On 6/22/2026 3:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:19 PM, Wilson wrote:"As to definitive evidence, perhaps only overt madness and suicide
On 6/22/2026 3:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:You two are defining consciousness differently.
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have proven >>>>>>>>>> otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc
everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps even >>>>>>>> most, falls within that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>> else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with >>>>>> it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and
possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally i >>>>>> view it more like an executive head of a organization (with limited >>>>>> control even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather >>>>>> than being directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition. >>>>>
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of
"consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness
that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of
experienceda awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in
language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the
classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what the >>>> quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered it's
own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings are
qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is therefor >>>> not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but it >>>> just isn't...
even for our own cognition
#god
No. But consciousness is everything you experience.
and we don't experience all our cognition
count. Everything else is conjecture." - Tang Huyen
On 6/22/26 8:25 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 11:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:24 AM, Dude wrote:Almost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supports the
On 6/21/2026 10:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:07 AM, Dude wrote:So, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution.
On 6/20/2026 7:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The two-state solution was rejected by Hamas, replaced with the
On 6/20/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 11:32 AM, Dude wrote:solution?
On 6/20/2026 11:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 21:12:20 -0700, DudeMaybe just spread out an oriental rug, inside a tent, sit down >>>>>>>>>> with Hamas leaders --a and watch the Islamic terrorists burn >>>>>>>>>> down your town and village and slaughter over a thousand
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2026 8:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:It is a war crime to use women and children as human
On 6/19/2026 7:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote:Let me say this about that:
On 6/15/2026 10:58 AM, dart200 wrote:bro it the was romans/christians who were initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicking out the
On 6/15/26 10:44 AM, Julian wrote:So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> war in the
On 15/06/2026 18:37, dart200 wrote:--------------
On 6/15/26 10:09 AM, Julian wrote:
On 15/06/2026 18:04, dart200 wrote:
On 6/15/26 8:37 AM, Julian wrote:You only get one thanks per propagated post, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once per
On 15/06/2026 16:29, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/26 8:06 AM, Julian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see Jerry Seinfeld has got the pompous left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sobbing into
Opinion noted.their keffiyehs. His sin? He refused to buckle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their neo-
religious mantra rCyFree PalestinerCO. The comedy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legend was
accosted by a YouTuber outside Madison Square >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gardens in NYC
last week.
rCLCan we get a rCyFree PalestinerCO?rCY, the streamer
asked as he
shoved his mic towards SeinfeldrCOs gob. Seinfeld >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smirked. He
held his tongue. No rCyFree PalestinerCO passed his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lips.
It gets better. He then proceeded to shut down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his chirpy
interrogator with three words. rCLIt doesnrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existrCY, he said.
He was talking about Palestine. Cue fury from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gazaholics. This was rCLracist rhetoricrCY, cried >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cranks at
the Council on American- Islamic Relations. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep your
burqas on. He wasnrCOt being racist rCo he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the world
that even in an age of crushing conformity it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to
stand your ground.
There was something heroic in SeinfeldrCOs smiling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to
speak on command. By resisting the pressure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parrot the
slogans of the self- righteous, he struck a blow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for freedom
of conscience. He resisted the trap of compelled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speech,
preferring the company of his own supposedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blasphemous
thoughts. What a relief to discover there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrities
out there who decline to bow to the passing fads >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of correct-
think.
The backlash over his Palestine heresy was fast >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and furious.
Social media is awash with Jerry hate. rCyRacistrCO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rCyapartheid
loverrCO, rCypsychorCO rCo those barbs and others have
been hurled
his way. Mehdi Hasan called him a rCLdisgusting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proud
racistrCY and said he will never again watch an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> episode of
Seinfeld. I bet JerryrCOs gutted. Perhaps herCOll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take comfort
in the millions of dollars he still rakes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Seinfeld
every year, courtesy of viewers who arenrCOt big >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies and
donrCOt switch off TV shows in a pique of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infantile rage when
they discover they disagree with the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made them.
The intensity of the backlash is proof of what a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffocating
orthodoxy rCyFree PalestinerCO has become. Fail to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genuflect to
this chattering- class catechism and you risk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being cast out
of polite society. Hence Seinfeld is being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treated not as
someone who has a different opinion on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Middle East but
as a moral deviant deserving of castigation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Five hundred
years ago herCOd have been in the stocks. Or worse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The pressure to hate Israel can feel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming at times,
especially
zionism is the single largest driver of war in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 21st
century, joolian
Thanks for propagating my post.
propagation.
i will re-post everything u cut joolian
Of course you'll follow me around.
If you had any sense you share shifts with Noah. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that's a just a fact joolian
post-911 zionists warmongering in the middle east is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the leading
cause of war for the 21st century thus far
and sure, it could still be eclipsed
Middle East. And, because of the Quran so shut up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
joos not the fucking muzzies. sure the last century the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muzzies have
been pretty pissed cause a colonial empire just annexed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slice of
palestine and just gave it to people who never lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. and then
it got solidified during all the 9/11 warmongering. like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if u thought
the muzzies were pissed off before, we've been killing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them by the
millions for the past decades or so
now the joos control the leading world superpower, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even have
their precious zion bullshit, and it's still not good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough for
them, eh???
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 before a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> israel's
100th birthday?
Zionism is an international movement aimed at establishing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
preserving an Israeli state in the ancestral Jewish and, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judah, and at
making it a home and refuge for every Jew in the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As a Zionist, I donrCOt give a shit about the negative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connotations
Muslims and leftists attach to the term Zionism. ThatrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem,
not mine.
as an american i'm pretty pissed about zionists blowing up >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3000 of our
citizens and dragging us into decades of war
shields. Likewise
commandeering schools and hospitals and using them for >>>>>>>>>>>> military attacks
that killed thousands of non-military civilians in Israel. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So, I've seen no evidence you're American, and regardless, >>>>>>>>>>>> Israel is a
US ally.
Would you choose Hamas over Obama?u would choose zion over ur own country, dud
As of 2026, 163 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states >>>>>>>>>>>> officially
recognize Israel as a sovereign country.
If you were Jewish and facing existential annihilation, what >>>>>>>>>>>> would you do?
Start learning how to make friends, especially not enemies >>>>>>>>>>> who are
willing to die so they can cause you a little annoyance. >>>>>>>>>>> Those are
the worst.
attendees at an annoying music festival.
That's it - just talk to them and make friends.
Are you nuts?
yes it's fucking nuts to keep millions of people in a literal >>>>>>>>> fucking ghetto until they act out dud
So, why isn't Gaza a prosperous state? Why not just agree to a >>>>>>>>> two- state
u think anyone wants a 2 state solution????
slaughter of 1200 innocent men, women, children and babies.
Are you nuts?
if u think the joos endlessly creeping on the west bank want
anything but a joo-state solution
EfyeEfyeEfye
Is that a query?
EfyeEfyeEfye
So, for the record: The United Nations recognizes Israel as a >>>>>>>> sovereign state and has been a full member nation since May 11, >>>>>>>> 1949, when it was admitted through United Nations Generalgod ur such a fucking propagandized twat
Assembly Resolution 273.
for the record are you appealing to authority again cause u
haven't the foggiest clue what an argument looks like???
no
You came here to get enlightened.
nope
no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework for lasting
regional
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony they're
gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an independent
Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based on the pre-1967
borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in 1947 and
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and caused the
death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza
and approximately 2,000 Israelis.
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be
surprised dud
now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million registered
Palestine refugees.
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with billions
of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point.
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the US have
spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79 years and
still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and
Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives and move
to other countries???
You can't make this stuff up!
u certain can support genocide, eh???
Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024 reached
SAR 1.259 trillion.
On 6/22/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:25 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 11:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:24 AM, Dude wrote:Almost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supports the
On 6/21/2026 10:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:07 AM, Dude wrote:So, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution.
On 6/20/2026 7:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The two-state solution was rejected by Hamas, replaced with the >>>>>>> slaughter of 1200 innocent men, women, children and babies.
On 6/20/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 11:32 AM, Dude wrote:solution?
On 6/20/2026 11:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 21:12:20 -0700, DudeMaybe just spread out an oriental rug, inside a tent, sit >>>>>>>>>>> down with Hamas leaders --a and watch the Islamic terrorists >>>>>>>>>>> burn down your town and village and slaughter over a thousand >>>>>>>>>>> attendees at an annoying music festival.
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2026 8:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:It is a war crime to use women and children as human >>>>>>>>>>>>> shields. Likewise
On 6/19/2026 7:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote:Let me say this about that:
On 6/15/2026 10:58 AM, dart200 wrote:bro it the was romans/christians who were initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicking out the
On 6/15/26 10:44 AM, Julian wrote:So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> war in the
On 15/06/2026 18:37, dart200 wrote:--------------
On 6/15/26 10:09 AM, Julian wrote:Of course you'll follow me around.
On 15/06/2026 18:04, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/26 8:37 AM, Julian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/06/2026 16:29, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/26 8:06 AM, Julian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see Jerry Seinfeld has got the pompous left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sobbing into
You only get one thanks per propagated post, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once perOpinion noted.their keffiyehs. His sin? He refused to buckle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their neo-
religious mantra rCyFree PalestinerCO. The comedy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legend was
accosted by a YouTuber outside Madison Square >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gardens in NYC
last week.
rCLCan we get a rCyFree PalestinerCO?rCY, the streamer
asked as he
shoved his mic towards SeinfeldrCOs gob. Seinfeld >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smirked. He
held his tongue. No rCyFree PalestinerCO passed his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lips.
It gets better. He then proceeded to shut down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his chirpy
interrogator with three words. rCLIt doesnrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existrCY, he said.
He was talking about Palestine. Cue fury from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gazaholics. This was rCLracist rhetoricrCY, cried >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cranks at
the Council on American- Islamic Relations. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep your
burqas on. He wasnrCOt being racist rCo he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the world
that even in an age of crushing conformity it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is possible to
stand your ground.
There was something heroic in SeinfeldrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smiling refusal to
speak on command. By resisting the pressure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parrot the
slogans of the self- righteous, he struck a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blow for freedom
of conscience. He resisted the trap of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compelled speech,
preferring the company of his own supposedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blasphemous
thoughts. What a relief to discover there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrities
out there who decline to bow to the passing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fads of correct-
think.
The backlash over his Palestine heresy was fast >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and furious.
Social media is awash with Jerry hate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rCyRacistrCO, rCyapartheid
loverrCO, rCypsychorCO rCo those barbs and others have
been hurled
his way. Mehdi Hasan called him a rCLdisgusting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proud
racistrCY and said he will never again watch an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> episode of
Seinfeld. I bet JerryrCOs gutted. Perhaps herCOll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take comfort
in the millions of dollars he still rakes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Seinfeld
every year, courtesy of viewers who arenrCOt big >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies and
donrCOt switch off TV shows in a pique of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infantile rage when
they discover they disagree with the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made them.
The intensity of the backlash is proof of what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a suffocating
orthodoxy rCyFree PalestinerCO has become. Fail to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genuflect to
this chattering- class catechism and you risk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being cast out
of polite society. Hence Seinfeld is being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treated not as
someone who has a different opinion on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Middle East but
as a moral deviant deserving of castigation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Five hundred
years ago herCOd have been in the stocks. Or worse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The pressure to hate Israel can feel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming at times,
especially
zionism is the single largest driver of war in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 21st
century, joolian
Thanks for propagating my post.
propagation.
i will re-post everything u cut joolian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you had any sense you share shifts with Noah. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that's a just a fact joolian
post-911 zionists warmongering in the middle east is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the leading
cause of war for the 21st century thus far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and sure, it could still be eclipsed
Middle East. And, because of the Quran so shut up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
joos not the fucking muzzies. sure the last century the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muzzies have
been pretty pissed cause a colonial empire just annexed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slice of
palestine and just gave it to people who never lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. and then
it got solidified during all the 9/11 warmongering. like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if u thought
the muzzies were pissed off before, we've been killing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them by the
millions for the past decades or so
now the joos control the leading world superpower, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even have
their precious zion bullshit, and it's still not good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough for
them, eh???
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 before a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> israel's
100th birthday?
Zionism is an international movement aimed at
establishing and
preserving an Israeli state in the ancestral Jewish and, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judah, and at
making it a home and refuge for every Jew in the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As a Zionist, I donrCOt give a shit about the negative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connotations
Muslims and leftists attach to the term Zionism. ThatrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem,
not mine.
as an american i'm pretty pissed about zionists blowing up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3000 of our
citizens and dragging us into decades of war
commandeering schools and hospitals and using them for >>>>>>>>>>>>> military attacks
that killed thousands of non-military civilians in Israel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, I've seen no evidence you're American, and regardless, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel is a
US ally.
Would you choose Hamas over Obama?u would choose zion over ur own country, dud
As of 2026, 163 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member >>>>>>>>>>>>> states officially
recognize Israel as a sovereign country.
If you were Jewish and facing existential annihilation, >>>>>>>>>>>>> what would you do?
Start learning how to make friends, especially not enemies >>>>>>>>>>>> who are
willing to die so they can cause you a little annoyance. >>>>>>>>>>>> Those are
the worst.
That's it - just talk to them and make friends.
Are you nuts?
yes it's fucking nuts to keep millions of people in a literal >>>>>>>>>> fucking ghetto until they act out dud
So, why isn't Gaza a prosperous state? Why not just agree to a >>>>>>>>>> two- state
u think anyone wants a 2 state solution????
Are you nuts?
if u think the joos endlessly creeping on the west bank want
anything but a joo-state solution
EfyeEfyeEfye
Is that a query?
EfyeEfyeEfye
So, for the record: The United Nations recognizes Israel as a >>>>>>>>> sovereign state and has been a full member nation since May 11, >>>>>>>>> 1949, when it was admitted through United Nations Generalgod ur such a fucking propagandized twat
Assembly Resolution 273.
for the record are you appealing to authority again cause u
haven't the foggiest clue what an argument looks like???
no
You came here to get enlightened.
nope
no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework for lasting
regional
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony they're
gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an independent
Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based on the pre-1967
borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in 1947 and
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and caused the >>>>> death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza
and approximately 2,000 Israelis.
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be
surprised dud
now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million registered
Palestine refugees.
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with billions
of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point.
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the US
have spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79 years
and still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria
and Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives and
move to other countries???
i mean jeez the absolute fucking hypocracy among you people. people like
you are complaining about ~13 million illegals in a country of over 300 million...
and ur just like whatever the fuck about 5.5 million people just up and leaving to the surrounding like egypt (120M), syria (26M), jordan
(11.6M), lebanon (6M) ...
god ur such a retard dud
You can't make this stuff up!
u certain can support genocide, eh???
Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024
reached SAR 1.259 trillion.
On 6/22/26 8:39 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 11:00 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:According to a recent peer-reviewed study by Shere Hite, over 79% of
On 6/21/2026 10:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:16 AM, Dude wrote:It's a fact, needing no proof, that women do not get off on
On 6/20/2026 7:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:05 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:35 PM, dart200 wrote:again: rich zionist leaders do not fucking care about normal
On 6/20/26 12:16 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:04 PM, dart200 wrote:that's right bitch: divert from accusation u fucking unamerican >>>>>>>>> traitor
On 6/20/26 11:47 AM, Dude wrote:You posted a claim that you could do squats while pressing in >>>>>>>>>> California.
On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:In bowling alley lingo you can understand: "Everyone wants a >>>>>>>>>>>> piece of the pie!" - Dude
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the free market and cornered it, while inventing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the alphabet. Ever since then everyone has been very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JELLOS. It really is all about the money!
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote:But for Mohammed they might still have it all.
On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote:
So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the war in the Middle East. And, because of the Quran >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so shut up.
bro it the was romans/christians who were initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicking out the joos not the fucking muzzies. sure the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last century the muzzies have been pretty pissed cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a colonial empire just annexed a slice of palestine and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just gave it to people who never lived there. and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it got solidified during all the 9/11 warmongering. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like if u thought the muzzies were pissed off before, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've been killing them by the millions for the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decades or so
now the joos control the leading world superpower, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even have their precious zion bullshit, and it's still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not good enough for them, eh???
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a israel's 100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forever. The Muslims in the 7th & 8th century colonized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Palestine, North Africa, and all the way into Spain and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even Sicily in the 9th century.
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and Occupation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the
unwillingness of people to research the subject is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> astounding for the amount of passion and conviction they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have in their opinions on the current war, so I thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the best contribution I could make is to provide a summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the history of the land, specifically since the Great >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arab Expansion of the 7th Century. (IrCOm going to skip over >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the long list of conquerors, occupiers, and colonizers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and jump to when Islam occupied/ colonized the land): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last 5000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Even when
the joo faith is not that old dud
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a long list of these events) there was always a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jewish presence maintained in the land. The land went by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> many names including Judea and Palestine - a name given to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land by Rome as an insult to the Jews because of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philistine tribe that occupied the land many centuries >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before (Islam would not exist for many centuries still). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muhammad around the year 600 AD. The Great Arab Expansion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of the Arabian Peninsula followed and led to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> colonization of Israel by Islam when it was conquered by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> next 1300 years, during that time persecuting the Jewish >>>>>>>>>>>>>> population and even
historically inaccurate dud
the muzzies generally didn't kick out "people of the book" >>>>>>>>>>> dud. they (joos and jesus-freaks) had to pay a special tax >>>>>>>>>>> but that was it. yeah yeah occasionally muzzies got more >>>>>>>>>>> oppressive to non- muzzies but that was the exception not the >>>>>>>>>>> norm
A short, fat, white, privileged, thirty-something, doing >>>>>>>>>>>> squats and squatting on Native American land in California, >>>>>>>>>>>> following decades of genocide against indigenous people and >>>>>>>>>>>> now blaming the Jews and some dude in a bowling alley. >>>>>>>>>>>>building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred site >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Temple Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> following World War I, after the dissolution of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations was established in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1920 giving the British control of the land, who allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, previously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed under Ottoman rule.
the last time joos had actual territorial control was 2000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years ago dud. this absurd claim that they /deserve/ the >>>>>>>>>>>>> region is just sinful propagandized nonsense joo stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>> traitor
You just can't make this stuff up!>>
u make up shit like that all time u fucking traitor
We are going to need to see some evidence. Thanks for responding. >>>>>>>>>
Between 119 and 400 Jewish people are estimated to have died in >>>>>>>> the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001.
Investigations by news organizations like the BBC documented 119 >>>>>>>> confirmed Jewish victims with at least 72 additional victims
believed to be Jewish, which is generally proportional to the >>>>>>>> Jewish population of the New York metropolitan area at the time. >>>>>>>
people if it's for their religious crusade u moron. they already >>>>>>> committed to killing 3000 americans, heck a few jews thrown in
there adds to the narrative ...
-a-a> yup, that's the nature of religious crusades
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
ur never going to make any headway by randomly citing broad facts >>>>>>> about it...
i've spend a decade considering this, and by now the of amount of >>>>>>> rather in depth details you'd have to explain is far beyond ur
cognitive capability to acknowledge, let alone actually address u >>>>>>> fucking zionist- loving anti-american dud
this isn't a real debate, this is just me shit posting with a
passion ur half-wit dumbass couldn't even dream of matching
why???
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY _CARE_ ABOUT US _ALL_ YOU WARMONGERING SOCIOPATH >>>>>>>
ad hominem isn't a response dud
i literally never said that no jews were killed
You claimed the Jews attacked the WTC on 9/11 and there were no Jews >>>>>
inside. So, you can't be trusted on this board to be truthful.
And, you made the claim you could do squats while pressing.
it's called a thruster
thrusting. The only reason you're allowed to engage is for your ego.
YMMV.
dud, what you would know about getting off women??? Efye
women reported that they did not reach orgasm through thrusting. No
matter what size or powerful the trusting. YMMV.
Instead, they reported that mere physical feeling closeness was the
most enjoyable aspect of sexual relations. 91% reported that
intercourse was allowed-a just to satisfy a man's fragile ego.
ur bizarre attempts to gaslight me as well bizarre. are you speaking
from ur own insecurities, is that why ur hiding behind some science? Efye
it's ok u dunno how to satisfy ur women cause most women aren't
satisfied by it either? Efnu
When you think about, how do you really know? Your wife could be
faking it.
What maybe you should be doing instead of just squatting, is working
your fingers with the hand grip. Be realistic, Nick. She's probably
better at stimulating herself than you, based on your boring
conspiracy theories.
she doesn't like being fingered dud, she likes being tongued
More facts:
The mastermind and operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks was
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He served as the primary architect of the
plot and proposed the idea of using hijacked airplanes to the
militant Islamist group al-Qaeda.
A total of 2,977 victims lost their lives during the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks. Including the 19 terrorist hijackers, the
total number of deaths resulting from the incident is 2,996.
responding with random ass facts does not address the problems with
the narrative dud... namely than wtc7 was not hit by a plane, and the
muzzies certainly didn't blow it up
You warmongering thruster!
So, that's a wrap.
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by >>>>>> informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious,
crude racist and biased.
On 6/22/26 9:38 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:55 AM, Dude wrote:So, it's the money - they have it - you wants it. But you've no
On 6/21/2026 10:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 6:28 PM, Dude wrote:It's the money, isn't it? Just be transparent, Nick.
On 6/21/2026 2:22 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:24:20 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Where I come from silence usually indicates agreement.
On 6/21/2026 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 1:44 PM, Dude wrote:So, what is it about the "joos" that some people, like Nick and >>>>>>>> Noah and
On 6/21/2026 9:58 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 21, 2026 at 12:35:25rC>PM EDT, "Wilson"-a-a>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:52 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:37:21 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote:But for Mohammed they might still have it all.
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a israel's
100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forever. The
Muslims in the 7th & 8th century colonized Palestine, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> North Africa,
and all the way into Spain and even Sicily in the 9th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century.
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the
free
market and cornered it, while inventing the alphabet. Ever >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since then
everyone has been very JELLOS. It really is all about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> money!
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and Occupation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the
unwillingness of
people to
research the subject is astounding for the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passion and
conviction they have in their opinions on the current war, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I
thought
the best contribution I could make is to provide a summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
history of the land, specifically since the Great Arab >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion
of the
7th Century. (IrCOm going to skip over the long list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquerors,
occupiers, and colonizers, and jump to when Islam occupied/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> colonized the
land):
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last 5000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Even
when
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a
long list
of these events) there was always a Jewish presence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained in the
land. The land went by many names including Judea and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Palestine -
a name
given to the land by Rome as an insult to the Jews because >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
Philistine tribe that occupied the land many centuries >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before (Islam
would not exist for many centuries still).
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by Muhammad >>>>>>>>>>>>>> around the
year 600 AD. The Great Arab Expansion out of the Arabian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peninsula
followed and led to the colonization of Israel by Islam >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it was
conquered by Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> next 1300
years, during that time persecuting the Jewish population >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even
building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred site >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
Temple
Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, following >>>>>>>>>>>>>> World War
I, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the League >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Nations
was established in 1920 giving the British control of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> land, who
allowed Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously not
allowed under Ottoman rule.
With Jews returning to their homeland, the Arabs who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persecuted
the Jews
for centuries began attacking and killing Jews through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> land. The
Haganah was created to protect the Jewish communities, but in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1929, the
Arabs massacred 67 Jews in Hebron including women and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> children.
Attacks
and murders of Jews by Arabs continued throughout the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
decades.
So that makes what's happening in the West Bank okay? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Say, it Dude.-a I'd like to see you say it.
Expressing a nuanced perspective on this without once side >>>>>>>>>>>> or the other
calling you The Bad Thing is almost impossible.
But I'll try:-a Both sides lean strongly into wanting to >>>>>>>>>>>> virtually
exterminate the other. Neither have clean hands. Neither are >>>>>>>>>>>> good guys.
So, we have an agreement.-a Next..
So, maybe I just don't get it. What, exactly, is it about Jews >>>>>>>>>> that
all these people hate? What is it, really?
That's an incorrect / non-useful framing.
"All these people" aren't one thing.
It's as short-sighted as saying "the jews".
Creon, hate?
You watch your mouth.-a I don't hate anybody.
[ rest snipped without reading ]
Nick called a whole group of people "joos". Do you know what that >>>>>> means, Creon?
it's so funny to trigger joo tho ... EfyeEfyeEfye
besides the absurd middle east warmongering america has been subject
to for the past decades,
collateral.
i love how u admit i'm right without actually doing expressly
gunna take the L again dud??
the outsized influence on our global discussion platforms is pretty
fucking absurd. like i'm not saying for sure they've been trying to
dominate the world from the shadows, but like it looks they've been
pretty successful in the west:
facebook - joo
youtube - joos
whatsapp - joo
instagram - joo
tiktok - china, but us operations managed by joos
wechat - china
messanger - joo
telegram - russian
linkedin - bought by joo founded company
snapchat - not actually joo
reddit - bought by joos
douyin - china
kuaishou - china
twitter - bought by "aspirational joo" with majority joo friends
weibo - china
pinterest - joo
It might just be me, but I just hate those militant Islamic
religious extremists over in Iran. I am very upset about that girl >>>>>> that was murdered in Tehran by the mullahs because she wasn't
wearing a scarf over her head!
Damn! That's cold!
I'm also very upset with the Hamas terrorists for kidnapping,
raping and murdering that girl they kidnapped at the music
festival and then parading her dead naked body around in the back >>>>>> of a truck - while the crowd cheered.
So, for the record: I hate all religious, extremist, terrorists of >>>>>> any religion. There, I've said it.
On 6/22/26 10:05 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 6:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:Apparently the difference is everyone but you on this list are gainfully
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread
social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of
aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard
property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they
live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law
they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally
the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing
e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they
spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of
people into the banking system that previously didn't have accounts
because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to
street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to
set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees (which go to
banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they
could probably do better. cause right now banks rank in around $3
billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in the
us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF
GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T
DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for
so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying
the system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to legitimize itself ... but it's basically just
philosophy with some fancy math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not
just cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point
disproves any sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
yes, sorry the typo
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real
science than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its
mission statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing
"public understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this
as conceding
that got reversed a few years after, more than a decade ago wilson:
https://americananthro.org/about/statement-of-purpose/
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our
level of recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
making money does not equal doing good wilson,
-a-a> never has been, never will be
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
i know u won't watch it, david graeber's (rip to early) lecture on
debt was mind opening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs
I'll watch it when I get time.
i can only hope so
dont like the truth so ur attacking the messenger again are we??? Efye
employed, so they have a right to complain. You, on the other hand, are
u definitely don't understand: i spend $10k/mo right now of money that i myself earned dud. it's not out of a fucking socialist-run bennies
pension, it's just my money sitting in stock. i'll be generous and state
$5k is rent/parking/utilities paid by bank transfer that doesn't cost
the normal 3%-ish.
but the other $5k is basically taxed 3% by the payment infrastructure costing me around $200/mo for maybe a 100 or so txns. _more_ than a
dollar per txn for e-currency services that cost _way_ less than that to run. that's a few wasted meals a month that banking bros like mf wilson
are sucking out of my payments, dud, while providing the most cost- inefficient payment system that exists...
when in the fuck is it ever going to optimize for actual consumer costefficiency dud???
never u bonehead
#god
apparently unemployed, so you're obviously biased.
we all know i've argued well beyond ur cognitive ability to respond, so
yeah just keep attacking me why don't yah???
that surely won't like a total L to
anyone with more than half a fucking brain
Just virtue signaling.
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:51 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 1:38 AM, dart200 wrote:computing is a math that does not benefit from redundant imperfect
On 6/20/26 7:56 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 10:20 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 15:20:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Some people are very prone to suggestion. The important thing to >>>>>>>> learn in computer school should have been programming, instead of >>>>>>>> political science. YMMV.
Me and Rita both got nothing out of higher education, except a >>>>>>>>>> student
loan. A worthless piece of paper. Total waste of time. Learned >>>>>>>>>> nothing
about getting a job. YMMV.
Good thing, then, that to get a job is the rock bottom worst >>>>>>>>> reason to
go to univ.a On the other hand, for me, I learned a great many >>>>>>>>> things
that have helped me over the years.a The ability to recognize >>>>>>>>> propaganda being one of the most important.
having people pursue computing to make fortunes is such a god damn >>>>>>> economic anti-pattern. if we could eliminate 99% of those doing >>>>>>> programming, the world would be a better place
ofc free market fundies basically lack all critical thinking
faculties and only understand random-ass number go up. the concept >>>>>>> of "less is more" is so completely foreign i might as be writing >>>>>>> in another language
Unlike communism, the free-market is not a totalist ideology. An
actual understanding of what it is includes an awareness that there >>>>>> are benefits to having interests and motivations that go beyond the >>>>>> field of simple economics. These include, well basically everything. >>>>>
solutions. the very fact we even have more than one operating system >>>>> is a goddamn slight against turing himself...
u don't what the fuck ur talking about
#god
There's beauty in allowing people to decide what to do and when to >>>>>> do it.
ur claims are astronomically removed from actually addressing the
fact it's actually fucking retarded to let a market endlessly
compete of their share of the tech pie...
The competition that you see as inefficient is actually the thing
that drives innovation, which over time is what actually increases
efficiency.
Running multiple redundant imperfect solutions simultaneously is the
best way to determine what actually will work the best.
blind econoslop. it's not even remotely tailored to my claims, it's
just regurgitating market fundamentalism regardless of the topic at hand >>>
classic sheeple behavior
#god
take basic accounting for example: the problem of adding and
subtracting units of currency. at this point this has been solved so
many times that not only do we need aggregators for to handle the
stupidly complex system. total waste, it's literally just implementing
transactional adds/subtractions and i still don't get a single record
of everything i bought.
basic event ticketing is even worse. not only do we need aggregators,
we have aggregators aggregating aggregators without prices always
fluctuating arbitrarily my god it fucking sucks.
and they haven't even solved the problem scalping
#god
when are they going to solve scalping you total subthinking retard?
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands
someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible
scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection
Perfection is unavailable.
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most definitely >logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to that
is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive competition over
who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ... they will ofc lean on
the fact computing can be made arbitrarily complex (unintentionally so)
and bloat that up as much as the markets are stupid enough to bear, with >little motivation to achieved what is actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech is >incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a platform
can't just switch because the platform got a little bit shittier, and >neither can the consumers as all the creators are on that platform.we
spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is making it easy to
switch because there is no profit in making it easy to swap to
competition. even if u weren't a fucking l0lbErTaRiAN, govt is powerless
to do anything about this because we can't even resolve 20th century
issues like abortions ... how is it supposed to understand 21st century
tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking for >histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a unified
medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem several times
over there are complete solutions out there ... but unless everyone >cooperates to participate on the same platform we don't actually produce
a level of perfection that is most definitely possible. other countries
have already solved that wilson because they mandate a govt produced >solution. we're stuck in a 20th century hell because /markets do not
solve efficiently info tech problems/
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever the >fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur just--
making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of
meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some
dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to these >claims
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread
social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of
aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they
live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law
they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally the
extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing e-
currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they spend
like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally billions
in manual cash flow because merchants previously just weren't paying
expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of people into the
banking system that previously didn't have accounts because now there
was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to street merchants can
use it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to set it up and only
$10M/yr to run it. transaction fees (which go to banks, not the govt)
when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they could probably do
better. cause right now banks rank in around $3 billion/yr for all pix
transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee structure!!
the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. this costs them
around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of transactions in total by an
order of magnitude!!! yes the india system scales, they process more
daily transactions that we do in the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U FUCKING
ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS PROGRAMS AND
WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF GIVING
CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T DOING
THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for
so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying
the system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
On 6/22/2026 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:So, seven of the most wealthy nations on the planet, in over 79 years, cannot help the refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Gaza,
On 6/22/26 8:25 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 11:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:24 AM, Dude wrote:Almost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supports the
On 6/21/2026 10:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:07 AM, Dude wrote:So, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution.
On 6/20/2026 7:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The two-state solution was rejected by Hamas, replaced with the >>>>>>>> slaughter of 1200 innocent men, women, children and babies.
On 6/20/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 11:32 AM, Dude wrote:solution?
On 6/20/2026 11:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 21:12:20 -0700, DudeMaybe just spread out an oriental rug, inside a tent, sit >>>>>>>>>>>> down with Hamas leaders --a and watch the Islamic terrorists >>>>>>>>>>>> burn down your town and village and slaughter over a
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2026 8:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:It is a war crime to use women and children as human >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shields. Likewise
On 6/19/2026 7:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote:Let me say this about that:
On 6/15/2026 10:58 AM, dart200 wrote:bro it the was romans/christians who were initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicking out the
On 6/15/26 10:44 AM, Julian wrote:So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the war in the
On 15/06/2026 18:37, dart200 wrote:--------------
On 6/15/26 10:09 AM, Julian wrote:Of course you'll follow me around.
On 15/06/2026 18:04, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/26 8:37 AM, Julian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/06/2026 16:29, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/26 8:06 AM, Julian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see Jerry Seinfeld has got the pompous left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sobbing into
You only get one thanks per propagated post, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once perOpinion noted.their keffiyehs. His sin? He refused to buckle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their neo-
religious mantra rCyFree PalestinerCO. The comedy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legend was
accosted by a YouTuber outside Madison Square >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gardens in NYC
last week.
rCLCan we get a rCyFree PalestinerCO?rCY, the streamer
asked as he
shoved his mic towards SeinfeldrCOs gob. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seinfeld smirked. He
held his tongue. No rCyFree PalestinerCO passed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his lips.
It gets better. He then proceeded to shut down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his chirpy
interrogator with three words. rCLIt doesnrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existrCY, he said.
He was talking about Palestine. Cue fury from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gazaholics. This was rCLracist rhetoricrCY, cried >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cranks at
the Council on American- Islamic Relations. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep your
burqas on. He wasnrCOt being racist rCo he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the world
that even in an age of crushing conformity it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is possible to
stand your ground.
There was something heroic in SeinfeldrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smiling refusal to
speak on command. By resisting the pressure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parrot the
slogans of the self- righteous, he struck a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blow for freedom
of conscience. He resisted the trap of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compelled speech,
preferring the company of his own supposedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blasphemous
thoughts. What a relief to discover there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrities
out there who decline to bow to the passing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fads of correct-
think.
The backlash over his Palestine heresy was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fast and furious.
Social media is awash with Jerry hate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rCyRacistrCO, rCyapartheid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loverrCO, rCypsychorCO rCo those barbs and others have
been hurled
his way. Mehdi Hasan called him a rCLdisgusting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proud
racistrCY and said he will never again watch an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> episode of
Seinfeld. I bet JerryrCOs gutted. Perhaps herCOll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take comfort
in the millions of dollars he still rakes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Seinfeld
every year, courtesy of viewers who arenrCOt big >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies and
donrCOt switch off TV shows in a pique of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infantile rage when
they discover they disagree with the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who made them.
The intensity of the backlash is proof of what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a suffocating
orthodoxy rCyFree PalestinerCO has become. Fail to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genuflect to
this chattering- class catechism and you risk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being cast out
of polite society. Hence Seinfeld is being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treated not as
someone who has a different opinion on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Middle East but
as a moral deviant deserving of castigation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Five hundred
years ago herCOd have been in the stocks. Or worse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The pressure to hate Israel can feel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming at times,
especially
zionism is the single largest driver of war in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 21st
century, joolian
Thanks for propagating my post.
propagation.
i will re-post everything u cut joolian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you had any sense you share shifts with Noah. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that's a just a fact joolian
post-911 zionists warmongering in the middle east is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the leading
cause of war for the 21st century thus far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and sure, it could still be eclipsed
Middle East. And, because of the Quran so shut up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
joos not the fucking muzzies. sure the last century the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muzzies have
been pretty pissed cause a colonial empire just annexed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slice of
palestine and just gave it to people who never lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. and then
it got solidified during all the 9/11 warmongering. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like if u thought
the muzzies were pissed off before, we've been killing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them by the
millions for the past decades or so
now the joos control the leading world superpower, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even have
their precious zion bullshit, and it's still not good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough for
them, eh???
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a israel's
100th birthday?
Zionism is an international movement aimed at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing and
preserving an Israeli state in the ancestral Jewish and, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judah, and at
making it a home and refuge for every Jew in the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As a Zionist, I donrCOt give a shit about the negative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connotations
Muslims and leftists attach to the term Zionism. ThatrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem,
not mine.
as an american i'm pretty pissed about zionists blowing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up 3000 of our
citizens and dragging us into decades of war
commandeering schools and hospitals and using them for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> military attacks
that killed thousands of non-military civilians in Israel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, I've seen no evidence you're American, and regardless, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel is a
US ally.
Would you choose Hamas over Obama?u would choose zion over ur own country, dud
As of 2026, 163 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member >>>>>>>>>>>>>> states officially
recognize Israel as a sovereign country.
If you were Jewish and facing existential annihilation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what would you do?
Start learning how to make friends, especially not enemies >>>>>>>>>>>>> who are
willing to die so they can cause you a little annoyance. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are
the worst.
thousand attendees at an annoying music festival.
That's it - just talk to them and make friends.
Are you nuts?
yes it's fucking nuts to keep millions of people in a literal >>>>>>>>>>> fucking ghetto until they act out dud
So, why isn't Gaza a prosperous state? Why not just agree to >>>>>>>>>>> a two- state
u think anyone wants a 2 state solution????
Are you nuts?
if u think the joos endlessly creeping on the west bank want
anything but a joo-state solution
EfyeEfyeEfye
Is that a query?
