It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's time to wake up!

page: 59
25
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It isn't my opinion. In direct experience I can come to see that there is no control over what my next movement will be.

As for your flat earth example. They think they are right because they have an assumption about how things are. I don't, I just see what is. And there is no control. I don't assume anything, I see. Direct experience trumps belief.
edit on 26-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

When I make a claim like, "It is impossible to be conscious of being unconscious." This is a universally true fact and it wouldn't make any possible sense to be aware of being unaware. There are no more variables to consider here. You think that someday science will find out that it is possible to be aware of being unaware? I don't think so.
edit on 26-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
It isn't my opinion. In direct experience I can come to see that there is no control over what my next movement will be.

It is just your opinion because in direct experience I can still control my next movement. Now what?


As for your flat earth example. They think they are right because they have an assumption about how things are. I don't, I just see what is. And there is no control. I don't assume anything, I see. Direct experience trumps belief.

I would say that you do have an assumption and it is seen in how you take the words of neuroscientists who are saying one thing and you seem to be hearing another.

You are decieving yourself just like anyone else who thinks they have found the "truth".



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

It's word salad.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




It is just your opinion because in direct experience I can still control my next movement. Now what?

Then you were being dishonest when you said you knew what I meant by DE. Control can only appear as in assumption in thought. Controlling thoughts appear in DE, but there is no one controlling them. DE is the same for everyone. All see the same thing in DE.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Andy1144

It's word salad.

Is it possible to see beyond the words? The 'truth' is prior to conceptualization.
What would there be if all words and symbols lifted away? It is said that 'The truth is hidden in plain sight'.
When the words and symbols return they are 'seen' for what they are!



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Then you were being dishonest when you said you knew what I meant by DE. Control can only appear as in assumption in thought. Controlling thoughts appear in DE, but there is no one controlling them. DE is the same for everyone. All see the same thing in DE.

Can you prove that?

It would seem to me that proponents of DE don't accept anyone who doesn't agree with them about DE. Sounds like a religion.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Sorry but your word salad is also just that.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Sorry but your word salad is also just that.

Yes - I thought it might go over your head.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Not over my head. Just seeing your words for what they are.

ETA: You are another one who can't accept that someone understands yet disagrees.
edit on 26-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Look up the definition of direct experience. It is the same experience for everyone. An experience where all assumptions are left behind and reality is seen as it is, not what you think it is. This is as anti dogmatic you can get.
You clearly don't know what DE means yet you pretend you do, that is dishonest.
edit on 26-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Your counter argument earlier was.

Just because neuroscience cannot find the self doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They may find it in the future. And then gave an example with flat earthers.

That is wrong because with the example I gave. "It is impossible to be conscious of being unconscious". This fact will never change. It would be inconceivably unreal for this to be true. It's just never going to happen.

What your argument against this is, just because people haven't been conscious of being unconscious so far doesn't mean they will in the future, we still don't know. You see how that is wrong?
That is what your argument is equivalent to.
edit on 26-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Look up the definition of direct experience.

I am commenting on your reactions.

My argument is that a guess is a guess no matter how much sense you think it makes.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You're missing the point. The only way we can make sense of what I am saying is if we explore the logic behind it.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
You're missing the point. The only way we can make sense of what I am saying is if we explore the logic behind it.

And you can't grasp that the logic is flawed.

Of course it makes sense to you, your the one twisting it.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

And I think the same to you. It's about discussing the points.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
And I think the same to you. It's about discussing the points.

And you are right, which is why personal logic/opinion is not science.

Discussing the points is a waste of time if all you end up with is some people accepting and others refusing your personal opinion.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You don't always need science to come to logical conclusions. I told you I am giving you logical conclusions, not blind opinions.
edit on 26-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
You don't always need science to come to logical conclusions. I told you I am giving you logical conclusions, not blind opinions.

But the logic you come up with can be flawed and you won't see it because it makes perfect sense to you.

They may as well be blind opinions.
edit on 26-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I'm not seeing the relevance.

A 5 minute conversation really is short and if the person had had negative experiences in the past then their might be a good reason for them claming up.

One can have a revelation in at/the INSTANCE of recognition (like minded); I think I had a similar experience. At the Feed Store, no one clams up, its a 5 minute of accelerated (fast talk) diatribe between those buying feed and the owner to be paid the bill. SHORT ORDER enlightenment. This feed store owner has 3 cats; all are identical brother tabbies, their names are Daryl, Daryl and Daryl (2 meeces per day apiece).
edit on 26-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join