PoliteActivist:


Well, I wrote this below. Isn't it similar to Harris?

If you don't believe there is a supernatural, then you must agree that the "self", the individual person, doesn’t exist - it is an illusion of accumulated memory. If your memory is wiped, "you" seizes to exit TOTALLY. If another person's memory is put in that body, that person becomes "you". Same applies to a dog or anything else. You are your accumulated memory, NOTHING ELSE! Without memory the individual, the "self", does not exist!

This is completely off and no where near what Harry postulated. You didn't understand what you read from him at all.

The "self" he talked about is not the "real self" but the "false self" ,the human personality, which is a product of the environment the individual grew up in.

He says the human personality, the false self, which most identify themselves with is not real person, but illusion that's controlled automatically by neural pathways in the brain formed from what's made of the impressions received through the five senses .

And he recommended that to transcend this "false self" one should practice meditation to rewire the brain and free themselves from it's control and influence and start operating from the position of the "real self "that existed before it, human personality, was formed..

But for you you have mistaken the "false self" for the "real person" and believe if the thoughts which has created it is eliminated, the real person seizes to exist. That's not true.

PoliteActivist:


If your memory is wiped, "you" seizes to exit TOTALLY.

Wrong. What seizes to exist is the human personality, "the false self" that's a product of those memory. My " real self", the real me continues to exist.

If another person's memory is put in that body, that person becomes "you". exist!

My friend, the human being is not a machine or a bot for that to happen, and infact science says such a things is scientifically impossible since the neural pathways which controls our objective behaviour is unique to the individual. You don't know this science hence you have imagined what can never happen.

Same applies to a dog or anything else. You are your accumulated memory, NOTHING ELSE! Without memory the individual, the "self", does not exist!

Have you tried it with a dog before to know or you are just imagining things?

triplechoice:
Wrong. What seizes to exist is the human personality, "the false self" that's a product of those memory. My " real self", the real me continues to exist. My friend, the human being is not a machine or a bot for that to happen, and infact science says such a things is scientifically impossible since the neural pathways which controls our objective behaviour is unique to the individual. You don't know this science hence you have imagined what can never happen.

Have you tried it with a dog before to know or you are just imagining things?

Ok, unless you believe in supernatural, when a child or a dog is born, does it have a "self". How does the self develop? What's your argument to this below

budaatum:


Your opinion is that you are extremely real but you are not sure you are real?

You should listen to yourself so you hear how you sound.

No, u listen to yourself. My opinion is Putin is a reptilian, but I have no way of being sure!

y3mi:

Dimensions from a theoretical sense as it's relates to complex maths and physics enriches our understanding as to what define our reality beyond what we readily perceive as thus. It is you who have concluded other dimensions are bearer of beings. I think what you meant , as I'll put it... they could be realities wherein other consciousness (entities) operates on more dimensions than ours so they possibly could be inaccessible to us, metaphysically speaking however there are ways by which those before us could connect to them, either to acquire insight, noesis, knowledge, truth, clarity, foresight etc.

That's what's meant by "beings" and that domain is supernatural to us. Just as we are supernatural to them. Unless you say nothing is supernatural because it is not supernatural to whoever is native to it

triplechoice:


No. I don't agree with you.

We know enough of what water is and what it's made of through interacting and experimenting with it .

But If you, yourself, are not sure or confused about what it's, then you can try this little experiment to clear your confusion.

Stop using that we all call water for three weeks starting from today; Don't drink it and don't bathe with it, and after then, please
come back to share your experience with us so we learn from you..

It's said that nothing can be known except through its opposite. I believe when you experience the opposite of not using water
for that period of time you will learn something..

You don't know what anything is. Quantum mechanics has gone from everything is atoms constantly in vibration, though they may seem solid, to now saying everything is immaterial information!

Steep:
lol
Since you are not sure of the true nature of thoughts, how do you know that thought exist,
Or that dreams exist? Explain.
can you define reality?

Exactly. We don't! That's why the conclusion of Descartes ought be "something exists" NOT "thought exists" and definitely NOT "I exist"

triplechoice:

You're generalise nearly everytime. Everything is not hypothetical.

We "basically" know something, but not everything. That's the correct thing to say, or maybe it's you who " don't know anything" , your own words in quote, and assume everyone else doesn't .

We don't need to be completely sure of what's "out there" before we start interacting with it through our senses. That's what our reality is,and it's about time you embraced it to end confusion.

And we have been doing that , interacting with what's out there, and that's why, for instance, it's possible for both of us to have this conversation through the gains of such interaction; the Internet.

A blind person from birth is still able to interact with it's environment to be "sure of what's out there , how much you with eyes to see., but seem not to want to use because you already assume it's inadequate.

As long as you always have at back of your mind that you only see 0.003% of light, and don't know what 95% of stuff around you is, and your earth is smaller than an atom!
Study what Einstein said below

Steep:
Is this about mocking religious people?
You are even more religious than the so called religious people.

He'd said religious people don't use their heads. Your quarrel is with him

triplechoice:


This is completely off and no where near what Harry postulated. You didn't understand what you read from him at all.

