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.
originally posted by: Serdgiam
That is an interesting response.. Are you only capable of one approach? Can we change a habit and still be "us?"
Do you see what happened here?
We essentially said the same thing. The words were changed a bit, but not their concept, in an attempt to disagree.
Again, you say the same thing as I, yet with the postulation that I am incorrect. Is this done intentionally and consciously, or habitually as a standard reaction?
I'm not talking about convincing you either. I'm actually engaging you as an archetype, as I feel that is beneficial to the thread, overall topic, and those that might read it. So far, its going swimmingly
Now, as for verifiable results.. First, we must ask "how are those results, or any results for that matter, verified by burden of proof statements?"
Then, what exactly are we looking to verify, and how is that affected by subjectivity? Unless we are claiming that subjectivity directly equates to falsehood without deviation, this changes the nature of the verification.
Are we proposing that logic, a derivative of the human brain, is capable of accurately parsing every facet of the universe and existence?
But, it is the type of thing we are talking about in this thread.
originally posted by: SaturnsSon
a reply to: eisegesis
i am about to take up meditating, any advice for things i should be concentrating on, to gain insight into the things you elude to?
originally posted by: daskakik
Many approaches and we can change and still be us but from yesterday to today I'm still the same.
No, there is a significant difference. I'm going after the ball not the player.
Of course I did. I made that clear in the response below that one.
You are using the same approach you are criticizing and calling it a success. Interesting
They are not as that is not their purpose.
We are looking to verify the truth. Tough job.
Are we proposing that logic, a derivative of the human brain, is capable of accurately parsing every facet of the universe and existence?
No.
And I'm pointing out how that is subjective and doesn't change reality, at least it hasn't yet.
originally posted by: Serdgiam
Indeed, I would agree, so why do we imply that the same habitual reaction, from the same individual, is a matter of course?
Is there? Or are we intentionally, subjectively even, playing with the words in order to create a foundation for disagreement?
If I perceive us to be saying the same thing, and you perceive the words to be as different as "dogs" and "planets," who is correct? Could there be value and validity in both, and if so, how do we align that going forward rather than habitually clashing?
Now we are getting somewhere! Of course you did that, right?
Are you pointing out errors that you know to be objectively false? Or is it based on what you assume is being said?
How would we align the "planets" and the "dogs" if the planets operate on the foundation they know what it is to be a dog?
If so, then would you say that is the most effective, productive approach?
If it is actually the case that you are incorrect (bear with me here), could it be a situation of a planet telling a dog about all things canine? Or the brain telling the lungs about all things breathing?
If there are flaws in such things, and I propose there are, how do we reconcile the differences? Is it effective to ask questions, seek clarification, listen and learn about breathing from lungs and thinking from thoughts -or- continue to lecture our thoughts with our breath?
Is it possible to ask what someone else means without making the assumption that we already know?
Agreed, so why are we using them in that capacity?
Tough job, to say the least! Is it possible that subjectivity and subjective perception is part of the Truth? If so (those are probably getting annoying, eh?), how would we objectively verify not only their presence and their impact, but build a cohesive, comprehensive picture any one of us could contain?
We would agree on that my planet friend, but then why do "you have to at least have a logical argument?"
If subjectivity and subjective perception are part of "reality," isn't that a bit like saying "well, that hasn't been proven to change anything because that's a dog, and only planets change reality." Or, "well, that hasn't been proven to change anything, because those are thoughts, and only breath changes reality."
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: eisegesis
Apparently it was because of liveandlearn's post making the connection with the mind control project. We talked about that for a few pages with nobody correcting. What are you gonna do, right?
originally posted by: SaturnsSon
i am about to take up meditating, any advice for things i should be concentrating on, to gain insight into the things you elude to?