It's time to wake up!

a reply to: daskakik

I accept that your experience is what you say it is.

It doesn't matter what I say my experience is, my point is we have to discuss what these experiences are and what their implications are. We can only do so if we discuss it.

I wasn't asking you to answer them. I posted them to show that your conclusion might not be accurate.

This is just a play of words, you asked me questions showing me where I could be wrong, and I answered your questions that their might be more variables involved in much detail.

Everything is still felt but you don't hold on to it.

So wheres the contradiction?

originally posted by: Andy1144
It doesn't matter what I say my experience is, my point is we have to discuss what these experiences are and what their implications are. We can only do so if we discuss it.

I can discuss it without grilling you about it.

This is just a play of words, you asked me questions showing me where I could be wrong, and I answered your questions that their might be more variables involved in much detail.

Well, my point was that there might be more variables involved. It was posted to refute your assertion that everyone experiences the same thing but it seems that you are not decided on that either.

So wheres the contradiction?

Well the post contradicted that stance that you made at the biginning of the thread and which you "cleared up" in the following post.

a reply to: daskakik

I can discuss it without grilling you about it.

You aren't discussing it in detail, you have been very vague.

Well, my point was that there might be more variables involved. It was posted to refute your assertion that everyone experiences the same thing but it seems that you are not decided on that either.

I don't know what you mean.

And I still don't know what the contradiction is.

But I am skeptical of discussing these things with you if you can't understand the simple fact that there is no choice free from influence. If you can't understand this simple fact, then I can't really discuss anything with you.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You aren't discussing it in detail, you have been very vague.

Details mean nothing if you will only accept that my experience is the real deal if I agree with you.

I don't know what you mean.

Obviously.

And I still don't know what the contradiction is.

Not surprising either.

But I am skeptical of discussing these things with you if you can't understand the simple fact that there is no choice free from influence. If you can't understand this simple fact, then I can't really discuss anything with you.

Exactly, you are biased. This is like a religion to you and if I'm not one of your flock then you don't even want to discuss. Unless it's to try and convert me.

I said that pages ago.

a reply to: daskakik

Details mean nothing if you will only accept that my experience is the real deal if I agree with you.

I will need to give evidence as to why you should or shouldn't agree with me.

Exactly, you are biased. This is like a religion to you and if I'm not one of your flock then you don't even want to discuss. Unless it's to try and convert me.
I said that pages ago.

Direct experience is not a belief.
I am like an atheist, and I would be skeptical to have a discussion if the christian didn't understand simple logic. Based on what you're saying. the atheist is biased because he can't make the christian agree with what he's saying.

I think you mentioned far back that you and itisnowagain conversed for years and no progress was made because of "circular logic" was it? Why were you two going in circles, still after all these years?

originally posted by: Andy1144
I will need to give evidence as to why you should or shouldn't agree with me.

Evidence...

Direct experience is not a belief.

And god is love.

Repeating a string of words over and oiver don't make them true and your actions speak louder than those words anyway.

I am like an atheist, and I would be skeptical to have a discussion if the christian didn't understand simple logic. Based on what you're saying. the atheist is biased because he can't make the christian agree with what he's saying.

Yeah, you are like a religious atheist having a discussion with an honest atheist. You are still skeptical but in this case you are the one filled with religious zeal.

a reply to: daskakik

Repeating a string of words over and oiver don't make them true and your actions speak louder than those words anyway.

It's ironic that you accuse you of the same things you've done yourself.

Yeah, you are like a religious atheist having a discussion with an honest atheist. You are still skeptical but in this case you are the one filled with religious zeal.

Sure, everyone thinks they are honest. I present simple facts, like it is impossible to make a choice free from any circumstance and you can't even agree with that when it's simple logic. You are an atheist with rich vocabulary but with a slight lack of common sense, and I'm being nice.

originally posted by: Andy1144
It's ironic that you accuse you of the same things you've done yourself.

No, I'm not doing the same. I am not dismissing your experience as invalid because you don't give details.

I present simple facts

You present philosophy as hard science and that right there is dishonest enough. Everything after that is worthless, except to you.

a reply to: daskakik

No, I'm not doing the same. I am not dismissing your experience as invalid because you don't give details.

Not the point. You said I experienced a certain thing. I simply wanted to make sure you weren't talking about something else and thus asked you to describe your experience in more detail.

You present philosophy as hard science and that right there is dishonest enough. Everything after that is worthless, except to you.

I'm not falling for this jargon again. I've said certain areas within the community discovered that thought are formed by subconscious processes before they become conscious. Has science disproven free will? It is the same as asking, if science has disproven god. Neither of these two things are coherent with reality. If you don't think I'm right then argue why.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Not the point. You said I experienced a certain thing. I simply wanted to make sure you weren't talking about something else and thus asked you to describe your experience.

Making sure means that you will dismiss unless it checks out.

Either way I am not doing that.

I'm not falling for this jargon again.

That jargon is what separates science from pseudoscience.

a reply to: daskakik

Making sure means that you will dismiss unless it checks out.

You are simply saying I wont tell you anything because no matter what it'll be, you'll only accept it if you agree with it, or if it fits your idea of what's right.
I'm not that unreasonable, I am willing to discuss in detail why I am saying what I say. And if you disagree, I am happy to discuss why you do.
And besides, isn't what you say apply to you as well? You'll only accept what you think is right.

a reply to: Andy1144

Try to "clarify" any way you want, your other posts speak for themselves.

If you can't see, after 76 pages, why details are not needed then we can probably go another 76 and you still might not see it.

From my POV you want details to be able to do what you have done throughout the thread, nitpick. You even did it to Unifinity.

You can't even see how needing the experience to have "major implications" contradicts the idea that you are seeing through an illusion and realizing that it means nothing so, how is it going to have deep meaning if you are realizing that things are not real and therefore meaningless.

Basic fail in logic, even itisnowagain pointed that out to you but, like everything else you just dismissed it. Still, you can't seem to see this and I can't make it any clearer so before we go another 76 pages I will see myself out.

And besides, isn't what you say apply to you as well? You'll only accept what you think is right.

No, I said early on that I can accept "I don't know" as the answer. There is no "I am right" if "I don't know".

a reply to: daskakik

From my POV you want details to be able to do what you have done throughout the thread, nitpick. You even did it to Unifinity.

How was it nitpicking?

You can't even see how needing the experience to have "najor implications" contradicts the idea that you are seeing through an illusion and realizing that it means nothing so, how is it going to have deep meaning if you are realizing that things are not real.

Another indication you don't know what I'm talking about. The realization is realizing everything is meaningless, and this has major implications, because your whole world paradigm shifts from "Meaning exists" to "everything is meaningless". So this will have major implications/changes in how one lives life. Like evolution. What is the purpose of evolution? To evolve? What's the purpose of that? No purpose, just doing it for the sake of it. There are two levels as you can see. On the relative, the implications involve improving our life experience, evolving. What is the purpose of that? No purpose.

Basic fail in logic, even itisnowagain pointed that out to you but, like everything else you just dismissed it.

What did he point out?

It's time to wake up!

So: Is there any 'waking-up' ?