EfyeEfyeEfye
So, for the record: The United Nations recognizes Israel as a >>>>>>>>>> sovereign state and has been a full member nation since May >>>>>>>>>> 11, 1949, when it was admitted through United Nations General >>>>>>>>>> Assembly Resolution 273.god ur such a fucking propagandized twat
for the record are you appealing to authority again cause u >>>>>>>>> haven't the foggiest clue what an argument looks like???
no
You came here to get enlightened.
nope
no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework for lasting
regional
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony
they're gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an independent
Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based on the pre-1967
borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in 1947
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and caused
the death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000 Palestinians in
Gaza and approximately 2,000 Israelis.
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be
surprised dud
and now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million registered
Palestine refugees.
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with billions
of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point.
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the US
have spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79 years
and still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria
and Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives and
move to other countries???
i mean jeez the absolute fucking hypocracy among you people. people
like you are complaining about ~13 million illegals in a country of
over 300 million...
and ur just like whatever the fuck about 5.5 million people just up
and leaving to the surrounding like egypt (120M), syria (26M), jordan
(11.6M), lebanon (6M) ...
god ur such a retard dud
despite billions of dollars in aid from the United Kingdom and the USA.
What's wrong with this picture, Nick?
You can't make this stuff up!
u certain can support genocide, eh???
Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024
reached SAR 1.259 trillion.
On 6/22/2026 9:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:39 PM, Dude wrote:It works both ways, Nick. You've got to think about yourself too. So,
On 6/22/2026 11:00 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:According to a recent peer-reviewed study by Shere Hite, over 79% of
On 6/21/2026 10:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:16 AM, Dude wrote:It's a fact, needing no proof, that women do not get off on
On 6/20/2026 7:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:05 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 12:16 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 11:47 AM, Dude wrote:You posted a claim that you could do squats while pressing in >>>>>>>>>>> California.
On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:In bowling alley lingo you can understand: "Everyone wants >>>>>>>>>>>>> a piece of the pie!" - Dude
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the free market and cornered it, while inventing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the alphabet. Ever since then everyone has been very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JELLOS. It really is all about the money!
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote:But for Mohammed they might still have it all.
On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote:
So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the war in the Middle East. And, because of the Quran >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so shut up.
bro it the was romans/christians who were initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicking out the joos not the fucking muzzies. sure the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last century the muzzies have been pretty pissed cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a colonial empire just annexed a slice of palestine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and just gave it to people who never lived there. and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it got solidified during all the 9/11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warmongering. like if u thought the muzzies were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pissed off before, we've been killing them by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> millions for the past decades or so
now the joos control the leading world superpower, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even have their precious zion bullshit, and it's still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not good enough for them, eh???
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a israel's 100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forever. The Muslims in the 7th & 8th century colonized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Palestine, North Africa, and all the way into Spain and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even Sicily in the 9th century.
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupation of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the
unwillingness of people to research the subject is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astounding for the amount of passion and conviction they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have in their opinions on the current war, so I thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the best contribution I could make is to provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary of the history of the land, specifically since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Great Arab Expansion of the 7th Century. (IrCOm going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to skip over the long list of conquerors, occupiers, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colonizers, and jump to when Islam occupied/ colonized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land):
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last 5000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Even when
the joo faith is not that old dud
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a long list of these events) there was always a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jewish presence maintained in the land. The land went by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many names including Judea and Palestine - a name given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the land by Rome as an insult to the Jews because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Philistine tribe that occupied the land many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries before (Islam would not exist for many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries still).
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muhammad around the year 600 AD. The Great Arab Expansion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of the Arabian Peninsula followed and led to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colonization of Israel by Islam when it was conquered by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next 1300 years, during that time persecuting the Jewish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> population and even
historically inaccurate dud
the muzzies generally didn't kick out "people of the book" >>>>>>>>>>>> dud. they (joos and jesus-freaks) had to pay a special tax >>>>>>>>>>>> but that was it. yeah yeah occasionally muzzies got more >>>>>>>>>>>> oppressive to non- muzzies but that was the exception not >>>>>>>>>>>> the norm
A short, fat, white, privileged, thirty-something, doing >>>>>>>>>>>>> squats and squatting on Native American land in California, >>>>>>>>>>>>> following decades of genocide against indigenous people and >>>>>>>>>>>>> now blaming the Jews and some dude in a bowling alley. >>>>>>>>>>>>>building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site of the Temple Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following World War I, after the dissolution of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations was established in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1920 giving the British control of the land, who allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, previously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed under Ottoman rule.
the last time joos had actual territorial control was 2000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years ago dud. this absurd claim that they /deserve/ the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is just sinful propagandized nonsense joo stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>>> traitor
You just can't make this stuff up!>>
u make up shit like that all time u fucking traitor
We are going to need to see some evidence. Thanks for
responding.
that's right bitch: divert from accusation u fucking
unamerican traitor
Between 119 and 400 Jewish people are estimated to have died in >>>>>>>>> the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001.
Investigations by news organizations like the BBC documented >>>>>>>>> 119 confirmed Jewish victims with at least 72 additional
victims believed to be Jewish, which is generally proportional >>>>>>>>> to the Jewish population of the New York metropolitan area at >>>>>>>>> the time.
again: rich zionist leaders do not fucking care about normal
people if it's for their religious crusade u moron. they already >>>>>>>> committed to killing 3000 americans, heck a few jews thrown in >>>>>>>> there adds to the narrative ...
-a-a> yup, that's the nature of religious crusades
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
ur never going to make any headway by randomly citing broad
facts about it...
i've spend a decade considering this, and by now the of amount >>>>>>>> of rather in depth details you'd have to explain is far beyond >>>>>>>> ur cognitive capability to acknowledge, let alone actually
address u fucking zionist- loving anti-american dud
this isn't a real debate, this is just me shit posting with a >>>>>>>> passion ur half-wit dumbass couldn't even dream of matching
why???
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY _CARE_ ABOUT US _ALL_ YOU WARMONGERING SOCIOPATH >>>>>>>>
ad hominem isn't a response dud
i literally never said that no jews were killed
You claimed the Jews attacked the WTC on 9/11 and there were no Jews >>>>>>
inside. So, you can't be trusted on this board to be truthful.
And, you made the claim you could do squats while pressing.
it's called a thruster
thrusting. The only reason you're allowed to engage is for your
ego. YMMV.
dud, what you would know about getting off women??? Efye
women reported that they did not reach orgasm through thrusting. No
matter what size or powerful the trusting. YMMV.
Instead, they reported that mere physical feeling closeness was the
most enjoyable aspect of sexual relations. 91% reported that
intercourse was allowed-a just to satisfy a man's fragile ego.
ur bizarre attempts to gaslight me as well bizarre. are you speaking
from ur own insecurities, is that why ur hiding behind some science? Efye
it's ok u dunno how to satisfy ur women cause most women aren't
satisfied by it either? Efnu
When you think about, how do you really know? Your wife could be
faking it.
What maybe you should be doing instead of just squatting, is working
your fingers with the hand grip. Be realistic, Nick. She's probably
better at stimulating herself than you, based on your boring
conspiracy theories.
she doesn't like being fingered dud, she likes being tongued
that's a wrap (pun intended).
More facts:
The mastermind and operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks was
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He served as the primary architect of the
plot and proposed the idea of using hijacked airplanes to the
militant Islamist group al-Qaeda.
A total of 2,977 victims lost their lives during the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks. Including the 19 terrorist hijackers, the
total number of deaths resulting from the incident is 2,996.
responding with random ass facts does not address the problems with
the narrative dud... namely than wtc7 was not hit by a plane, and
the muzzies certainly didn't blow it up
You warmongering thruster!
So, that's a wrap.
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated, >>>>>>> originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by >>>>>>> informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious, >>>>>>> crude racist and biased.
On 6/22/2026 9:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 PM, Dude wrote:So, they have it. You want it. It's all about the money.
On 6/22/2026 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:55 AM, Dude wrote:So, it's the money - they have it - you wants it. But you've no
On 6/21/2026 10:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 6:28 PM, Dude wrote:It's the money, isn't it? Just be transparent, Nick.
On 6/21/2026 2:22 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:24:20 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Where I come from silence usually indicates agreement.
On 6/21/2026 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 1:44 PM, Dude wrote:So, what is it about the "joos" that some people, like Nick and >>>>>>>>> Noah and
On 6/21/2026 9:58 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 21, 2026 at 12:35:25rC>PM EDT, "Wilson"-a-a>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:52 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:37:21 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote:But for Mohammed they might still have it all.
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a israel's
100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forever. The
Muslims in the 7th & 8th century colonized Palestine, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> North Africa,
and all the way into Spain and even Sicily in the 9th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century.
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the
free
market and cornered it, while inventing the alphabet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever since then
everyone has been very JELLOS. It really is all about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money!
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupation of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the
unwillingness of
people to
research the subject is astounding for the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passion and
conviction they have in their opinions on the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> war, so I
thought
the best contribution I could make is to provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary of the
history of the land, specifically since the Great Arab >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion
of the
7th Century. (IrCOm going to skip over the long list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquerors,
occupiers, and colonizers, and jump to when Islam occupied/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colonized the
land):
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last 5000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Even
when
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a
long list
of these events) there was always a Jewish presence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained in the
land. The land went by many names including Judea and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Palestine -
a name
given to the land by Rome as an insult to the Jews >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of the
Philistine tribe that occupied the land many centuries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before (Islam
would not exist for many centuries still).
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by Muhammad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around the
year 600 AD. The Great Arab Expansion out of the Arabian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peninsula
followed and led to the colonization of Israel by Islam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it was
conquered by Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next 1300
years, during that time persecuting the Jewish population >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even
building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site of the
Temple
Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
World War
I, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> League of Nations
was established in 1920 giving the British control of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> land, who
allowed Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously not
allowed under Ottoman rule.
With Jews returning to their homeland, the Arabs who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persecuted
the Jews
for centuries began attacking and killing Jews through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land. The
Haganah was created to protect the Jewish communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in
1929, the
Arabs massacred 67 Jews in Hebron including women and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children.
Attacks
and murders of Jews by Arabs continued throughout the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next two
decades.
So that makes what's happening in the West Bank okay? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Say, it Dude.-a I'd like to see you say it.
Expressing a nuanced perspective on this without once side >>>>>>>>>>>>> or the other
calling you The Bad Thing is almost impossible.
But I'll try:-a Both sides lean strongly into wanting to >>>>>>>>>>>>> virtually
exterminate the other. Neither have clean hands. Neither >>>>>>>>>>>>> are good guys.
So, we have an agreement.-a Next..
So, maybe I just don't get it. What, exactly, is it about >>>>>>>>>>> Jews that
all these people hate? What is it, really?
That's an incorrect / non-useful framing.
"All these people" aren't one thing.
It's as short-sighted as saying "the jews".
Creon, hate?
You watch your mouth.-a I don't hate anybody.
[ rest snipped without reading ]
Nick called a whole group of people "joos". Do you know what that >>>>>>> means, Creon?
it's so funny to trigger joo tho ... EfyeEfyeEfye
besides the absurd middle east warmongering america has been subject
to for the past decades,
collateral.
i love how u admit i'm right without actually doing expressly
gunna take the L again dud??
the outsized influence on our global discussion platforms is pretty
fucking absurd. like i'm not saying for sure they've been trying to
dominate the world from the shadows, but like it looks they've been
pretty successful in the west:
facebook - joo
youtube - joos
whatsapp - joo
instagram - joo
tiktok - china, but us operations managed by joos
wechat - china
messanger - joo
telegram - russian
linkedin - bought by joo founded company
snapchat - not actually joo
reddit - bought by joos
douyin - china
kuaishou - china
twitter - bought by "aspirational joo" with majority joo friends
weibo - china
pinterest - joo
It might just be me, but I just hate those militant Islamic
religious extremists over in Iran. I am very upset about that
girl that was murdered in Tehran by the mullahs because she
wasn't wearing a scarf over her head!
Damn! That's cold!
I'm also very upset with the Hamas terrorists for kidnapping,
raping and murdering that girl they kidnapped at the music
festival and then parading her dead naked body around in the back >>>>>>> of a truck - while the crowd cheered.
So, for the record: I hate all religious, extremist, terrorists >>>>>>> of any religion. There, I've said it.
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread
social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of
aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they
live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law
they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally the
extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing e-
currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they spend
like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally billions
in manual cash flow because merchants previously just weren't paying
expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of people into the
banking system that previously didn't have accounts because now there
was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to street merchants can
use it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to set it up and only
$10M/yr to run it. transaction fees (which go to banks, not the govt)
when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they could probably do
better. cause right now banks rank in around $3 billion/yr for all pix
transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee structure!!
the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. this costs them
around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of transactions in total by an
order of magnitude!!! yes the india system scales, they process more
daily transactions that we do in the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U FUCKING
ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS PROGRAMS AND
WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF GIVING
CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T DOING
THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for
so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying
the system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
On 6/23/2026 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:That's a problem.
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread
social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of
aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard
property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they
live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law
they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally
the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing
e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they
spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of
people into the banking system that previously didn't have accounts
because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to
street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to
set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees (which go to
banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they
could probably do better. cause right now banks rank in around $3
billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in the
us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF
GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T
DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for
so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying
the system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
So, is the snipping, altering the Subject; changing the topic; and cross-posting to a death cult site in a threaded post of over 1050 lines
of plain text and calling you a "nigger".
It just seems dishonest. YMMV.
Why not just start a new thread called "Niggas"?
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:46 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 22, 2026 at 2:37:24rC>PM EDT, "dart200"
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 4:11 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 23:42:16 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:45 PM, Dude wrote:
Why not start a new thread after 9590 lines of text not about Jerry? >>>>>>>>
OCD?
yes dud, ur being OCD
maybe bring it up with ur therapist later, eh?
#god
What do you have against therapists?
nothin i have two of them right now, and maybe a third if the couples >>>>> counseling referral ever comes thru
i'm just ragging on dud cause he enjoys being a punching bag i guess. if >>>>> he doesn't: i recommend therapy for that and that OCD he's in denial >>>>> about Efye
Are you from the generation that stigmatizes mental health efforts, >>>>>> and therefore can't die soon enough?
no i'm an younger millennial and spent a large chunk of my 20s
struggling with mental health
both me and my wife are very cognizant of not traumatizing our 2 month >>>>> old child by ensuring we always attend his needs quickly, and building a >>>>> robust secure attachment with lots of interaction and skin to skin contact.
i'm pretty sure genx, boomers, and older did a lot of unintentional
traumatizing due to bizarre western child rearing practices of making >>>>> them sleep in separate rooms even, letting them cry it out until they >>>>> self-soothe, formula feeding over breast feeding, terrible work-life >>>>> balances while having a newborn, etc, etc... stuff i'm sure you'll be >>>>> like "that's totally find actually" and i'm just gunna have to disagree >>>>> with that there
Every generation thinks they have parenting right and that generations before
them had it all wrong.
that was definitely not true for most of human existence, or even many
societies today. heck my filipino bother-in-laws are still largely very
obedient to my father-in-law despite being 40+ year old adults. tho this >>> is changing somewhat due to the spread of western media.
the whole concept of teenagers have their own subculture didn't really
exist until post-WWII american consumerism constructed it ...
I agree. IrCOm thinking about in the western world from the 40rCOs on. From the
dr Spock years right through to rCLgentlerCY parenting now.
You might find this interestingrCa
https://macleans.ca/longforms/my-misadventures-in-gentle-parenting/
Scrolling down there is a breakdown of past and present parenting styles.
And FFS, learn to trim!
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1855
On 6/23/26 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread
social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of
aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard
property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they
live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law
they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally
the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing
e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they
spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of
people into the banking system that previously didn't have accounts
because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to
street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to
set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees (which go to
banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they
could probably do better. cause right now banks rank in around $3
billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in the
us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF
GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T
DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for
so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying
the system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
...neither of the cheaper solutions i presented as evidence that cheaper solutions are possible, was the free market wilson. both of them were
the gooberment taking actions to solve a problem the free market just
won't. and cheapest one came with the _strongest_ gooberment mandate for _zero_ percentage fees...
jesus christ wilson i don't even know how to respond to ur level of continued denial,
ur just outright ignoring evidence
#god
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread social >>>>>> cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression
cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property
rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they live
it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific language to >>> legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some fancy >>> math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
i know u won't watch it, david graeber's (rip to early) lecture on debt
was mind opening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs
I'll watch it when I get time.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread social >>>>>> cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression
cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property
rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they live
it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific language to >>> legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some fancy >>> math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
i know u won't watch it, david graeber's (rip to early) lecture on debt
was mind opening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs
I'll watch it when I get time.
On 6/22/2026 3:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:02 PM, Dude wrote:Why would anyone want to listen to music in low-fidelity? Major
On 6/21/2026 9:32 AM, Creon wrote:
At Thu, 18 Jun 2026 10:33:25 -0700, dart200Did I mention that Rita and I have a RAID server at home connected to
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:57 AM, Creon wrote:
At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 19:44:59 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 2:44 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 10:09:12 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a >
On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote:Gave up on your one solution, did you?
At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/16/2026 2:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/16/26 1:58 PM, Dude wrote:No Nick, that's not why everyone hates you. It's because >>>>>>>>>>>>> you're a dick, Nick. You don't want to talk about the elephant >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the room, really, that's why you're biased against Jews. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Envy, greed and JELLOS.
On 6/15/2026 10:38 AM, dart200 wrote:cause i keep poking the elephant in the room joo refuse to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even consider exists...
On 6/15/26 10:07 AM, Dude wrote:The next question is, why does everyone hate Nick so much? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/15/2026 8:29 AM, dart200 wrote:because we're so beholden to joo influence can't talk about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joo crimes
On 6/15/26 8:06 AM, Julian wrote:The question should be why does Nick hate Jews, so much? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I see Jerry Seinfeld has got the pompous left sobbing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into their keffiyehs. His sin? He refused to buckle to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their neo-religious mantra rCyFree PalestinerCO. The comedy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legend was accosted by a YouTuber outside Madison Square >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gardens in NYC last week.
rCLCan we get a rCyFree PalestinerCO?rCY, the streamer asked as
he shoved his mic towards SeinfeldrCOs gob. Seinfeld >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smirked. He held his tongue. No rCyFree PalestinerCO passed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his lips.
It gets better. He then proceeded to shut down his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chirpy interrogator with three words. rCLIt doesnrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existrCY, he said. He was talking about Palestine. Cue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fury from the Gazaholics. This was rCLracist rhetoricrCY, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cried the cranks at the Council on American- Islamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relations. Oh keep your burqas on. He wasnrCOt being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> racist rCo he was showing the world that even in an age of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crushing conformity it is possible to stand your ground. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There was something heroic in SeinfeldrCOs smiling refusal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to speak on command. By resisting the pressure to parrot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the slogans of the self- righteous, he struck a blow for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom of conscience. He resisted the trap of compelled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speech, preferring the company of his own supposedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blasphemous thoughts. What a relief to discover there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are celebrities out there who decline to bow to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passing fads of correct-think.
The backlash over his Palestine heresy was fast and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> furious. Social media is awash with Jerry hate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rCyRacistrCO, rCyapartheid loverrCO, rCypsychorCO rCo those barbs and
others have been hurled his way. Mehdi Hasan called him >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a rCLdisgusting and proud racistrCY and said he will never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again watch an episode of Seinfeld. I bet JerryrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gutted. Perhaps herCOll take comfort in the millions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollars he still rakes in from Seinfeld every year, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> courtesy of viewers who arenrCOt big babies and donrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> switch off TV shows in a pique of infantile rage when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they discover they disagree with the people who made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
The intensity of the backlash is proof of what a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffocating orthodoxy rCyFree PalestinerCO has become. Fail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to genuflect to this chattering- class catechism and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk being cast out of polite society. Hence Seinfeld is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being treated not as someone who has a different opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Middle East but as a moral deviant deserving of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> castigation. Five hundred years ago herCOd have been in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stocks. Or worse.
The pressure to hate Israel can feel overwhelming at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times, especially
zionism is the single largest driver of war in the 21st >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century, joolian
in the cultural sphere. The keffiyeh people resemble a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious sect, checking the minds of every public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure for any whiff of that most verboten emotion: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sympathy for the Jewish State. As the latest report from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Freedom in the Arts found, Jewish artists are often >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjected to rCyexceptional scrutinyrCO and even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rCysuspicionrCO, especially if they have Zionist leanings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So good on Seinfeld rCo who is himself Jewish rCo for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebelling against the cruel scrutiny of Jewish creatives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and instead staying true to the dictates of his own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscience. ThatrCOs another good reason to resist the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lure of rCyFree PalestinerCO rCo because it isnrCOt only the
hollow slogan of arrogant activists; it has also become >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a tool for the taunting of Jews.
Badgering Jews to say rCyFree PalestinerCO is the modern >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent of making them take a loyalty test. ItrCOs a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way of measuring whether theyrCOre a rCyGood JewrCO or a rCyBad
JewrCO. Have they dutifully disowned the Jewish homeland, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as their tormentors in the activist class demand of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them? Or do they still stubbornly cling to their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zionists beliefs? If itrCOs the latter rCo if they openly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> balk at the purity test of saying rCyFree PalestinerCO rCo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then they will be denounced as racist, genocidal, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lower species of human. Such a cruel division of Jews >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into camps of rCythe moralrCO and rCythe immoralrCO will feel
familiar to Jews who know their history. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Worse, Jews have been murdered, assaulted, set on fire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and forcibly expelled from public institutions by people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> barking rCyFree PalestinerCO. That baleful slogan was the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last thing those two Israeli Embassy staffers heard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before they were shot to death on the steps of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC last year. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was bellowed at the elderly Jewish woman who was set on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire in Colorado, also last year. Or watch the clip of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the American-Jewish woman being expelled from a spa in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barcelona last month after someone spied her Star of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David necklace. rCyFree PalestinerCO, a member of the mob >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouts.
rCyFree PalestinerCO feels like a jeer designed to taunt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews with the dystopic vision of the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their homeland. It is hollered at them as a threat, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warning that, alone among the peoples of the world, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will one day be robbed of their sovereign rights and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will see their homeland dismantled, all the way rCLfrom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the river to the searCY. Listen, if your favoured slogan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is yelled at Jews as they are mobbed and murdered, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it might not be as virtuous as you think it is. Thank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, Jerry, for helping to expose this dark truth about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rCyFree PalestinerCO.
Brendan OrCONeill
why do cons all suddenly love joos so much??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You've got nothing, Nick! Let that sink in. At your age, I >>>>>>>>>>>>> already retired once after working 15 years.You apparently, >>>>>>>>>>>>> have not even started working yet. How's Dad?
Obviously you didn't come here to dialog. You came here to get >>>>>>>>>>>>> trashed?
-a-a-a-a-a >
-a-a-a-a-a -a> and fking tired of ya'll be so fking retarded, eh???Don't throw crayons at us, Nick!
I felt a great disturbance in The Force...
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the >>>>>>>>>>>> ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems,
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule them all" >>>>>>>>>>
self-contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure
consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because logic. Two reals? >>>>>>>>> What?
So squirrels and spiders, who do not have pure consciousness, do >>>>>>>> not
exist?
You came here to get enlightened?
you canrCOt get good Chinese takeout in China, Cuban cigars are >>>>>>> rationed
in Cuba, the TV and movie industry is failing in California, and you >>>>>>> canrCOt fly drones in Beijing.
ThatrCOs all you need to know about communism.
The TV and movie industry is/are failing _everywhere_, Dude.
Most of my "TV" (as much as I actually watch) is on YouTube.
Mrs. Creon and I have a NetFlix subscription though, but I hardly
use it -- the last thing I watch on it just came out, _The Crash_. >>>>>>
We're "cable-cutters" -- no cable or satellite service, though
we do have YouTube.tv for hockey games...and season's over, Dude.
do u use ur own toy internet service creon??? Efye
10Gbits/s to hundreds of thousands of homes is "toy"?
Bah.-a You aren't worth the effort, Troll.
Wi-Fi - a Redundant Array of Independent Disks? Works as a NAS
(Network Attached Storage).
If you love watching movies and listening to music at home, and you
have lots of DVDs and CDs, you may want to build a digital system
that can deliver your movies and music without having to physically
insert the disk in a player in a particular room.
imagine trying to do that all urself when u can just EfA|rCiryaN+AEfA|rCiryaN+AEfA|rCiryaN+A on
demand
-a-a> market fundies are hilarious
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime do not currently
stream in 8K.
High-fidelity digital music files are primarily called lossless or high- resolution (Hi-Res) audio files. Unlike compressed formats like MP3,
these files preserve the original studio-quality sound without
sacrificing any audio data.
The most common high-fidelity audio formats include:FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec): The most popular format among audiophiles. It compresses
file sizes to save space but retains 100% of the original audio quality.
If you're like me and Rita, you've got the records in a crate in the
garage or basement; the DVDs in shoe boxes; and the CDs stacked on
the coffee table.
Sure, you can simply hook up a laptop with an HDMI cable and connect
to an outboard storage device like a flash drive to store and
retrieve your data in the living room. Or, you can stream a random list. >>>
But, what I need is a device to deliver all my files, the videos,
photos, the documents and music to any room in my house at any time.
What's needed is a place to store the large digital video and music
files, and the current book I'm writing. I need a fast and easy way
to access all the files, streaming via wireless connectivity to my
phone, my laptop, iPad or desktop computer in the office.
NAS devices mimic file servers on a network. However instead of a big
computer, the NAS is just a small box. A NAS is preferable to
portable hard drives because multiple computers can access and save
to them with a wireless connection.
If you like this idea, you'll want a fast broadband connection with a
wireless dual-band N router at least.
That way, videos, movies, TV recordings and music can all be accessed
at the touch of a button. With a NAS you get a great Admin Console
GUI to work with that is intuitive and looks wonderful. Nothing is
cryptic, and everything you want is right there in front of you.
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands
someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible
scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection
Perfection is unavailable.
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to
that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ...
they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily
complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the markets
are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to achieved what is
actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech
is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a platform
can't just switch because the platform got a little bit shittier, and
neither can the consumers as all the creators are on that platform.we
spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is making it easy to
switch because there is no profit in making it easy to swap to
competition. even if u weren't a fucking l0lbErTaRiAN, govt is
powerless to do anything about this because we can't even resolve 20th
century issues like abortions ... how is it supposed to understand
21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking
for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a unified
medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem several times
over there are complete solutions out there ... but unless everyone
cooperates to participate on the same platform we don't actually
produce a level of perfection that is most definitely possible. other
countries have already solved that wilson because they mandate a govt
produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century hell because /markets
do not solve efficiently info tech problems/
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever
the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur
just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of
meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some
dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to these
claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best tech
is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but the
thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly the
problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have the IRS
using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal. Hell up
until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in file
cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if they outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms. But them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested interests
pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead to more new dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The
reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we sure
as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today will be working in two decades.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
On 6/23/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
So, seven of the most wealthy nations on the planet, in over 79 years,Almost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supports the >>>>> two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework forSo, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution.
no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
lasting regional
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony
they're gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an independent
Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based on the pre-1967 >>>>> borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in 1947
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and caused >>>>>>> the death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000 Palestinians in >>>>>>> Gaza and approximately 2,000 Israelis.
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be
surprised dud
and now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million registered
Palestine refugees.
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with
billions of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point.
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the US
have spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79 years
and still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza, Lebanon,
Syria and Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives and
move to other countries???
i mean jeez the absolute fucking hypocracy among you people. people
like you are complaining about ~13 million illegals in a country of
over 300 million...
and ur just like whatever the fuck about 5.5 million people just up
and leaving to the surrounding like egypt (120M), syria (26M), jordan
(11.6M), lebanon (6M) ...
god ur such a retard dud
cannot help the refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Gaza,
despite billions of dollars in aid from the United Kingdom and the USA.
What's wrong with this picture, Nick?
the fact the wealthiest nation on the planet cannot help that level, either...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024
reached SAR 1.259 trillion.
On 6/23/26 12:24 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:39 PM, Dude wrote:It works both ways, Nick. You've got to think about yourself too. So,
On 6/22/2026 11:00 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:According to a recent peer-reviewed study by Shere Hite, over 79% of
On 6/21/2026 10:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:16 AM, Dude wrote:It's a fact, needing no proof, that women do not get off on
On 6/20/2026 7:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:05 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 12:16 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 11:47 AM, Dude wrote:You posted a claim that you could do squats while pressing >>>>>>>>>>>> in California.
On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:In bowling alley lingo you can understand: "Everyone wants >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a piece of the pie!" - Dude
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the free market and cornered it, while inventing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the alphabet. Ever since then everyone has been very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JELLOS. It really is all about the money!
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote:But for Mohammed they might still have it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a>
On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote:
So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the war in the Middle East. And, because of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quran so shut up.
bro it the was romans/christians who were initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicking out the joos not the fucking muzzies. sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last century the muzzies have been pretty pissed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause a colonial empire just annexed a slice of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palestine and just gave it to people who never lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. and then it got solidified during all the 9/11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warmongering. like if u thought the muzzies were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pissed off before, we've been killing them by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> millions for the past decades or so
now the joos control the leading world superpower, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even have their precious zion bullshit, and it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not good enough for them, eh???
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before a israel's 100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forever. The Muslims in the 7th & 8th century >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colonized Palestine, North Africa, and all the way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into Spain and even Sicily in the 9th century. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupation of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness of people to research the subject is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astounding for the amount of passion and conviction they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have in their opinions on the current war, so I thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the best contribution I could make is to provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary of the history of the land, specifically since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Great Arab Expansion of the 7th Century. (IrCOm going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to skip over the long list of conquerors, occupiers, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colonizers, and jump to when Islam occupied/ colonized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land):
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last 5000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Even when
the joo faith is not that old dud
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a long list of these events) there was always a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jewish presence maintained in the land. The land went by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many names including Judea and Palestine - a name given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the land by Rome as an insult to the Jews because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Philistine tribe that occupied the land many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries before (Islam would not exist for many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries still).
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muhammad around the year 600 AD. The Great Arab >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion out of the Arabian Peninsula followed and led >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the colonization of Israel by Islam when it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquered by Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next 1300 years, during that time persecuting the Jewish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> population and even
historically inaccurate dud
the muzzies generally didn't kick out "people of the book" >>>>>>>>>>>>> dud. they (joos and jesus-freaks) had to pay a special tax >>>>>>>>>>>>> but that was it. yeah yeah occasionally muzzies got more >>>>>>>>>>>>> oppressive to non- muzzies but that was the exception not >>>>>>>>>>>>> the norm
A short, fat, white, privileged, thirty-something, doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> squats and squatting on Native American land inbuilding the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site of the Temple Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following World War I, after the dissolution of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations was established in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1920 giving the British control of the land, who allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, previously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed under Ottoman rule.
the last time joos had actual territorial control was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 years ago dud. this absurd claim that they /deserve/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the region is just sinful propagandized nonsense joo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid traitor
California, following decades of genocide against >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indigenous people and now blaming the Jews and some dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a bowling alley.
You just can't make this stuff up!>>
u make up shit like that all time u fucking traitor
We are going to need to see some evidence. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>>> responding.
that's right bitch: divert from accusation u fucking
unamerican traitor
Between 119 and 400 Jewish people are estimated to have died >>>>>>>>>> in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001.
Investigations by news organizations like the BBC documented >>>>>>>>>> 119 confirmed Jewish victims with at least 72 additional
victims believed to be Jewish, which is generally proportional >>>>>>>>>> to the Jewish population of the New York metropolitan area at >>>>>>>>>> the time.
again: rich zionist leaders do not fucking care about normal >>>>>>>>> people if it's for their religious crusade u moron. they
already committed to killing 3000 americans, heck a few jews >>>>>>>>> thrown in there adds to the narrative ...
-a-a> yup, that's the nature of religious crusades
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
ur never going to make any headway by randomly citing broad >>>>>>>>> facts about it...
i've spend a decade considering this, and by now the of amount >>>>>>>>> of rather in depth details you'd have to explain is far beyond >>>>>>>>> ur cognitive capability to acknowledge, let alone actually
address u fucking zionist- loving anti-american dud
this isn't a real debate, this is just me shit posting with a >>>>>>>>> passion ur half-wit dumbass couldn't even dream of matching
why???
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY _CARE_ ABOUT US _ALL_ YOU WARMONGERING
SOCIOPATH
ad hominem isn't a response dud
You claimed the Jews attacked the WTC on 9/11 and there were no >>>>>>>> Jews
i literally never said that no jews were killed
inside. So, you can't be trusted on this board to be truthful. >>>>>>>> And, you made the claim you could do squats while pressing.
it's called a thruster
thrusting. The only reason you're allowed to engage is for your
ego. YMMV.
dud, what you would know about getting off women??? Efye
women reported that they did not reach orgasm through thrusting. No
matter what size or powerful the trusting. YMMV.
Instead, they reported that mere physical feeling closeness was the
most enjoyable aspect of sexual relations. 91% reported that
intercourse was allowed-a just to satisfy a man's fragile ego.
ur bizarre attempts to gaslight me as well bizarre. are you speaking
from ur own insecurities, is that why ur hiding behind some science? Efye >>>
it's ok u dunno how to satisfy ur women cause most women aren't
satisfied by it either? Efnu
When you think about, how do you really know? Your wife could be
faking it.
What maybe you should be doing instead of just squatting, is working
your fingers with the hand grip. Be realistic, Nick. She's probably
better at stimulating herself than you, based on your boring
conspiracy theories.
she doesn't like being fingered dud, she likes being tongued
that's a wrap (pun intended).
eat her out first then fuck her so she cums twice? Efn+
idk how this isn't like basic sex ed but we don't like teach basic sextechniques in "sex ed"
More facts:
The mastermind and operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks was >>>>>> Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He served as the primary architect of the >>>>>> plot and proposed the idea of using hijacked airplanes to the
militant Islamist group al-Qaeda.
A total of 2,977 victims lost their lives during the September 11, >>>>>> 2001 terrorist attacks. Including the 19 terrorist hijackers, the >>>>>> total number of deaths resulting from the incident is 2,996.
responding with random ass facts does not address the problems with >>>>> the narrative dud... namely than wtc7 was not hit by a plane, and
the muzzies certainly didn't blow it up
You warmongering thruster!
So, that's a wrap.
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated, >>>>>>>> originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up >>>>>>>> by informants which have all been refuted and found to be
spurious, crude racist and biased.
On 6/23/2026 1:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
You are such a liar, Nick!So, seven of the most wealthy nations on the planet, in over 79Almost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supportsSo, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution.
no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
the two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework for
lasting regional
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony
they're gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an independent >>>>>> Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based on the
pre-1967 borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in 1947 >>>>>> and now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million registered >>>>>> Palestine refugees.
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and caused >>>>>>>> the death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000 Palestinians in >>>>>>>> Gaza and approximately 2,000 Israelis.
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be
surprised dud
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with
billions of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point.
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the US >>>>>> have spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79 years >>>>>> and still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza, Lebanon,
Syria and Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives and
move to other countries???
i mean jeez the absolute fucking hypocracy among you people. people
like you are complaining about ~13 million illegals in a country of
over 300 million...
and ur just like whatever the fuck about 5.5 million people just up
and leaving to the surrounding like egypt (120M), syria (26M),
jordan (11.6M), lebanon (6M) ...
god ur such a retard dud
years, cannot help the refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and
Gaza, despite billions of dollars in aid from the United Kingdom and
the USA.
What's wrong with this picture, Nick?
the fact the wealthiest nation on the planet cannot help that level,
either...
The U.S. and UK have provided substantial humanitarian aid to Gaza, with U.S. commitments exceeding $1.4 billion and UK bilateral aid to the Palestinian territories reaching hundreds of millions in recent years.
- Wiki--
Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024
reached SAR 1.259 trillion.
On 6/23/2026 1:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:24 PM, Dude wrote:"All claims on the board will be met in kind." - Tang
On 6/22/2026 9:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:39 PM, Dude wrote:It works both ways, Nick. You've got to think about yourself too. So,
On 6/22/2026 11:00 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:According to a recent peer-reviewed study by Shere Hite, over 79%
On 6/21/2026 10:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:16 AM, Dude wrote:It's a fact, needing no proof, that women do not get off on
On 6/20/2026 7:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:05 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 12:16 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 11:47 AM, Dude wrote:You posted a claim that you could do squats while pressing >>>>>>>>>>>>> in California.
On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:In bowling alley lingo you can understand: "Everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants a piece of the pie!" - Dude
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the free market and cornered it, while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inventing the alphabet. Ever since then everyone has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been very JELLOS. It really is all about the money! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote:But for Mohammed they might still have it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a>
On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote:
So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the war in the Middle East. And, because of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quran so shut up.
bro it the was romans/christians who were initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicking out the joos not the fucking muzzies. sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last century the muzzies have been pretty pissed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause a colonial empire just annexed a slice of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palestine and just gave it to people who never lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. and then it got solidified during all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 warmongering. like if u thought the muzzies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were pissed off before, we've been killing them by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions for the past decades or so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
now the joos control the leading world superpower, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even have their precious zion bullshit, and it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not good enough for them, eh???
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before a israel's 100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone forever. The Muslims in the 7th & 8th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century colonized Palestine, North Africa, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way into Spain and even Sicily in the 9th century. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupation of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness of people to research the subject is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astounding for the amount of passion and conviction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have in their opinions on the current war, so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought the best contribution I could make is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a summary of the history of the land, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically since the Great Arab Expansion of the 7th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Century. (IrCOm going to skip over the long list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquerors, occupiers, and colonizers, and jump to when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam occupied/ colonized the land):
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last 5000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Even when
the joo faith is not that old dud
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a long list of these events) there was always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Jewish presence maintained in the land. The land went >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by many names including Judea and Palestine - a name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to the land by Rome as an insult to the Jews >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of the Philistine tribe that occupied the land >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many centuries before (Islam would not exist for many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries still).
