₦airaland Forum

kwangi: "I'll be back".
I hope we don't lose to liverpool.

"WE" ? ? ? ? ?

Don't allow yourself to strive towards the rewards of mediocrity and lack of ambition and competition.

Logicboy03: Make I go watch arsenal

Its starting now right? I hope you are not an Arsenal fan o? I retired about six years ago. I can't cope with lack of ambition.

[quote author=O.T.I.S]Pilate was the fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36 according to written history, but he was serving under Emperor Tiberius.
during the trial of jesus both Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas (the Tetrarch of Galilee) found jesus not guilty of conspiring against Rome but like i said the pressure was too much for Pilate, underground pressure from Rome and open one from the masses.[/quote]What was the underground pressure from Rome?

Logicboy03: lol............you that tried to argue that every action requires thought....abegi


My argument has always been that our description will be subjective as we cant ask the man what he was doing in the pic. You tried to argue that it will always OBJECTIVELY be the case that he was thinking.

Fail.

Okay. Now please go and do your homework dear. And when you are done, the dishes as well. Don't forget to feed the dogs and bring up my night cap (Guiness Stout) before you go to bed.

Your loving father, DS.

Logicboy03: Here is your comment that I was replying to






What if the pose is involuntary? How are you sure that he was posing for a picture? The above point is inherently false

If I was touching my chin as a result of pain from a sore there and someone snapped me without my knowledge?


*Touching the chin is the thinking pose

Lol. So much to say in response to this joke of a response. But i'll pass. You're in terribly poor form today. Please just go, I don't want this place littered with your posts. It will be most unpleasant for my visitors to see your droppings all over the living room. They are unsightly, and do not smell nice.

[quote author=O.T.I.S]jesus (if he existed) was arrested and persecuted on several counts of blasphemy & impersonation, he disobeyed the law and was punished accordingly. pilate wanted to grant him clemency but pressure was high and he was crucified. the story of dying to save the world is the greatest scam ever.[/quote]Its particularly interesting that he is hailed in a crowd as King of the Jews entering Jerusalem (this could be seen as a coup) - and then is arrested and executed by the Romans just one week later. . . . .

Pilate? Is there more to his role than the gospels reveal?

Romans were masters of guile and sleight of hand, after all. . .

kwangi: THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD:
She in happy and in awe of the new born. Probably thinking...what mystery?
I just produced something of my kind without any say as to what and how it came to be.
What's responsible for this?

She is obviously excited even though the baby is not displaying any emotion.
What could she possibly be laughing or smiling at?

Interesting comment. Do you think there is a clue implicit in this about the nature of and purpose of creation?

Self-propagation - what does it tell us?

Is there any hint in the complex and awe-inspiring systems that deliver a birth in the first place?

kwangi: FIRST PICTURE (A MAN):
He's thinking. Probably trying to analyse a situation he is involved in and take a decision.
He could be making a plan in his head after which he would act out in order to make manifest of it.

However, he could be in an undesirable emotional state whereby he is regretting an action or worried about a loved one.

All in all, he's thinking!

Yes thank you, again, the spectre of thought.

What do you think thoughts are, by the way?

Do you hear your thoughts in your head, when you think, or sometimes just feel or "see" them in your mind's eye.

"Mind's eye" - what is that by the way? Like you can sit down an form a picture in your mind of a place or person far away. You see that in your mind, no? Where is that. What eye sees that? Or what mind sees that? And how does it do this? Does this say anything about what the mind is, and what capacities it has. Does this give a hint about mind being beyond matter, or is mind just matter. \

Ah - and that question touches on the second pic and your comment on it - - - >

STONE AND A BRAIN:
The Stone; Lacks consciousness. Not a living thing. Cannot make decisions!

The Brain; The tool central to the thinking man's existence as a Man, a human being.

Like someone already pointed out, they (the stone and the brain) are made up o the same material.
So a question pops up in my mind, why the different forms?

Exactly.

Does this say something about the source of life and the nature of living things as opposed to the nature of matter?

Logicboy03: How silly.