The "self" he talked about is not the "real self" but the "false self" ,the human personality, which is a product of the environment the individual grew up in.

He says the human personality, the false self, which most identify themselves with is not real person, but illusion that's controlled automatically by neural pathways in the brain formed from what's made of the impressions received through the five senses .

And he recommended that to transcend this "false self" one should practice meditation to rewire the brain and free themselves from it's control and influence and start operating from the position of the "real self "that existed before it, human personality, was formed..

But for you you have mistaken the "false self" for the "real person" and believe if the thoughts which has created it is eliminated, the real person seizes to exist. That's not true.

Go watch his videos below. They are not that long to watch

PoliteActivist:


Exactly. We don't! That's why the conclusion of Descartes ought be "something exists" NOT "thought exists" and definitely NOT "I exist"

Then that renders your whole argument null and void.
However, that ignorance is for you and you alone.
Your hypocrisy is that you can't live out your world view, when you cross the road you avoid vehicles because you are sure vehicles exist and they can kill you.
When you are thirsty of water you are sure to drink water not sniper. If you weren't truly sure that reality exist you would have died by now.

Steep:
Then that renders your whole argument null and void.
However, that ignorance is for you and you alone.
Your hypocrisy is that you can't live out your world view, when you cross the road you avoid vehicles because you are sure vehicles exist and they can kill you.
When you are thirsty of water you are sure to drink water not sniper. If you weren't truly sure that reality exist you would have died by now.

I said there's high probability things are as we perceive them, but NOT SURE!
But even Einstein who was sure still drank water. See below

LordReed:


So you just defined something into existence?

That's why we call it Ka-Boom!

PoliteActivist:


Well, scientists have determined there are possibly 100's of dimensions while we perceive only 4. What would you call beings from those dimensions?
Also geniuses, including Einstein, Tesla, Drake, Muhammed, etc saud they were fed thoughts. Where are those thoughts from?

The problem with our science is that
it is like we are trying to answer the question: X+5=?, without knowing AT ALL what X is, whether X is even a number at all or a goat! It is also why our greatest thinkers end up saying we don't know anything - if you don't know what X is, you don't know anything!

Interesting, 100 dimensions? Do scientists claim there are 1100 dimensions, or do they stipulate the possibility of more dimensions? There's a stark difference between both statements. You may be referring to String Theory. But, that's still a stipulation.

Where do thoughts come from? The brain. If you can prove where thoughts existed without one, then you may be onto something.

PoliteActivist:


Go watch his videos below. They are not that long to watch

Key word "Sense of Self"

kkins25:

That's why we call it Ka-Boom!

Ahh, his own personal big bang. LoLz.

PoliteActivist:


No, u listen to yourself. My opinion is Putin is a reptilian, but I have no way of being sure!

Some people's opinion is that pigs fly and the earth is flat and their daily bread is delivered from heaven and they'd go to hell when they die, but none of those people would be trying to make their opinions, that they are not sure of, my opinion, like you have been trying to do.

PoliteActivist:


I said there's high probability things are as we perceive them, but NOT SURE!
But even Einstein who was sure still drank water. See below

av guten tha mesage

however,can u introduce me 2 what i can do 2 make murny through watsapp?

PoliteActivist:


I said there's high probability things are as we perceive them, but NOT SURE!
But even Einstein who was sure still drank water. See below

Then how do you perceive things? How do you know your perception might be correct?

PoliteActivist:


Ok, unless you believe in supernatural, when a child or a dog is born, does it have a "self". How does the self develop? What's your argument to this below

What's contained in the screenshot you shared is hypothetical. It hasn't happened yet.

Please bring examples of something in "real life" that has happened already, but the problem is that you're not even sure of what's 'real'. So how can you prove anything to me?

Besides, you have avoided answering the questions I asked about the dog. Have you ,or anyone you know of ,tried experimenting with a dog to be sure if what you imagined is possiblity? Yes or no

You can't use what's not possible or is a figment of your imagination to argue your case. It doesn't make sense.

PoliteActivist:


I said there's high probability things are as we perceive them, but NOT SURE!
But even Einstein who was sure still drank water. See below

If you know nothing and not sure of anything, it also mean you're not even sure of what you declared above.



What Einstein affirmed in the past was his own personal opinion about what he was in the dark about. I want to read something that's factual and true, and not the untested personal thoughts of individual.

PoliteActivist:


Well, I wrote this below. Isn't it similar to Harris?

If you don't believe there is a supernatural, then you must agree that the "self", the individual person, doesn’t exist - it is an illusion of accumulated memory. If your memory is wiped, "you" seizes to exit TOTALLY. If another person's memory is put in that body, that person becomes "you". Same applies to a dog or anything else. [b]You are your accumulated memory, NOTHING ELSE! Without memory the individual, the "self", does not exist! [/b]

You people are still on this thread? PoliteActivist oya, close this thread now osiso.
This caught my attention since someone replied to it on current page.
For the sake of those who are/will follow this thread.

You said "self" the individual person doesn't exists, that once the memory is wiped, such person ceases to exist.


This statement is very erroneous and may cause harm to the reader.