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muhammad around the year 600 AD. The Great Arab >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion out of the Arabian Peninsula followed and led >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the colonization of Israel by Islam when it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquered by Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next 1300 years, during that time persecuting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jewish population and even
historically inaccurate dud
the muzzies generally didn't kick out "people of the book" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dud. they (joos and jesus-freaks) had to pay a special tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that was it. yeah yeah occasionally muzzies got more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> oppressive to non- muzzies but that was the exception not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the norm
A short, fat, white, privileged, thirty-something, doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> squats and squatting on Native American land in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California, following decades of genocide against >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indigenous people and now blaming the Jews and some dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a bowling alley.building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site of the Temple Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following World War I, after the dissolution of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations was established >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 1920 giving the British control of the land, who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously not allowed under Ottoman rule.
the last time joos had actual territorial control was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 years ago dud. this absurd claim that they / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserve/ the region is just sinful propagandized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense joo stupid traitor
You just can't make this stuff up!>>
u make up shit like that all time u fucking traitor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are going to need to see some evidence. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>>>> responding.
that's right bitch: divert from accusation u fucking
unamerican traitor
Between 119 and 400 Jewish people are estimated to have died >>>>>>>>>>> in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001. >>>>>>>>>>>
Investigations by news organizations like the BBC documented >>>>>>>>>>> 119 confirmed Jewish victims with at least 72 additional >>>>>>>>>>> victims believed to be Jewish, which is generally
proportional to the Jewish population of the New York
metropolitan area at the time.
again: rich zionist leaders do not fucking care about normal >>>>>>>>>> people if it's for their religious crusade u moron. they
already committed to killing 3000 americans, heck a few jews >>>>>>>>>> thrown in there adds to the narrative ...
-a-a> yup, that's the nature of religious crusades
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
ur never going to make any headway by randomly citing broad >>>>>>>>>> facts about it...
i've spend a decade considering this, and by now the of amount >>>>>>>>>> of rather in depth details you'd have to explain is far beyond >>>>>>>>>> ur cognitive capability to acknowledge, let alone actually >>>>>>>>>> address u fucking zionist- loving anti-american dud
this isn't a real debate, this is just me shit posting with a >>>>>>>>>> passion ur half-wit dumbass couldn't even dream of matching >>>>>>>>>>
why???
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY _CARE_ ABOUT US _ALL_ YOU WARMONGERING >>>>>>>>>> SOCIOPATH
ad hominem isn't a response dud
You claimed the Jews attacked the WTC on 9/11 and there were no >>>>>>>>> Jews
i literally never said that no jews were killed
inside. So, you can't be trusted on this board to be truthful. >>>>>>>>> And, you made the claim you could do squats while pressing.
it's called a thruster
thrusting. The only reason you're allowed to engage is for your >>>>>>> ego. YMMV.
dud, what you would know about getting off women??? Efye
of women reported that they did not reach orgasm through thrusting. >>>>> No matter what size or powerful the trusting. YMMV.
Instead, they reported that mere physical feeling closeness was the >>>>> most enjoyable aspect of sexual relations. 91% reported that
intercourse was allowed-a just to satisfy a man's fragile ego.
ur bizarre attempts to gaslight me as well bizarre. are you speaking
from ur own insecurities, is that why ur hiding behind some science? Efye >>>>
it's ok u dunno how to satisfy ur women cause most women aren't
satisfied by it either? Efnu
When you think about, how do you really know? Your wife could be
faking it.
What maybe you should be doing instead of just squatting, is
working your fingers with the hand grip. Be realistic, Nick. She's
probably better at stimulating herself than you, based on your
boring conspiracy theories.
she doesn't like being fingered dud, she likes being tongued
that's a wrap (pun intended).
eat her out first then fuck her so she cums twice? Efn+
So, why did you send me a porn emoji? If she finds out you'll beidk how this isn't like basic sex ed but we don't like teach basic sextechniques in "sex ed"
sleeping on the couch, Nick.
More facts:
The mastermind and operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks
was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He served as the primary architect of >>>>>>> the plot and proposed the idea of using hijacked airplanes to the >>>>>>> militant Islamist group al-Qaeda.
A total of 2,977 victims lost their lives during the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Including the 19 terrorist hijackers, >>>>>>> the total number of deaths resulting from the incident is 2,996.
responding with random ass facts does not address the problems
with the narrative dud... namely than wtc7 was not hit by a plane, >>>>>> and the muzzies certainly didn't blow it up
You warmongering thruster!
So, that's a wrap.
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and >>>>>>>>> memes made up by informants which have all been refuted and >>>>>>>>> found to be spurious, crude racist and biased.
On 6/23/26 12:28 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 PM, Dude wrote:So, they have it. You want it. It's all about the money.
On 6/22/2026 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:55 AM, Dude wrote:So, it's the money - they have it - you wants it. But you've no
On 6/21/2026 10:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 6:28 PM, Dude wrote:It's the money, isn't it? Just be transparent, Nick.
On 6/21/2026 2:22 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:24:20 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Where I come from silence usually indicates agreement.
On 6/21/2026 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 1:44 PM, Dude wrote:So, what is it about the "joos" that some people, like Nick >>>>>>>>>> and Noah and
On 6/21/2026 9:58 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 21, 2026 at 12:35:25rC>PM EDT, "Wilson"-a-a>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:52 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:37:21 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote:But for Mohammed they might still have it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before a israel's
100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forever. The
Muslims in the 7th & 8th century colonized Palestine, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> North Africa,
and all the way into Spain and even Sicily in the 9th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century.
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
free
market and cornered it, while inventing the alphabet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever since then
everyone has been very JELLOS. It really is all about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the money!
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupation of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness of
people to
research the subject is astounding for the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passion and
conviction they have in their opinions on the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> war, so I
thought
the best contribution I could make is to provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary of the
history of the land, specifically since the Great Arab >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion
of the
7th Century. (IrCOm going to skip over the long list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquerors,
occupiers, and colonizers, and jump to when Islam occupied/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colonized the
land):
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last 5000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Even
when
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a
long list
of these events) there was always a Jewish presence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained in the
land. The land went by many names including Judea and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Palestine -
a name
given to the land by Rome as an insult to the Jews >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of the
Philistine tribe that occupied the land many centuries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before (Islam
would not exist for many centuries still).
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muhammad
around the
year 600 AD. The Great Arab Expansion out of the Arabian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peninsula
followed and led to the colonization of Israel by Islam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it was
conquered by Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next 1300
years, during that time persecuting the Jewish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> population and even
building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site of the
Temple
Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
World War
I, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> League of Nations
was established in 1920 giving the British control of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land, who
allowed Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously not
allowed under Ottoman rule.
With Jews returning to their homeland, the Arabs who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persecuted
the Jews
for centuries began attacking and killing Jews through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land. The
Haganah was created to protect the Jewish communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in
1929, the
Arabs massacred 67 Jews in Hebron including women and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children.
Attacks
and murders of Jews by Arabs continued throughout the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next two
decades.
So that makes what's happening in the West Bank okay? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Say, it Dude.-a I'd like to see you say it.
Expressing a nuanced perspective on this without once side >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the other
calling you The Bad Thing is almost impossible.
But I'll try:-a Both sides lean strongly into wanting to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtually
exterminate the other. Neither have clean hands. Neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are good guys.
So, we have an agreement.-a Next..
So, maybe I just don't get it. What, exactly, is it about >>>>>>>>>>>> Jews that
all these people hate? What is it, really?
That's an incorrect / non-useful framing.
"All these people" aren't one thing.
It's as short-sighted as saying "the jews".
Creon, hate?
You watch your mouth.-a I don't hate anybody.
[ rest snipped without reading ]
Nick called a whole group of people "joos". Do you know what
that means, Creon?
it's so funny to trigger joo tho ... EfyeEfyeEfye
besides the absurd middle east warmongering america has been
subject to for the past decades,
collateral.
i love how u admit i'm right without actually doing expressly
lol, that L just keeps getting bigger eh?
gunna take the L again dud??
the outsized influence on our global discussion platforms is pretty >>>>> fucking absurd. like i'm not saying for sure they've been trying to >>>>> dominate the world from the shadows, but like it looks they've been >>>>> pretty successful in the west:
facebook - joo
youtube - joos
whatsapp - joo
instagram - joo
tiktok - china, but us operations managed by joos
wechat - china
messanger - joo
telegram - russian
linkedin - bought by joo founded company
snapchat - not actually joo
reddit - bought by joos
douyin - china
kuaishou - china
twitter - bought by "aspirational joo" with majority joo friends
weibo - china
pinterest - joo
It might just be me, but I just hate those militant Islamic
religious extremists over in Iran. I am very upset about that >>>>>>>> girl that was murdered in Tehran by the mullahs because she
wasn't wearing a scarf over her head!
Damn! That's cold!
I'm also very upset with the Hamas terrorists for kidnapping, >>>>>>>> raping and murdering that girl they kidnapped at the music
festival and then parading her dead naked body around in the
back of a truck - while the crowd cheered.
So, for the record: I hate all religious, extremist, terrorists >>>>>>>> of any religion. There, I've said it.
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>> outside
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have proven >>>>>>>>>> otherwise
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute sense, Nick. >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote:it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure consciousness.I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as the per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
context
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
have more to say on the matter other than those model align >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the event? If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are inherently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>>> duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves adhere to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them at the speed of light.
please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of responding to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to a 2D >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts with your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't even >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum entanglement as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & space >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to reach the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of light is just an artifact of the models we use... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past that wall. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
respect to a traveling photon _at all_
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then expend >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the frame you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your clock ticks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require absolutes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce "stillness". stillness is found in all frames of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are presented >>>>>>>>>>> to you.
-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>> occursNo rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc
everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... but >>>>>>>> not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that purview. >>>>>>>>
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>> else.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain)
functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the hallways >>>>>>>> without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, and >>>>>>>> direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't even >>>>>>>> know
they even did it, let alone how
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical.
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to fact >>>>>>>> check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist and are >>>>>>> self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of
knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we can be >>>>>> conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would not have >>>>>> brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not aware of it? >>>>> -a>
consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world.
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and causality) >>>>> to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't
experience things as they really are - only through consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all
_is_ consciousness.
and we still depend on the external environment for various consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the solution
is to increase conscious awareness in order to see things as they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
On 6/23/2026 1:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:28 PM, Dude wrote:You're always wanting to take other people's money and property and take away their free speech. I'm beginning to think Wilson was right - you're
On 6/22/2026 9:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 PM, Dude wrote:So, they have it. You want it. It's all about the money.
On 6/22/2026 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:55 AM, Dude wrote:So, it's the money - they have it - you wants it. But you've no
On 6/21/2026 10:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 6:28 PM, Dude wrote:It's the money, isn't it? Just be transparent, Nick.
On 6/21/2026 2:22 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:24:20 -0700, DudeWhere I come from silence usually indicates agreement.
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 1:44 PM, Dude wrote:So, what is it about the "joos" that some people, like Nick >>>>>>>>>>> and Noah and
On 6/21/2026 9:58 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 21, 2026 at 12:35:25rC>PM EDT, "Wilson"-a-a>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:52 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:37:21 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote:But for Mohammed they might still have it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before a israel's
100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone forever. The
Muslims in the 7th & 8th century colonized Palestine, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> North Africa,
and all the way into Spain and even Sicily in the 9th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century.
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
free
market and cornered it, while inventing the alphabet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever since then
everyone has been very JELLOS. It really is all about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the money!
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupation of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness of
people to
research the subject is astounding for the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passion and
conviction they have in their opinions on the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> war, so I
thought
the best contribution I could make is to provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary of the
history of the land, specifically since the Great Arab >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion
of the
7th Century. (IrCOm going to skip over the long list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquerors,
occupiers, and colonizers, and jump to when Islam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occupied/
colonized the
land):
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last 5000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Even
when
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a
long list
of these events) there was always a Jewish presence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained in the
land. The land went by many names including Judea and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Palestine -
a name
given to the land by Rome as an insult to the Jews >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of the
Philistine tribe that occupied the land many centuries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before (Islam
would not exist for many centuries still).
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muhammad
around the
year 600 AD. The Great Arab Expansion out of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arabian Peninsula
followed and led to the colonization of Israel by Islam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it was
conquered by Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next 1300
years, during that time persecuting the Jewish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> population and even
building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site of the
Temple
Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
World War
I, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> League of Nations
was established in 1920 giving the British control of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land, who
allowed Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously not
allowed under Ottoman rule.
With Jews returning to their homeland, the Arabs who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persecuted
the Jews
for centuries began attacking and killing Jews through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land. The
Haganah was created to protect the Jewish communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in
1929, the
Arabs massacred 67 Jews in Hebron including women and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children.
Attacks
and murders of Jews by Arabs continued throughout the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next two
decades.
So that makes what's happening in the West Bank okay? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Say, it Dude.-a I'd like to see you say it.
Expressing a nuanced perspective on this without once >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side or the other
calling you The Bad Thing is almost impossible.
But I'll try:-a Both sides lean strongly into wanting to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtually
exterminate the other. Neither have clean hands. Neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are good guys.
So, we have an agreement.-a Next..
So, maybe I just don't get it. What, exactly, is it about >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews that
all these people hate? What is it, really?
That's an incorrect / non-useful framing.
"All these people" aren't one thing.
It's as short-sighted as saying "the jews".
Creon, hate?
You watch your mouth.-a I don't hate anybody.
[ rest snipped without reading ]
Nick called a whole group of people "joos". Do you know what >>>>>>>>> that means, Creon?
it's so funny to trigger joo tho ... EfyeEfyeEfye
besides the absurd middle east warmongering america has been
subject to for the past decades,
collateral.
i love how u admit i'm right without actually doing expressly
lol, that L just keeps getting bigger eh?
a commie. YMMV.
gunna take the L again dud??
the outsized influence on our global discussion platforms is
pretty fucking absurd. like i'm not saying for sure they've been
trying to dominate the world from the shadows, but like it looks
they've been pretty successful in the west:
facebook - joo
youtube - joos
whatsapp - joo
instagram - joo
tiktok - china, but us operations managed by joos
wechat - china
messanger - joo
telegram - russian
linkedin - bought by joo founded company
snapchat - not actually joo
reddit - bought by joos
douyin - china
kuaishou - china
twitter - bought by "aspirational joo" with majority joo friends
weibo - china
pinterest - joo
It might just be me, but I just hate those militant Islamic >>>>>>>>> religious extremists over in Iran. I am very upset about that >>>>>>>>> girl that was murdered in Tehran by the mullahs because she >>>>>>>>> wasn't wearing a scarf over her head!
Damn! That's cold!
I'm also very upset with the Hamas terrorists for kidnapping, >>>>>>>>> raping and murdering that girl they kidnapped at the music
festival and then parading her dead naked body around in the >>>>>>>>> back of a truck - while the crowd cheered.
So, for the record: I hate all religious, extremist, terrorists >>>>>>>>> of any religion. There, I've said it.
On 6/23/26 12:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:That's a problem.
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread >>>>>>>>> social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of >>>>>>>>> aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard
property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they >>>>>>>> live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law >>>>>>> they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally
the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing
e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they
spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million
of people into the banking system that previously didn't have
accounts because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone
up to street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like
$3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees
(which go to banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and
honestly they could probably do better. cause right now banks rank
in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in
the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking
blocking the US federal govt from doing something similar because
muh $200B a year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF
GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T
DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your
damn eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking
asleep for so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of
actually justifying the system and convince urself by endlessly
repeating the same boring platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment. >>>
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
So, is the snipping, altering the Subject; changing the topic; and
cross-posting to a death cult site in a threaded post of over 1050
lines of plain text and calling you a "nigger".
It just seems dishonest. YMMV.
Why not just start a new thread called "Niggas"?
fall back and shut your goofy ass up nigga EfaAEfaAEfaA
On 6/23/26 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread
social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of
aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard
property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they
live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law
they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally
the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing
e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they
spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of
people into the banking system that previously didn't have accounts
because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to
street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to
set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees (which go to
banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they
could probably do better. cause right now banks rank in around $3
billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in the
us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF
GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T
DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for
so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying
the system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
...neither of the cheaper solutions i presented as evidence that cheaper solutions are possible, was the free market wilson. both of them were
the gooberment taking actions to solve a problem the free market just
won't. and cheapest one came with the _strongest_ gooberment mandate for _zero_ percentage fees...
jesus christ wilson i don't even know how to respond to ur level of continued denial,
ur just outright ignoring evidence
#god
On 6/23/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread >>>>>>>>> social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of >>>>>>>>> aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard
property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they >>>>>>>> live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law >>>>>>> they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally
the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing
e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they
spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million
of people into the banking system that previously didn't have
accounts because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone
up to street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like
$3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees
(which go to banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and
honestly they could probably do better. cause right now banks rank
in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in
the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking
blocking the US federal govt from doing something similar because
muh $200B a year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF
GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T
DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your
damn eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking
asleep for so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of
actually justifying the system and convince urself by endlessly
repeating the same boring platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment. >>>
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
...neither of the cheaper solutions i presented as evidence that
cheaper solutions are possible, was the free market wilson. both of
them were the gooberment taking actions to solve a problem the free
market just won't. and cheapest one came with the _strongest_
gooberment mandate for _zero_ percentage fees...
jesus christ wilson i don't even know how to respond to ur level of
continued denial,
-a-a> ur just outright ignoring evidence
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Yes fine, they did a good thing apparently.
On 6/22/26 10:08 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 4:51 PM, Dude wrote:The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated,
On 6/20/2026 10:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:26 PM, Dude wrote:So, I think I already commented on this. But let me say this:
On 6/20/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 5:30 PM, Dude wrote:Let me say this about that:
On 6/20/2026 3:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:Have you served?
On 6/20/2026 10:55 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 20, 2026 at 1:17:41rC>PM EDT, "Tara" <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Nick came here to get enlightened and instead, he got trashed >>>>>>>>>> by Croon.
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 11:00 PM, Dude wrote:Al-Qaeda has always taken credit for WTC-7 destruction. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> was part of
On 6/19/2026 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:You fell for the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside job by Jews
On 6/19/2026 12:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:Which reality?
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-wrote:
I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality: pure
consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of the
universe,
Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that
exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a > merely select when either best applies as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the per the context
-a-a-a >
-a-a-a > #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each other made
everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The attempt
to pin it
down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be: none.
Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term self interest.
I like reality.
reality doesn't have nation-state borders
You came here to get enlightened. Now you're post queries? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
how do we prove that? because by what method do we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective
measure them?
noneNon-dual.
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A mind reader eh?
"choosing" to be retarded, still leaves you a retard dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in order to provoke the US into a war on terror - and I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the retard?
i have a long body of evidence that likes of which falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside ur
gimped cognitive ability to reckon about, so i certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
repeating myself to joo in any great detail
"Al-Qaeda has repeatedly claimed responsibility for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacks, with
they didn't plant the explosives dummy, and they didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even hit WTC7
the plan, obviously.
It's not funny, Nick. You're really crude, dud. No, cringe >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a better
chief deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri accusing Shia Iran and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hezbollah ofthat's pretty freaking hilarious, but again... joo wanted >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the muzzies to
denigrating Sunni successes in hurting the U.S. by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally
starting rumors that Israel carried out the attacks." - Wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
take the credit
description.
A total of 2,753 people died at the World Trade Center site >>>>>>>>>>>>> on September
11, 2001,
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and >>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made >>>>>>>>>>>>> up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> spurious, crude
racist and biased.
Not to worry:
The drive to stand out is a powerful psychological mechanism >>>>>>>>>>>> that
frequently draws people to conspiracy theories. Believing in >>>>>>>>>>>> hidden truths
makes individuals feel special, granting them a sense of >>>>>>>>>>>> intellectual
superiority and uniqueness because they possess knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>> that the
"mainstream" public seemingly does not
In essence: don't bother taking him seriously. Flip it off >>>>>>>>>>> and ignore. He's no
threat, (and he had better not be), other than to himself. >>>>>>>>>> -a>
So, that should be a wrap.
Unless some other informant wants to pile on and add some more >>>>>>>>>> trashing.
Maybe Nick feels better now, after talking to other people for >>>>>>>>>> awhile, even strangers in a chat room. YMMV.
an unamerican traitor can't trash on me
serve the zionist warmonging we've been doing for the past
decades???
what would that even mean u fucking treasonous bastard...
i don't care how many muzzies you killed in the name of zion, it >>>>>>> won't ever make you american u cunt
You came here for enlightenment?
traitor won't answer the question
For the record: I'm on the side of the US and all the UN countries
that recognize Israel as a sovereign state.
So, I am opposed to the radical Islamic terrorist religious
extremism and all followers of cult of Mo and the fucking Koran so
shut up.
In my opinion, Islam is fundamentally opposed to Democracy. That's
my final answer.
fucking traitor siding with a zionist cabal who committed the largest
single strike on us soil ever, over ur own country men
wtc7 wasn't hit by a plane, and it certainly wasn't fucking
demolitions by the muzzies
joo can keep meekly repeating jourself, and i'll keep accusing joo of
willful treason to this great country
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious, crude
racist and biased.
that's because again: we've gone outside the limited overton window ur cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep denying endlessly,
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread social >>>>>>> cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression >>>>>>> cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they live >>>>>> it every day
ur just sitting in an ivory tower
#god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they are
the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally the
extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank network
and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades until tHe
FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at 1/1000th the cost
wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency. cause
it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing e-
currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they spend
like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally billions in
manual cash flow because merchants previously just weren't paying
expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of people into the
banking system that previously didn't have accounts because now there
was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to street merchants can use
it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr
to run it. transaction fees (which go to banks, not the govt) when from
~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they could probably do better. cause
right now banks rank in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee structure!!
the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. this costs them
around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of transactions in total by an
order of magnitude!!! yes the india system scales, they process more
daily transactions that we do in the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U FUCKING
ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS PROGRAMS AND
WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF GIVING
CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T DOING THAT
U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
#god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for so
long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying the
system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
On 6/23/2026 2:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even cuter. You say you don't and then you do.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread social >>>>>>> cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression >>>>>>> cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they live >>>>>> it every day
ur just sitting in an ivory tower
#god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific language to >>>> legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some fancy >>>> math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
No I don't.
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that
On 6/19/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:I like reality.
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also doesn't
capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant dualities that >>>>>>>>> exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism
(wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???),
-a -a> merely select when either best applies as the per the context >>>>>>>>> -a -a>
-a -a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying reality. >>>>>>>>
There's another that says life is a random walk, quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other made >>>>>>>> everything, without meaning or purpose.
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The attempt >>>>>>>> to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees.
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly
happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears to be:-a none. >>>>>>> Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short term self interest. >>>>>>
-a-a> reality doesn't have nation-state borders
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
how do we prove that? because by what method do we objective
measure them? none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality
"Reality doesn't have..." and then describes something that is a
part of social consciousness consensus reality. While claiming that
a system-a of social agreement based on consensus is the best way
forward.
Sure, go with that. It'll definitely work this time.
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all
those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we
lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are
starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the
same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic
oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and global
problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive
observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the world
must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in "hardware" (like
space and time) that actively shapes the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread social >>>>>>> cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression >>>>>>> cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they live >>>>>> it every day
ur just sitting in an ivory tower
#god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific language to >>>> legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some fancy >>>> math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
--
i know u won't watch it, david graeber's (rip to early) lecture on debt >>>> was mind opening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs
I'll watch it when I get time.
On 6/22/26 10:50 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:18 AM, Wilson wrote:Vasubandhu does not deny that cognitive objects exist; what he denies is
On 6/22/2026 7:02 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:08:44 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2026 11:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:26:45 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:It's just amazing!
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have proven >>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>> everything
i "experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>> but
not all of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>> purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize
their location in respect to our movement, and move about them >>>>>>>>> without
actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition
takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with it to that >>>>>>>>> extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and possibly >>>>>>>>> most, at a
subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view
it more like an executive head of a organization (with limited >>>>>>>>> control
even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather than >>>>>>>>> being
directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious
and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness".
You mean most guys who agree with you.a Subconsciousmess is not
available to consciousness which is why we call it sub...
After over two decades engaging here with the likes of Tang Huyen, you >>>>>> still don't grasp the foundation of Buddhist philosophy.
The "consciousness-only" school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism is one of >>>>>> the two foundational pillars of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy.
It posits that all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness, and >>>>>> that objects perceived as external to us do not exist independently of >>>>>> the mind.
According to the founder of this school:
"What we experience as an objective, physical world is entirely a
construction of our mind. There are no standalone external objectsu >>>>>> only
mental representations." - Vasubandhu
Look at what they say, carefully:a Vasubandhu isn't saying there
isn't an objective reality -- they're saying our experience, our
mental representations, aren't objective.
Yes. Our perceptions of the physical objective world are a
construction of our consciousness (using the expanded meaning of
consciousness as all of our awareness including what we aren't fully
aware of).
Everything we know about 'objective' reality is filtered through the
censors that our mind uses to make the world comprehensible. If we
did not have those censors, survival in this world would probably be
impossible. This mental overlay normally (for most people always)
prevents direct perception of what is.
The map is not the territory. The tree you see is not the tree.
buddhists were the original post-truthers ?
#god
unfortunately basic math stands in their way. the relationship between
the circumference of a circle and it's diameter in flat 2D space is a
truth no amount of post-truther denial will ever refute
that they appear anywhere else than in the very act of consciousness
which apprehends them.
reality is subject to the relationships described by math regardless of >whether we are aware of them consciously or not
On 6/23/2026 1:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:48 PM, Dude wrote:Just start a new thread called "Open forum shut your goofy ass up nigga"
On 6/23/2026 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:That's a problem.
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread >>>>>>>>>> social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of >>>>>>>>>> aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard
property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they >>>>>>>>> live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law >>>>>>>> they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl >>>>>>> LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before
u were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they >>>>> are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally
the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more
decades until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services >>>>> at 1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress
to *block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-
currency. cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing >>>>> e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they >>>>> spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million
of people into the banking system that previously didn't have
accounts because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone >>>>> up to street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like
$3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees
(which go to banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and >>>>> honestly they could probably do better. cause right now banks rank
in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in
the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking
blocking the US federal govt from doing something similar because
muh $200B a year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT
OF GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY
AREN'T DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics >>>>> -a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your
damn eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking
asleep for so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of
actually justifying the system and convince urself by endlessly
repeating the same boring platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's
gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
So, is the snipping, altering the Subject; changing the topic; and
cross-posting to a death cult site in a threaded post of over 1050
lines of plain text and calling you a "nigger".
It just seems dishonest. YMMV.
Why not just start a new thread called "Niggas"?
-a-a> fall back and shut your goofy ass up nigga EfaAEfaAEfaA
-a-a>
and cross-post to alt.black.lives.matter?
On 6/23/2026 10:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:08 PM, Dude wrote:Let me be clear: The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated,
On 6/21/2026 11:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 4:51 PM, Dude wrote:The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated,
On 6/20/2026 10:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:26 PM, Dude wrote:So, I think I already commented on this. But let me say this:
On 6/20/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 5:30 PM, Dude wrote:Let me say this about that:
On 6/20/2026 3:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:Have you served?
On 6/20/2026 10:55 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 20, 2026 at 1:17:41rC>PM EDT, "Tara" <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Nick came here to get enlightened and instead, he got trashed >>>>>>>>>>> by Croon.
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 11:00 PM, Dude wrote:Al-Qaeda has always taken credit for WTC-7 destruction. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was part of
On 6/19/2026 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:You fell for the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside job by Jews
On 6/19/2026 12:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:Which reality?
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality: pure
consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of the
universe,
Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also doesn't
capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that
exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a > merely select when either best applies as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the per the context
-a-a-a >
-a-a-a > #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each other made
everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The attempt
to pin it
down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be: none.
Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term self interest.
I like reality.
reality doesn't have nation-state borders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You came here to get enlightened. Now you're post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
how do we prove that? because by what method do we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective
measure them?
Non-dual.
none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A mind reader eh?
"choosing" to be retarded, still leaves you a retard dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in order to provoke the US into a war on terror - and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm the retard?
i have a long body of evidence that likes of which falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside ur
gimped cognitive ability to reckon about, so i certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
repeating myself to joo in any great detail
"Al-Qaeda has repeatedly claimed responsibility for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacks, with
they didn't plant the explosives dummy, and they didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even hit WTC7
the plan, obviously.
It's not funny, Nick. You're really crude, dud. No, cringe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a better
chief deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri accusing Shia Iran and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hezbollah of
denigrating Sunni successes in hurting the U.S. by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally
starting rumors that Israel carried out the attacks." - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki
that's pretty freaking hilarious, but again... joo wanted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the muzzies to
take the credit
description.
A total of 2,753 people died at the World Trade Center >>>>>>>>>>>>>> site on September
11, 2001,
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> spurious, crude
racist and biased.
Not to worry:
The drive to stand out is a powerful psychological
mechanism that
frequently draws people to conspiracy theories. Believing >>>>>>>>>>>>> in hidden truths
makes individuals feel special, granting them a sense of >>>>>>>>>>>>> intellectual
superiority and uniqueness because they possess knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
"mainstream" public seemingly does not
In essence: don't bother taking him seriously. Flip it off >>>>>>>>>>>> and ignore. He's no
threat, (and he had better not be), other than to himself. >>>>>>>>>>> -a>
So, that should be a wrap.
Unless some other informant wants to pile on and add some >>>>>>>>>>> more trashing.
Maybe Nick feels better now, after talking to other people >>>>>>>>>>> for awhile, even strangers in a chat room. YMMV.
an unamerican traitor can't trash on me
serve the zionist warmonging we've been doing for the past
decades???
what would that even mean u fucking treasonous bastard...
i don't care how many muzzies you killed in the name of zion, it >>>>>>>> won't ever make you american u cunt
You came here for enlightenment?
traitor won't answer the question
For the record: I'm on the side of the US and all the UN countries
that recognize Israel as a sovereign state.
So, I am opposed to the radical Islamic terrorist religious
extremism and all followers of cult of Mo and the fucking Koran so
shut up.
In my opinion, Islam is fundamentally opposed to Democracy. That's
my final answer.
fucking traitor siding with a zionist cabal who committed the
largest single strike on us soil ever, over ur own country men
wtc7 wasn't hit by a plane, and it certainly wasn't fucking
demolitions by the muzzies
joo can keep meekly repeating jourself, and i'll keep accusing joo
of willful treason to this great country
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious,
crude racist and biased.
that's because again: we've gone outside the limited overton window ur
cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep denying
endlessly,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
informants
which have all been refuted and found to be spurious, crude racist and biased.
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that
On 6/19/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also doesn't >>>>>>>>>> capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant dualities that >>>>>>>>>> exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism >>>>>>>>>> (wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???),
-a -a> merely select when either best applies as the per the >>>>>>>>>> context
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying reality. >>>>>>>>>
There's another that says life is a random walk, quantum foam >>>>>>>>> manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other made >>>>>>>>> everything, without meaning or purpose.
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view affects the >>>>>>>>> manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The attempt >>>>>>>>> to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees.
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly
happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears to be:
none. Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short term self
interest.
I like reality.
-a-a> reality doesn't have nation-state borders
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
how do we prove that? because by what method do we objective
measure them? none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality
"Reality doesn't have..." and then describes something that is a
part of social consciousness consensus reality. While claiming that >>>>> a system-a of social agreement based on consensus is the best way
forward.
Sure, go with that. It'll definitely work this time.
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all
those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we
lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are
starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the
same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic
oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and
global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive
observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the world
must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in "hardware" (like
space and time) that actively shapes the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual projections.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 11:13:40 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:50 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:18 AM, Wilson wrote:Vasubandhu does not deny that cognitive objects exist; what he denies is >>> that they appear anywhere else than in the very act of consciousness
On 6/22/2026 7:02 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:08:44 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 11:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:26:45 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:It's just amazing!
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>> everything
i "experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>> but
not all of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize
their location in respect to our movement, and move about them >>>>>>>>>> without
actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>> cognition
takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with it to that >>>>>>>>>> extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and possibly >>>>>>>>>> most, at a
subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view
it more like an executive head of a organization (with limited >>>>>>>>>> control
even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather than >>>>>>>>>> being
directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>> conscious
and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness".
You mean most guys who agree with you.-a Subconsciousmess is not >>>>>>>> available to consciousness which is why we call it sub...
After over two decades engaging here with the likes of Tang Huyen, you >>>>>>> still don't grasp the foundation of Buddhist philosophy.
The "consciousness-only" school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism is one of >>>>>>> the two foundational pillars of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy.
It posits that all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness, and >>>>>>> that objects perceived as external to us do not exist independently of >>>>>>> the mind.
According to the founder of this school:
"What we experience as an objective, physical world is entirely a >>>>>>> construction of our mind. There are no standalone external objectsrCo >>>>>>> only
mental representations." - Vasubandhu
Look at what they say, carefully:-a Vasubandhu isn't saying there
isn't an objective reality -- they're saying our experience, our
mental representations, aren't objective.
Yes. Our perceptions of the physical objective world are a
construction of our consciousness (using the expanded meaning of
consciousness as all of our awareness including what we aren't fully >>>>> aware of).
Everything we know about 'objective' reality is filtered through the >>>>> censors that our mind uses to make the world comprehensible. If we
did not have those censors, survival in this world would probably be >>>>> impossible. This mental overlay normally (for most people always)
prevents direct perception of what is.
The map is not the territory. The tree you see is not the tree.
-a-a> buddhists were the original post-truthers ?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
unfortunately basic math stands in their way. the relationship between >>>> the circumference of a circle and it's diameter in flat 2D space is a
truth no amount of post-truther denial will ever refute
which apprehends them.
reality is subject to the relationships described by math regardless of
whether we are aware of them consciously or not
Math majors like to say that math underlies everything. The odds are
that they would think that.
On 6/23/26 2:10 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 1:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:24 PM, Dude wrote:"All claims on the board will be met in kind." - Tang
On 6/22/2026 9:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:39 PM, Dude wrote:It works both ways, Nick. You've got to think about yourself too.
On 6/22/2026 11:00 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:According to a recent peer-reviewed study by Shere Hite, over 79% >>>>>> of women reported that they did not reach orgasm through
On 6/21/2026 10:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:16 AM, Dude wrote:It's a fact, needing no proof, that women do not get off on
On 6/20/2026 7:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:05 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 12:16 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 11:47 AM, Dude wrote:You posted a claim that you could do squats while pressing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in California.
On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:In bowling alley lingo you can understand: "Everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants a piece of the pie!" - Dude
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the free market and cornered it, while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inventing the alphabet. Ever since then everyone has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been very JELLOS. It really is all about the money! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote:But for Mohammed they might still have it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a>
So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the war in the Middle East. And, because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Quran so shut up.
bro it the was romans/christians who were initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicking out the joos not the fucking muzzies. sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last century the muzzies have been pretty >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pissed cause a colonial empire just annexed a slice >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of palestine and just gave it to people who never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lived there. and then it got solidified during all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 9/11 warmongering. like if u thought the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muzzies were pissed off before, we've been killing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them by the millions for the past decades or so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
now the joos control the leading world superpower, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even have their precious zion bullshit, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's still not good enough for them, eh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before a israel's 100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone forever. The Muslims in the 7th & 8th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century colonized Palestine, North Africa, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way into Spain and even Sicily in the 9th century. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupation of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness of people to research the subject is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astounding for the amount of passion and conviction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have in their opinions on the current war, so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought the best contribution I could make is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a summary of the history of the land, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically since the Great Arab Expansion of the 7th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Century. (IrCOm going to skip over the long list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquerors, occupiers, and colonizers, and jump to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when Islam occupied/ colonized the land):
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last 5000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Even when
the joo faith is not that old dud
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a long list of these events) there was always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Jewish presence maintained in the land. The land >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went by many names including Judea and Palestine - a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name given to the land by Rome as an insult to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews because of the Philistine tribe that occupied the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> land many centuries before (Islam would not exist for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many centuries still).
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muhammad around the year 600 AD. The Great Arab >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion out of the Arabian Peninsula followed and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> led to the colonization of Israel by Islam when it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquered by Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next 1300 years, during that time persecuting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jewish population and even
historically inaccurate dud
the muzzies generally didn't kick out "people of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book" dud. they (joos and jesus-freaks) had to pay a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special tax but that was it. yeah yeah occasionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muzzies got more oppressive to non- muzzies but that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exception not the norm
A short, fat, white, privileged, thirty-something, doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> squats and squatting on Native American land in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California, following decades of genocide against >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indigenous people and now blaming the Jews and some dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a bowling alley.building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site of the Temple Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following World War I, after the dissolution of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations was established >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 1920 giving the British control of the land, who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously not allowed under Ottoman rule.
the last time joos had actual territorial control was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 years ago dud. this absurd claim that they / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserve/ the region is just sinful propagandized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense joo stupid traitor
You just can't make this stuff up!>>
u make up shit like that all time u fucking traitor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are going to need to see some evidence. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding.
that's right bitch: divert from accusation u fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>> unamerican traitor
Between 119 and 400 Jewish people are estimated to have died >>>>>>>>>>>> in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Investigations by news organizations like the BBC documented >>>>>>>>>>>> 119 confirmed Jewish victims with at least 72 additional >>>>>>>>>>>> victims believed to be Jewish, which is generally
proportional to the Jewish population of the New York >>>>>>>>>>>> metropolitan area at the time.
again: rich zionist leaders do not fucking care about normal >>>>>>>>>>> people if it's for their religious crusade u moron. they >>>>>>>>>>> already committed to killing 3000 americans, heck a few jews >>>>>>>>>>> thrown in there adds to the narrative ...