Let us stretch the failed logic


"Even breathing connotes thought".....do you think about breathing every second you do?



If I told you- "stand with your right hand on your chin" and I acted the pose out for you to copy....then you do it......did you just think about posing or did you just mimic me?


And whatever you thought, you thought during the time you mimicked me......you have done the pose and the thought before the pose....at the time I that I would be taking the picture, your though about the mimicking would have been gone........

Very bad analogy because breathing is involuntary while posing for a picture is very deliberate and voluntary.

Your grasp of elementary reasoning is slipping to ever new lows. Please just go, I am tired of speaking to such. Constant interaction with you is bound to gradually make one s.tupid.

Just watching a very interesting documentary on Discovery World right now. Its actually still on right now.

Its advancing this very interesting theory of Jesus' arrest and execution - and suggesting that it was entirely a political move by the ruling Roman Governor - Pontius Pilate.

It kinda makes sense. . .

It says -

1. Jesus did the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the regional capital, with huge crowds declaring him Messiah. Roman soldiers and guards would have observed this - and known the meaning and implication of "Messiah" - as King of the Jews.

2. One week later Jesus is before the Roman authorities on accusations of declaring himself the king of the Jews - what would effectively be treason against the state.

3. There is a charade involving the conniving Jewish establishment, and Jesus gets executed with Pilate getting to "wash his hands" off the matter as though he was not involved. . . .

Quite interesting.

Is there something to this? Could Pilate actually have plotted the whole thing and still come out smelling of roses. Or just another conspiracy theory. . .

PS: [Hey, Historians who wish to say that it all never happened, and Jesus never existed, don't worry, your objection is duly noted, so pass. This is directed at those who believe the story of Jesus may have happened]

Logicboy03: What if the man is told to pose as if he is thinking?

Settle down: and stop confusing yourself.

1. Even posing connotes thought - the thought of posing.

2. The image of what he is posing as - is still an image of a thinking man - which is what you are called to address.

Think on the object of what you are seeking to argue. What do you seek to argue -

1. That the image does not evoke a thinking man?

2. That we are not thinking beings?

I already told you that that may be true of you, but not necessarily of others, okay?

Really? Well the last sentence certainly isn't.

plaetton: Listen man, like I said, we all do it. We try to steer our threads towards some ultimate conclusions. And yes, I get pissed when an interloper derails the thread away from my intended thesis.
The difference, in this case, is that you appear to be a greater control freak than most US, and it was very evident by your loquacious bombasity.

. . . . and still not a word about your leaf. . . .

You're amazing, man.

PS: If the accusation is an attempt to steer the thread to certain conclusions, I plead guilty to that one, and that would be obvious to even a toddler. I am not aware that it is a crime. It is rather the normal and natural object of such discourses as this: where the intending discussant is of course trying to pass across thoughts that he has dwelt upon already - and exchange of ideas. Nothing special there.

I am not "pissed off" by any "interloping" - if anything, I believe a great text on subjectivity and objectivity and their place in discussion and debate has been laid out here. I see a lot of future reference to the debate on subjectivity here: for I do not see how you wish to utter one objective word in future again, and for the rest of your life, without it being annulled by the very same contentions you have made here.

One thing that is certain is that you really need to re check the level of unfortunate emotionalism in your responses here. "Animosity" - "lies" - "violent lashing out" - "feeling threatened" - "provocative" - - -> are all your words and not mine. Sad, sad, sad and very small. Sad because I thought, and still think, very highly of you, and always will, whatever comes. Address points and stop resorting to personal emotion. It has no place in a debate. You of all people surely know this.

Well, too much has been said on the question of subjectivity and what can be known. Anyone interested in that debate can read the posts above.

Let us now focus on the tendergarten excercise set out in the OP, with those who are interested in where it might lead.

Okay, Kay17, let's take your thoughts on the images first.

Kay 17: 1st Picture -- invokes the resemblance of the Thinking Man, deep in contemplation. The strenuous effort of reasoning -- gift from the Greeks.

