the price of ego-transcedence.

You should get your facts straight. Check with some Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or Shinto’s or even Hindu’s, they believe that when they die there is an afterlife and they will still persist.

You want to claim that you will exist, except that it won’t really be you. That doesn’t make any sense, and you can whine all you want, but that STILL won’t make it make sense (it won’t make it Logical).

Furthermore, whilst all those other spiritual traditions point to time being the ultimate illusion, part of the illusory world of physics, your inane "logical deism" turns this on its head and inists that TLOP is actually God and that time is the ultimate ground of all reality.

Yeah, Time has always been your problem. You have a severely screwed up premise that you are irrationally bound to. You cannot let it go, and it leaves all of your subsequent conclusions in error.

The fact is that if You don’t perceive Time then YOU do not exist. You can claim that this is not True until you are Blue in the face, but you will never be able to explain what you are talking about logically, and the reason for that is it is impossible for a consciousness (any consciousness) to comprehend ANYTHING outside the context of Time.

You have your philosophy backwards my friend. You want to have your cake and eat it.

What are you just repeating the things I have told you now?

You are the one that wants to pretend he has “free will” yet you cannot provide a single shred of evidence (or even a reason) to believe that this is the case. You are the one that wants to live his life as if there will be NO consequences for his actions.

I told you, all you have done is added even more ridiculous unsupported dogma to the religion of A-Theism in order to confuse the issue of “free will”.

You want the immortality promised by ego-transcedence but you do not want to pay the asking price of surrender of the ego.

1) I don’t know what you are talking about.
2) I didn’t make the rules, I just play by them.

The atheists think their egos are themselves, but make no claim of immortality. The mystics know they are immortal but realise that their ego must surrender as the price. Only Franko thinks his ego is immortal.

I think it is cute how you think you know what all of the other minds in the world are thinking, yet at the same time you seem to have so much difficulty explaining what YOU are thinking. I wonder why?

You are half-way to Solipsism already Elephant. All I’d have to do is give you a little nudge …

Of course if I know that you will be ultimately beneficial to me that would be a rather foolish thing to do on my part. Even if you are an annoying little graviton at times.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Franko

I have to say with all your name calling "Elephart" and "Elepants" (which are rather dull and uncreative btw) you are coming off as less of a serious thinker and more of an insecure bigot who simply cannot accept a fair examination of ideas. If you are going to promote claims as extraordinary as the one's you are Franko, I'd suggest a more mature approach. People are having a hard enough time taking you seriously as it is.

 

[wraith]

Hello sockpuppet.

Here is a simple example of how to use fuzzy logic :

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu....ry/ai/html/faqs/ai/fuzzy/part1/faq-doc-2.html

Your master insisted that all questions have TRUE/FALSE answers. This is of course nonsense.

From the link



So if you ask "Is Mark tall? YES/NO" it does not have a YES/NO answer - it has a degree of tallness as its answer. This system of logic is far more adaptable and usable in the real world than limited aristotlean TRUE/FALSE logic. There simply isn't a correct YES/NO answer to this sort of question.



Goodbye sockpuppet.

Why?
Let me see Drew and I will tell you whether I think that he is tall or not