-a-a> yup, that's the nature of religious crusades
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
ur never going to make any headway by randomly citing broad >>>>>>>>>>> facts about it...
i've spend a decade considering this, and by now the of >>>>>>>>>>> amount of rather in depth details you'd have to explain is >>>>>>>>>>> far beyond ur cognitive capability to acknowledge, let alone >>>>>>>>>>> actually address u fucking zionist- loving anti-american dud >>>>>>>>>>>
this isn't a real debate, this is just me shit posting with a >>>>>>>>>>> passion ur half-wit dumbass couldn't even dream of matching >>>>>>>>>>>
why???
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY _CARE_ ABOUT US _ALL_ YOU WARMONGERING >>>>>>>>>>> SOCIOPATH
ad hominem isn't a response dud
You claimed the Jews attacked the WTC on 9/11 and there were >>>>>>>>>> no Jews
i literally never said that no jews were killed
inside. So, you can't be trusted on this board to be truthful. >>>>>>>>>> And, you made the claim you could do squats while pressing. >>>>>>>>>it's called a thruster
thrusting. The only reason you're allowed to engage is for your >>>>>>>> ego. YMMV.
dud, what you would know about getting off women??? Efye
thrusting. No matter what size or powerful the trusting. YMMV.
Instead, they reported that mere physical feeling closeness was
the most enjoyable aspect of sexual relations. 91% reported that
intercourse was allowed-a just to satisfy a man's fragile ego.
ur bizarre attempts to gaslight me as well bizarre. are you
speaking from ur own insecurities, is that why ur hiding behind
some science? Efye
it's ok u dunno how to satisfy ur women cause most women aren't
satisfied by it either? Efnu
When you think about, how do you really know? Your wife could be
faking it.
What maybe you should be doing instead of just squatting, is
working your fingers with the hand grip. Be realistic, Nick. She's >>>>>> probably better at stimulating herself than you, based on your
boring conspiracy theories.
she doesn't like being fingered dud, she likes being tongued
So, that's a wrap (pun intended).
eat her out first then fuck her so she cums twice? Efn+
don't be so jelly dud Efnu
basic sexidk how this isn't like basic sex ed but we don't like teach
techniques in "sex ed"So, why did you send me a porn emoji? If she finds out you'll be
sleeping on the couch, Nick.
More facts:
The mastermind and operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks >>>>>>>> was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He served as the primary architect >>>>>>>> of the plot and proposed the idea of using hijacked airplanes to >>>>>>>> the militant Islamist group al-Qaeda.
A total of 2,977 victims lost their lives during the September >>>>>>>> 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Including the 19 terrorist
hijackers, the total number of deaths resulting from the
incident is 2,996.
responding with random ass facts does not address the problems
with the narrative dud... namely than wtc7 was not hit by a
plane, and the muzzies certainly didn't blow it up
You warmongering thruster!
So, that's a wrap.
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and >>>>>>>>>> memes made up by informants which have all been refuted and >>>>>>>>>> found to be spurious, crude racist and biased.
On 6/23/26 2:07 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 1:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:You are such a liar, Nick!
On 6/22/2026 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
So, seven of the most wealthy nations on the planet, in over 79Almost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supports >>>>>>> the two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework for >>>>>>> lasting regionalSo, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution. >>>>>>>>no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony
they're gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based >>>>>>> on the pre-1967 borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in 1947 >>>>>>> and now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million registered >>>>>>> Palestine refugees.
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and caused >>>>>>>>> the death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000 Palestinians >>>>>>>>> in Gaza and approximately 2,000 Israelis.
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be
surprised dud
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with
billions of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point.
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the US >>>>>>> have spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79
years and still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza,
Lebanon, Syria and Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives and >>>>>> move to other countries???
i mean jeez the absolute fucking hypocracy among you people. people >>>>> like you are complaining about ~13 million illegals in a country of >>>>> over 300 million...
and ur just like whatever the fuck about 5.5 million people just up >>>>> and leaving to the surrounding like egypt (120M), syria (26M),
jordan (11.6M), lebanon (6M) ...
god ur such a retard dud
years, cannot help the refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and
Gaza, despite billions of dollars in aid from the United Kingdom and
the USA.
What's wrong with this picture, Nick?
the fact the wealthiest nation on the planet cannot help that level,
either...
The U.S. and UK have provided substantial humanitarian aid to Gaza,
with U.S. commitments exceeding $1.4 billion and UK bilateral aid to
the Palestinian territories reaching hundreds of millions in recent
years.
...and yet ur still bitching about the amount of illegal mexicans...
- Wiki
Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024
reached SAR 1.259 trillion.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:34:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread social >>>>>>>> cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression >>>>>>>> cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they live >>>>>>> it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>>
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they are
the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally the
extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank network >>> and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades until tHe
FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at 1/1000th the cost
wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency. cause >>> it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing e-
currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they spend
like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally billions in
manual cash flow because merchants previously just weren't paying
expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of people into the
banking system that previously didn't have accounts because now there
was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to street merchants can use
it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr
to run it. transaction fees (which go to banks, not the govt) when from
~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they could probably do better. cause
right now banks rank in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee structure!!
the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. this costs them
around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of transactions in total by an
order of magnitude!!! yes the india system scales, they process more
daily transactions that we do in the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U FUCKING
ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS PROGRAMS AND
WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF GIVING
CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T DOING THAT
U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a>
-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for so
long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying the
system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment.
It takes two, the buyer and the seller.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
And the availability of both is the problem.
On 6/23/2026 2:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:07 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: just stop.
On 6/23/2026 1:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:You are such a liar, Nick!
On 6/22/2026 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
So, seven of the most wealthy nations on the planet, in over 79Almost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supports >>>>>>>> the two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework for >>>>>>>> lasting regionalSo, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution. >>>>>>>>>no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony
they're gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based >>>>>>>> on the pre-1967 borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and
caused the death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000
Palestinians in Gaza and approximately 2,000 Israelis.
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be >>>>>>>>> surprised dud
1947 and now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million
registered Palestine refugees.
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with
billions of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point. >>>>>>>
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the >>>>>>>> US have spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79 >>>>>>>> years and still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza,
Lebanon, Syria and Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives
and move to other countries???
i mean jeez the absolute fucking hypocracy among you people.
people like you are complaining about ~13 million illegals in a
country of over 300 million...
and ur just like whatever the fuck about 5.5 million people just
up and leaving to the surrounding like egypt (120M), syria (26M), >>>>>> jordan (11.6M), lebanon (6M) ...
god ur such a retard dud
years, cannot help the refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt
and Gaza, despite billions of dollars in aid from the United
Kingdom and the USA.
What's wrong with this picture, Nick?
the fact the wealthiest nation on the planet cannot help that level,
either...
The U.S. and UK have provided substantial humanitarian aid to Gaza,
with U.S. commitments exceeding $1.4 billion and UK bilateral aid to
the Palestinian territories reaching hundreds of millions in recent
years.
...and yet ur still bitching about the amount of illegal mexicans...
The U.S. provides Mexico with approximately $250 million to $300 million annually in direct foreign assistance. The funding primarily targets
peace, security, economic development, and humanitarian needs.
- Wiki
Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024 >>>>>>>> reached SAR 1.259 trillion.
On 6/23/2026 2:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:34:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread social >>>>>>>>> cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression >>>>>>>>> cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they live >>>>>>>> it every day
-a-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they are >>>> the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally the
extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network
and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades until tHe >>>> FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at 1/1000th the cost >>>> wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause
it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing e- >>>> currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they spend >>>> like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally billions in >>>> manual cash flow because merchants previously just weren't paying
expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of people into the >>>> banking system that previously didn't have accounts because now there
was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to street merchants can use >>>> it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr >>>> to run it. transaction fees (which go to banks, not the govt) when from >>>> ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they could probably do better. cause
right now banks rank in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions. >>>>
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee structure!! >>>> the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. this costs them
around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of transactions in total by an >>>> order of magnitude!!! yes the india system scales, they process more
daily transactions that we do in the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U FUCKING >>>> ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS PROGRAMS AND
WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF GIVING
CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T DOING THAT >>>> U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a -a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for so >>>> long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying the >>>> system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment.
It takes two, the buyer and the seller.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
And the availability of both is the problem.
You get what you pay for. Rita wanted a car for grand daughter-a for
junior college. We had to wait five weeks to get the Toyota Corolla Hybrid.
On 6/23/2026 2:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:10 PM, Dude wrote:She could be faking it.
On 6/23/2026 1:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:24 PM, Dude wrote:"All claims on the board will be met in kind." - Tang
On 6/22/2026 9:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:39 PM, Dude wrote:It works both ways, Nick. You've got to think about yourself too.
On 6/22/2026 11:00 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:According to a recent peer-reviewed study by Shere Hite, over 79% >>>>>>> of women reported that they did not reach orgasm through
On 6/21/2026 10:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:16 AM, Dude wrote:It's a fact, needing no proof, that women do not get off on >>>>>>>>> thrusting. The only reason you're allowed to engage is for your >>>>>>>>> ego. YMMV.
On 6/20/2026 7:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:05 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 12:16 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 11:47 AM, Dude wrote:You posted a claim that you could do squats while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressing in California.
On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:In bowling alley lingo you can understand: "Everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants a piece of the pie!" - Dude
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started the free market and cornered it, while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inventing the alphabet. Ever since then everyone has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been very JELLOS. It really is all about the money! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the war in the Middle East. And, because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Quran so shut up.
bro it the was romans/christians who were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially kicking out the joos not the fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muzzies. sure the last century the muzzies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been pretty pissed cause a colonial empire just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annexed a slice of palestine and just gave it to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who never lived there. and then it got >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solidified during all the 9/11 warmongering. like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if u thought the muzzies were pissed off before, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've been killing them by the millions for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past decades or so
now the joos control the leading world superpower, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even have their precious zion bullshit, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's still not good enough for them, eh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before a israel's 100th birthday?
The middle east has been getting colonized by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone forever. The Muslims in the 7th & 8th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century colonized Palestine, North Africa, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way into Spain and even Sicily in the 9th century. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
But for Mohammed they might still have it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a>
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupation of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness of people to research the subject is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astounding for the amount of passion and conviction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have in their opinions on the current war, so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought the best contribution I could make is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a summary of the history of the land, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically since the Great Arab Expansion of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7th Century. (IrCOm going to skip over the long list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conquerors, occupiers, and colonizers, and jump to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when Islam occupied/ colonized the land): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5000 years. Even when
the joo faith is not that old dud
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a long list of these events) there was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always a Jewish presence maintained in the land. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> land went by many names including Judea and Palestine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - a name given to the land by Rome as an insult to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jews because of the Philistine tribe that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occupied the land many centuries before (Islam would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not exist for many centuries still).
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muhammad around the year 600 AD. The Great Arab >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion out of the Arabian Peninsula followed and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> led to the colonization of Israel by Islam when it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was conquered by Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next 1300 years, during that time persecuting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jewish population and even
historically inaccurate dud
the muzzies generally didn't kick out "people of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book" dud. they (joos and jesus-freaks) had to pay a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special tax but that was it. yeah yeah occasionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muzzies got more oppressive to non- muzzies but that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exception not the norm
A short, fat, white, privileged, thirty-something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing squats and squatting on Native American land in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California, following decades of genocide against >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indigenous people and now blaming the Jews and some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dude in a bowling alley.building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most sacred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site of the Temple Mount.the last time joos had actual territorial control was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 years ago dud. this absurd claim that they / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserve/ the region is just sinful propagandized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense joo stupid traitor
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following World War I, after the dissolution of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations was established >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 1920 giving the British control of the land, who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed Jews from Europe to return to their homeland, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously not allowed under Ottoman rule. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just can't make this stuff up!>>
u make up shit like that all time u fucking traitor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are going to need to see some evidence. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding.
that's right bitch: divert from accusation u fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unamerican traitor
Between 119 and 400 Jewish people are estimated to have >>>>>>>>>>>>> died in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Investigations by news organizations like the BBC
documented 119 confirmed Jewish victims with at least 72 >>>>>>>>>>>>> additional victims believed to be Jewish, which is
generally proportional to the Jewish population of the New >>>>>>>>>>>>> York metropolitan area at the time.
again: rich zionist leaders do not fucking care about normal >>>>>>>>>>>> people if it's for their religious crusade u moron. they >>>>>>>>>>>> already committed to killing 3000 americans, heck a few jews >>>>>>>>>>>> thrown in there adds to the narrative ...
-a-a> yup, that's the nature of religious crusades
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
ur never going to make any headway by randomly citing broad >>>>>>>>>>>> facts about it...
i've spend a decade considering this, and by now the of >>>>>>>>>>>> amount of rather in depth details you'd have to explain is >>>>>>>>>>>> far beyond ur cognitive capability to acknowledge, let alone >>>>>>>>>>>> actually address u fucking zionist- loving anti-american dud >>>>>>>>>>>>
this isn't a real debate, this is just me shit posting with >>>>>>>>>>>> a passion ur half-wit dumbass couldn't even dream of matching >>>>>>>>>>>>
why???
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY _CARE_ ABOUT US _ALL_ YOU WARMONGERING >>>>>>>>>>>> SOCIOPATH
ad hominem isn't a response dud
You claimed the Jews attacked the WTC on 9/11 and there were >>>>>>>>>>> no Jews
i literally never said that no jews were killed
inside. So, you can't be trusted on this board to be
truthful. And, you made the claim you could do squats while >>>>>>>>>>> pressing.
it's called a thruster
dud, what you would know about getting off women??? Efye
thrusting. No matter what size or powerful the trusting. YMMV.
Instead, they reported that mere physical feeling closeness was >>>>>>> the most enjoyable aspect of sexual relations. 91% reported that >>>>>>> intercourse was allowed-a just to satisfy a man's fragile ego.
ur bizarre attempts to gaslight me as well bizarre. are you
speaking from ur own insecurities, is that why ur hiding behind
some science? Efye
it's ok u dunno how to satisfy ur women cause most women aren't
satisfied by it either? Efnu
When you think about, how do you really know? Your wife could be >>>>>>> faking it.
What maybe you should be doing instead of just squatting, is
working your fingers with the hand grip. Be realistic, Nick.
She's probably better at stimulating herself than you, based on >>>>>>> your boring conspiracy theories.
she doesn't like being fingered dud, she likes being tongued
So, that's a wrap (pun intended).
eat her out first then fuck her so she cums twice? Efn+
don't be so jelly dud Efnu
When Harry Met Sally:
https://tinyurl.com/y39zjm5r
basic sexidk how this isn't like basic sex ed but we don't like teach
techniques in "sex ed"So, why did you send me a porn emoji? If she finds out you'll be
sleeping on the couch, Nick.
More facts:
The mastermind and operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks >>>>>>>>> was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He served as the primary architect >>>>>>>>> of the plot and proposed the idea of using hijacked airplanes >>>>>>>>> to the militant Islamist group al-Qaeda.
A total of 2,977 victims lost their lives during the September >>>>>>>>> 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Including the 19 terrorist
hijackers, the total number of deaths resulting from the
incident is 2,996.
responding with random ass facts does not address the problems >>>>>>>> with the narrative dud... namely than wtc7 was not hit by a
plane, and the muzzies certainly didn't blow it up
You warmongering thruster!
So, that's a wrap.
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and >>>>>>>>>>> memes made up by informants which have all been refuted and >>>>>>>>>>> found to be spurious, crude racist and biased.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:46:03 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread social >>>>>>>> cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression >>>>>>>> cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they live >>>>>>> it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific language to >>>>> legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some fancy >>>>> math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
And since it can be argued, it is not a law law. It is only a hope
that it might be by those who profit thereby.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs
I'll watch it when I get time.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that
On 6/19/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant dualities that >>>>>>>>>>> exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism >>>>>>>>>>> (wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???),
-a -a> merely select when either best applies as the per the >>>>>>>>>>> context
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying reality. >>>>>>>>>>
There's another that says life is a random walk, quantum foam >>>>>>>>>> manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other made >>>>>>>>>> everything, without meaning or purpose.
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view affects the >>>>>>>>>> manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The attempt >>>>>>>>>> to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees.
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many. >>>>>>>>>>
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>> happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears to be:
none. Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short term self
interest.
I like reality.
-a-a> reality doesn't have nation-state borders
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
how do we prove that? because by what method do we objective
measure them? none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality
"Reality doesn't have..." and then describes something that is a
part of social consciousness consensus reality. While claiming
that a system-a of social agreement based on consensus is the best >>>>>> way forward.
Sure, go with that. It'll definitely work this time.
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all
those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we
lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are
starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the >>>>> same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population. >>>>>
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic
oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and
global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive
observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the
world must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in "hardware"
(like space and time) that actively shapes the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it???
On 6/23/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread >>>>>>>>> social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of >>>>>>>>> aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard
property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they >>>>>>>> live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law >>>>>>> they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally
the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing
e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they
spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million
of people into the banking system that previously didn't have
accounts because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone
up to street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like
$3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees
(which go to banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and
honestly they could probably do better. cause right now banks rank
in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in
the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking
blocking the US federal govt from doing something similar because
muh $200B a year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF
GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T
DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your
damn eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking
asleep for so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of
actually justifying the system and convince urself by endlessly
repeating the same boring platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment. >>>
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
...neither of the cheaper solutions i presented as evidence that
cheaper solutions are possible, was the free market wilson. both of
them were the gooberment taking actions to solve a problem the free
market just won't. and cheapest one came with the _strongest_
gooberment mandate for _zero_ percentage fees...
jesus christ wilson i don't even know how to respond to ur level of
continued denial,
-a-a> ur just outright ignoring evidence
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Yes fine, they did a good thing apparently.
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that the brain >>>
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>> outside
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute sense, Nick. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote:it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the
context
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are inherently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves adhere to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them at the speed of light.
please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of responding to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to a 2D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts with your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum entanglement as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we use... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past that wall. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
respect to a traveling photon _at all_
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the frame you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your clock ticks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require absolutes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce "stillness". stillness is found in all frames of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are
presented to you.
-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>> occursNo rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc
everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that purview. >>>>>>>>>
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and
nowhere else.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain)
functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the hallways >>>>>>>>> without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, and >>>>>>>>> direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't even >>>>>>>>> know
they even did it, let alone how
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be >>>>>>>> perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical.
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist and are >>>>>>>> self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of
knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we can be >>>>>>> conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would not >>>>>>> have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not aware of >>>>>>> it?
consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world.
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and
causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent,
conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy supported >>>>>> by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
no, just unconscious
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't
experience things as they really are - only through consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all
_is_ consciousness.
You are correct. So, what's the problem?
and we still depend on the external environment for various conscious
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an impact on
my life
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 22:57:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:18 PM, Wilson wrote:Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience (in
On 6/22/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:02 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:08:44 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 11:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:26:45 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:It's just amazing!
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:You mean most guys who agree with you.-a Subconsciousmess is not >>>>>>>>> available to consciousness which is why we call it sub...
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:You two are defining consciousness differently.
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but
not all of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects, >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize
their location in respect to our movement, and move about them >>>>>>>>>>> without
actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>>> cognition
takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with it to >>>>>>>>>>> that
extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and possibly >>>>>>>>>>> most, at a
subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view
it more like an executive head of a organization (with limited >>>>>>>>>>> control
even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather than >>>>>>>>>>> being
directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition. >>>>>>>>>>
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>>> conscious
and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>>>>
After over two decades engaging here with the likes of Tang Huyen, >>>>>>>> you
still don't grasp the foundation of Buddhist philosophy.
The "consciousness-only" school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism is one of >>>>>>>> the two foundational pillars of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy.
It posits that all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness, and >>>>>>>> that objects perceived as external to us do not exist
independently of
the mind.
According to the founder of this school:
"What we experience as an objective, physical world is entirely a >>>>>>>> construction of our mind. There are no standalone external objects >>>>>>>> rCo only
mental representations." - Vasubandhu
Look at what they say, carefully:-a Vasubandhu isn't saying there >>>>>>> isn't an objective reality -- they're saying our experience, our >>>>>>> mental representations, aren't objective.
Yes. Our perceptions of the physical objective world are a
construction of our consciousness (using the expanded meaning of
consciousness as all of our awareness including what we aren't fully >>>>>> aware of).
Everything we know about 'objective' reality is filtered through the >>>>>> censors that our mind uses to make the world comprehensible. If we >>>>>> did not have those censors, survival in this world would probably be >>>>>> impossible. This mental overlay normally (for most people always)
prevents direct perception of what is.
The map is not the territory. The tree you see is not the tree.
-a-a> buddhists were the original post-truthers ?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
unfortunately basic math stands in their way. the relationship
between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter in flat 2D
space is a truth no amount of post-truther denial will ever refute
One of the first things my geometry teacher taught is that the circles >>>> and squares and other shapes we used and drew were imaginary
representations of the real thing.
well i am talking about the mathematical relationship itself, wilson,
not the drawings you made of it
Buddhism the mind is considered a special type of sense). We are fooled
by consciousness into believing that those things which we perceive and
appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our cognitive sphere.
Either that or we fool ourselves that they are not actually outside
our consciousness.
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread
social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of
aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they
live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law
they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u
were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they
are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally the
extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades
until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to
*block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing e-
currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they spend
like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally billions
in manual cash flow because merchants previously just weren't paying
expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of people into the
banking system that previously didn't have accounts because now there
was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to street merchants can
use it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to set it up and only
$10M/yr to run it. transaction fees (which go to banks, not the govt)
when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they could probably do
better. cause right now banks rank in around $3 billion/yr for all pix
transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee structure!!
the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. this costs them
around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of transactions in total by an
order of magnitude!!! yes the india system scales, they process more
daily transactions that we do in the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking
the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a
year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U FUCKING
ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS PROGRAMS AND
WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF GIVING
CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T DOING
THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn
eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep for
so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying
the system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
On 6/23/2026 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 22:57:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:18 PM, Wilson wrote:Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience (in
On 6/22/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:02 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:08:44 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:26:45 -0400, WilsonIt's just amazing!
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:You mean most guys who agree with you.-a Subconsciousmess is not >>>>>>>>>> available to consciousness which is why we call it sub...
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:You two are defining consciousness differently.
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven
otherwise
outside of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but
not all of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>> within that
purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects, >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize
their location in respect to our movement, and move about them >>>>>>>>>>>> without
actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>>>> cognition
takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with it to >>>>>>>>>>>> that
extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and possibly >>>>>>>>>>>> most, at a
subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. >>>>>>>>>>>> personally i view
it more like an executive head of a organization (with limited >>>>>>>>>>>> control
even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather than >>>>>>>>>>>> being
directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition. >>>>>>>>>>>
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>>>> conscious
and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>>>>>
After over two decades engaging here with the likes of Tang Huyen, >>>>>>>>> you
still don't grasp the foundation of Buddhist philosophy.
The "consciousness-only" school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism is >>>>>>>>> one of
the two foundational pillars of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. >>>>>>>>>
It posits that all phenomena are manifestations of
consciousness, and
that objects perceived as external to us do not exist
independently of
the mind.
According to the founder of this school:
"What we experience as an objective, physical world is entirely a >>>>>>>>> construction of our mind. There are no standalone external objects >>>>>>>>> rCo only
mental representations." - Vasubandhu
Look at what they say, carefully:-a Vasubandhu isn't saying there >>>>>>>> isn't an objective reality -- they're saying our experience, our >>>>>>>> mental representations, aren't objective.
Yes. Our perceptions of the physical objective world are a
construction of our consciousness (using the expanded meaning of >>>>>>> consciousness as all of our awareness including what we aren't fully >>>>>>> aware of).
Everything we know about 'objective' reality is filtered through the >>>>>>> censors that our mind uses to make the world comprehensible. If we >>>>>>> did not have those censors, survival in this world would probably be >>>>>>> impossible. This mental overlay normally (for most people always) >>>>>>> prevents direct perception of what is.
The map is not the territory. The tree you see is not the tree.
-a-a-a> buddhists were the original post-truthers ?
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
unfortunately basic math stands in their way. the relationship
between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter in flat 2D >>>>>> space is a truth no amount of post-truther denial will ever refute >>>>>>
One of the first things my geometry teacher taught is that the circles >>>>> and squares and other shapes we used and drew were imaginary
representations of the real thing.
well i am talking about the mathematical relationship itself, wilson,
not the drawings you made of it
Buddhism the mind is considered a special type of sense). We are fooled
by consciousness into believing that those things which we perceive and
appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our cognitive
sphere.
Either that or we fool ourselves that they are not actually outside
our consciousness.
In reality, we fool ourselves that there is something beyond
consciousness, when everything is consciousness.
"--
Consciousness is the state of being awake, aware of your surroundings,
and able to perceive your own thoughts, feelings, and experiences. It
acts as your personal subjective reality, encompassing everything you
sense and process at any given moment." - Sam Harris
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 11:13:40 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:50 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:18 AM, Wilson wrote:Vasubandhu does not deny that cognitive objects exist; what he denies is >>> that they appear anywhere else than in the very act of consciousness
On 6/22/2026 7:02 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:08:44 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 11:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:26:45 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:It's just amazing!
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>> everything
i "experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>> but
not all of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize
their location in respect to our movement, and move about them >>>>>>>>>> without
actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>> cognition
takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with it to that >>>>>>>>>> extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and possibly >>>>>>>>>> most, at a
subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view
it more like an executive head of a organization (with limited >>>>>>>>>> control
even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather than >>>>>>>>>> being
directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>> conscious
and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness".
You mean most guys who agree with you.-a Subconsciousmess is not >>>>>>>> available to consciousness which is why we call it sub...
After over two decades engaging here with the likes of Tang Huyen, you >>>>>>> still don't grasp the foundation of Buddhist philosophy.
The "consciousness-only" school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism is one of >>>>>>> the two foundational pillars of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy.
It posits that all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness, and >>>>>>> that objects perceived as external to us do not exist independently of >>>>>>> the mind.
According to the founder of this school:
"What we experience as an objective, physical world is entirely a >>>>>>> construction of our mind. There are no standalone external objectsrCo >>>>>>> only
mental representations." - Vasubandhu
Look at what they say, carefully:-a Vasubandhu isn't saying there
isn't an objective reality -- they're saying our experience, our
mental representations, aren't objective.
Yes. Our perceptions of the physical objective world are a
construction of our consciousness (using the expanded meaning of
consciousness as all of our awareness including what we aren't fully >>>>> aware of).
Everything we know about 'objective' reality is filtered through the >>>>> censors that our mind uses to make the world comprehensible. If we
did not have those censors, survival in this world would probably be >>>>> impossible. This mental overlay normally (for most people always)
prevents direct perception of what is.
The map is not the territory. The tree you see is not the tree.
-a-a> buddhists were the original post-truthers ?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
unfortunately basic math stands in their way. the relationship between >>>> the circumference of a circle and it's diameter in flat 2D space is a
truth no amount of post-truther denial will ever refute
which apprehends them.
reality is subject to the relationships described by math regardless of
whether we are aware of them consciously or not
Math majors like to say that math underlies everything. The odds are
that they would think that.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 11:46:29 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:02 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:08:44 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2026 11:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:26:45 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:It's just amazing!
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have proven >>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>> everything
i "experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... but >>>>>>>>>> not all of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>> purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>> else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize
their location in respect to our movement, and move about them >>>>>>>> without
actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none cognition >>>>>>>> takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with it to that >>>>>>>> extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and possibly
most, at a
subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>>>> i view
it more like an executive head of a organization (with limited >>>>>>>> control
even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather than being >>>>>>>> directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the conscious >>>>>>> and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness".
You mean most guys who agree with you.-a Subconsciousmess is not
available to consciousness which is why we call it sub...
After over two decades engaging here with the likes of Tang Huyen, you >>>>> still don't grasp the foundation of Buddhist philosophy.
The "consciousness-only" school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism is one of >>>>> the two foundational pillars of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy.
It posits that all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness, and >>>>> that objects perceived as external to us do not exist independently of >>>>> the mind.
According to the founder of this school:
"What we experience as an objective, physical world is entirely a
construction of our mind. There are no standalone external objectsrCoonly >>>>> mental representations." - Vasubandhu
Look at what they say, carefully:-a Vasubandhu isn't saying there
isn't an objective reality -- they're saying our experience, our
mental representations, aren't objective.
Yes. Our perceptions of the physical objective world are a construction
of our consciousness (using the expanded meaning of consciousness as all >>> of our awareness including what we aren't fully aware of).
Everything we know about 'objective' reality is filtered through the
censors that our mind uses to make the world comprehensible. If we did
not have those censors, survival in this world would probably be
impossible. This mental overlay normally (for most people always)
prevents direct perception of what is.
The map is not the territory. The tree you see is not the tree.
> buddhists were the original post-truthers ?
>
> #god
unfortunately basic math stands in their way. the relationship between
the circumference of a circle and it's diameter in flat 2D space is a
truth no amount of post-truther denial will ever refute
Which is why post truthers don't bother denying that.
On 6/22/26 11:07 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:19 PM, Wilson wrote:"As to definitive evidence, perhaps only overt madness and suicide
On 6/22/2026 3:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc
everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and
nowhere else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree
with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>>> i view it more like an executive head of a organization (with
limited control even), more involved with shaping the
orchestration rather than being directly involved with all or
even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of >>>>>> "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness >>>>>> that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of >>>>> experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in
language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the
classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what
the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered
it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings
are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but
it just isn't...
-a-a> even for our own cognition
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
No. But consciousness is everything you experience.
and we don't experience all our cognition
count. Everything else is conjecture." - Tang Huyen
i presented the evidence dud, u just ignored it because ur a dud
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:You two are defining consciousness differently.
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have proven >>>>>>>>> otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc
everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps even >>>>>>> most, falls within that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>> else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move
about them without actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with
it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and
possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally i >>>>> view it more like an executive head of a organization (with limited >>>>> control even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather
than being directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition. >>>>
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of
"consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness
that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of
experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in
language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the
classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what the
quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered it's
own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings are
qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is therefor
not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but it
just isn't...
single cell in the universe is conscious.
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic intentionalities
(the habitual tendencies produced by past actions), and how we
perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The goal of Yogacara is to
break out of this cognitive narcissism and finally wake up to things
as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm
On 6/23/2026 11:14 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:07 PM, Dude wrote:It's not that complicated, Nick.
On 6/22/2026 3:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:19 PM, Wilson wrote:"As to definitive evidence, perhaps only overt madness and suicide
On 6/22/2026 3:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else. In other words, cognition takes place only in >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
nowhere else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and
move about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view it more like an executive head of a
organization (with limited control even), more involved with
shaping the orchestration rather than being directly involved >>>>>>>> with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of
"consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example >>>>>>> of "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state
awareness that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects
of experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is >>>>>> in language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. >>>>>> the classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered >>>>>> it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings
are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but >>>>>> it just isn't...
-a-a> even for our own cognition
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
No. But consciousness is everything you experience.
and we don't experience all our cognition
count. Everything else is conjecture." - Tang Huyen
i presented the evidence dud, u just ignored it because ur a dud
"rUaWhatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have proven >>>>>>>>>> otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc
everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps even >>>>>>>> most, falls within that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>> else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with >>>>>> it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and
possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>> i view it more like an executive head of a organization (with
limited control even), more involved with shaping the
orchestration rather than being directly involved with all or even >>>>>> more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of
"consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness
that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of
experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in
language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the
classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what
the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered
it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings are
qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but
it just isn't...
single cell in the universe is conscious.
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic intentionalities
(the habitual tendencies produced by past actions), and how we
perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The goal of Yogacara is to
break out of this cognitive narcissism and finally wake up to things
as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands >>>>>> someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible
scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection
Perfection is unavailable.
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to
that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ...
they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily
complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the markets
are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to achieved what is
actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech
is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a
platform can't just switch because the platform got a little bit
shittier, and neither can the consumers as all the creators are on
that platform.we spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is
making it easy to switch because there is no profit in making it easy
to swap to competition. even if u weren't a fucking l0lbErTaRiAN,
govt is powerless to do anything about this because we can't even
resolve 20th century issues like abortions ... how is it supposed to
understand 21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking
for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a unified
medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem several times
over there are complete solutions out there ... but unless everyone
cooperates to participate on the same platform we don't actually
produce a level of perfection that is most definitely possible. other
countries have already solved that wilson because they mandate a govt
produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century hell because /
markets do not solve efficiently info tech problems/
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever
the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur
just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of
meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some
dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to
these claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best
tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but
the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly
the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators
switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have
the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal.
Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in
file cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to
push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce
better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free market
for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free market
actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce a better solution either, sheesh
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if they
outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms. But
them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested interests
pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead to more new
dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The
reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we
sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today
will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next few decades. or ever really.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring Efy<rCiEfA?
#god
On 6/22/26 1:36 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:46 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 22, 2026 at 2:37:24rC>PM EDT, "dart200"
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 4:11 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 23:42:16 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:45 PM, Dude wrote:
Why not start a new thread after 9590 lines of text not about Jerry? >>>>>>>>>
OCD?
yes dud, ur being OCD
maybe bring it up with ur therapist later, eh?
#god
What do you have against therapists?
nothin i have two of them right now, and maybe a third if the couples >>>>>> counseling referral ever comes thru
i'm just ragging on dud cause he enjoys being a punching bag i guess. if >>>>>> he doesn't: i recommend therapy for that and that OCD he's in denial >>>>>> about Efye
Are you from the generation that stigmatizes mental health efforts, >>>>>>> and therefore can't die soon enough?
no i'm an younger millennial and spent a large chunk of my 20s
struggling with mental health
both me and my wife are very cognizant of not traumatizing our 2 month >>>>>> old child by ensuring we always attend his needs quickly, and building a >>>>>> robust secure attachment with lots of interaction and skin to skin contact.
i'm pretty sure genx, boomers, and older did a lot of unintentional >>>>>> traumatizing due to bizarre western child rearing practices of making >>>>>> them sleep in separate rooms even, letting them cry it out until they >>>>>> self-soothe, formula feeding over breast feeding, terrible work-life >>>>>> balances while having a newborn, etc, etc... stuff i'm sure you'll be >>>>>> like "that's totally find actually" and i'm just gunna have to disagree >>>>>> with that there
Every generation thinks they have parenting right and that generations before
them had it all wrong.
that was definitely not true for most of human existence, or even many >>>> societies today. heck my filipino bother-in-laws are still largely very >>>> obedient to my father-in-law despite being 40+ year old adults. tho this >>>> is changing somewhat due to the spread of western media.
the whole concept of teenagers have their own subculture didn't really >>>> exist until post-WWII american consumerism constructed it ...
I agree. IrCOm thinking about in the western world from the 40rCOs on. From the
dr Spock years right through to rCLgentlerCY parenting now.
You might find this interestingrCa
https://macleans.ca/longforms/my-misadventures-in-gentle-parenting/
Scrolling down there is a breakdown of past and present parenting styles.
we're not at the toddler stage, no idea how that's going to go rn
right now we have an infant, and infants are not capable of lying. you
can't "spoil" an infant
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
And FFS, learn to trim!
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1855
On Jun 23, 2026 at 4:39:20rC>PM EDT, "dart200" <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:36 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:46 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 22, 2026 at 2:37:24rC>PM EDT, "dart200"
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 4:11 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 23:42:16 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:45 PM, Dude wrote:
Why not start a new thread after 9590 lines of text not about Jerry? >>>>>>>>>>
OCD?
yes dud, ur being OCD
maybe bring it up with ur therapist later, eh?
#god
What do you have against therapists?
nothin i have two of them right now, and maybe a third if the couples >>>>>>> counseling referral ever comes thru
i'm just ragging on dud cause he enjoys being a punching bag i guess. if
he doesn't: i recommend therapy for that and that OCD he's in denial >>>>>>> about Efye
Are you from the generation that stigmatizes mental health efforts, >>>>>>>> and therefore can't die soon enough?
no i'm an younger millennial and spent a large chunk of my 20s
struggling with mental health
both me and my wife are very cognizant of not traumatizing our 2 month >>>>>>> old child by ensuring we always attend his needs quickly, and building a
robust secure attachment with lots of interaction and skin to skin contact.
i'm pretty sure genx, boomers, and older did a lot of unintentional >>>>>>> traumatizing due to bizarre western child rearing practices of making >>>>>>> them sleep in separate rooms even, letting them cry it out until they >>>>>>> self-soothe, formula feeding over breast feeding, terrible work-life >>>>>>> balances while having a newborn, etc, etc... stuff i'm sure you'll be >>>>>>> like "that's totally find actually" and i'm just gunna have to disagree >>>>>>> with that there
Every generation thinks they have parenting right and that generations before
them had it all wrong.
that was definitely not true for most of human existence, or even many >>>>> societies today. heck my filipino bother-in-laws are still largely very >>>>> obedient to my father-in-law despite being 40+ year old adults. tho this >>>>> is changing somewhat due to the spread of western media.
the whole concept of teenagers have their own subculture didn't really >>>>> exist until post-WWII american consumerism constructed it ...