The words in bold are indeed what the image evokes to anyone, and of course is exactly what it is intended to evoke.

Thought.

Man.

Man and thought.

What is man. And what is thought.

Secondly, most interesting that you said - "The strenuous effort of reasoning -- gift from the Greeks"

I like "strenuous effort of reasoning" -

For this calls up the understanding that a being could deliberately exert itself to place its thoughts through a logical process: and that in itself calls up the fundamental existence of logic as a pillar, perhaps the pillar of reality. One thing moving to the next as a cause or consequence: this would be cardinal in discussing existential reality.

Please give me your thoughts on the above and lets take it further.

We will go to your thoughts on the other images after this - - - if that's cool by you.

Logicboy03: Sharrap.

If I held a camera and told you to pose like a thinking man how many seconds would it take you to strike the pose. Wouldn't you have to finish the pose before I took the picture?


Even at that, do you consciously think before putting your hand on the chin? It is almost an involuntary action.

Even maintaining a pose involves a thought of what you are doing, and continuing to do.

Look, you don't need to accept the simple idea that you are a thinking being you know.

It is possible, in fact, likely, that you are not.

Logicboy03: Nice try. If he was only posing for the camera, he would have finish thinking before the shot was taken. All he had to do was pose then snap. The pic wouldn't be of a man thinking. It would be of a man posing


Sophistry will always fail u

Even the act of posing denotes a thought. While doing it, you are in the thought of carrying on a pose.

My friend, you cannot escape thought.

A simple truism you would have become enlightened to if you had undertook the kindergarten exercise set out in my OP.

Mr Troll: This is funny. Anyway, i don't think what you keep saying is what Plaetton meant. Maybe i read it wrong. I'm tired of holding forte for him sef.

The point is, whatever we deduce from here should not be taken as objective truths, they can hardly pass as conclusive evidence in any case. That is my position in this.

*Sigh* And what about his leaf?

Why did he then discern objective truths about his leaf?

Logicboy03: If you like, put all the big words in the dictionary in your arguments, your sophistry wont change the facts.

The fact is that the pictures are there but our descriptions will always be subjective. We cant test the rock nor ask the man what exactly he was doing. What if he wasnt thinking but just posing for the camera?


Guy, siddon

Even posing for the camera involves a thought. The simple point that you make clowns of yourselves on. Plaetton laughably even said what if he is not thinking but wishing, or something as assinely s.illy as that. Wishes, of whatever nature, are thoughts.

Such profoundly thick headed desperation to evade the spectre of a thinking being and its philosophical and ontological ramifications.

And, of course, you also, would ignore the tradedy of the example of the leaf. An example given by plaetton which is a whole sale concession of my point, and rips his argument to shreds.

This is of course the same way you ignored the damning point on whether science itself relies on images seen or not.

Hurrah. Good morning.

Mr Troll: While i saw your first 5 lines, it did not necessarily translate to the second paragraph. THAT is what i was trying to explain to you, we both agreed that what he said was true and correct but where we differed was on whether it was an escapist response and therefore meaningless. You seemed bent on insisting it was so even after several explanations by the poster himself.

No matter how he explained it, you kept insisting it was an escapist response and could be used for any and every subject on earth. The thing come tire me.

The point is that even if Plaetton agreed to discuss on the significance of the pictures and their arrangement, whatever we finally deduce from them should not be taken as objective truths. I took them on as a form of mental exercise, if the thread had not been derailed so i would have continued further. . .

You are not being objective or rational.

Did you not see the apocalypse of his argument in the instance of the example of the leaf? Did you not see the world-ending contrsdiction therein which just showed once and finally that he was spewing empty nonsensical escapist gibberish? To use his eyes to find objective truth about the leaf and say at the same time that what is seen cannot disclose objective truth?

Nor can he escape with appeal to culture and memory for even in the instance of the leaf, it is a plate for one man, food for another and decoration for a third. And yet he still deigned to use his eyes to state some fundamental objective truths about it. This says it all.

If after that, you dont see the point, I can only smile.

plaetton: Here is what I think happened.