Your memory is not you! You only own your memory.

1. Using Biology .
Every human cell has something called "self-antigens" . The immune system uses that to detect between cells that are built from your body and foreign cells. And this "self-antigens" are unique to every individual. That is, my cells are different from any other person on this planet.

I don't need to go into the innate and the adaptive immune system's function. So if I swapped memory with someone, would I swap my self antigens as well?

Think!

2. Using computer.
If I had a HP Spectre x360 14 (2024) PC , that I've used for a while. If I decided to change the OS and move everything on the HardDrive to a friend's HP Folio. And I move everything on the HP Folio to my own Spectre
Does that mean, the HP Folio is not the new HP Spectre, vice versa?

Think!

3. Using Quantum Physics. (Because I know you like physics very well)

Every living and nonliving creature on the planet vibrates at its own special frequency. This would include humans too. Different cells within our bodies vibrate at different frequencies to create our own "special song".

If I swapped my memory with someone else? I'd still be able to use my fingerprint, my eyes sensor. If I had any sickness, Is it not still in my body?

PoliteActivist, always try to understand things.

PoliteActivist:


Go watch his videos below. They are not that long to watch

I said your thoughts doesn't align with Harry's.

Before you send me to watch any video, prove first to me that what you said about the human being is the same as his.

PoliteActivist:


1. Well, scientists have determined there are possibly 100's of dimensions while we perceive only 4. What would you call beings from those dimensions?

2. Also geniuses, including Einstein, Tesla, Drake, Muhammed, etc saud they were fed thoughts. Where are those thoughts from?

3. The problem with our science is that
it is like we are trying to answer the question: X+5=?, without knowing AT ALL what X is, wether X is even a number at all or a goat! It is also why our greatest thinkers end up saying we don't know anything - if you don't know what X is, you don't know anything!

1. I don't know why you keep screaming this dimensions up and down. What do you think a dimension is? Do you think a dimension is another world or another realm?
So far the four dimensions of Space is Height, width, length and time. Some scientists with common sense have considered mass to be the 5th dimension. Which I'm still a bit skeptical about because some particles are massless e.g Photon(Light particles), Gluon, and Graviton.
Any other dimensions you have in mind were conceived by other scientists that love playing.

2. Did they tell you who/what was feeding them thoughts? When you understand something on a deeper level, your brain begins to speak to you on it. When I used to study well on physics and statistics, sometimes I would even dream about some strange stuff snd I have several suggestions in my head. That's how powerful the human brain is.

3 X+5 can never be equal to unknown since we already know that every universe has its own spacetime. And our reality is within our own spacetime. Let Spacetime = S.
Therefore X+5=S,
X=S-5.
Q.E.D

budaatum:


I'm delighted you point this out to him.

Her religion is the religion of illusions.

Geovanni412:



Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and pol pot were striving to become the best version of themselves?

LOL. You know, when I initially posted that comment you responded to, I suspected there might be the possibility of you invoking the "Godwin's Law" clause. I'd wager you're most likely unfamiliar with Godwin's Law so I'll help you out here...

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1] is an Internet adage asserting: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But enough with the side jokes and/or comments, let me attend to your main question. You asked if Hitler and Pol Pot were striving to become the best versions of themselves. My answer to your question would be that it depends on your idea or understanding of self-improvement. If by "self-improvement" you actually mean "systematic genocide", then yes! If we want to eschew the nuances of the subject and resort to black and white thinking, then we might be justified to say that they were indeed striving to become the best versions of themselves. If you haven't gotten my point yet, then allow me to elucidate further: the two men you mentioned weren't exactly focused on development in a personal sense. Their idea of growth was more like pruning humanity's branches with a rusty machete. Citing Hitler and Pol Pot the way you did only tells me that you can't tell the difference between someone striving to improve himself in a noble way and someone striving to reshape the world around him in his own twisted image. Maybe we should examine Hitler and Pol Pot's personal growth strategies. Hitler's entire campaign revolved around promoting hate and annexing countries. Pot was a Khmer Rogue leader bent on eliminating intellectuals, artists, and anyone who could read more than one book. He was strictly "anti-enlightenment", if such a term actually exists.

I feel like I've previously noted this pivotal concept elsewhere on this forum, but "good" and "bad" actually exist across the spectrum of human experience. It doesn't matter what your beliefs or ideologies are, the fact is that there's no monopoly on virtue or vice.

Just so it don't seem one has little regard for Descartes, I post the following,

Maynmaynmayn:

When you have no oxygen, food, you are talking about a thing, zero or nothing is not a thing.

Zero was used as a placeholder not a number.
https://www.livescience.com/27853-who-invented-zero.html

With regards.

FRANCISTOWN:

Her religion is the religion of illusions.

His effect is to have produced an actual real thread that will be learnt from for decades to come.

So, immense thanks for politely activating us PoliteActivist. You, will actually really surely live long.

budaatum:


His effect is to have produced an actual real thread that will be learnt from for decades to come.

So, immense thanks for politely activating us PoliteActivist. You, will actually really surely live long.

Whoa! See subtle jabbing. Something is wrong with all of you.