I agree. IrCOm thinking about in the western world from the 40rCOs on. From the
dr Spock years right through to rCLgentlerCY parenting now.
You might find this interestingrCa
https://macleans.ca/longforms/my-misadventures-in-gentle-parenting/
Scrolling down there is a breakdown of past and present parenting styles. >>>
we're not at the toddler stage, no idea how that's going to go rn
right now we have an infant, and infants are not capable of lying. you
can't "spoil" an infant
'lying', 'spoil' - your words, not mine. Pick your fights somewhere else This conversation, or whatever it was, is closed. Keep those shrink appointments going.
--
And FFS, learn to trim!
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1855
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:23:48 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:51 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 1:38 AM, dart200 wrote:computing is a math that does not benefit from redundant imperfect >>>>>> solutions. the very fact we even have more than one operating system >>>>>> is a goddamn slight against turing himself...
On 6/20/26 7:56 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 10:20 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 15:20:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Some people are very prone to suggestion. The important thing to >>>>>>>>> learn in computer school should have been programming, instead of >>>>>>>>> political science. YMMV.
Me and Rita both got nothing out of higher education, except a >>>>>>>>>>> student
loan. A worthless piece of paper. Total waste of time. Learned >>>>>>>>>>> nothing
about getting a job. YMMV.
Good thing, then, that to get a job is the rock bottom worst >>>>>>>>>> reason to
go to univ.-a On the other hand, for me, I learned a great many >>>>>>>>>> things
that have helped me over the years.-a The ability to recognize >>>>>>>>>> propaganda being one of the most important.
having people pursue computing to make fortunes is such a god damn >>>>>>>> economic anti-pattern. if we could eliminate 99% of those doing >>>>>>>> programming, the world would be a better place
ofc free market fundies basically lack all critical thinking
faculties and only understand random-ass number go up. the concept >>>>>>>> of "less is more" is so completely foreign i might as be writing >>>>>>>> in another language
Unlike communism, the free-market is not a totalist ideology. An >>>>>>> actual understanding of what it is includes an awareness that there >>>>>>> are benefits to having interests and motivations that go beyond the >>>>>>> field of simple economics. These include, well basically everything. >>>>>>
-a-a> u don't what the fuck ur talking about
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
There's beauty in allowing people to decide what to do and when to >>>>>>> do it.
ur claims are astronomically removed from actually addressing the
fact it's actually fucking retarded to let a market endlessly
compete of their share of the tech pie...
The competition that you see as inefficient is actually the thing
that drives innovation, which over time is what actually increases
efficiency.
Running multiple redundant imperfect solutions simultaneously is the >>>>> best way to determine what actually will work the best.
blind econoslop. it's not even remotely tailored to my claims, it's
just regurgitating market fundamentalism regardless of the topic at hand >>>>
-a-a> classic sheeple behavior
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
take basic accounting for example: the problem of adding and
subtracting units of currency. at this point this has been solved so
many times that not only do we need aggregators for to handle the
stupidly complex system. total waste, it's literally just implementing >>>> transactional adds/subtractions and i still don't get a single record
of everything i bought.
basic event ticketing is even worse. not only do we need aggregators,
we have aggregators aggregating aggregators without prices always
fluctuating arbitrarily my god it fucking sucks.
-a-a> and they haven't even solved the problem scalping
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
when are they going to solve scalping you total subthinking retard?
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands
someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible
scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection
Perfection is unavailable.
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most definitely
logically possible, wilson
Theoretically.
I was told that the stars would burn out before software of moderate complexity could be completely beta tested.
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to that
is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive competition over
who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ... they will ofc lean on
the fact computing can be made arbitrarily complex (unintentionally so)
and bloat that up as much as the markets are stupid enough to bear, with
little motivation to achieved what is actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech is
incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a platform
can't just switch because the platform got a little bit shittier, and
neither can the consumers as all the creators are on that platform.we
spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is making it easy to
switch because there is no profit in making it easy to swap to
competition. even if u weren't a fucking l0lbErTaRiAN, govt is powerless
to do anything about this because we can't even resolve 20th century
issues like abortions ... how is it supposed to understand 21st century
tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking for
histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a unified
medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem several times
over there are complete solutions out there ... but unless everyone
cooperates to participate on the same platform we don't actually produce
a level of perfection that is most definitely possible. other countries
have already solved that wilson because they mandate a govt produced
solution. we're stuck in a 20th century hell because /markets do not
solve efficiently info tech problems/
And Mac remains a proprietary platform. Apple can see what happened
to imb when it became possible to force competing companies to confirm
to universal specs. Ibm is really no longer a player in the pc market.
And Apple still is. The other part of it is that neither strategy
produces really high quality products. Largely because, that is not
the strategy. Planned obsolescence is the strategy. So the claim
that the new superwhizbang gizmo solves the problems of the previous
must always be credible, at least in the sense that such problems did
exist.
whatever theand ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or
fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur just
making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of
meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some
dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to these
claims
On 6/23/26 3:43 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:10 PM, Dude wrote:She could be faking it.
On 6/23/2026 1:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:24 PM, Dude wrote:"All claims on the board will be met in kind." - Tang
On 6/22/2026 9:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:39 PM, Dude wrote:It works both ways, Nick. You've got to think about yourself too. >>>>>> So, that's a wrap (pun intended).
On 6/22/2026 11:00 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:According to a recent peer-reviewed study by Shere Hite, over >>>>>>>> 79% of women reported that they did not reach orgasm through
On 6/21/2026 10:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:16 AM, Dude wrote:It's a fact, needing no proof, that women do not get off on >>>>>>>>>> thrusting. The only reason you're allowed to engage is for >>>>>>>>>> your ego. YMMV.
On 6/20/2026 7:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:05 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 12:16 PM, Dude wrote:You lied.
On 6/20/2026 12:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 11:47 AM, Dude wrote:You posted a claim that you could do squats while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressing in California.
On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:In bowling alley lingo you can understand: "Everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants a piece of the pie!" - Dude
On 6/20/2026 5:23 AM, Julian wrote:
On 20/06/2026 12:58, Wilson wrote:Apparently, it was the Semites, the Phoenicians, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that started the free market and cornered it, while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inventing the alphabet. Ever since then everyone has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been very JELLOS. It really is all about the money! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 10:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 10:58 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, I'd say hatred of Jews is the leading cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the war in the Middle East. And, because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Quran so shut up.
bro it the was romans/christians who were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially kicking out the joos not the fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muzzies. sure the last century the muzzies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been pretty pissed cause a colonial empire just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annexed a slice of palestine and just gave it to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who never lived there. and then it got >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solidified during all the 9/11 warmongering. like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if u thought the muzzies were pissed off before, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've been killing them by the millions for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past decades or so
now the joos control the leading world >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superpower, and even have their precious zion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit, and it's still not good enough for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, eh???
how much u wanna bet dud that isreal starts WW3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before a israel's 100th birthday? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The middle east has been getting colonized by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone forever. The Muslims in the 7th & 8th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century colonized Palestine, North Africa, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way into Spain and even Sicily in the 9th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century.
They're just salty that they didn't get to keep it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
But for Mohammed they might still have it all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a>
A Brief History of the Islamic Colonization and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupation of Israel
https://tinyurl.com/mt53yzfr
The lack of knowledge on this subject and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness of people to research the subject is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astounding for the amount of passion and conviction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have in their opinions on the current war, so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought the best contribution I could make is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a summary of the history of the land, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically since the Great Arab Expansion of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7th Century. (IrCOm going to skip over the long list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of conquerors, occupiers, and colonizers, and jump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to when Islam occupied/ colonized the land): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jews have been in the land of Israel for the last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5000 years. Even when
the joo faith is not that old dud
they were conquered, colonized, occupied, or exiled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (thererCOs a long list of these events) there was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always a Jewish presence maintained in the land. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> land went by many names including Judea and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Palestine - a name given to the land by Rome as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insult to the Jews because of the Philistine tribe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that occupied the land many centuries before (Islam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not exist for many centuries still). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As you may know, the Islamic religion was formed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muhammad around the year 600 AD. The Great Arab >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion out of the Arabian Peninsula followed and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> led to the colonization of Israel by Islam when it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was conquered by Caliph Umar in 638.
Islam continued to colonize the land of the Jews for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next 1300 years, during that time persecuting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jewish population and even
historically inaccurate dud
the muzzies generally didn't kick out "people of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book" dud. they (joos and jesus-freaks) had to pay a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special tax but that was it. yeah yeah occasionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muzzies got more oppressive to non- muzzies but that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was the exception not the norm
A short, fat, white, privileged, thirty-something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing squats and squatting on Native American land in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California, following decades of genocide against >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indigenous people and now blaming the Jews and some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dude in a bowling alley.building the Dome of the Rock on the Jews most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacred site of the Temple Mount.
While there was always a Jewish presence in Israel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following World War I, after the dissolution of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established in 1920 giving the British control of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land, who allowed Jews from Europe to return to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their homeland, previously not allowed under Ottoman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule.
the last time joos had actual territorial control was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 years ago dud. this absurd claim that they / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserve/ the region is just sinful propagandized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense joo stupid traitor
You just can't make this stuff up!>>
u make up shit like that all time u fucking traitor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are going to need to see some evidence. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding.
that's right bitch: divert from accusation u fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unamerican traitor
Between 119 and 400 Jewish people are estimated to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> died in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Investigations by news organizations like the BBC >>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented 119 confirmed Jewish victims with at least 72 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional victims believed to be Jewish, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally proportional to the Jewish population of the New >>>>>>>>>>>>>> York metropolitan area at the time.
again: rich zionist leaders do not fucking care about >>>>>>>>>>>>> normal people if it's for their religious crusade u moron. >>>>>>>>>>>>> they already committed to killing 3000 americans, heck a >>>>>>>>>>>>> few jews thrown in there adds to the narrative ...
-a-a> yup, that's the nature of religious crusades
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
ur never going to make any headway by randomly citing broad >>>>>>>>>>>>> facts about it...
i've spend a decade considering this, and by now the of >>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of rather in depth details you'd have to explain is >>>>>>>>>>>>> far beyond ur cognitive capability to acknowledge, let >>>>>>>>>>>>> alone actually address u fucking zionist- loving anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>> american dud
this isn't a real debate, this is just me shit posting with >>>>>>>>>>>>> a passion ur half-wit dumbass couldn't even dream of matching >>>>>>>>>>>>>
why???
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY _CARE_ ABOUT US _ALL_ YOU WARMONGERING >>>>>>>>>>>>> SOCIOPATH
ad hominem isn't a response dud
You claimed the Jews attacked the WTC on 9/11 and there were >>>>>>>>>>>> no Jews
i literally never said that no jews were killed
inside. So, you can't be trusted on this board to be
truthful. And, you made the claim you could do squats while >>>>>>>>>>>> pressing.
it's called a thruster
dud, what you would know about getting off women??? Efye
thrusting. No matter what size or powerful the trusting. YMMV. >>>>>>>>
Instead, they reported that mere physical feeling closeness was >>>>>>>> the most enjoyable aspect of sexual relations. 91% reported that >>>>>>>> intercourse was allowed-a just to satisfy a man's fragile ego.
ur bizarre attempts to gaslight me as well bizarre. are you
speaking from ur own insecurities, is that why ur hiding behind >>>>>>> some science? Efye
it's ok u dunno how to satisfy ur women cause most women aren't >>>>>>> satisfied by it either? Efnu
When you think about, how do you really know? Your wife could be >>>>>>>> faking it.
What maybe you should be doing instead of just squatting, is
working your fingers with the hand grip. Be realistic, Nick.
She's probably better at stimulating herself than you, based on >>>>>>>> your boring conspiracy theories.
she doesn't like being fingered dud, she likes being tongued
eat her out first then fuck her so she cums twice? Efn+
don't be so jelly dud Efnu
well, joo could be faking everything
When Harry Met Sally:
https://tinyurl.com/y39zjm5r
basic sexidk how this isn't like basic sex ed but we don't like teach
techniques in "sex ed"So, why did you send me a porn emoji? If she finds out you'll be
sleeping on the couch, Nick.
More facts:
The mastermind and operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks >>>>>>>>>> was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He served as the primary architect >>>>>>>>>> of the plot and proposed the idea of using hijacked airplanes >>>>>>>>>> to the militant Islamist group al-Qaeda.
A total of 2,977 victims lost their lives during the September >>>>>>>>>> 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Including the 19 terrorist
hijackers, the total number of deaths resulting from the
incident is 2,996.
responding with random ass facts does not address the problems >>>>>>>>> with the narrative dud... namely than wtc7 was not hit by a >>>>>>>>> plane, and the muzzies certainly didn't blow it up
You warmongering thruster!
So, that's a wrap.
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and >>>>>>>>>>>> memes made up by informants which have all been refuted and >>>>>>>>>>>> found to be spurious, crude racist and biased.
On 6/23/26 2:18 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 1:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:48 PM, Dude wrote:Just start a new thread called "Open forum shut your goofy ass up
On 6/23/2026 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:That's a problem.
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread >>>>>>>>>>> social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of >>>>>>>>>>> aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard >>>>>>>>>> property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they >>>>>>>>>> live it every day
-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law >>>>>>>>> they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl >>>>>>>> LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before >>>>>> u were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating
they are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's
literally the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing >>>>>> electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more
decades until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency
services at 1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress >>>>>> to *block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-
currency. cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer
facing e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, >>>>>> and they spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy
literally billions in manual cash flow because merchants
previously just weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they
put 10s of million of people into the banking system that
previously didn't have accounts because now there was a protocol
cheap enough for everyone up to street merchants can use it. the
brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr to >>>>>> run it. transaction fees (which go to banks, not the govt) when
from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they could probably do
better. cause right now banks rank in around $3 billion/yr for all >>>>>> pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that >>>>>> rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. >>>>>> this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in >>>>>> the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking
blocking the US federal govt from doing something similar because >>>>>> muh $200B a year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT >>>>>> OF GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY
AREN'T DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics >>>>>> -a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your
damn eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking
asleep for so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of
actually justifying the system and convince urself by endlessly
repeating the same boring platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's
gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
So, is the snipping, altering the Subject; changing the topic; and
cross-posting to a death cult site in a threaded post of over 1050
lines of plain text and calling you a "nigger".
It just seems dishonest. YMMV.
Why not just start a new thread called "Niggas"?
-a-a> fall back and shut your goofy ass up nigga EfaAEfaAEfaA
-a-a>
nigga" and cross-post to alt.black.lives.matter?
that's a great idea dud, joo should definitely do it! EfaAEfaAEfaA
On 6/23/26 1:42 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread >>>>>>>>>> social cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of >>>>>>>>>> aggression cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard
property rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they >>>>>>>>> live it every day
ur just sitting in an ivory tower
#god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law >>>>>>>> they will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl >>>>>>> LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u >>>>> were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they >>>>> are the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally
the extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades >>>>> until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to >>>>> *block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing >>>>> e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they >>>>> spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million
of people into the banking system that previously didn't have
accounts because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone >>>>> up to street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like
$3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees
(which go to banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and >>>>> honestly they could probably do better. cause right now banks rank
in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in
the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking
blocking the US federal govt from doing something similar because
muh $200B a year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF >>>>> GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T >>>>> DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics
#god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your
damn eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking
asleep for so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of
actually justifying the system and convince urself by endlessly
repeating the same boring platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment. >>>>
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
...neither of the cheaper solutions i presented as evidence that
cheaper solutions are possible, was the free market wilson. both of
them were the gooberment taking actions to solve a problem the free
market just won't. and cheapest one came with the _strongest_
gooberment mandate for _zero_ percentage fees...
jesus christ wilson i don't even know how to respond to ur level of
continued denial,
ur just outright ignoring evidence
#god
Yes fine, they did a good thing apparently.
check that out noah:
apparently wilson can read when he /really/ tries...
On 6/23/2026 2:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:46:03 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:The near-universal condemnation and punishment of actions like murder or >theft are often justified by natural law, as they are seen as
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread social >>>>>>>>> cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression >>>>>>>>> cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they live >>>>>>>> it every day
aa> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
aa>
aa> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific language to >>>>>> legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some fancy >>>>>> math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>>>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>>>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
And since it can be argued, it is not a law law. It is only a hope
that it might be by those who profit thereby.
universally damaging to society. YMMV.
--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs
I'll watch it when I get time.
On 6/23/2026 2:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:My position, and the position of most idealistic transcendentalists, is
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that
On 6/19/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant dualities that >>>>>>>>>>>> exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism >>>>>>>>>>>> (wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???),
a a> merely select when either best applies as the per the >>>>>>>>>>>> context
a a>
a a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying reality. >>>>>>>>>>>
There's another that says life is a random walk, quantum foam >>>>>>>>>>> manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other made >>>>>>>>>>> everything, without meaning or purpose.
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view affects the >>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The attempt >>>>>>>>>>> to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many. >>>>>>>>>>>
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>> happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears to be: >>>>>>>>>> none. Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short term self >>>>>>>>>> interest.
I like reality.
reality doesn't have nation-state borders
#god
how do we prove that? because by what method do we objective
measure them? none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality
"Reality doesn't have..." and then describes something that is a >>>>>>> part of social consciousness consensus reality. While claiming
that a systema of social agreement based on consensus is the best >>>>>>> way forward.
Sure, go with that. It'll definitely work this time.
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all
those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the >>>>>> same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population. >>>>>>
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic >>>>>> oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and
global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive >>>>> observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the
world must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in "hardware" >>>>> (like space and time) that actively shapes the raw data we perceive. >>>>>
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it???
that the material world is a false projection or superimposition upon
pure consciousness which is the real.
No rational person would claim that they don't exist.--
Unless they were insane or demented - it's just not logical.
On 6/23/26 4:07 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:34:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You get what you pay for. Rita wanted a car for grand daughter-a for
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:38 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:12 PM, Creon wrote:
Somalia:-a Libertarian paradise, or failed state?
One requirement for a viable anarchist system is widespread >>>>>>>>>> social
cooperation based on agreement that the initiation of aggression >>>>>>>>>> cannot be tolerated.
Somalia was just tribalism within a failed state.
and ur never going to get that consensus broadly for hard property >>>>>>>>> rights among people who spend $10/day dud
they all know the world's wealth distribution is fucked - they >>>>>>>>> live
it every day
-a-a-a> ur just sitting in an ivory tower
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law >>>>>>>> they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl >>>>>>> LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
in a system where everyone's been preaching the norms since before u >>>>> were born??? talk about a circular, anecdotal fallacy
nvm the fact u aren't measuring outcomes here. ur just stating they >>>>> are
the best they can be, and better couldn't be. that's literally the
extent of ur logic for the most part.
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing
electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network
and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades until tHe >>>>> FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at 1/1000th the cost >>>>> wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to >>>>> *block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency.
cause
it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing e- >>>>> currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they spend >>>>> like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in
manual cash flow because merchants previously just weren't paying
expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million of people into the >>>>> banking system that previously didn't have accounts because now there >>>>> was a protocol cheap enough for everyone up to street merchants can >>>>> use
it. the brazilian govt spent like $3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr >>>>> to run it. transaction fees (which go to banks, not the govt) when
from
~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and honestly they could probably do better. cause >>>>> right now banks rank in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions. >>>>>
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that
rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee structure!! >>>>> the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. this costs them >>>>> around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of transactions in total by an >>>>> order of magnitude!!! yes the india system scales, they process more >>>>> daily transactions that we do in the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking blocking >>>>> the US federal govt from doing something similar because muh $200B a >>>>> year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U FUCKING >>>>> ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS PROGRAMS AND >>>>> WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF GIVING
CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T DOING
THAT
U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a -a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics >>>>> -a -a>
-a -a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your damn >>>>> eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking asleep
for so
long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of actually justifying the >>>>> system and convince urself by endlessly repeating the same boring
platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's
gooberment.
It takes two, the buyer and the seller.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
And the availability of both is the problem.
junior college. We had to wait five weeks to get the Toyota Corolla
Hybrid.
off topic response
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that the brain >>>>
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>> outside
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute sense, Nick. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote:it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
merely select when either best applies as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per thecontext
#god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are inherently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves adhere to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them at the speed of light.
please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of responding to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to a 2D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts with your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum entanglement as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we use... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past that wall. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
respect to a traveling photon _at all_
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the frame you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your clock ticks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require absolutes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce "stillness". stillness is found in all frames of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs
No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that purview. >>>>>>>>>>
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and
nowhere else.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain)
functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the hallways >>>>>>>>>> without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, and >>>>>>>>>> direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't even >>>>>>>>>> know
they even did it, let alone how
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be >>>>>>>>> perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical.
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist and are >>>>>>>>> self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of
knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we can be >>>>>>>> conscious of.a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would not >>>>>>>> have
brought us to where we are.a How could it if we were not aware of >>>>>>>> it?
consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world.
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing >>>>>>> "built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and
causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent,
conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy supported >>>>>>> by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
no, just unconscious
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
--
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't
experience things as they really are - only through consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all
_is_ consciousness.
You are correct. So, what's the problem?
and we still depend on the external environment for various conscious >>>> experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an impact on
my life
On 6/23/2026 2:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:The prediction that computer technology would double in power was made
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands >>>>>>> someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible
scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection
Perfection is unavailable.
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to
that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ...
they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily
complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the
markets are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to
achieved what is actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech
is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a
platform can't just switch because the platform got a little bit
shittier, and neither can the consumers as all the creators are on
that platform.we spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is
making it easy to switch because there is no profit in making it
easy to swap to competition. even if u weren't a fucking
l0lbErTaRiAN, govt is powerless to do anything about this because we
can't even resolve 20th century issues like abortions ... how is it
supposed to understand 21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking
for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a
unified medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem
several times over there are complete solutions out there ... but
unless everyone cooperates to participate on the same platform we
don't actually produce a level of perfection that is most definitely
possible. other countries have already solved that wilson because
they mandate a govt produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century
hell because / markets do not solve efficiently info tech problems/
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever
the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur
just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of
meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some
dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to
these claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best
tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but
the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly
the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators
switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have
the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal.
Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in
file cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to
push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce
better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free
market for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free
market actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce a
better solution either, sheesh
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if
they outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms.
But them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested
interests pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead
to more new dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The
reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we
sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today
will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next
few decades. or ever really.
by Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, in 1965. This observation, which became known as Moore's Law, originally stated that the number of transistors on a microchip would double every year.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
-a-a> the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring Efy<rCiEfA?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On Jun 23, 2026 at 4:39:20rC>PM EDT, "dart200" <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:36 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:46 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 22, 2026 at 2:37:24rC>PM EDT, "dart200"
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 4:11 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 23:42:16 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:45 PM, Dude wrote:
Why not start a new thread after 9590 lines of text not about Jerry? >>>>>>>>>>
OCD?
yes dud, ur being OCD
maybe bring it up with ur therapist later, eh?
#god
What do you have against therapists?
nothin i have two of them right now, and maybe a third if the couples >>>>>>> counseling referral ever comes thru
i'm just ragging on dud cause he enjoys being a punching bag i guess. if
he doesn't: i recommend therapy for that and that OCD he's in denial >>>>>>> about Efye
Are you from the generation that stigmatizes mental health efforts, >>>>>>>> and therefore can't die soon enough?
no i'm an younger millennial and spent a large chunk of my 20s
struggling with mental health
both me and my wife are very cognizant of not traumatizing our 2 month >>>>>>> old child by ensuring we always attend his needs quickly, and building a
robust secure attachment with lots of interaction and skin to skin contact.
i'm pretty sure genx, boomers, and older did a lot of unintentional >>>>>>> traumatizing due to bizarre western child rearing practices of making >>>>>>> them sleep in separate rooms even, letting them cry it out until they >>>>>>> self-soothe, formula feeding over breast feeding, terrible work-life >>>>>>> balances while having a newborn, etc, etc... stuff i'm sure you'll be >>>>>>> like "that's totally find actually" and i'm just gunna have to disagree >>>>>>> with that there
Every generation thinks they have parenting right and that generations before
them had it all wrong.
that was definitely not true for most of human existence, or even many >>>>> societies today. heck my filipino bother-in-laws are still largely very >>>>> obedient to my father-in-law despite being 40+ year old adults. tho this >>>>> is changing somewhat due to the spread of western media.
the whole concept of teenagers have their own subculture didn't really >>>>> exist until post-WWII american consumerism constructed it ...
I agree. IrCOm thinking about in the western world from the 40rCOs on. From the
dr Spock years right through to rCLgentlerCY parenting now.
You might find this interestingrCa
https://macleans.ca/longforms/my-misadventures-in-gentle-parenting/
Scrolling down there is a breakdown of past and present parenting styles. >>>
we're not at the toddler stage, no idea how that's going to go rn
right now we have an infant, and infants are not capable of lying. you
can't "spoil" an infant
'lying', 'spoil' - your words, not mine. Pick your fights somewhere else This conversation, or whatever it was, is closed.
keep those shrink appointments going.>Oh no! You've got something against therapy?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2And FFS, learn to trim!
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1855
On 6/23/26 5:51 PM, Tara wrote:originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
On Jun 23, 2026 at 4:39:20rC>PM EDT, "dart200"
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:36 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:46 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 22, 2026 at 2:37:24rC>PM EDT, "dart200"
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/22/26 4:11 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 23:42:16 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:45 PM, Dude wrote:
Why not start a new thread after 9590 lines of text not about >>>>>>>>>>> Jerry?
OCD?
yes dud, ur being OCD
maybe bring it up with ur therapist later, eh?
#god
What do you have against therapists?
nothin i have two of them right now, and maybe a third if the >>>>>>>> couples
counseling referral ever comes thru
i'm just ragging on dud cause he enjoys being a punching bag i >>>>>>>> guess. if
he doesn't: i recommend therapy for that and that OCD he's in >>>>>>>> denial
about Efye
Are you from the generation that stigmatizes mental health
efforts,
and therefore can't die soon enough?
no i'm an younger millennial and spent a large chunk of my 20s >>>>>>>> struggling with mental health
both me and my wife are very cognizant of not traumatizing our 2 >>>>>>>> month
old child by ensuring we always attend his needs quickly, and >>>>>>>> building a
robust secure attachment with lots of interaction and skin to >>>>>>>> skin contact.
i'm pretty sure genx, boomers, and older did a lot of unintentional >>>>>>>> traumatizing due to bizarre western child rearing practices of >>>>>>>> making
them sleep in separate rooms even, letting them cry it out until >>>>>>>> they
self-soothe, formula feeding over breast feeding, terrible work- >>>>>>>> life
balances while having a newborn, etc, etc... stuff i'm sure
you'll be
like "that's totally find actually" and i'm just gunna have to >>>>>>>> disagree
with that there
Every generation thinks they have parenting right and that
generations before
them had it all wrong.
that was definitely not true for most of human existence, or even >>>>>> many
societies today. heck my filipino bother-in-laws are still largely >>>>>> very
obedient to my father-in-law despite being 40+ year old adults.
tho this
is changing somewhat due to the spread of western media.
the whole concept of teenagers have their own subculture didn't
really
exist until post-WWII american consumerism constructed it ...
I agree. IrCOm thinking about in the western world from the 40rCOs on. >>>>> From the
dr Spock years right through to rCLgentlerCY parenting now.
You might find this interestingrCa
https://macleans.ca/longforms/my-misadventures-in-gentle-parenting/
Scrolling down there is a breakdown of past and present parenting
styles.
we're not at the toddler stage, no idea how that's going to go rn
right now we have an infant, and infants are not capable of lying. you
can't "spoil" an infant
-a 'lying', 'spoil' - your words, not mine. Pick your fights somewhere
else
This conversation, or whatever it was, is closed. Keep those shrink
appointments going.
always so pissy eh?
The claims you are referring to are entirely false and fabricated,
On 6/23/26 5:02 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 22:57:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In reality, we fool ourselves that there is something beyond
On 6/22/2026 3:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:18 PM, Wilson wrote:Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience (in
On 6/22/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:02 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:08:44 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:26:45 -0400, WilsonIt's just amazing!
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:You mean most guys who agree with you.-a Subconsciousmess is not >>>>>>>>>>> available to consciousness which is why we call it sub... >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:You two are defining consciousness differently.
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven
otherwise
outside of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but
not all of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within that
purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects, >>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize
their location in respect to our movement, and move about them >>>>>>>>>>>>> without
actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>>>>> cognition
takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with it to >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> most, at a
subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. >>>>>>>>>>>>> personally i view
it more like an executive head of a organization (with limited >>>>>>>>>>>>> control
even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> than
being
directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition. >>>>>>>>>>>>
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>>>>> conscious
and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>>>>>>
After over two decades engaging here with the likes of Tang >>>>>>>>>> Huyen,
you
still don't grasp the foundation of Buddhist philosophy.
The "consciousness-only" school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism is >>>>>>>>>> one of
the two foundational pillars of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. >>>>>>>>>>
It posits that all phenomena are manifestations of
consciousness, and
that objects perceived as external to us do not exist
independently of
the mind.
According to the founder of this school:
"What we experience as an objective, physical world is entirely a >>>>>>>>>> construction of our mind. There are no standalone external >>>>>>>>>> objects
rCo only
mental representations." - Vasubandhu
Look at what they say, carefully:-a Vasubandhu isn't saying there >>>>>>>>> isn't an objective reality -- they're saying our experience, our >>>>>>>>> mental representations, aren't objective.
Yes. Our perceptions of the physical objective world are a
construction of our consciousness (using the expanded meaning of >>>>>>>> consciousness as all of our awareness including what we aren't >>>>>>>> fully
aware of).
Everything we know about 'objective' reality is filtered through >>>>>>>> the
censors that our mind uses to make the world comprehensible. If we >>>>>>>> did not have those censors, survival in this world would
probably be
impossible. This mental overlay normally (for most people always) >>>>>>>> prevents direct perception of what is.
The map is not the territory. The tree you see is not the tree. >>>>>>>>
-a-a-a> buddhists were the original post-truthers ?
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
unfortunately basic math stands in their way. the relationship
between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter in flat 2D >>>>>>> space is a truth no amount of post-truther denial will ever refute >>>>>>>
One of the first things my geometry teacher taught is that the
circles
and squares and other shapes we used and drew were imaginary
representations of the real thing.
well i am talking about the mathematical relationship itself, wilson, >>>>> not the drawings you made of it
Buddhism the mind is considered a special type of sense). We are fooled >>>> by consciousness into believing that those things which we perceive and >>>> appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our cognitive
sphere.
Either that or we fool ourselves that they are not actually outside
our consciousness.
consciousness, when everything is consciousness.
dud ur actually a brain in vat hallucinating all this,
and i'm just a figment of ur consciousness
"Consciousness is the state of being awake, aware of your surroundings,
and able to perceive your own thoughts, feelings, and experiences. It
acts as your personal subjective reality, encompassing everything you
sense and process at any given moment." - Sam Harris
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc
everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and
nowhere else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree
with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>>> i view it more like an executive head of a organization (with
limited control even), more involved with shaping the
orchestration rather than being directly involved with all or
even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of >>>>>> "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness >>>>>> that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of >>>>> experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in
language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the
classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what
the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered
it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings
are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but
it just isn't...
single cell in the universe is conscious.
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past actions),
and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The goal of
Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and finally
wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory, not
an absolute matter of fact
we just don't know right now
#god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm
On 6/23/2026 5:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:02 PM, Dude wrote:According to Sam Harris, if consciousness means self-consciousness, then
On 6/23/2026 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 22:57:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>In reality, we fool ourselves that there is something beyond
On 6/22/2026 3:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:18 PM, Wilson wrote:Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience (in
On 6/22/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:02 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:08:44 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:26:45 -0400, WilsonIt's just amazing!
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:You mean most guys who agree with you.-a Subconsciousmess is not >>>>>>>>>>>> available to consciousness which is why we call it sub... >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:You two are defining consciousness differently.
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proven
otherwise
outside of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but
not all of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within that
purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize
their location in respect to our movement, and move about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
without
actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognition
takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to
that
extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> most, at a
subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally i view
it more like an executive head of a organization (with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited
control
even), more involved with shaping the orchestration rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
being
directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious
and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>>>>>>>
After over two decades engaging here with the likes of Tang >>>>>>>>>>> Huyen,
you
still don't grasp the foundation of Buddhist philosophy. >>>>>>>>>>>
The "consciousness-only" school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism >>>>>>>>>>> is one of
the two foundational pillars of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. >>>>>>>>>>>
It posits that all phenomena are manifestations of
consciousness, and
that objects perceived as external to us do not exist
independently of
the mind.
According to the founder of this school:
"What we experience as an objective, physical world is
entirely a
construction of our mind. There are no standalone external >>>>>>>>>>> objects
rCo only
mental representations." - Vasubandhu
Look at what they say, carefully:-a Vasubandhu isn't saying there >>>>>>>>>> isn't an objective reality -- they're saying our experience, our >>>>>>>>>> mental representations, aren't objective.
Yes. Our perceptions of the physical objective world are a
construction of our consciousness (using the expanded meaning of >>>>>>>>> consciousness as all of our awareness including what we aren't >>>>>>>>> fully
aware of).
Everything we know about 'objective' reality is filtered
through the
censors that our mind uses to make the world comprehensible. If we >>>>>>>>> did not have those censors, survival in this world would
probably be
impossible. This mental overlay normally (for most people always) >>>>>>>>> prevents direct perception of what is.
The map is not the territory. The tree you see is not the tree. >>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a> buddhists were the original post-truthers ?
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
unfortunately basic math stands in their way. the relationship >>>>>>>> between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter in flat 2D >>>>>>>> space is a truth no amount of post-truther denial will ever refute >>>>>>>>
One of the first things my geometry teacher taught is that the
circles
and squares and other shapes we used and drew were imaginary
representations of the real thing.
well i am talking about the mathematical relationship itself, wilson, >>>>>> not the drawings you made of it
Buddhism the mind is considered a special type of sense). We are
fooled
by consciousness into believing that those things which we perceive >>>>> and
appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our cognitive >>>>> sphere.
Either that or we fool ourselves that they are not actually outside
our consciousness.
consciousness, when everything is consciousness.
dud ur actually a brain in vat hallucinating all this,
it cannot be identified by logic with the human body. Animals also
possess a physical body, but not rational consciousness. If
consciousness is a property of the body, it must be perceived like other material properties. But consciousness is neither seen, smelt or tasted
nor touched nor heard.
You didn't listen to Creon, did you?and i'm just a figment of ur consciousness
"Consciousness is the state of being awake, aware of your
surroundings, and able to perceive your own thoughts, feelings, and
experiences. It acts as your personal subjective reality,
encompassing everything you sense and process at any given moment." -
Sam Harris
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else. In other words, cognition takes place only in >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
nowhere else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and
move about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view it more like an executive head of a
organization (with limited control even), more involved with
shaping the orchestration rather than being directly involved >>>>>>>> with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of
"consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example >>>>>>> of "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state
awareness that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects
of experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is >>>>>> in language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. >>>>>> the classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered >>>>>> it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings
are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but >>>>>> it just isn't...
single cell in the universe is conscious.
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past
actions), and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The
goal of Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory,
not an absolute matter of fact
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
-a-a> we just don't know right now
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:47:05 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/26 1:42 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing >>>>>> electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank
network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades >>>>>> until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to >>>>>> *block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency. >>>>>> cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing >>>>>> e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they >>>>>> spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally
billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million >>>>>> of people into the banking system that previously didn't have
accounts because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone >>>>>> up to street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like
$3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees
(which go to banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and >>>>>> honestly they could probably do better. cause right now banks rank >>>>>> in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that >>>>>> rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server.
this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in
the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking
blocking the US federal govt from doing something similar because
muh $200B a year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS
PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF >>>>>> GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T >>>>>> DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics >>>>>> -a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your
damn eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking
asleep for so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of
actually justifying the system and convince urself by endlessly
repeating the same boring platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment. >>>>>
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
...neither of the cheaper solutions i presented as evidence that
cheaper solutions are possible, was the free market wilson. both of
them were the gooberment taking actions to solve a problem the free
market just won't. and cheapest one came with the _strongest_
gooberment mandate for _zero_ percentage fees...
jesus christ wilson i don't even know how to respond to ur level of
continued denial,
-a-a> ur just outright ignoring evidence
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Yes fine, they did a good thing apparently.
check that out noah:
apparently wilson can read when he /really/ tries...
Do you think he is serious?
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some
fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all
those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we
lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are
starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the >>>>> same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population. >>>>>
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic
oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and
global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that
human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive
observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the
world must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in
"hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes the raw data
we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it???
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands >>>>>> someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible
scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection
Perfection is unavailable.
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to
that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ...
they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily
complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the markets
are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to achieved what is
actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech
is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a
platform can't just switch because the platform got a little bit
shittier, and neither can the consumers as all the creators are on
that platform.we spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is
making it easy to switch because there is no profit in making it easy
to swap to competition. even if u weren't a fucking l0lbErTaRiAN,
govt is powerless to do anything about this because we can't even
resolve 20th century issues like abortions ... how is it supposed to
understand 21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking
for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a unified
medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem several times
over there are complete solutions out there ... but unless everyone
cooperates to participate on the same platform we don't actually
produce a level of perfection that is most definitely possible. other
countries have already solved that wilson because they mandate a govt
produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century hell because /
markets do not solve efficiently info tech problems/
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever
the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur
just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of
meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some
dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to
these claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best
tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but
the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly
the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators
switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have
the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal.
Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in
file cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to
push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce
better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free market
for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free market
actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce a better solution either, sheesh
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if they
outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms. But
them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested interests
pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead to more new
dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The
reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we
sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today
will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next few decades. or ever really.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring Efy<rCiEfA?
#god
On 6/23/2026 5:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands >>>>>>> someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible
scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection
Perfection is unavailable.
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to
that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ...
they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily
complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the
markets are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to
achieved what is actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech
is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a
platform can't just switch because the platform got a little bit
shittier, and neither can the consumers as all the creators are on
that platform.we spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is
making it easy to switch because there is no profit in making it
easy to swap to competition. even if u weren't a fucking
l0lbErTaRiAN, govt is powerless to do anything about this because we
can't even resolve 20th century issues like abortions ... how is it
supposed to understand 21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking
for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a
unified medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem
several times over there are complete solutions out there ... but
unless everyone cooperates to participate on the same platform we
don't actually produce a level of perfection that is most definitely
possible. other countries have already solved that wilson because
they mandate a govt produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century
hell because / markets do not solve efficiently info tech problems/
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever
the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur
just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of
meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some
dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to
these claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best
tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but
the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly
the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators
switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have
the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal.
Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in
file cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to
push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce
better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free
market for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free
market actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce a
better solution either, sheesh
So often the government tries to solve a problem only to create new and worse problems. Over and over again it keeps happening. Fix that.
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if
they outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms.
But them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested
interests pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead
to more new dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The
reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we
sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today
will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next
few decades. or ever really.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
-a-a> the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring Efy<rCiEfA?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
I inherently distrust centralized solutions imposed by overseeing bureaucratic big system mangers both in and outside of government.
That's not going to change. Mostly because centralized solutions to big systemic problems usually suck. And also because so many of the people
in charge are midwits (at best) who've risen above their level of
competency and who are insulated from the effects of their decisions.
On 6/23/2026 9:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:47:05 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/26 1:42 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing >>>>>>> electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank >>>>>>> network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades >>>>>>> until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to >>>>>>> *block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency. >>>>>>> cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing >>>>>>> e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they >>>>>>> spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally >>>>>>> billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million >>>>>>> of people into the banking system that previously didn't have
accounts because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone >>>>>>> up to street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like >>>>>>> $3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees >>>>>>> (which go to banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and >>>>>>> honestly they could probably do better. cause right now banks rank >>>>>>> in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that >>>>>>> rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. >>>>>>> this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in >>>>>>> the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking
blocking the US federal govt from doing something similar because >>>>>>> muh $200B a year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS >>>>>>> PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF >>>>>>> GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T >>>>>>> DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics >>>>>>> aa>
#god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your >>>>>>> damn eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking
asleep for so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of
actually justifying the system and convince urself by endlessly
repeating the same boring platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's gooberment. >>>>>>
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
...neither of the cheaper solutions i presented as evidence that
cheaper solutions are possible, was the free market wilson. both of
them were the gooberment taking actions to solve a problem the free
market just won't. and cheapest one came with the _strongest_
gooberment mandate for _zero_ percentage fees...
jesus christ wilson i don't even know how to respond to ur level of
continued denial,
ur just outright ignoring evidence
#god
Yes fine, they did a good thing apparently.
check that out noah:
apparently wilson can read when he /really/ tries...
Do you think he is serious?
No really, reducing the cost of transactions by cutting out the credit
card company 2%+ fees is great.
I fully support it. If we're going to
have government meddling in the market at least maybe they should do >something that benefits the people once in a while rather than lining
their own political pockets.
My big concern is that it potentially allows regulators and bad actors--
in the government (who really do want to control everything) to have a
say in what can and cannot be bought and sold. And they will if they
can. It starts with porn and guns but could easily expand to things they >deem problematic like political speech.
I'd prefer they incentivize private companies to do it instead by >discouraging credit card companies from controlling the field by
encouraging competition in payment processing.
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some
fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect >karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >outcome of human action.
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
nowhere else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>>>> i view it more like an executive head of a organization (with >>>>>>>> limited control even), more involved with shaping the
orchestration rather than being directly involved with all or >>>>>>>> even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>>
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of >>>>>>> "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness >>>>>>> that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of >>>>>> experienceda awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in
language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the >>>>>> classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered >>>>>> it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings
are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but >>>>>> it just isn't...
single cell in the universe is conscious.
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past actions), >>>>> and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The goal of
Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and finally
wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory, not
an absolute matter of fact
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
--we just don't know right now
#god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>>>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>>>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
On 24/06/2026 16:25, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best
tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize,
but the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is
exactly the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of
creators switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we
still have the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running
fucking Cobal. Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER
records stored in file cabinets to run the Federal government
retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to
push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce
better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free
market for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free
market actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce
a better solution either, sheesh
So often the government tries to solve a problem only to create new
and worse problems. Over and over again it keeps happening. Fix that.
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if
they outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms.
But them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested
interests pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead
to more new dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The
reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we
sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today
will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next
few decades. or ever really.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
-a-a> the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring Efy<rCiEfA? >>> -a-a>
-a-a> #god
I inherently distrust centralized solutions imposed by overseeing
bureaucratic big system mangers both in and outside of government.
That's not going to change. Mostly because centralized solutions to
big systemic problems usually suck. And also because so many of the
people in charge are midwits (at best) who've risen above their level
of competency and who are insulated from the effects of their decisions.
In the UK public sector the midwits deliberately hire incompetents
who can be trusted never to become a rival or embarrass them into
becoming productive.
On 6/23/2026 5:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands >>>>>>> someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible
scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection
Perfection is unavailable.
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to
that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ...
they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily
complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the markets >>>> are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to achieved what is >>>> actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech
is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a
platform can't just switch because the platform got a little bit
shittier, and neither can the consumers as all the creators are on
that platform.we spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is
making it easy to switch because there is no profit in making it easy >>>> to swap to competition. even if u weren't a fucking l0lbErTaRiAN,
govt is powerless to do anything about this because we can't even
resolve 20th century issues like abortions ... how is it supposed to
understand 21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking
for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a unified >>>> medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem several times >>>> over there are complete solutions out there ... but unless everyone
cooperates to participate on the same platform we don't actually
produce a level of perfection that is most definitely possible. other >>>> countries have already solved that wilson because they mandate a govt >>>> produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century hell because /
markets do not solve efficiently info tech problems/
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever
the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur
just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of
meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some
dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to
these claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best
tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but
the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly
the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators
switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have
the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal.
Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in
file cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to
push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce
better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free market
for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free market
actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce a better
solution either, sheesh
So often the government tries to solve a problem only to create new and >worse problems. Over and over again it keeps happening. Fix that.
--Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if they
outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms. But
them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested interests
pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead to more new
dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The
reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we
sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today
will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next few
decades. or ever really.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring ???
#god
I inherently distrust centralized solutions imposed by overseeing >bureaucratic big system mangers both in and outside of government.
That's not going to change. Mostly because centralized solutions to big >systemic problems usually suck. And also because so many of the people
in charge are midwits (at best) who've risen above their level of
competency and who are insulated from the effects of their decisions.
On 6/23/26 5:44 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:The prediction that computer technology would double in power was made
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands >>>>>>>> someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible >>>>>>>> scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection
Perfection is unavailable.
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to >>>>> that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ...
they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily
complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the
markets are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to
achieved what is actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech >>>>> is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a
platform can't just switch because the platform got a little bit
shittier, and neither can the consumers as all the creators are on
that platform.we spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is >>>>> making it easy to switch because there is no profit in making it
easy to swap to competition. even if u weren't a fucking
l0lbErTaRiAN, govt is powerless to do anything about this because we >>>>> can't even resolve 20th century issues like abortions ... how is it >>>>> supposed to understand 21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking >>>>> for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a
unified medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem
several times over there are complete solutions out there ... but
unless everyone cooperates to participate on the same platform we
don't actually produce a level of perfection that is most definitely >>>>> possible. other countries have already solved that wilson because
they mandate a govt produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century >>>>> hell because / markets do not solve efficiently info tech problems/
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever >>>>> the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur >>>>> just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of >>>>> meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some >>>>> dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to
these claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best
tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but >>>> the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly
the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators
switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have >>>> the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal. >>>> Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in >>>> file cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to
push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce
better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free
market for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free
market actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce a
better solution either, sheesh
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if
they outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms.
But them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested
interests pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead
to more new dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The
reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we
sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today
will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next
few decades. or ever really.
by Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, in 1965. This observation, which
became known as Moore's Law, originally stated that the number of
transistors on a microchip would double every year.
besides AI... which is an extension of abilities, not replacement, based
on theory from actually decades ago,
i'm not doing more with computing now that i was 10 years ago. posting
text. listening to music. watching videos. buying/booking stuff. heck
these capabilities aren't really fundamentally more than we could do 20 >years ago. heck even 30 years much of this stuff was fundamentally
possible even if it was just gaining mainstream attention at that point.
even video games kinda have stopped making vast improvements in the last
10 years.
--
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring ???
#god
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>>>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>>>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>>>>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>>>>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect >>>> karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some
fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not
just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real
science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our
level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the outcome of human action.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>>>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>>>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law >>>>>>>> they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl >>>>>>> LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence,
not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real
science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its
mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as
conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our
level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect >>>>> karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
My ideas about you are informed by what you say here.
And you still didn't address any of the things.
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:Life experience and outcome is the measure.
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW???? >>>>>>
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just >>>>>>> cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science >>>>>> than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of >>>>>> recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's.
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>>>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public >>>>>>> understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>>>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect >>>> karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human invention can be a natural law?
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:38:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:My position, and the position of most idealistic transcendentalists, is
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that
On 6/19/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant dualities that >>>>>>>>>>>>> exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>> (wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???),
-a -a> merely select when either best applies as the per the >>>>>>>>>>>>> context
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>
There's another that says life is a random walk, quantum foam >>>>>>>>>>>> manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other made >>>>>>>>>>>> everything, without meaning or purpose.
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view affects the >>>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The attempt >>>>>>>>>>>> to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>> happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears to be: >>>>>>>>>>> none. Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short term self >>>>>>>>>>> interest.
I like reality.
-a-a> reality doesn't have nation-state borders
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
how do we prove that? because by what method do we objective >>>>>>>>> measure them? none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality
"Reality doesn't have..." and then describes something that is a >>>>>>>> part of social consciousness consensus reality. While claiming >>>>>>>> that a system-a of social agreement based on consensus is the best >>>>>>>> way forward.
Sure, go with that. It'll definitely work this time.
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all >>>>>>> those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the >>>>>>> same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population. >>>>>>>
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic >>>>>>> oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and
global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive >>>>>> observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the
world must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in "hardware" >>>>>> (like space and time) that actively shapes the raw data we perceive. >>>>>>
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it??? >>>
that the material world is a false projection or superimposition upon
pure consciousness which is the real.
Human senses are not designed to determine what is real. They are
designed to allow humans to avoid speeding trucks. For that purpose
they do quite well.
No rational person would claim that they don't exist.
Unless they were insane or demented - it's just not logical.
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all
those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce
the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire
population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic >>>>>> oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and
global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that
human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a
passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: >>>>> the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in
"hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes the raw data
we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that the brain >>>>>
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>> outside
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute sense, Nick. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote:it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the
context
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are inherently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves adhere to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them at the speed of light.
please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of responding to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to a 2D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts with your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum entanglement as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we use... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past that wall. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
respect to a traveling photon _at all_
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the frame you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your clock ticks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require absolutes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce "stillness". stillness is found in all frames of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occursNo rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that purview. >>>>>>>>>>>
nowhere else.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be >>>>>>>>>> perceived like other material objects.
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the hallways >>>>>>>>>>> without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, and >>>>>>>>>>> direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't even >>>>>>>>>>> know
they even did it, let alone how
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist and are >>>>>>>>>> self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we can be >>>>>>>>> conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would not >>>>>>>>> have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not aware of >>>>>>>>> it?
consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world.
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing >>>>>>>> "built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and
causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent,
conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy supported >>>>>>>> by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't
experience things as they really are - only through consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all
_is_ consciousness.
You are correct. So, what's the problem?
and we still depend on the external environment for various conscious >>>>> experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense organs >>>>> from the external world and generates conscious experience from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our >>>> cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an impact on >>> my life
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:17:39 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
nowhere else.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>>>>> i view it more like an executive head of a organization (with >>>>>>>>> limited control even), more involved with shaping the
orchestration rather than being directly involved with all or >>>>>>>>> even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>>>
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of >>>>>>>> "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness >>>>>>>> that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of >>>>>>> experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in >>>>>>> language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the >>>>>>> classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered >>>>>>> it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings >>>>>>> are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but >>>>>>> it just isn't...
single cell in the universe is conscious.
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past actions), >>>>>> and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The goal of
Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and finally
wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory, not
an absolute matter of fact
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
In other words, there can be no properties that cannot be detected by physical means. Poked, prodded, punched. Further there is nothing
that we have not yet detected.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
-a> we just don't know right now
-a>
-a> #god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm
On 6/23/26 7:17 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every >>>>>> single cell in the universe is conscious.
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else. In other words, cognition takes place only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in consciousness and nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
experienced outside of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and >>>>>>>>> move about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of
cognition, and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view it more like an executive head of a
organization (with limited control even), more involved with >>>>>>>>> shaping the orchestration rather than being directly involved >>>>>>>>> with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of
"consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example >>>>>>>> of "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state
awareness that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects >>>>>>> of experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is >>>>>>> in language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. >>>>>>> the classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be
considered it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own
quale. feelings are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything,
but it just isn't...
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>> things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past
actions), and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The >>>>>> goal of Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory,
not an absolute matter of fact
that's not ur strength dud
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
or we just lack the insight right now required to measure it directly somehow, which ofc you'll not address because u never address counter
points u can't answer to
-a-a> we just don't know right now
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some
fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not
just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real
science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding >>>> to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our
level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the outcome of human action.
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that >>>>>> human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all >>>>>>> those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire
population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern
complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think >>>>>>
passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have
built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes the >>>>>> raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere else.
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that the >>>>>>> brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute sense, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote:it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isDon't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to a 2D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the frame you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your clock >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all frames of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occursNo rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be >>>>>>>>>>> perceived like other material objects.
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the hallways >>>>>>>>>>>> without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, and >>>>>>>>>>>> direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't even >>>>>>>>>>>> know
they even did it, let alone how
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist >>>>>>>>>>> and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we >>>>>>>>>> can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would not >>>>>>>>>> have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not aware of >>>>>>>>>> it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world.
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing >>>>>>>>> "built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and
causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent,
conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy supported >>>>>>>>> by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter >>> of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't >>>>>>> experience things as they really are - only through consciousness. >>>>>>we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all >>>>>> _is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various conscious >>>>>> experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense organs >>>>>> from the external world and generates conscious experience from it >>>>>>You are correct. So, what's the problem?
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see things as >>>>> they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things which we >>>>> perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our >>>>> cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an
impact on
my life
On 6/24/2026 12:13 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 7:17 PM, Dude wrote:If consciousness is a property of the body, it must be perceived like
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every >>>>>>> single cell in the universe is conscious.
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else. In other words, cognition takes place only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in consciousness and nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
experienced outside of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of >>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and >>>>>>>>>> move about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>> cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of
cognition, and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view it more like an executive head of a
organization (with limited control even), more involved with >>>>>>>>>> shaping the orchestration rather than being directly involved >>>>>>>>>> with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>> conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of
"consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example >>>>>>>>> of "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state
awareness that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects >>>>>>>> of experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is >>>>>>>> in language because that kind of meaning can only be
experienced. the classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know
what the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be
considered it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own
quale. feelings are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, >>>>>>>> but it just isn't...
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>> things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past
actions), and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The >>>>>>> goal of Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory,
not an absolute matter of fact
that's not ur strength dud
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
or we just lack the insight right now required to measure it directly
somehow, which ofc you'll not address because u never address counter
points u can't answer to
other material properties. But consciousness is neither seen, smelt or tasted nor touched nor heard.
-a-a> we just don't know right now
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm >>>>>>>
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 18:57:14 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:44 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:The prediction that computer technology would double in power was made
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:Perfection is unavailable.
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands >>>>>>>>> someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible >>>>>>>>> scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection >>>>>>>
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to >>>>>> that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ... >>>>>> they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily
complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the
markets are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to
achieved what is actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech >>>>>> is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a
platform can't just switch because the platform got a little bit
shittier, and neither can the consumers as all the creators are on >>>>>> that platform.we spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is >>>>>> making it easy to switch because there is no profit in making it
easy to swap to competition. even if u weren't a fucking
l0lbErTaRiAN, govt is powerless to do anything about this because we >>>>>> can't even resolve 20th century issues like abortions ... how is it >>>>>> supposed to understand 21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking >>>>>> for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a
unified medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem
several times over there are complete solutions out there ... but
unless everyone cooperates to participate on the same platform we
don't actually produce a level of perfection that is most definitely >>>>>> possible. other countries have already solved that wilson because
they mandate a govt produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century >>>>>> hell because / markets do not solve efficiently info tech problems/ >>>>>>
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever >>>>>> the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur >>>>>> just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of >>>>>> meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some >>>>>> dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to
these claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best
tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but >>>>> the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly
the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators
switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have >>>>> the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal. >>>>> Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in >>>>> file cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to
push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce
better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free
market for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free
market actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce a >>>> better solution either, sheesh
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if
they outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms. >>>>> But them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested
interests pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead
to more new dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The
reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we
sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today
will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next
few decades. or ever really.
by Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, in 1965. This observation, which >>> became known as Moore's Law, originally stated that the number of
transistors on a microchip would double every year.
besides AI... which is an extension of abilities, not replacement, based
on theory from actually decades ago,
i'm not doing more with computing now that i was 10 years ago. posting
text. listening to music. watching videos. buying/booking stuff. heck
these capabilities aren't really fundamentally more than we could do 20
years ago. heck even 30 years much of this stuff was fundamentally
possible even if it was just gaining mainstream attention at that point.
even video games kinda have stopped making vast improvements in the last
10 years.
Peaked in popularity, which means improvements are no longer cost
effective. I, for one, will not buy new hardware to play anybodies'
new game. I know there will not really be anything new.
--
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
-a-a> the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring ???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that >>>>>> human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all >>>>>>> those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire
population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern
complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think >>>>>>
passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have
built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes the >>>>>> raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
On 6/24/2026 11:36 AM, Julian wrote:
On 24/06/2026 16:25, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best
tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize,
but the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is
exactly the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of
creators switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we >>>>> still have the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running
fucking Cobal. Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER
records stored in file cabinets to run the Federal government
retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying
to push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can
produce better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free
market for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free
market actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce
a better solution either, sheesh
So often the government tries to solve a problem only to create new
and worse problems. Over and over again it keeps happening. Fix that.
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if
they outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit
platforms. But them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of
invested interests pushing them in certain directions is likely to
just lead to more new dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The >>>>> reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we >>>>> sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today
will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next
few decades. or ever really.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
-a-a> the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring Efy<rCiEfA? >>>> -a-a>
-a-a> #god
I inherently distrust centralized solutions imposed by overseeing
bureaucratic big system mangers both in and outside of government.
That's not going to change. Mostly because centralized solutions to
big systemic problems usually suck. And also because so many of the
people in charge are midwits (at best) who've risen above their level
of competency and who are insulated from the effects of their decisions.
In the UK public sector the midwits deliberately hire incompetents
who can be trusted never to become a rival or embarrass them into
becoming productive.
It's a problem!
On 6/24/2026 2:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's.
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific >>>>>>>>> language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>>>>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public >>>>>>>> understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect >>>>> karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human
invention can be a natural law?
You would have probably thought about this for a long time.
Longer than thinkers like Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero!
They argued that nature possesses an inherent order, and rational humans >behave best when aligned with it. YMMV.
On 6/23/2026 6:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:38:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That brings up the question:
On 6/23/2026 2:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:My position, and the position of most idealistic transcendentalists, is
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that >>>>>>> human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive >>>>>>> observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the
On 6/19/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant dualities that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???),
a a> merely select when either best applies as the per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
a a>
a a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's another that says life is a random walk, quantum foam >>>>>>>>>>>>> manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other made >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, without meaning or purpose.
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view affects the >>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The attempt >>>>>>>>>>>>> to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears to be: >>>>>>>>>>>> none. Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short term self >>>>>>>>>>>> interest.
I like reality.
reality doesn't have nation-state borders
#god
how do we prove that? because by what method do we objective >>>>>>>>>> measure them? none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality
"Reality doesn't have..." and then describes something that is a >>>>>>>>> part of social consciousness consensus reality. While claiming >>>>>>>>> that a systema of social agreement based on consensus is the best >>>>>>>>> way forward.
Sure, go with that. It'll definitely work this time.
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all >>>>>>>> those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the >>>>>>>> same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population. >>>>>>>>
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic >>>>>>>> oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and >>>>>>>> global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
world must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in "hardware" >>>>>>> (like space and time) that actively shapes the raw data we perceive. >>>>>>>
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual >>>>> projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it??? >>>>
that the material world is a false projection or superimposition upon
pure consciousness which is the real.
Human senses are not designed to determine what is real. They are
designed to allow humans to avoid speeding trucks. For that purpose
they do quite well.
"What are the valid means of knowledge?
--No rational person would claim that they don't exist.
Unless they were insane or demented - it's just not logical.
On 6/24/26 2:55 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that >>>>>>> human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all >>>>>>>> those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern
complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think >>>>>>>
passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have
built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes the >>>>>>> raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it??? >>>
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
neither of these two dumb nigga notices the spoon sittin right next to
the bowl!
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >nowhere else.
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that the brain >>>>>>
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world.
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute sense, Nick. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote:it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
merely select when either best applies as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per thecontext
#god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are inherently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves adhere to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of responding to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to a 2D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts with your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum entanglement as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we use... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past that wall. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
respect to a traveling photon _at all_
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the frame you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your clock ticks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require absolutes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce "stillness". stillness is found in all frames of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs
No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that purview. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be >>>>>>>>>>> perceived like other material objects.
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the hallways >>>>>>>>>>>> without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, and >>>>>>>>>>>> direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't even >>>>>>>>>>>> know
they even did it, let alone how
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist and are >>>>>>>>>>> self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we can be >>>>>>>>>> conscious of.a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would not >>>>>>>>>> have
brought us to where we are.a How could it if we were not aware of >>>>>>>>>> it?
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing >>>>>>>>> "built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and
causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent,
conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy supported >>>>>>>>> by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter >>> of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
--Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't >>>>>>> experience things as they really are - only through consciousness. >>>>>>we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all >>>>>> _is_ consciousness.
You are correct. So, what's the problem?
and we still depend on the external environment for various conscious >>>>>> experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense organs >>>>>> from the external world and generates conscious experience from it >>>>>>
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see things as >>>>> they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things which we >>>>> perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our >>>>> cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an impact on >>>> my life
On 6/24/2026 12:13 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 7:17 PM, Dude wrote:If consciousness is a property of the body, it must be perceived like
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every >>>>>>> single cell in the universe is conscious.
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else. In other words, cognition takes place only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in consciousness and nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
experienced outside of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of >>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and >>>>>>>>>> move about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>> cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of
cognition, and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view it more like an executive head of a
organization (with limited control even), more involved with >>>>>>>>>> shaping the orchestration rather than being directly involved >>>>>>>>>> with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>> conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of
"consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example >>>>>>>>> of "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state
awareness that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects >>>>>>>> of experienceda awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is >>>>>>>> in language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. >>>>>>>> the classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be
considered it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own
quale. feelings are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, >>>>>>>> but it just isn't...
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>> things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past
actions), and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The >>>>>>> goal of Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory,
not an absolute matter of fact
that's not ur strength dud
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
or we just lack the insight right now required to measure it directly
somehow, which ofc you'll not address because u never address counter
points u can't answer to
other material properties. But consciousness is neither seen, smelt or >tasted nor touched nor heard.
--
we just don't know right now
#god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm >>>>>>>
On 6/24/2026 8:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:17:39 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, if consciousness means self-consciousness, then
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every >>>>>>> single cell in the universe is conscious.
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>> cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>>>>>> i view it more like an executive head of a organization (with >>>>>>>>>> limited control even), more involved with shaping the
orchestration rather than being directly involved with all or >>>>>>>>>> even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>> conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>>>>
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of >>>>>>>>> "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness >>>>>>>>> that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of >>>>>>>> experienceda awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in >>>>>>>> language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the >>>>>>>> classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered >>>>>>>> it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings >>>>>>>> are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but >>>>>>>> it just isn't...
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>> things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past actions), >>>>>>> and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The goal of
Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and finally >>>>>>> wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory, not >>>> an absolute matter of fact
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
In other words, there can be no properties that cannot be detected by
physical means. Poked, prodded, punched. Further there is nothing
that we have not yet detected.
it cannot be identified by logic with the human body..
--
a> we just don't know right now
a>
a> #god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm >>>>>>>
On 6/24/26 10:19 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 18:57:14 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:44 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:The prediction that computer technology would double in power was made >>>> by Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, in 1965. This observation, which >>>> became known as Moore's Law, originally stated that the number of
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:Perfection is unavailable.
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands >>>>>>>>>> someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible >>>>>>>>>> scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection >>>>>>>>
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to >>>>>>> that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ... >>>>>>> they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily >>>>>>> complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the
markets are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to
achieved what is actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech >>>>>>> is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a
platform can't just switch because the platform got a little bit >>>>>>> shittier, and neither can the consumers as all the creators are on >>>>>>> that platform.we spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is >>>>>>> making it easy to switch because there is no profit in making it >>>>>>> easy to swap to competition. even if u weren't a fucking
l0lbErTaRiAN, govt is powerless to do anything about this because we >>>>>>> can't even resolve 20th century issues like abortions ... how is it >>>>>>> supposed to understand 21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking >>>>>>> for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a
unified medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem
several times over there are complete solutions out there ... but >>>>>>> unless everyone cooperates to participate on the same platform we >>>>>>> don't actually produce a level of perfection that is most definitely >>>>>>> possible. other countries have already solved that wilson because >>>>>>> they mandate a govt produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century >>>>>>> hell because / markets do not solve efficiently info tech problems/ >>>>>>>
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever >>>>>>> the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur >>>>>>> just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of >>>>>>> meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some >>>>>>> dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to >>>>>>> these claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best >>>>>> tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but >>>>>> the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly >>>>>> the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators
switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have >>>>>> the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal. >>>>>> Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in >>>>>> file cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to >>>>> push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce
better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free
market for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free
market actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce a >>>>> better solution either, sheesh
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if
they outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms. >>>>>> But them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested
interests pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead >>>>>> to more new dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The >>>>>> reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we >>>>>> sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today >>>>>> will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next >>>>> few decades. or ever really.
transistors on a microchip would double every year.
besides AI... which is an extension of abilities, not replacement, based >>> on theory from actually decades ago,
i'm not doing more with computing now that i was 10 years ago. posting
text. listening to music. watching videos. buying/booking stuff. heck
these capabilities aren't really fundamentally more than we could do 20
years ago. heck even 30 years much of this stuff was fundamentally
possible even if it was just gaining mainstream attention at that point. >>>
even video games kinda have stopped making vast improvements in the last >>> 10 years.
Peaked in popularity, which means improvements are no longer cost
effective. I, for one, will not buy new hardware to play anybodies'
new game. I know there will not really be anything new.
i will likely. the marginal graphical improvements for story games are
still interesting enough. it's just not game changing like say from like >00s-10s
--
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring ???
#god
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 17:27:55 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 10:19 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 18:57:14 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:44 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 10:57 AM, Wilson wrote:The prediction that computer technology would double in power was made >>>>> by Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, in 1965. This observation, which >>>>> became known as Moore's Law, originally stated that the number of
On 6/22/2026 7:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:22 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:Perfection is unavailable.
The alternative, a single solution determined in advance, demands >>>>>>>>>>> someone who can perceive all possible outcomes in all possible >>>>>>>>>>> scenarios. And that's simply not humanly possible.
no, in math it just requires us cooperating to build perfection >>>>>>>>>
software that exists perfectly without software bugs is most
definitely logically possible, wilson
just cause the ideology u preach fails massively in coming close to >>>>>>>> that is a failure of the ideology. when u try run a massive
competition over who can own the largest slice of the tech pie ... >>>>>>>> they will ofc lean on the fact computing can be made arbitrarily >>>>>>>> complex (unintentionally so) and bloat that up as much as the
markets are stupid enough to bear, with little motivation to
achieved what is actually economically possible.
markets have little power to function against this because info tech >>>>>>>> is incredibly sticky. people who build entire followings in a
platform can't just switch because the platform got a little bit >>>>>>>> shittier, and neither can the consumers as all the creators are on >>>>>>>> that platform.we spend decades on these platforms wilson, no one is >>>>>>>> making it easy to switch because there is no profit in making it >>>>>>>> easy to swap to competition. even if u weren't a fucking
l0lbErTaRiAN, govt is powerless to do anything about this because we >>>>>>>> can't even resolve 20th century issues like abortions ... how is it >>>>>>>> supposed to understand 21st century tech platform problems
let put this more succinctly: in year 2026 doctors are still asking >>>>>>>> for histories and faxing stuff around because we don't have a
unified medical info-tech system. and we've solved this problem >>>>>>>> several times over there are complete solutions out there ... but >>>>>>>> unless everyone cooperates to participate on the same platform we >>>>>>>> don't actually produce a level of perfection that is most definitely >>>>>>>> possible. other countries have already solved that wilson because >>>>>>>> they mandate a govt produced solution. we're stuck in a 20th century >>>>>>>> hell because / markets do not solve efficiently info tech problems/ >>>>>>>>
and ofc u just dismissing this critique as being utopic or whatever >>>>>>>> the fuck, is just you falling deeply into fallacy territory where ur >>>>>>>> just making _bear_ assertions without backing it up by any amount of >>>>>>>> meaningful thot, wilson...
i'll count that as an L for you wilson, and i'll expect at most some >>>>>>>> dumb one line response as ur mentally incapable of responding to >>>>>>>> these claims
Government can do some things fairly well but deciding on the best >>>>>>> tech is probably not one of them. They certainly can standardize, but >>>>>>> the thing that happens when they put a standard in place is exactly >>>>>>> the problem you're criticizing about the difficulty of creators
switching platforms. The inertia is immense. That's why we still have >>>>>>> the IRS using 40+ year old mainframe computers running fucking Cobal. >>>>>>> Hell up until last year they were still using PAPER records stored in >>>>>>> file cabinets to run the Federal government retiree system.
It's a problem!
yeah it's a problem when u have half the country constantly trying to >>>>>> push mUh fReE MaRKeT so much that when i show how govts can produce >>>>>> better solutions than the free market...
they still somehow blame govt for being the problem, not the free
market for failing to produce a better solution, nor how the free
market actually will intentionally gum up govt so it doesn't produce a >>>>>> better solution either, sheesh
Your desire to have the gubment decide these things might help if >>>>>>> they outline basic standards and /don't/ mandate explicit platforms. >>>>>>> But them being what they are and the /$$$/ influence of invested >>>>>>> interests pushing them in certain directions is likely to just lead >>>>>>> to more new dead-ends in 20 years.
And none of this is about ideology, it's about what works best. The >>>>>>> reality is we can guess what that is but usually don't know. And we >>>>>>> sure as hell don't know which of the choices that we can see today >>>>>>> will be working in two decades.
computing isn't about to be fundamentally revolutionized in the next >>>>>> few decades. or ever really.
transistors on a microchip would double every year.
besides AI... which is an extension of abilities, not replacement, based >>>> on theory from actually decades ago,
i'm not doing more with computing now that i was 10 years ago. posting >>>> text. listening to music. watching videos. buying/booking stuff. heck
these capabilities aren't really fundamentally more than we could do 20 >>>> years ago. heck even 30 years much of this stuff was fundamentally
possible even if it was just gaining mainstream attention at that point. >>>>
even video games kinda have stopped making vast improvements in the last >>>> 10 years.
Peaked in popularity, which means improvements are no longer cost
effective. I, for one, will not buy new hardware to play anybodies'
new game. I know there will not really be anything new.
i will likely. the marginal graphical improvements for story games are
still interesting enough. it's just not game changing like say from like
00s-10s
How much better do you suppose graphics can get than the recent 4 or 5
Assassin's creeds? Are you done being excited about climbing up the
side of buildings and jumping around and across chasms?
--
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
-a-a> the endless self-fulfilling prophecy is just so tiring ??? >>>>>> -a-a>
-a-a> #god
Where's Creon?
Where's Creon?
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on
all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is
we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where
we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire
population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern
complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i
think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed
that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind
a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have
built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes
the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat
it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
Remember: "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on
all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where
we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire
population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern
complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i
think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed
that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind
a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have
built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes
the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat
it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember: "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>>>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect >>>>>> karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on
all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where
we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire
population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern
complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i
think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed
that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind
a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have
built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes
the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat
it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember: "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
At Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:02:22 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Where's Creon?
I've been out exploring -- who knows what you'll find
out there!
https://imgur.com/a/2eQ6ZvN
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex
out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience
due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
would that be convincing enough for you?
#god
Cut right here...lights out.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 15:03:03 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness and
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter >>>> of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
nowhere else.
Hey, sam, where did you get your degree in philosophy? Or is it
psychology? Neither?
At Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:02:22 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Where's Creon?
(fresh thread started)
I've been out exploring -- who knows what you'll find
out there!
https://imgur.com/a/2eQ6ZvN
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>>>>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect >>>>>>> karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
On 6/25/2026 3:46 AM, Creon wrote:
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i
think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed
that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat
it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember: "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
It's all about consciousness and perspective.
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex
out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience
due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
would that be convincing enough for you?
#god
Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of consciousness?
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
On 6/24/2026 10:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 15:03:03 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>> nowhere else.
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter >>>>> of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
Hey, sam, where did you get your degree in philosophy? Or is it
psychology? Neither?
Wikipedia says he has a B.A. in philosophy from Stanford
and a Ph.D. in >cognitive neuroscience from UCLA.
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere else.Has sam tested all the somewhere elses to be able to support that
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that >>>>>>>> certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through >>>>>>>> human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>> effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect >>>>>>> the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law. Either.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>> and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that >>>>>>>>>> certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s
theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies
all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny self- consciousness, or you would not exist.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:22:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 2:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You would have probably thought about this for a long time.
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's.
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>>>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific >>>>>>>>>> language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public >>>>>>>>> understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect >>>>>> karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human
invention can be a natural law?
Longer than thinkers like Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero!
They argued that nature possesses an inherent order, and rational humans
behave best when aligned with it. YMMV.
Yes, the romans certainly demonstrated how rational humans behave
best. Bring on the barbarians.
On 6/23/2026 9:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:47:05 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/26 1:42 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 11:34 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
like bro the us financial system rakes in $200B annually servicing >>>>>>> electronic transactions. the us just built an instant inter-bank >>>>>>> network and spends only ~$200M servicing that. how many more decades >>>>>>> until tHe FrEe MaRkEt provides electronic currency services at
1/1000th the cost wilson???
honestly the financial institution have actually lobbied congress to >>>>>>> *block* the govt from issuing a proper consumer facing e-currency. >>>>>>> cause it's a damn threat to their profit retard.
mother fucking 3rd world brazil built pix: a global consumer facing >>>>>>> e- currency system that that now has 91% adult population, and they >>>>>>> spend like $10M/yr on it. they saved the entire economy literally >>>>>>> billions in manual cash flow because merchants previously just
weren't paying expensive credit card fees. they put 10s of million >>>>>>> of people into the banking system that previously didn't have
accounts because now there was a protocol cheap enough for everyone >>>>>>> up to street merchants can use it. the brazilian govt spent like >>>>>>> $3M-4M to set it up and only $10M/yr to run it. transaction fees >>>>>>> (which go to banks, not the govt) when from ~2.2% to ~0.22% ... and >>>>>>> honestly they could probably do better. cause right now banks rank >>>>>>> in around $3 billion/yr for all pix transactions.
cause next you have 3rd world fucking india of all places ... that >>>>>>> rolled out a govt e-currency system with a mandated 0% fee
structure!! the govt actually subsidizes banks to run the server. >>>>>>> this costs them around $500M/yr, again cutting the cost of
transactions in total by an order of magnitude!!! yes the india
system scales, they process more daily transactions that we do in >>>>>>> the us. like fuck wilson.
...while here in market fundie huffing USA banks are fucking
blocking the US federal govt from doing something similar because >>>>>>> muh $200B a year in profit...
WHEN IS THAT PROFIT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHEAPER U
FUCKING ABJECT MORON??? I DON'T NEED FUCKING CREDIT CARD REWARDS >>>>>>> PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER THE FUCK HIDING THE FUCKING FEES. THE POINT OF >>>>>>> GIVING CAPITALISTS CONTROL IS TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER, BUT THEY AREN'T >>>>>>> DOING THAT U FUCKING MARKET HUFFING FUNDIE RETARD.
-a-a-a> god damn markets fundies love overpriced inefficient economics >>>>>>> -a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
it's fucking crazy how fucking sheeplefried ya'll are. open your >>>>>>> damn eyes bro and smell the fucking coffee you've been fucking
asleep for so long sheesh. you people have lost all sense of
actually justifying the system and convince urself by endlessly
repeating the same boring platitudes over and over again ...