Deepsight, like most us usually do, opened the thread to elicit certain types of responses in order that he me may direct and tele-guide the thread towards some certain of his own truths and conclusions.

When I interjected in the manner that I did, He felt threatened of loosing control of the thread, so he violently lashed out with strong provocative words as a means of driving me away, or at the least, to discredit my viewpoint so that he could steer the thread to his intended conclusions.
That was why no matter how many times I repeated and tried to clarify, he just kept going like a broken record. lol.

I think that is what is called being "Dogmatic".

What an emotional response. I have laboriously and logically explained my point but you have consistently turned sadly emotional over and over again. You first said animosity, then you said lies against you, now you talk about violent lashing out, provocative words and feeling threatened. All these are in your imagination. And might I add, honestly shamefully childish emotionality, which I would never have thought you capable of.

My points are lucid, logical and clear, and when I pointed out damning contradictions in yours, such as with the leaf, you simply ignored them. I think you need to look at the man in the mirror, and not at me.

Mr Troll: this is the argument plaetton was making and which DS was spitting upon.

Spitting on? ? ? ?

His Argument - - - - - - >

plaetton: May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access.

In fact, the borders of the mind are very porous, the substance of the mind is very malleable and extremely vulnerable to suggestions and alterations.
In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, a dynamic and malleable mind, as opposed to a static mind, was a critically important and necessary factor in the social evolution of the earth's most senior primate, man.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

MY VERY FIRST RESPONSE - - - >

Deep Sight: This is true and correct, but I fail to see its relevance to this thread.

All of this could similarly be said on the question of whether anything around you actually exists at all or is all in your head: a mirage. A futile line of thinking, which, even where true, is meaningless for everyone, and profits no one anything.

Did you miss my very first five words ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

GET THE POINT NOW? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Logicboy03: It would do you well to stop shifting the goal posts.

Lol. What staggering dishonesty!

You guys are really charming, you know that? Simple question, and now we are talking goal posts!

How sweet!

Mr Troll: long time i no show

anyway, i think this thread has been derailed with unnecessary word play but then let me make my simple and probably final contribution...


while the argument for the existence of god/gods is inconclusive, it is quite naive to come such a conclusion based on intuition or logic alone as DS will like us to believe.


mankind has intuited falsely about a lot of things in the past...the cause of lightining, thunderstorms, the Sun etc. it is complex ignorance and escapism to say that just because we see a very complex entity then it is logical to conclude GOD!!!

this position poses more questions than answers and you, DS knows that. you have been asked severally on this forum to explain your concept of God and every month we see new explanations. there are some things the atheist do not know about the universe but it is cowardice and escapist to make fantastic assumptions about them without any proof or evidence whatsoever. saying GOD!!! kills of every avenue for enquiry. it merely states the position we were already assuming. God created the universe? for what? pray tell....

i do not state that there is no god. i simply say that i do not believe in god because i see no evidence for any, and that includes your deist god DeepSight. i could intuit all i want but it all boils down to conclusive evidence. if i cant get that then all i eventually did was wishful thinking....

where is your conclusive irrefutable evidence for GOD!!!? show us and let us examine it. until then, save us your fantastic theories and intuition.

I really don't know what you think I mean by intuition. However you must know very well that I base my discussions not on intuition alone, but cardinally on Logic.

Obi 901: The Riddle of God
No man is wrong about his knowledge of God,yet no man is Right about his understanding of God.
. The Riddle of Truth
Truth causes conflict to storm in the heart of man,tearing him every which way. But until man stops his search for truth,he cannot have freedom,because truth in an imperfect creation is not whole.
. Only truth from the spiritual worlds of God is pure,but when man is given a single,raw thread of truth to occupy him for a while,he attaches so much importance to it that he won't let go of it later for the finer cloth of the weaver's loom. He wants truth,but not if it means first throwing out the old,ragged thread in hand.
. Try to understand this: Perfect truth is not given to the human state because it cannot comprehend it. The ECK travelers do reveal higher degrees of truth to us,but eventually,if we are to attain the highest states of God,we must surrender all in our hearts and minds so that selfless love can enter in.
. Truth for a pauper is different than it is for a king,because the experiences of each are so unlike in life: the totality of one's experience forms his state of consciousness. No two people are alike; therefore,neither is their perception of truth.
. Words of an ECK Master

This might seem off topic,so i apologize. But those who can contemplate on the words above will realize it answers most of the questions here. Thanks

Thank you for your thoughts - and in all fairness they tend towards Plaetton's, although with a difference - the recognition of God and the Spiritual involved.

Let me say that, just as I said with Plaetton's this being true still does not in any way stop a simple discussion on what we may glean about truth from that which we see in our environment.

The post with the running young boy and the corpse, for example, if reflected upon deals with exactly that vital truth that is central to rising within "the spiritual worlds of God", as you have termed it. . . . . .

ALL those images were actually carefully selected and arranged to reveal a simple and graduated truth about the meaning of our lives . . . . .

Unfortunately only 2 or 3 so far have bothered with the images, not to speak of reflecting on them. . . .

They throw up their hands and cry - "Nothing can be known!"

Even when with their eyes, they say they know objectively the shape of a leaf. . . . .

Logicboy03: You just lost the argument. No where did I mention purpose.


To even try and put purpose in an atheists mouth....,

Lol. This is why its boring wasting time with you. What's your reason for saying that a simple chalkboard requires a designer?

Kay 17: 1st Picture -- invokes the resemblance of the Thinking Man, deep in contemplation. The strenous effort of reasoning -- gift from the Greeks.

2nd Picture -- A stone and the human brain. I immediately tick the brain off as fundamentally different from the stone, a mechanism responsible for the sustainence of life itself. However after viewing the first picture, i perceive a demand to think deeper, as a result I try to find similarities between the Stone and the human brain.

The structure of the stone is elaborately complex, owing to our knowledge of atoms, there is a specific arrangement necessary to provide the stone its dependable rigidity. The atoms themselves have an arrangement decided by tiny individualistic sub-particles, which make the most dazzling behaviour, yet a stone is firm, solid and dependable.

3rd/4th/5th pictures -- Growth/Evolution.

6th - - Monarchy. Traditional Authority which is questioned by nature.

Wow! Thank you!

At last, an atheist who has addressed the simple request made in the OP without any rigmarole, pretensions and diversions!

Much appreciated Kay17.

I will discuss your thoughts in a separate post.

kwangi: Lol... These men snuffed the life outta this thread even before it was started!
Should I blame it on paranoia?

I tell ya!

Logicboy03: It is not the complexity of the ship that makes it to require a builder. A simple chalkboard requires a builder as well.

It requires a builder because it doesnt occur naturally. (Circular argument though)

^^^

The problem is that we do not know.....the origin of the first life remains a mystery.

And, at the time when no life existed on earth, would you say that a brain would be something that could occur therein naturally, given enough time for the mindless matter to play with itself?

A chalk board requires a builder - because you can see purpose therein right?

You cannot see purpose in a human brain?

plaetton: There are studies that religious bliss makes people live a bit longer.
I want to live longer, so i think it's about time I start shopping for a religion.
I want to be in that religious bliss that have been spoken about for so long.

But before I jump in with out looking, I would like christians to sell me the Jesus product.
Tell me why Jesus is better for me than Mohammed or Buddha, or Traditional African Religions.

Your sarcasm aside.

http://www.sermoncentral.com/bible.asp?sscat=bible&sitesearch=ros-matthew%205&rk=matthew%205&Keyword=matthew%205

The world is a school.

Logicboy03: The brain of course is more complex.

Do you believe that the less complex space ship could ever have been produced by mindless matter?

Logicboy03: Dont worry, the feeling is mutual

And I am guessing that this -

Deep Sight: Question for you: which is more complex and intricate - A space Ship, or the human brain?

Is not a question you will care to ever give a straight up one time answer to.

Logicboy03: Why the snark?

Because una dey tire pesin o