Corporations buying legislators is not the free market, it's
gooberment.
Yes I agree, it's a problem!
...neither of the cheaper solutions i presented as evidence that
cheaper solutions are possible, was the free market wilson. both of
them were the gooberment taking actions to solve a problem the free
market just won't. and cheapest one came with the _strongest_
gooberment mandate for _zero_ percentage fees...
jesus christ wilson i don't even know how to respond to ur level of
continued denial,
-a-a-a> ur just outright ignoring evidence
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
Yes fine, they did a good thing apparently.
check that out noah:
apparently wilson can read when he /really/ tries...
Do you think he is serious?
No really, reducing the cost of transactions by cutting out the credit
card company 2%+ fees is great. I fully support it. If we're going to
have government meddling in the market at least maybe they should do something that benefits the people once in a while rather than lining
their own political pockets.
My big concern is that it potentially allows regulators and bad actors
in the government (who really do want to control everything) to have a
say in what can and cannot be bought and sold. And they will if they
can. It starts with porn and guns but could easily expand to things they deem problematic like political speech.
I'd prefer they incentivize private companies to do it instead by discouraging credit card companies from controlling the field by
encouraging competition in payment processing.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:50:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:38:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That brings up the question:
On 6/23/2026 2:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:My position, and the position of most idealistic transcendentalists, is >>>> that the material world is a false projection or superimposition upon
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that >>>>>>>> human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive >>>>>>>> observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the >>>>>>>> world must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in "hardware" >>>>>>>> (like space and time) that actively shapes the raw data we perceive. >>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant dualities that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???),
-a -a> merely select when either best applies as the per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's another that says life is a random walk, quantum foam >>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other made >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, without meaning or purpose.
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view affects the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The attempt >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears to be: >>>>>>>>>>>>> none. Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short term self >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest.
I like reality.
-a-a> reality doesn't have nation-state borders
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
how do we prove that? because by what method do we objective >>>>>>>>>>> measure them? none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality
"Reality doesn't have..." and then describes something that is a >>>>>>>>>> part of social consciousness consensus reality. While claiming >>>>>>>>>> that a system-a of social agreement based on consensus is the best >>>>>>>>>> way forward.
Sure, go with that. It'll definitely work this time.
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all >>>>>>>>> those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the >>>>>>>>> same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population. >>>>>>>>>
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic >>>>>>>>> oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and >>>>>>>>> global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual >>>>>> projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it??? >>>>>
pure consciousness which is the real.
Human senses are not designed to determine what is real. They are
designed to allow humans to avoid speeding trucks. For that purpose
they do quite well.
"What are the valid means of knowledge?
We only have experience with speeding trucks.
No rational person would claim that they don't exist.
Unless they were insane or demented - it's just not logical.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 17:34:30 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 2:55 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that >>>>>>>> human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all >>>>>>>>> those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think >>>>>>>>
passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes the >>>>>>>> raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it??? >>>>
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
neither of these two dumb nigga notices the spoon sittin right next to
the bowl!
Fergit that. Pick up the bowl and drink from it. Nobody need 4
spoons and 6 forks anyway. (Like in formal dining).
On 6/25/26 12:46 AM, Creon wrote:
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i
think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed
that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat
it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
sometimes it's hard to remind myself that everyone i see walking around
has a little bit of the divine up there experiencing ...
"a little bit" being a misnomer ofc
#god
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
-a _ _ _ _ _ _ _
damn dud, so actually joo were quoting one of those medieval nazi-
muzzies trying to exile the joos, eh??? next joo'll be quoting hitler
kus emek!
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law. Either.
Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s
theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies
all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny >self-consciousness, or you would not exist.
On 6/24/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:22:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 2:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>You would have probably thought about this for a long time.
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's. >>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain >>>>>>>> moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>>>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific >>>>>>>>>>> language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>>>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public >>>>>>>>>> understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect >>>>>>> karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
invention can be a natural law?
Longer than thinkers like Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero!
They argued that nature possesses an inherent order, and rational humans >>> behave best when aligned with it. YMMV.
Yes, the romans certainly demonstrated how rational humans behave
best. Bring on the barbarians.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
On 6/24/2026 7:54 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:50:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That's not the only valid means of knowledge.
On 6/23/2026 6:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:38:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>That brings up the question:
On 6/23/2026 2:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:My position, and the position of most idealistic transcendentalists, is >>>>> that the material world is a false projection or superimposition upon >>>>> pure consciousness which is the real.
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that >>>>>>>>> human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive >>>>>>>>> observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the >>>>>>>>> world must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in "hardware" >>>>>>>>> (like space and time) that actively shapes the raw data we perceive. >>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant dualities that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???),
a a> merely select when either best applies as the per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
a a>
a a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's another that says life is a random walk, quantum foam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, without meaning or purpose.
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view affects the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The attempt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears to be: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> none. Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short term self >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest.
I like reality.
aa> reality doesn't have nation-state borders
aa>
aa> #god
how do we prove that? because by what method do we objective >>>>>>>>>>>> measure them? none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality
"Reality doesn't have..." and then describes something that is a >>>>>>>>>>> part of social consciousness consensus reality. While claiming >>>>>>>>>>> that a systema of social agreement based on consensus is the best >>>>>>>>>>> way forward.
Sure, go with that. It'll definitely work this time.
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all >>>>>>>>>> those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the >>>>>>>>>> same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic >>>>>>>>>> oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and >>>>>>>>>> global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual >>>>>>> projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it??? >>>>>>
Human senses are not designed to determine what is real. They are
designed to allow humans to avoid speeding trucks. For that purpose
they do quite well.
"What are the valid means of knowledge?
We only have experience with speeding trucks.
There is also verbal knowledge and inference.
For example, you've personally never been up in space to witness first
hand the curvature of the earth - but you know from the testimony of
others that this true.
And, we INFER, from observation that one thing leads to another.
YMMV.--
No rational person would claim that they don't exist.
Unless they were insane or demented - it's just not logical.
On 6/24/2026 10:19 PM, Creon wrote:
At Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:02:22 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Where's Creon?
(fresh thread started)
I've been out exploring -- who knows what you'll find
out there!
https://imgur.com/a/2eQ6ZvN
Creon! Is that you? Where in the heck have you been? Sonoma is a big place.
The name "Sonoma" generally translates to "Valley of the Moon". It originates from a local Native American Coast Miwok word, famously romanticized and popularized by author Jack London who lived and wrote nearby. A long-standing local legend referencing "many moons" in the sky over the valley.
Sonoma: The Center of the Universe
https://i.postimg.cc/MTRZ51nN/sonomax.jpg
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of consciousness
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
On 6/25/2026 1:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:46 AM, Creon wrote:So, I guess everyone can see why Creon wrote you off as a troll. Good
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat >>>>>> it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
sometimes it's hard to remind myself that everyone i see walking
around has a little bit of the divine up there experiencing ...
-a-a> "a little bit" being a misnomer ofc
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
-a _ _ _ _ _ _ _
damn dud, so actually joo were quoting one of those medieval nazi-
muzzies trying to exile the joos, eh??? next joo'll be quoting hitler
kus emek!
work, Nick.
Virtually every claim you have referenced is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made
up by informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious,
crude racist and biased - on this very forum!
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:11:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 3:46 AM, Creon wrote:
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat >>>>>> it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember: "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
It's all about consciousness and perspective.
And not all muslims are war like.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law. Either.
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law. Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:57:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law. Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
Do apples fall up in your neighborhood?
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>> and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing >>>>>>>>>>> that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human >>>>>>>>>>> nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>> it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that
underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny self-
consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness and still exist without self-consciousness
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:21:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law. Either.
theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies
all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self-consciousness, or you would not exist.
I bet, if I were to deny my self-consciousness, I would still be
sitting here.
I can deny natural law, but that would not make apples fall up into
the tree. I can say, free market is a natural law, but that would not
affect those who disagree, even though you would probably say it does.
The virtue of free market or even the existence of such is disputable, therefore not a natural law.
If apples fell up, we would both know what we saw and not be able torationally dispute it.
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>> and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that >>>>>>>>>> certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:22:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of
On 6/24/2026 2:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>You would have probably thought about this for a long time.
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human >>>>> invention can be a natural law?
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's. >>>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>>>>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>>>>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public >>>>>>>>>>> understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence." >>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
Longer than thinkers like Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero!
They argued that nature possesses an inherent order, and rational humans >>>> behave best when aligned with it. YMMV.
Yes, the romans certainly demonstrated how rational humans behave
best. Bring on the barbarians.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:11:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 3:46 AM, Creon wrote:
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the
opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat >>>>>> it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember: "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
It's all about consciousness and perspective.
And not all muslims are war like.
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that the >>>>>>>> brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote:it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isDon't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to a 2D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the frame >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all frames of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be >>>>>>>>>>>> perceived like other material objects.
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the hallways >>>>>>>>>>>>> without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> even
know
they even did it, let alone how
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist >>>>>>>>>>>> and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we >>>>>>>>>>> can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would not >>>>>>>>>>> have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing >>>>>>>>>> "built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and
causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy
supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex
out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience
due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
would that be convincing enough for you?
#god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't >>>>>>>> experience things as they really are - only through consciousness. >>>>>>>we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all >>>>>>> _is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for variousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
conscious
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense organs >>>>>>> from the external world and generates conscious experience from it >>>>>>>
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see things as >>>>>> they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We >>>>>> are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things which we >>>>>> perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually outside >>>>>> our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an
impact on
my life
At Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:02:22 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Where's Creon?
(fresh thread started)
I've been out exploring -- who knows what you'll find
out there!
https://imgur.com/a/2eQ6ZvN
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:29:27 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:57:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>> make it a natural law. Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
Do apples fall up in your neighborhood?
I'll make you a deal. I won't claim natural law fro my opinions if
you don't claim it for yours. Otherwise...watch out.
On 6/25/2026 1:07 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:21:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If you were insane or demented.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>> make it a natural law. Either.
theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies
all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events. >>>
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self-consciousness, or you would not exist.
I bet, if I were to deny my self-consciousness, I would still be
sitting here.
In a debate at university you would first need to define your terms. You >have not done that, so I looked it up on Webster's and in Buddha's Lotus >Sutra: Aristotle on natural law and Buddha on enlightenment.
According to both, self-consciousness in humans is both rational and >inherent. Look it up.
I can deny natural law, but that would not make apples fall up intoDid anyone say the the free market was natural law? Somebody is getting >really confused!
the tree. I can say, free market is a natural law, but that would not
affect those who disagree, even though you would probably say it does.
The virtue of free market or even the existence of such is disputable,
therefore not a natural law.
If apples fell up, we would both know what we saw and not be able torationally dispute it.
That would not be rational.
Key words: rational, human, consciousness.--
On 6/26/2026 11:33 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:29:27 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:57:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>> make it a natural law. Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
Do apples fall up in your neighborhood?
I'll make you a deal. I won't claim natural law fro my opinions if
you don't claim it for yours. Otherwise...watch out.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>> and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that >>>>>>>>>>> certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.a They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation.a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>> it to mean whatever suits you.a I do not accept you new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.a You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
make it a natural law.a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
On 6/25/2026 1:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:22:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of
On 6/24/2026 2:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>You would have probably thought about this for a long time.
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human >>>>>> invention can be a natural law?
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's. >>>>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>> language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some
fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence." >>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws. >>>>>>>>>>>
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
Longer than thinkers like Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero! >>>>>
They argued that nature possesses an inherent order, and rational humans >>>>> behave best when aligned with it. YMMV.
Yes, the romans certainly demonstrated how rational humans behave
best. Bring on the barbarians.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
Where do you think it comes from? Aliens?
On 6/25/2026 10:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:11:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 3:46 AM, Creon wrote:
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the >>>>>>>>>> opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat >>>>>>> it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember: "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire >>>> ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
It's all about consciousness and perspective.
And not all muslims are war like.
It depends on your definition of "muslims" and "war like".
You really like to paint with a large brush!--
On 6/25/2026 1:19 AM, Creon wrote:
At Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:02:22 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Where's Creon?
(fresh thread started)
I've been out exploring -- who knows what you'll find
out there!
https://imgur.com/a/2eQ6ZvN
It still looks like a dung ball to me.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:33 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:29:27 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:57:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>>> make it a natural law. Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
Do apples fall up in your neighborhood?
I'll make you a deal. I won't claim natural law fro my opinions if
you don't claim it for yours. Otherwise...watch out.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:22:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of
On 6/24/2026 2:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>You would have probably thought about this for a long time.
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human >>>>> invention can be a natural law?
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's. >>>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>>>>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>>>>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public >>>>>>>>>>> understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence." >>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human >>>>>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
Longer than thinkers like Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero!
They argued that nature possesses an inherent order, and rational humans >>>> behave best when aligned with it. YMMV.
Yes, the romans certainly demonstrated how rational humans behave
best. Bring on the barbarians.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. Thanks.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>> and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing >>>>>>>>>>>> that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human >>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>> make it a natural law.-a Either.
theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that
underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance
events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny self-
consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness and
still exist without self-consciousness
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:32:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:19 AM, Creon wrote:
At Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:02:22 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Where's Creon?
(fresh thread started)
I've been out exploring -- who knows what you'll find
out there!
https://imgur.com/a/2eQ6ZvN
It still looks like a dung ball to me.
A giant scoop of chocolate ice cream?
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: Do you know what "cognition" means?
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that >>>>>>>>> the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is self-
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isDon't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
know
they even did it, let alone how
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist >>>>>>>>>>>>> and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we >>>>>>>>>>>> can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would >>>>>>>>>>>> not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing >>>>>>>>>>> "built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't >>>>>>>>> experience things as they really are - only through consciousness. >>>>>>>>we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all >>>>>>>> _is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for variousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
conscious
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense >>>>>>>> organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience from it >>>>>>>>
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see
things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We >>>>>>> are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things
which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually
outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an
impact on
my life
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:33 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:29:27 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:57:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>> logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>>>> make it a natural law. Either.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Karma is not only about reincarnation.
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
Do apples fall up in your neighborhood?
I'll make you a deal. I won't claim natural law fro my opinions if
you don't claim it for yours. Otherwise...watch out.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas >about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it
might be or not be.
It looks to me like you're just trying to shut down open discussion.
Or you're actually trapped in one side of a bifurcated binary and you
can't see beyond it.
Either way, pffft.
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:22:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of
On 6/24/2026 2:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>You would have probably thought about this for a long time.
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human >>>>>> invention can be a natural law?
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's. >>>>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>> language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some
fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence." >>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws. >>>>>>>>>>>
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the >>>>>>>>> outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
Longer than thinkers like Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero! >>>>>
They argued that nature possesses an inherent order, and rational humans >>>>> behave best when aligned with it. YMMV.
Yes, the romans certainly demonstrated how rational humans behave
best. Bring on the barbarians.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
Sure there is.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:33 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:29:27 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:57:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>> logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>>>>> make it a natural law. Either.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Karma is not only about reincarnation.
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
Do apples fall up in your neighborhood?
I'll make you a deal. I won't claim natural law fro my opinions if
you don't claim it for yours. Otherwise...watch out.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
Could a human discover the existence of a natural law? Maybe. But--
beware the natural law that just so happens to agree with whatever
politics you like to believe. Bias is seeping under the door, around
window frames and is about to grab you. Run, run, run. I mean this
is not some little chimera.
However when you see apples fall down and not go up. Believe it.
It looks to me like you're just trying to shut down open discussion.
Or you're actually trapped in one side of a bifurcated binary and you
can't see beyond it.
Either way, pffft.
Yeh, I also absolutely assess your thinking processes as decrepit,
self serving and corroded into lumps of rust. Does it do either of us
any good to mention that? Nah, how about we stick with logical
discussion?
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:22:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of
On 6/24/2026 2:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>You would have probably thought about this for a long time.
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>> and effect
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, WilsonNatural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that >>>>>>>>>> certain
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this >>>>>>>>>>>>> nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their >>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>> language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy >>>>>>>>>>>>> with some
fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point >>>>>>>>>>>>> disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less >>>>>>>>>>>> real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised >>>>>>>>>>>> its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing >>>>>>>>>>>> "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this >>>>>>>>>>>> as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence." >>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>> our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws. >>>>>>>>>>>
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
Webster's.
Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human >>>>>> invention can be a natural law?
Longer than thinkers like Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero! >>>>>
They argued that nature possesses an inherent order, and rational
humans
behave best when aligned with it. YMMV.
Yes, the romans certainly demonstrated how rational humans behave
best.-a Bring on the barbarians.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:33 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:29:27 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:57:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Do apples fall up in your neighborhood?
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Karma is not only about reincarnation.
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law. Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>
I'll make you a deal. I won't claim natural law fro my opinions if >>>>>> you don't claim it for yours. Otherwise...watch out.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's >>>>> own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset >>> at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >self-defeating position.
--odd take from an old commie
#god
Could a human discover the existence of a natural law? Maybe. But
beware the natural law that just so happens to agree with whatever
politics you like to believe. Bias is seeping under the door, around
window frames and is about to grab you. Run, run, run. I mean this
is not some little chimera.
However when you see apples fall down and not go up. Believe it.
It looks to me like you're just trying to shut down open discussion.
Or you're actually trapped in one side of a bifurcated binary and you
can't see beyond it.
Either way, pffft.
Yeh, I also absolutely assess your thinking processes as decrepit,
self serving and corroded into lumps of rust. Does it do either of us
any good to mention that? Nah, how about we stick with logical
discussion?
On 6/23/26 3:40 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:07 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: just stop.
On 6/23/2026 1:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:You are such a liar, Nick!
On 6/22/2026 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
So, seven of the most wealthy nations on the planet, in over 79Almost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supports >>>>>>>>> the two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework >>>>>>>>> for lasting regionalSo, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution. >>>>>>>>>>no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony >>>>>>>> they're gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based >>>>>>>>> on the pre-1967 borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in >>>>>>>>> 1947 and now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million >>>>>>>>> registered Palestine refugees.
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and >>>>>>>>>>> caused the death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000 >>>>>>>>>>> Palestinians in Gaza and approximately 2,000 Israelis.
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be >>>>>>>>>> surprised dud
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with >>>>>>>>> billions of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point. >>>>>>>>
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the >>>>>>>>> US have spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79 >>>>>>>>> years and still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza, >>>>>>>>> Lebanon, Syria and Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives >>>>>>>> and move to other countries???
i mean jeez the absolute fucking hypocracy among you people.
people like you are complaining about ~13 million illegals in a >>>>>>> country of over 300 million...
and ur just like whatever the fuck about 5.5 million people just >>>>>>> up and leaving to the surrounding like egypt (120M), syria (26M), >>>>>>> jordan (11.6M), lebanon (6M) ...
god ur such a retard dud
years, cannot help the refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt
and Gaza, despite billions of dollars in aid from the United
Kingdom and the USA.
What's wrong with this picture, Nick?
the fact the wealthiest nation on the planet cannot help that
level, either...
The U.S. and UK have provided substantial humanitarian aid to Gaza,
with U.S. commitments exceeding $1.4 billion and UK bilateral aid to
the Palestinian territories reaching hundreds of millions in recent
years.
...and yet ur still bitching about the amount of illegal mexicans...
The U.S. provides Mexico with approximately $250 million to $300
million annually in direct foreign assistance. The funding primarily
targets peace, security, economic development, and humanitarian needs.
...and yet ur still bitching about the amount of illegal mexicans...
- Wiki
Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024 >>>>>>>>> reached SAR 1.259 trillion.
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in his
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>>> and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing >>>>>>>>>>>>> that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>> make it a natural law.-a Either.
Buddha;s theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that
underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance
events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny self-
consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness and
still exist without self-consciousness
Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. Thanks.
that was not coherent response Efn+
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:11:17 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:07 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:21:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If you were insane or demented.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>> make it a natural law. Either.
theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies >>>> all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events. >>>>
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self-consciousness, or you would not exist.
I bet, if I were to deny my self-consciousness, I would still be
sitting here.
In a debate at university you would first need to define your terms. You
have not done that, so I looked it up on Webster's and in Buddha's Lotus
Sutra: Aristotle on natural law and Buddha on enlightenment.
According to both, self-consciousness in humans is both rational and
inherent. Look it up.
I can deny natural law, but that would not make apples fall up intoDid anyone say the the free market was natural law? Somebody is getting
the tree. I can say, free market is a natural law, but that would not
affect those who disagree, even though you would probably say it does.
The virtue of free market or even the existence of such is disputable,
therefore not a natural law.
really confused!
It was an example. Like property rights. If you say one, saying the
other would follow the same faulty logic.
That would not be rational.If apples fell up, we would both know what we saw and not be able torationally dispute it.
It would be if you saw it.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>> and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that >>>>>>>>>>>> certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>> make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his opinions. >>
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:00 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:22:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of
On 6/24/2026 2:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:11:58 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>You would have probably thought about this for a long time.
On 6/24/2026 8:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Does it say that free market or libertarian ideas or any other human >>>>>>> invention can be a natural law?
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:So, I already posted up the definition of natural law from Webster's. >>>>>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they
will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with
actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some
fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any
sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission
statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws. >>>>>>>>>>>>
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature. >>>>>>>>>>>
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened >>>>>>>>>> without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to >>>>>>>>> my idea of what natural law is.
Longer than thinkers like Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero! >>>>>>
They argued that nature possesses an inherent order, and rational humans >>>>>> behave best when aligned with it. YMMV.
Yes, the romans certainly demonstrated how rational humans behave
best. Bring on the barbarians.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
Sure there is.
Sorry I find your belief not convincing.
On 6/23/2026 4:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 3:40 PM, Dude wrote:The US taxpayer is getting fed up with the Mexican drug cartels and the >human trafficking across the Mexican border.
On 6/23/2026 2:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:07 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: just stop.
On 6/23/2026 1:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:You are such a liar, Nick!
On 6/22/2026 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
So, seven of the most wealthy nations on the planet, in over 79 >>>>>>> years, cannot help the refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt >>>>>>> and Gaza, despite billions of dollars in aid from the UnitedAlmost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supports >>>>>>>>>> the two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework >>>>>>>>>> for lasting regionalSo, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution. >>>>>>>>>>>no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony >>>>>>>>> they're gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based >>>>>>>>>> on the pre-1967 borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in >>>>>>>>>> 1947 and now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million >>>>>>>>>> registered Palestine refugees.
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and >>>>>>>>>>>> caused the death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000 >>>>>>>>>>>> Palestinians in Gaza and approximately 2,000 Israelis. >>>>>>>>>>>>
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be >>>>>>>>>>> surprised dud
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with >>>>>>>>>> billions of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point. >>>>>>>>>
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the >>>>>>>>>> US have spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79 >>>>>>>>>> years and still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza, >>>>>>>>>> Lebanon, Syria and Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives >>>>>>>>> and move to other countries???
i mean jeez the absolute fucking hypocracy among you people.
people like you are complaining about ~13 million illegals in a >>>>>>>> country of over 300 million...
and ur just like whatever the fuck about 5.5 million people just >>>>>>>> up and leaving to the surrounding like egypt (120M), syria (26M), >>>>>>>> jordan (11.6M), lebanon (6M) ...
god ur such a retard dud
Kingdom and the USA.
What's wrong with this picture, Nick?
the fact the wealthiest nation on the planet cannot help that
level, either...
The U.S. and UK have provided substantial humanitarian aid to Gaza, >>>>> with U.S. commitments exceeding $1.4 billion and UK bilateral aid to >>>>> the Palestinian territories reaching hundreds of millions in recent >>>>> years.
...and yet ur still bitching about the amount of illegal mexicans...
The U.S. provides Mexico with approximately $250 million to $300
million annually in direct foreign assistance. The funding primarily
targets peace, security, economic development, and humanitarian needs.
...and yet ur still bitching about the amount of illegal mexicans...
It's just outrageous!--
This has got to stop or Trump is going to fly off the handle and start
more bombing of drug factories in Mexico. The border is closed.
Apparently, thousands of children have been killed, orphaned, or
displaced by cartel-related violence in Mexico, either as innocent >bystanders caught in the crossfire or as deliberate targets.
The brutality of these crimes, which include babies and toddlers, has >sparked international outrage and widespread protests
- Wiki
Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024 >>>>>>>>>> reached SAR 1.259 trillion.
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in his
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that does >>>>>> not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Buddha;s theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that
underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human reason. >>>>>
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance
events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny self-
consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness and
still exist without self-consciousness
Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. Thanks.
that was not coherent response Efn+
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>>> and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that >>>>>>>>>>>>> certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>> make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at the expense of repeating myself:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's >>>>>> own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset >>>> at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas >>>> about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's >>>>>>> own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset >>>>> at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas >>>>> about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >>> self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >discussion.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's >>>>>>>> own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset >>>>>> at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas >>>>>> about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >>>> self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's >>>>>>>> own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset >>>>>> at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas >>>>>> about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >>>> self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's >>>>>>>>> own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas >>>>>>> about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >>>>> self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide. Let me know you they proclaim
you.
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >>>>>> self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide. Let me know you they proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in Noahland.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide. Let me know you they proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in Noahland.
My objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >opinions. Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here. Mr Avatar. Not that I think you will do what
I say. My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. So you >understand that you are not convincing based on that.
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's >>>>>>>>> own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas >>>>>>> about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >>>>> self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know
if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targetingThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>> natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targetingThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>> natural law.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they
can't find a quick answer.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide. Let me know you they proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in Noahland.
My objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your opinions. Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here. Mr Avatar. Not that I think you will do what
I say. My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. So you understand that you are not convincing based on that.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:07:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >>>>>> self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know
if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
The fallacy is appeal to authority. State what evidence you have to
support your idea with out such appeals. People will decide. That is
all there is.
Done.
On 6/27/2026 2:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they
can't find a quick answer.
Ideas presented are ideas. Links to Grok's sources are included.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:07:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >>>>>> self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know
if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
The fallacy is appeal to authority. State what evidence you have to
support your idea with out such appeals. People will decide. That is
all there is.
Done.
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targetingThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>> natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c- dbd02e95b6a2
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't
investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be
natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow >>>>>>>>> one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>> mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. >>>>>>> Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about
how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.-a There has >>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter?
it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.-a But >>>> do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know
if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targetingThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>> natural law.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they
can't find a quick answer.
Try reason.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:38:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 7:54 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:50:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That's not the only valid means of knowledge.
On 6/23/2026 6:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:38:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>That brings up the question:
On 6/23/2026 2:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:My position, and the position of most idealistic transcendentalists, is >>>>>> that the material world is a false projection or superimposition upon >>>>>> pure consciousness which is the real.
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed that >>>>>>>>>> human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind a passive >>>>>>>>>> observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the opposite: the >>>>>>>>>> world must conform to our minds. Our brains have built-in "hardware" >>>>>>>>>> (like space and time) that actively shapes the raw data we perceive. >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/19/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant dualities that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???),
-a -a> merely select when either best applies as the per the
context
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's another that says life is a random walk, quantum foam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each other made
everything, without meaning or purpose.
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view affects the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of reality, wave or particle.
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The attempt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as many. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that appears to be: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> none. Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short term self >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest.
I like reality.
-a-a> reality doesn't have nation-state borders
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
how do we prove that? because by what method do we objective >>>>>>>>>>>>> measure them? none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality
"Reality doesn't have..." and then describes something that is a >>>>>>>>>>>> part of social consciousness consensus reality. While claiming >>>>>>>>>>>> that a system-a of social agreement based on consensus is the best >>>>>>>>>>>> way forward.
Sure, go with that. It'll definitely work this time.
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on all >>>>>>>>>>> those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is we >>>>>>>>>>> lack those processes, and we're already at the point where we are >>>>>>>>>>> starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce the >>>>>>>>>>> same results as actual consensus-making across the entire population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after aristocratic >>>>>>>>>>> oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern complexity and >>>>>>>>>>> global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i think
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual >>>>>>>> projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat it???
Human senses are not designed to determine what is real. They are
designed to allow humans to avoid speeding trucks. For that purpose >>>>> they do quite well.
"What are the valid means of knowledge?
We only have experience with speeding trucks.
There is also verbal knowledge and inference.
For example, you've personally never been up in space to witness first
hand the curvature of the earth - but you know from the testimony of
others that this true.
And, we INFER, from observation that one thing leads to another.
Nevertheless our senses only function to help us avoid speeding...
YMMV.
No rational person would claim that they don't exist.
Unless they were insane or demented - it's just not logical.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:24:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 10:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:11:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It depends on your definition of "muslims" and "war like".
wrote:
On 6/25/2026 3:46 AM, Creon wrote:
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real >>>>>>>>>>>>
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the >>>>>>>>>>> opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat >>>>>>>> it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember: "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire >>>>> ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
It's all about consciousness and perspective.
And not all muslims are war like.
Honest people know what those words mean.
Those who wish to obfucate the issue demand definitions so they canWhat is "war like"? Just be honest.
argue about them and ignore the issue.>
You really like to paint with a large brush!
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that the >>>>>>>> brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote:it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isDon't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to a 2D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the frame >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all frames of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be >>>>>>>>>>>> perceived like other material objects.
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the hallways >>>>>>>>>>>>> without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> even
know
they even did it, let alone how
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist >>>>>>>>>>>> and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we >>>>>>>>>>> can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would not >>>>>>>>>>> have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing >>>>>>>>>> "built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and
causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy
supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex
out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience
due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
would that be convincing enough for you?
#god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't >>>>>>>> experience things as they really are - only through consciousness. >>>>>>>we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all >>>>>>> _is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for variousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
conscious
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense organs >>>>>>> from the external world and generates conscious experience from it >>>>>>>
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see things as >>>>>> they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We >>>>>> are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things which we >>>>>> perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually outside >>>>>> our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an
impact on
my life
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:28:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex
out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience
due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a>
-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of consciousness? >>
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
Because seeming cause and effect are really unrelated events that
happen in sequence without one causing the other.
Does B always follow A?
Does B happen without A?
On 6/26/26 9:28 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: Do you know what "cognition" means?
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, >>>>>> the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that >>>>>>>>>> the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is self-
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we >>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a >>>>>> matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
cognition: the mental process of acquiring, processing, and storing information
when someone who is blind navigates/avoids objects while walking down a hallway, this is at the very least acquiring and processing information without being consciously aware of it
the subconscious part of the mind does an incredible amount of cognition
dud
i'm not really sure why ur still trying to deny it
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't >>>>>>>>>> experience things as they really are - only through
consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all >>>>>>>>> _is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense >>>>>>>>> organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience from it >>>>>>>>>
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see
things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We >>>>>>>> are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things
which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually
outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an
impact on
my life
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 15:11:35 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 12:13 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 7:17 PM, Dude wrote:If consciousness is a property of the body, it must be perceived like
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every >>>>>>>> single cell in the universe is conscious.
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else. In other words, cognition takes place only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in consciousness and nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
experienced outside of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of >>>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects, >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and >>>>>>>>>>> move about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>>> cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of
cognition, and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view it more like an executive head of a
organization (with limited control even), more involved with >>>>>>>>>>> shaping the orchestration rather than being directly involved >>>>>>>>>>> with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>>> conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of
"consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example >>>>>>>>>> of "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state >>>>>>>>>> awareness that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects >>>>>>>>> of experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is >>>>>>>>> in language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. >>>>>>>>> the classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be
considered it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own
quale. feelings are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is >>>>>>>>> therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, >>>>>>>>> but it just isn't...
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>> things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past
actions), and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The >>>>>>>> goal of Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory,
not an absolute matter of fact
that's not ur strength dud
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
or we just lack the insight right now required to measure it directly
somehow, which ofc you'll not address because u never address counter
points u can't answer to
other material properties. But consciousness is neither seen, smelt or
tasted nor touched nor heard.
Which demonstrates the limited usefulness of that standard.
-a-a> we just don't know right now
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm >>>>>>>>
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 15:10:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:17:39 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, if consciousness means self-consciousness, then
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every >>>>>>>> single cell in the universe is conscious.
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of >>>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects, >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>>>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>>> cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>>>>>>> i view it more like an executive head of a organization (with >>>>>>>>>>> limited control even), more involved with shaping the
orchestration rather than being directly involved with all or >>>>>>>>>>> even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>>> conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of >>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness >>>>>>>>>> that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of >>>>>>>>> experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in >>>>>>>>> language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the >>>>>>>>> classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered >>>>>>>>> it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings >>>>>>>>> are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is >>>>>>>>> therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but >>>>>>>>> it just isn't...
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>> things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past actions), >>>>>>>> and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The goal of >>>>>>>> Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and finally >>>>>>>> wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual
projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory, not >>>>> an absolute matter of fact
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
In other words, there can be no properties that cannot be detected by
physical means. Poked, prodded, punched. Further there is nothing
that we have not yet detected.
it cannot be identified by logic with the human body..
Tell sam to have his lawyer contact my lawyer.
-a> we just don't know right now
-a>
-a> #god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm >>>>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>>>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. I say, >>>> that is up to the hindu's to decide. Let me know you they proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in Noahland.
My objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your
opinions. Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here. Mr Avatar. Not that I think you will do what
I say. My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
On 6/27/2026 2:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:07:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>>>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know >>> if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
The fallacy is appeal to authority. State what evidence you have to
support your idea with out such appeals. People will decide. That is
all there is.
Done.
Attempting to disassociate my opinion on what works best from what I see
as natural law? My opinion is based on what I understand.
You can
attempt refute it if you want.
On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they
can't find a quick answer.
Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern >international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon >rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the >dominant foundation.
On 6/27/2026 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:It looks like I got cut out.
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targetingThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>> natural law.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
International Law: Rules of engagement during war (like the prohibition >against targeting civilians) are rooted in universal concepts of--
humanity and natural justice.
On 6/25/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:28:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness >>>>> and nowhere else.
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>>>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a >>>>>>> matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex >>>> out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience
due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
a> would that be convincing enough for you?
a>
a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of consciousness? >>>
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
Because seeming cause and effect are really unrelated events that
happen in sequence without one causing the other.
Does B always follow A?
Does B happen without A?
Are you saying that cause and effect does not lead one thing to another?
That doesn't even make any sense. Everyone knows about the law of cause
and effect means one thing causes another.
"The Law of Cause and Effect states that every action, event, or "cause"--
has a corresponding reaction or "effect". Often considered an iron rule
of the universe, it asserts that nothing happens by pure chance and that >identical causes will always produce identical effects." - Britannica
On 6/24/2026 8:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 15:10:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You would not exist without consciousness.
On 6/24/2026 8:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:17:39 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>According to Sam Harris, if consciousness means self-consciousness, then >>> it cannot be identified by logic with the human body..
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every >>>>>>>>> single cell in the universe is conscious.
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects, >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>>>>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>>>> cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>>>>>>>> i view it more like an executive head of a organization (with >>>>>>>>>>>> limited control even), more involved with shaping the
orchestration rather than being directly involved with all or >>>>>>>>>>>> even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>>>> conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of >>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness >>>>>>>>>>> that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of >>>>>>>>>> experienceda awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in >>>>>>>>>> language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the >>>>>>>>>> classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered >>>>>>>>>> it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings >>>>>>>>>> are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is >>>>>>>>>> therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing >>>>>>>>>>
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but >>>>>>>>>> it just isn't...
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>>> things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past actions), >>>>>>>>> and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The goal of >>>>>>>>> Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and finally >>>>>>>>> wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual >>>>>>>>> projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory, not >>>>>> an absolute matter of fact
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
In other words, there can be no properties that cannot be detected by
physical means. Poked, prodded, punched. Further there is nothing
that we have not yet detected.
Tell sam to have his lawyer contact my lawyer.
--
a> we just don't know right now
a>
a> #god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent >>>>>>> property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm >>>>>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't
investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>> natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to
winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to
consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.-a There has >>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years
more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions
matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur
previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism
nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.-a But >>>>> do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.a But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to
consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.a There has >>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions
matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur
previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism
nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.a But >>>>>> do go calling them natural laws.a You know what happens when god
laughs.a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.a Primate property is >>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targetingThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>> natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c- dbd02e95b6a2
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targetingThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>> natural law.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >actually not true
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness does not depend on the sense of sight, Nick
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that >>>>>>>>> the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is self-
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isDon't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
know
they even did it, let alone how
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist >>>>>>>>>>>>> and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we >>>>>>>>>>>> can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would >>>>>>>>>>>> not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing >>>>>>>>>>> "built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't >>>>>>>>> experience things as they really are - only through consciousness. >>>>>>>>we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all >>>>>>>> _is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for variousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
conscious
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense >>>>>>>> organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience from it >>>>>>>>
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see
things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We >>>>>>> are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things
which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually
outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an
impact on
my life
On 6/26/2026 12:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 9:28 AM, Dude wrote:There seems to be some kind of confusion, Nick.
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: Do you know what "cognition" means?
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that >>>>>>>>>>> the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is self-that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyways???),
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious.
it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> galaxy, which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ...
but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
terms, the
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a >>>>>>> matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>
consciousness and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out >>>>
cognition: the mental process of acquiring, processing, and storing
information
when someone who is blind navigates/avoids objects while walking down
a hallway, this is at the very least acquiring and processing
information without being consciously aware of it
the subconscious part of the mind does an incredible amount of
cognition dud
i'm not really sure why ur still trying to deny it
Consciousness is the ultimate reality. Without it you would not exist.
Reason is the supreme faculty of the human mind. Rather than being a
passive receiver of information, reason is the active force that
organizes and unifies all our thoughts, sensations, and moral principles.
This has already been explained on this board by Tang Huyen.
See: philosophy, Tang, Martin Heidegger
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We >>>>>>>>>>> don't
experience things as they really are - only through
consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean >>>>>>>>>> all
_is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense >>>>>>>>>> organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience >>>>>>>>>> from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see >>>>>>>>> things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory
experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things >>>>>>>>> which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually
outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an >>>>>>>> impact on
my life
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
On 6/27/26 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
i'm a deontologist, so instead of framing a right a to life as
inherently iMmUtAbLe,
i frame it as we have an inherent duty to ensure we maintain that right
as absolutely as possible.
i view even self-defense killings as a level of wrong: in that we ought
to be seeking ways to put down threats with non-lethal methods, _and_ we >ought to be seeking structural solutions within society that eliminate
the creation of such threats ever in the first place.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:09:39 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 3:40 PM, Dude wrote:The US taxpayer is getting fed up with the Mexican drug cartels and the
On 6/23/2026 2:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:07 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: just stop.
On 6/23/2026 1:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:You are such a liar, Nick!
On 6/22/2026 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
So, seven of the most wealthy nations on the planet, in over 79 >>>>>>>> years, cannot help the refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt >>>>>>>> and Gaza, despite billions of dollars in aid from the UnitedAlmost every Arab and Middle Eastern nation officially supports >>>>>>>>>>> the two- state solution, viewing it as the primary framework >>>>>>>>>>> for lasting regionalSo, the Hamas leadership said "nope" to a two-state solution. >>>>>>>>>>>>no one on either side wants a two-state solution dud
that's cause if they say anything against the zionist hegemony >>>>>>>>>> they're gunna be iran-ed
peace. These countries endorse the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, generally based >>>>>>>>>>> on the pre-1967 borders.
A ghetto of their own making. There were 850,000 refugees in >>>>>>>>>>> 1947 and now there are are approximately 1.6 to 1.7 million >>>>>>>>>>> registered Palestine refugees.
Instead, the Hamas terrorists declared war on Israel and >>>>>>>>>>>>> caused the death, since October 7, 2023, of over 73,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Palestinians in Gaza and approximately 2,000 Israelis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You fucking warmonger!
after spending decades in a literal ghetto only you would be >>>>>>>>>>>> surprised dud
What happened? Gaza is surrounded by seven Arab states with >>>>>>>>>>> billions of dollars in oil revenue. Billions! Trillions?
people breed u moron. 80% of isreal is native born at this point. >>>>>>>>>>
Why can't the Arab countries help the refugees? Israel and the >>>>>>>>>>> US have spent billions in refugee aid. Can you believe this: 79 >>>>>>>>>>> years and still over a million refugees in ghettos in Gaza, >>>>>>>>>>> Lebanon, Syria and Jordon!
i'm sorry why don't 5.5 million people just uproot their lives >>>>>>>>>> and move to other countries???
i mean jeez the absolute fucking hypocracy among you people. >>>>>>>>> people like you are complaining about ~13 million illegals in a >>>>>>>>> country of over 300 million...
and ur just like whatever the fuck about 5.5 million people just >>>>>>>>> up and leaving to the surrounding like egypt (120M), syria (26M), >>>>>>>>> jordan (11.6M), lebanon (6M) ...
god ur such a retard dud
Kingdom and the USA.
What's wrong with this picture, Nick?
the fact the wealthiest nation on the planet cannot help that
level, either...
The U.S. and UK have provided substantial humanitarian aid to Gaza, >>>>>> with U.S. commitments exceeding $1.4 billion and UK bilateral aid to >>>>>> the Palestinian territories reaching hundreds of millions in recent >>>>>> years.
...and yet ur still bitching about the amount of illegal mexicans... >>>>>
The U.S. provides Mexico with approximately $250 million to $300
million annually in direct foreign assistance. The funding primarily
targets peace, security, economic development, and humanitarian needs. >>>>
...and yet ur still bitching about the amount of illegal mexicans...
human trafficking across the Mexican border.
The us taxpayer is getting fed up with the outrages of ice and
abrogation of their rights.
It's just outrageous!
This has got to stop or Trump is going to fly off the handle and start
more bombing of drug factories in Mexico. The border is closed.
Apparently, thousands of children have been killed, orphaned, or
displaced by cartel-related violence in Mexico, either as innocent
bystanders caught in the crossfire or as deliberate targets.
The brutality of these crimes, which include babies and toddlers, has
sparked international outrage and widespread protests
- Wiki
Saudi Arabia's total government revenue for the full-year 2024 >>>>>>>>>>> reached SAR 1.259 trillion.
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in his
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new
definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Buddha;s theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that
underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human reason. >>>>>>
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance >>>>>> events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny self- >>>>>> consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness and
still exist without self-consciousness
Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. Thanks.
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to
consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.-a There has >>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions
matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur
previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.-a But >>>>>>> do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is >>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >>> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, you can't explain consciousness.
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>>>> and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that does >>>>>> not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:41:45 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:It looks like I got cut out.
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
because you added nothing to the discussion.
prohibitionInternational Law: Rules of engagement during war (like the
against targeting civilians) are rooted in universal concepts of
humanity and natural justice.
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targetingThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>> natural law.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the
ROE in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" actually not true
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
On 6/27/26 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, theThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of
rules of
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice >>>>>>>> and
natural law.
engagement.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the
ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
i'm a deontologist, so instead of framing a right a to life as
inherently iMmUtAbLe,
i frame it as we have an inherent duty to ensure we maintain that right
as absolutely as possible.
i view even self-defense killings as a level of wrong: in that we ought
to be seeking ways to put down threats with non-lethal methods, _and_ we ought to be seeking structural solutions within society that eliminate
the creation of such threats ever in the first place.
On 6/24/26 8:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:17 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:38:35 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that
wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 8:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
If any person or people refuse to live according to natural law they >>>>>>> will fail.
nigga, by what means are you measuring and testing this nAtUrAl
LaW????
Life experience and outcome is the measure.
freaking economic fundies and always confusing their opinions with >>>>>> actual laws of nature. i know that economics uses scientific
language to
legitimize itself ... but it's basically just philosophy with some >>>>>> fancy
math thrown in that barely predicts much
basic anthology, which is an actual science based on evidence, not >>>>>> just
cherry-picking ur favorite fundie fable, at this point disproves any >>>>>> sort of universal law here
Anthology = anthropology?
Seriously though? Seriously? Cultural anthropology has less real
science
than psychology.
"In 2010, the American Anthropological Association revised its mission >>>>> statement to remove references to "science," prioritizing "public
understanding" and humanistic approaches. Critics saw this as
conceding
to postmodernism, activism, and ideology over evidence."
Meanwhile the universal laws of life play out regardless of our
level of
recognition or admiration. Like it or not.
The kicker is that you think your opinions are such laws.
certain moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human
nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just
happened without any underlying principles manifesting reality that
affect the outcome of human action.
wealthy duds arguing diving right all over again.
should've listened to jesus more:
the wealthy going to heaven is more lol than
a camel going thru the eye of a needle
#god
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an Idealist.
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in his
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new
definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Buddha;s theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that
underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human
reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance >>>>>>> events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self- consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness and >>>>>> still exist without self-consciousness
Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. Thanks.
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that physical matter
is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning consciousness, the
mind, and the universe can be entirely explained by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is fundamentally mental
or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness are the true
foundation of existence, rather than physical matter.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>So, you can't explain consciousness.
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new
definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
On 6/27/2026 6:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Congratulations, Nick! You are now a Buddhist. Good work! This is a breakthrough for sure.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity,
justice and
natural law.
engagement.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about
the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
i'm a deontologist, so instead of framing a right a to life as
inherently iMmUtAbLe,
i frame it as we have an inherent duty to ensure we maintain that
right as absolutely as possible.
i view even self-defense killings as a level of wrong: in that weSure. Just say "Don't come at me bro!"
ought to be seeking ways to put down threats with non-lethal methods,
_and_ we ought to be seeking structural solutions within society that
eliminate the creation of such threats ever in the first place.
On 6/27/2026 2:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:41:45 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, you're the moderator of the group.
On 6/27/2026 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:It looks like I got cut out.
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, theThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of
rules of
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice >>>>>>>> and
natural law.
engagement.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the
ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
because you added nothing to the discussion.
On 6/25/26 12:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:46 AM, Creon wrote:So, I guess everyone can see why Creon wrote you off as a troll. Good
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the >>>>>>>>>> opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat >>>>>>> it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
sometimes it's hard to remind myself that everyone i see walking
around has a little bit of the divine up there experiencing ...
-a-a> "a little bit" being a misnomer ofc
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire >>>> ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
-a _ _ _ _ _ _ _
damn dud, so actually joo were quoting one of those medieval nazi-
muzzies trying to exile the joos, eh??? next joo'll be quoting hitler
kus emek!
work, Nick.
ur the dud quoting a medieval joo-exiling nazi muzzie! ur words not mine!
Virtually every claim you have referenced is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes
made up by informants which have all been refuted and found to be
spurious, crude racist and biased - on this very forum!
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:My objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>>>>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the >>>>> equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. I say, >>>>> that is up to the hindu's to decide. Let me know you they proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in Noahland. >>>
opinions. Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here. Mr Avatar. Not that I think you will do what
I say. My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is. You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it. Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate. If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot. Nice try.
On 6/25/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:48 PM, Dude wrote:You are incorrect: While a few individuals and politicized movements...
On 6/25/2026 1:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:46 AM, Creon wrote:So, I guess everyone can see why Creon wrote you off as a troll. Good
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real >>>>>>>>>>>>
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to produce >>>>>>>>>>>> the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after
aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the >>>>>>>>>>> opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous
conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat >>>>>>>> it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
sometimes it's hard to remind myself that everyone i see walking
around has a little bit of the divine up there experiencing ...
-a-a> "a little bit" being a misnomer ofc
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire >>>>> ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian
poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
-a _ _ _ _ _ _ _
damn dud, so actually joo were quoting one of those medieval nazi-
muzzies trying to exile the joos, eh??? next joo'll be quoting
hitler kus emek!
work, Nick.
ur the dud quoting a medieval joo-exiling nazi muzzie! ur words not mine!
Virtually every claim you have referenced is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes
made up by informants which have all been refuted and found to be
spurious, crude racist and biased - on this very forum!
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is viewed as
an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no >government can justly grant or revoke it.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then >>>>>>>> we can
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>> this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>> previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, >>>>>>>>> does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and >>>>>>>> talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any >>>>>>>> open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate
property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the >>>>>> equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu.-a I >>>>>> say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do what >>>> I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try.
You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational analysis,--
not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On 6/27/2026 5:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:In war, people's lives are lost?
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the
ROE in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
--do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lolLife is considered immutable and inalienable in natural law and
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
universal human rights, but it is legally conditional and mutable in >practice across different nations and justice systems. Hopes that helps
your confusion.
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we >>>>>> can
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>> natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly claim >>>>>>>>>>> that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand >>>>>>>>>> this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to
consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>> how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think
about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.-a There has >>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>> previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then
matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and
out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and
talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and
deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is >>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu.-a I say, >>>> that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's exploring
what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>>>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is viewed as
an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality. They are simply opinions.
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or self- awareness. Better to try Nick.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then >>>>>>> we can
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>> natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand >>>>>>>>>>> this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.-a There >>>>>>>>>> has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>> previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then
matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and
out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and >>>>>>> talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and
deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate
property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the >>>>> equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu.-a I say, >>>>> that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do what >>> I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's exploring
what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of view.
It's all about the money.
On 6/27/26 8:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>>>>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>> actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is viewed as >>> an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality. They are simply opinions.
i mean, but the belief system a society operates by does in fact feed
back into how reality is further generated, eh?
by their actions taking in accordance with that belief system, at the--
very least...
particular moral systems have very real consequences
#god
perhaps even certain consequences if we could test repeatedly
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>So, you can't explain consciousness.
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being >>>>>> rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new
definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
what is this buddha even???
#god
On 6/27/26 7:20 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:41:45 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, you're the moderator of the group.
On 6/27/2026 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:It looks like I got cut out.
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity,
justice and
natural law.
engagement.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about
the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
because you added nothing to the discussion.
i'm the moderator of my post bitch...
watchu finna do about it? bitch about it s'more??
#god
...how fitting...
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>So, you can't explain consciousness.
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being >>>>>>> rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>>> university debate class.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>> and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>>
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- >>>>> awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at >>>>> the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a-a> what is this buddha even???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On 6/27/2026 8:00 PM, dart200 wrote:its _MY_ /POST/ *BIATCH*
On 6/27/26 7:20 PM, Dude wrote:It's rLeN+ArLeN+ArLeN+A
On 6/27/2026 2:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:41:45 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>So, you're the moderator of the group.
On 6/27/2026 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:It looks like I got cut out.
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity,
justice and
natural law.
engagement.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about
the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
because you added nothing to the discussion.
i'm the moderator of my post bitch...
---a-a> watchu finna do about it? bitch about it s'more??
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
...how fitting...
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an Idealist.
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in his >>>>>> Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. Thanks.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, WilsonMaybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>> and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Buddha;s theory of karma.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that >>>>>>>> underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human >>>>>>>> reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no
chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self- consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness
and still exist without self-consciousness
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the future:
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that physical
matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely explained by
physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is fundamentally mental
or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness are the true
foundation of existence, rather than physical matter.
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching out and interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why is it stuck following all these rules that are entirely independent of conscious
intent?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:25:46 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c- >>>>>>> dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>>> actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by >>>>> govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke >>>> and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is viewed as >>>> an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no >>>> government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality. They are simply opinions.
i mean, but the belief system a society operates by does in fact feed
back into how reality is further generated, eh?
Believing somthing that is false has real world consequences. However
false opinions do not become fact on that account.
--by their actions taking in accordance with that belief system, at the
very least...
> particular moral systems have very real consequences
>
> #god
perhaps even certain consequences if we could test repeatedly
On 6/27/26 7:34 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Congratulations, Nick! You are now a Buddhist. Good work! This is a
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity,
justice and
natural law.
engagement.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about
the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>> actually not true
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by >>>> govts.
i'm a deontologist, so instead of framing a right a to life as
inherently iMmUtAbLe,
i frame it as we have an inherent duty to ensure we maintain that
right as absolutely as possible.
breakthrough for sure.
nah i'm not a jooddhist
i view even self-defense killings as a level of wrong: in that weSure. Just say "Don't come at me bro!"
ought to be seeking ways to put down threats with non-lethal methods,
_and_ we ought to be seeking structural solutions within society that
eliminate the creation of such threats ever in the first place.
EfiaEfAa .... woops
On 6/27/2026 7:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The answer is simple: We experience everything in space and time, both
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an Idealist.
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:that was not coherent response Efn+
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, WilsonMaybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and >>>>>>>>> Buddha;s theory of karma.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that >>>>>>>>> underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human >>>>>>>>> reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no
chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny >>>>>>>>> self- consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness >>>>>>>> and still exist without self-consciousness
his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. Thanks. >>>>>>
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the future:
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that physical
matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely explained
by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is fundamentally
mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness are the
true foundation of existence, rather than physical matter.
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching out and
interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why is it
stuck following all these rules that are entirely independent of
conscious intent?
of which are constructed by the mind through cognition.
Soto Zen is referred to sometimes as the "Mind Only" school of Buddhism.
Cognition is perception: Interpreting sensory information (what you see, hear, taste, touch, and smell) to make sense of your environment.
On 6/23/26 2:27 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:08 PM, Dude wrote:Let me be clear: The claim you are referring to is entirely false and
On 6/21/2026 11:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 4:51 PM, Dude wrote:The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated,
On 6/20/2026 10:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:26 PM, Dude wrote:So, I think I already commented on this. But let me say this:
On 6/20/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 5:30 PM, Dude wrote:Let me say this about that:
On 6/20/2026 3:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:Have you served?
On 6/20/2026 10:55 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 20, 2026 at 1:17:41rC>PM EDT, "Tara" <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Nick came here to get enlightened and instead, he got >>>>>>>>>>>> trashed by Croon.
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 11:00 PM, Dude wrote:Al-Qaeda has always taken credit for WTC-7 destruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was part of
On 6/19/2026 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:You fell for the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside job by Jews
On 6/19/2026 12:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:Which reality?
On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality: pure
consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of the
universe,
Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also doesn't
capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that
exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and dualism
(wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a > merely select when either best applies as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the per the context
-a-a-a >
-a-a-a > #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each other made
everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The attempt
to pin it
down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one appears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be: none.
Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term self interest.
I like reality.
reality doesn't have nation-state borders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You came here to get enlightened. Now you're post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
how do we prove that? because by what method do we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective
measure them?
Non-dual.
none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A mind reader eh?
"choosing" to be retarded, still leaves you a retard dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in order to provoke the US into a war on terror - and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm the retard?
i have a long body of evidence that likes of which falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside ur
gimped cognitive ability to reckon about, so i certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
repeating myself to joo in any great detail
"Al-Qaeda has repeatedly claimed responsibility for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacks, with
they didn't plant the explosives dummy, and they didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even hit WTC7
the plan, obviously.
It's not funny, Nick. You're really crude, dud. No, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cringe is a better
chief deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri accusing Shia Iran and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hezbollah of
denigrating Sunni successes in hurting the U.S. by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally
starting rumors that Israel carried out the attacks." - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki
that's pretty freaking hilarious, but again... joo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted the muzzies to
take the credit
description.
A total of 2,753 people died at the World Trade Center >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site on September
11, 2001,
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spurious, crude
racist and biased.
Not to worry:
The drive to stand out is a powerful psychological >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism that
frequently draws people to conspiracy theories. Believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in hidden truths
makes individuals feel special, granting them a sense of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intellectual
superiority and uniqueness because they possess knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
"mainstream" public seemingly does not
In essence: don't bother taking him seriously. Flip it off >>>>>>>>>>>>> and ignore. He's no
threat, (and he had better not be), other than to himself. >>>>>>>>>>>> -a>
So, that should be a wrap.
Unless some other informant wants to pile on and add some >>>>>>>>>>>> more trashing.
Maybe Nick feels better now, after talking to other people >>>>>>>>>>>> for awhile, even strangers in a chat room. YMMV.
an unamerican traitor can't trash on me
serve the zionist warmonging we've been doing for the past
decades???
what would that even mean u fucking treasonous bastard...
i don't care how many muzzies you killed in the name of zion, >>>>>>>>> it won't ever make you american u cunt
You came here for enlightenment?
traitor won't answer the question
For the record: I'm on the side of the US and all the UN countries >>>>>> that recognize Israel as a sovereign state.
So, I am opposed to the radical Islamic terrorist religious
extremism and all followers of cult of Mo and the fucking Koran so >>>>>> shut up.
In my opinion, Islam is fundamentally opposed to Democracy. That's >>>>>> my final answer.
fucking traitor siding with a zionist cabal who committed the
largest single strike on us soil ever, over ur own country men
wtc7 wasn't hit by a plane, and it certainly wasn't fucking
demolitions by the muzzies
joo can keep meekly repeating jourself, and i'll keep accusing joo
of willful treason to this great country
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious,
crude racist and biased.
that's because again: we've gone outside the limited overton window
ur cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep denying
endlessly,
fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
informants
which have all been refuted and found to be spurious, crude racist and
biased.
sure let me be clear too: we've gone outside the limited overton window
ur cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep denying endlessly,
On 6/27/2026 7:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:34 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you still have not read the Buddha''s Lotus Sutra, nor
On 6/27/2026 6:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Congratulations, Nick! You are now a Buddhist. Good work! This is a
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of >>>>>>>>>> engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, >>>>>>>>>>> justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about >>>>>>> the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c- >>>>>>> dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have
anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>>> actually not true
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by >>>>> govts.
i'm a deontologist, so instead of framing a right a to life as
inherently iMmUtAbLe,
i frame it as we have an inherent duty to ensure we maintain that
right as absolutely as possible.
breakthrough for sure.
nah i'm not a jooddhist
i view even self-defense killings as a level of wrong: in that weSure. Just say "Don't come at me bro!"
ought to be seeking ways to put down threats with non-lethal
methods, _and_ we ought to be seeking structural solutions within
society that eliminate the creation of such threats ever in the
first place.
EfiaEfAa .... woops
Kant's Critique on Pure Reason.
Why not? You came here to get enlightenment, right?
Posting porn emojis is just not going to impress. Are you smarter than a
5th grader. You're way out of your league on this board. Better luck of al.,messianic.
On 6/23/2026 2:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:27 PM, Dude wrote:Let me be clear: Your theory is unthinkable: A concept that goes
On 6/23/2026 10:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:08 PM, Dude wrote:Let me be clear: The claim you are referring to is entirely false and
On 6/21/2026 11:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 4:51 PM, Dude wrote:The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated,
On 6/20/2026 10:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:26 PM, Dude wrote:So, I think I already commented on this. But let me say this:
On 6/20/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 5:30 PM, Dude wrote:Let me say this about that:
On 6/20/2026 3:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:Have you served?
On 6/20/2026 10:55 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 20, 2026 at 1:17:41rC>PM EDT, "Tara"Nick came here to get enlightened and instead, he got >>>>>>>>>>>>> trashed by Croon.
<tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 11:00 PM, Dude wrote:Al-Qaeda has always taken credit for WTC-7 destruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was part of
On 6/19/2026 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:You fell for the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside job by Jews
On 6/19/2026 12:17 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote:
Which reality?On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality: pure
consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of the
universe,
Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also doesn't
capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that
exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and dualism
(wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a > merely select when either best applies as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the per the context
-a-a-a >
-a-a-a > #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each other made
everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The attempt
to pin it
down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears as many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be: none.
Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term self interest.
I like reality.
reality doesn't have nation-state borders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You came here to get enlightened. Now you're post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
how do we prove that? because by what method do we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective
measure them?
Non-dual.
none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A mind reader eh?
"choosing" to be retarded, still leaves you a retard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dud
in order to provoke the US into a war on terror - and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm the retard?
i have a long body of evidence that likes of which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falls outside ur
gimped cognitive ability to reckon about, so i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly won't be
repeating myself to joo in any great detail
"Al-Qaeda has repeatedly claimed responsibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the attacks, with
they didn't plant the explosives dummy, and they didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even hit WTC7
the plan, obviously.
It's not funny, Nick. You're really crude, dud. No, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cringe is a better
chief deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri accusing Shia Iran and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hezbollah of
denigrating Sunni successes in hurting the U.S. by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally
starting rumors that Israel carried out the attacks." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Wiki
that's pretty freaking hilarious, but again... joo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted the muzzies to
take the credit
description.
A total of 2,753 people died at the World Trade Center >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site on September
11, 2001,
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spurious, crude
racist and biased.
Not to worry:
The drive to stand out is a powerful psychological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism that
frequently draws people to conspiracy theories. Believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in hidden truths
makes individuals feel special, granting them a sense of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intellectual
superiority and uniqueness because they possess knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
"mainstream" public seemingly does not
In essence: don't bother taking him seriously. Flip it off >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ignore. He's no
threat, (and he had better not be), other than to himself. >>>>>>>>>>>>> -a>
So, that should be a wrap.
Unless some other informant wants to pile on and add some >>>>>>>>>>>>> more trashing.
Maybe Nick feels better now, after talking to other people >>>>>>>>>>>>> for awhile, even strangers in a chat room. YMMV.
an unamerican traitor can't trash on me
serve the zionist warmonging we've been doing for the past >>>>>>>>>> decades???
what would that even mean u fucking treasonous bastard...
i don't care how many muzzies you killed in the name of zion, >>>>>>>>>> it won't ever make you american u cunt
You came here for enlightenment?
traitor won't answer the question
For the record: I'm on the side of the US and all the UN
countries that recognize Israel as a sovereign state.
So, I am opposed to the radical Islamic terrorist religious
extremism and all followers of cult of Mo and the fucking Koran >>>>>>> so shut up.
In my opinion, Islam is fundamentally opposed to Democracy.
That's my final answer.
fucking traitor siding with a zionist cabal who committed the
largest single strike on us soil ever, over ur own country men
wtc7 wasn't hit by a plane, and it certainly wasn't fucking
demolitions by the muzzies
joo can keep meekly repeating jourself, and i'll keep accusing joo >>>>>> of willful treason to this great country
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious,
crude racist and biased.
that's because again: we've gone outside the limited overton window
ur cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep denying
endlessly,
fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
informants
which have all been refuted and found to be spurious, crude racist
and biased.
sure let me be clear too: we've gone outside the limited overton
window ur cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep
denying endlessly,
entirely against current societal norms and is considered too extreme to
be taken seriously.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:22:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:28:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Are you saying that cause and effect does not lead one thing to another?
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness >>>>>> and nowhere else.
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>>>>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a >>>>>>>> matter of subjective experience.It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>>
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex >>>>> out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience >>>>> due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a>
-a> #god
-a> Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of consciousness? >>>>
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
Because seeming cause and effect are really unrelated events that
happen in sequence without one causing the other.
Does B always follow A?
Does B happen without A?
That doesn't even make any sense. Everyone knows about the law of cause
and effect means one thing causes another.
I'm saying sequence of events does not prove that one event caused the
other.
"The Law of Cause and Effect states that every action, event, or "cause"
has a corresponding reaction or "effect". Often considered an iron rule
of the universe, it asserts that nothing happens by pure chance and that
identical causes will always produce identical effects." - Britannica
On 6/27/26 1:33 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/26/2026 12:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 9:28 AM, Dude wrote:There seems to be some kind of confusion, Nick.
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: Do you know what "cognition" means?
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>>
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that >>>>>>>>>>>> the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyways???),
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious.
it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
measure quantum-waves is because the act of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring
requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyeball ...
So when you see a star (when the photon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacts with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in a
vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed
point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam
reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance) ... but
the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framed up
against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> galaxy, which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure
consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ...
but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to be
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to
fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
terms, the
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost >>>>>>>> a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>
consciousness and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut >>>>> out
cognition: the mental process of acquiring, processing, and storing
information
when someone who is blind navigates/avoids objects while walking down
a hallway, this is at the very least acquiring and processing
information without being consciously aware of it
the subconscious part of the mind does an incredible amount of
cognition dud
i'm not really sure why ur still trying to deny it
Consciousness is the ultimate reality. Without it you would not exist.
that's a non-sequitur. yes i won't exist without consciousness ... but
like i also wouldn't exist without a body to facilitate the existence of that consciousness
neither are "ultimate reality" whatever the fuck u mean by that
#god
Reason is the supreme faculty of the human mind. Rather than being a
passive receiver of information, reason is the active force that
organizes and unifies all our thoughts, sensations, and moral principles.
not a relevant comment.
This has already been explained on this board by Tang Huyen.
See: philosophy, Tang, Martin Heidegger
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We >>>>>>>>>>>> don't
experience things as they really are - only through
consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> mean all
_is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense >>>>>>>>>>> organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience >>>>>>>>>>> from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see >>>>>>>>>> things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory
experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things >>>>>>>>>> which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually >>>>>>>>>> outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an >>>>>>>>> impact on
my life
On 6/27/26 1:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness does not depend on the sense of sight, Nick
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, >>>>>> the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that >>>>>>>>>> the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is self-
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we >>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a >>>>>> matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's a partial loss of consciousness, dud, that's most i can grant you.
i cannot suggest anything total, because one cannot "experience" a total loss of consciousness
if ur not capable of making the intuitive leap from that, i can't help u
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't >>>>>>>>>> experience things as they really are - only through
consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all >>>>>>>>> _is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense >>>>>>>>> organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience from it >>>>>>>>>
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see
things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We >>>>>>>> are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things
which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually
outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an
impact on
my life
On 6/27/2026 6:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 1:33 PM, Dude wrote:Be reasonable, Nick. The ultimate reality is consciousness. You would
On 6/26/2026 12:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 9:28 AM, Dude wrote:There seems to be some kind of confusion, Nick.
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: Do you know what "cognition" means?
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>>>
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical >>>>>>>>> terms, the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:
In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate
reality:
pure consciousness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without it, you would not exist. Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it also
doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather abundant
dualities that exist ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
no, i don't have to choose between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nondualism and
dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyways???),
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view
affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just means
interaction with another quanta wilson. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious.
it's not really that mysterious: the reason we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
"observe" or
measure quantum-waves is because the act of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring
requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really very
mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyeball ...
So when you see a star (when the photon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacts with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial
frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in a
vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then
expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed
point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam
reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance) ... but
the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framed up
against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> galaxy, which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure
consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and
nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subconsciously
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
ur not a rational person anyways, dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofc
everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ...
but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - if
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
consciousness is a property of the body it should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to be
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to
fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost >>>>>>>>> a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the >>>>>>>>> one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>>
consciousness and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative >>>>>> experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we
cut out
cognition: the mental process of acquiring, processing, and storing
information
when someone who is blind navigates/avoids objects while walking
down a hallway, this is at the very least acquiring and processing
information without being consciously aware of it
the subconscious part of the mind does an incredible amount of
cognition dud
i'm not really sure why ur still trying to deny it
Consciousness is the ultimate reality. Without it you would not exist.
that's a non-sequitur. yes i won't exist without consciousness ... but
like i also wouldn't exist without a body to facilitate the existence
of that consciousness
-a-a> neither are "ultimate reality" whatever the fuck u mean by that
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Reason is the supreme faculty of the human mind. Rather than being a
passive receiver of information, reason is the active force that
organizes and unifies all our thoughts, sensations, and moral
principles.
not a relevant comment.
not exist without being conscious.
It's as xlear as the lights being off or on.
You might consider reading up on the science, Nick.
This has already been explained on this board by Tang Huyen.
See: philosophy, Tang, Martin Heidegger
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
experience things as they really are - only through >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> mean all
_is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via >>>>>>>>>>>> sense organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience >>>>>>>>>>>> from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see >>>>>>>>>>> things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory
experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things >>>>>>>>>>> which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually >>>>>>>>>>> outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an >>>>>>>>>> impact on
my life
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 15:03:03 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness and
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter >>>> of subjective experience.
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that the brain >>>>>>>
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:-a>
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote:it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement isDon't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet."
nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the
context
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else entirely. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with another quanta wilson. physics doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
have more to say on the matter other than those model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? Because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hand wave that away all you want but it's mysterious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are inherently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between interactions quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious
You're just afraid to talk about it.Inherently everything is one. And the one appears as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many.please don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Don't get me started on time and space and what allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of responding to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens to a 2D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed emitted and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same instant you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum entanglement as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity (the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe) and time would effectively stop. Both time & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" to reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models we use... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only change your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the frame you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require absolutes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce "stillness". stillness is found in all frames of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference that aren't actively accelerating. it allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the galaxy, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occursNo rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of "consciousness" ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that purview. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be >>>>>>>>>>>> perceived like other material objects.
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the hallways >>>>>>>>>>>>> without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced cognitional >>>>>>>>>>>>> (object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those objects, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they don't even >>>>>>>>>>>>> know
they even did it, let alone how
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist and are >>>>>>>>>>>> self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what we can be >>>>>>>>>>> conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution would not >>>>>>>>>>> have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not aware of >>>>>>>>>>> it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, utilizing >>>>>>>>>> "built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and
causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy supported >>>>>>>>>> by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
no, just unconscious
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
nowhere else.
Hey, sam, where did you get your degree in philosophy? Or is it
psychology? Neither?
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We don't >>>>>>>> experience things as they really are - only through consciousness. >>>>>>>we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean all >>>>>>> _is_ consciousness.
-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various conscious >>>>>>> experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense organs >>>>>>> from the external world and generates conscious experience from it >>>>>>>You are correct. So, what's the problem?
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the
solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see things as >>>>>> they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience. We >>>>>> are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things which we >>>>>> perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our >>>>>> cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an impact on >>>>> my life
On 6/27/2026 6:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 1:13 PM, Dude wrote:In philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally mental, spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness does not depend on the sense of sight, Nick
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that >>>>>>>>>>> the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is self-that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are
the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyways???),
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious.
it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
measure quantum-waves is because the act of measuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your eyeball ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when you see a star (when the photon interacts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed (in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the beam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less distance) ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is framed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> galaxy, which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ...
but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
terms, the
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a >>>>>>> matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>
consciousness and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out >>>>
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's a partial loss of consciousness, dud, that's most i can grant you.
i cannot suggest anything total, because one cannot "experience" a
total loss of consciousness
if ur not capable of making the intuitive leap from that, i can't help u
Rather than physical matter existing independently out in the world,
they argue that objects and experiences only exist because they are perceived or processed by a mind.
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We >>>>>>>>>>> don't
experience things as they really are - only through
consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't mean >>>>>>>>>> all
_is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense >>>>>>>>>> organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience >>>>>>>>>> from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see >>>>>>>>> things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory
experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things >>>>>>>>> which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually
outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an >>>>>>>> impact on
my life
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:36:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 10:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 15:03:03 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>> nowhere else.
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the >>>>>> difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter >>>>>> of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows.
Hey, sam, where did you get your degree in philosophy? Or is it
psychology? Neither?
Wikipedia says he has a B.A. in philosophy from Stanford
Good. We know what a BA is worth.
and a Ph.D. in >cognitive neuroscience from UCLA.
So he is aware of what happens when the neurosurgeon cuts right here?
That consciousness (or cognition) is entirely dependent on undamaged physical structures.
cognition takes place only in consciousness and nowhere else.Has sam tested all the somewhere elses to be able to support that
assertion?
For instance, might it be that consciousness is a property of matter,
but cognition only appears when physical brain structure are present
to support integration of awarenesses?
Not that I know any such thing, but you know, I don't think sam has scientifically eliminated that possibility. Right?
On 6/23/26 7:14 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:02 PM, Dude wrote:According to Sam Harris, if consciousness means self-consciousness,
On 6/23/2026 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 22:57:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>In reality, we fool ourselves that there is something beyond
On 6/22/2026 3:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:18 PM, Wilson wrote:Everything we know we have acquired through sensory experience (in >>>>>> Buddhism the mind is considered a special type of sense). We are
On 6/22/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 9:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/22/2026 7:02 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:08:44 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/21/2026 11:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:26:45 -0400, WilsonIt's just amazing!
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:You mean most guys who agree with you.-a Subconsciousmess is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:You two are defining consciousness differently.
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proven
otherwise
outside of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but
not all of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within that
purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize
their location in respect to our movement, and move about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
without
actually being conscious that we did...
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognition
takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to
that
extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly
most, at a
subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally i view
it more like an executive head of a organization (with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited
control
even), more involved with shaping the orchestration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than
being
directly involved with all or even more runtime cognition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious
and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
available to consciousness which is why we call it sub... >>>>>>>>>>>>>
After over two decades engaging here with the likes of Tang >>>>>>>>>>>> Huyen,
you
still don't grasp the foundation of Buddhist philosophy. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The "consciousness-only" school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism >>>>>>>>>>>> is one of
the two foundational pillars of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It posits that all phenomena are manifestations of
consciousness, and
that objects perceived as external to us do not exist
independently of
the mind.
According to the founder of this school:
"What we experience as an objective, physical world is >>>>>>>>>>>> entirely a
construction of our mind. There are no standalone external >>>>>>>>>>>> objects
rCo only
mental representations." - Vasubandhu
Look at what they say, carefully:-a Vasubandhu isn't saying there >>>>>>>>>>> isn't an objective reality -- they're saying our experience, our >>>>>>>>>>> mental representations, aren't objective.
Yes. Our perceptions of the physical objective world are a >>>>>>>>>> construction of our consciousness (using the expanded meaning of >>>>>>>>>> consciousness as all of our awareness including what we aren't >>>>>>>>>> fully
aware of).
Everything we know about 'objective' reality is filtered
through the
censors that our mind uses to make the world comprehensible. >>>>>>>>>> If we
did not have those censors, survival in this world would
probably be
impossible. This mental overlay normally (for most people always) >>>>>>>>>> prevents direct perception of what is.
The map is not the territory. The tree you see is not the tree. >>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a> buddhists were the original post-truthers ?
-a-a-a>
-a-a-a> #god
unfortunately basic math stands in their way. the relationship >>>>>>>>> between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter in flat 2D >>>>>>>>> space is a truth no amount of post-truther denial will ever refute >>>>>>>>>
One of the first things my geometry teacher taught is that the >>>>>>>> circles
and squares and other shapes we used and drew were imaginary
representations of the real thing.
well i am talking about the mathematical relationship itself,
wilson,
not the drawings you made of it
fooled
by consciousness into believing that those things which we
perceive and
appropriate within consciousness are actually outside our
cognitive sphere.
Either that or we fool ourselves that they are not actually outside
our consciousness.
consciousness, when everything is consciousness.
dud ur actually a brain in vat hallucinating all this,
then it cannot be identified by logic with the human body. Animals
also possess a physical body, but not rational consciousness. If
consciousness is a property of the body, it must be perceived like
other material properties. But consciousness is neither seen, smelt or
tasted nor touched nor heard.
dud, u clearly don't have a rational consciousness either
You didn't listen to Creon, did you?and i'm just a figment of ur consciousness
"Consciousness is the state of being awake, aware of your
surroundings, and able to perceive your own thoughts, feelings, and
experiences. It acts as your personal subjective reality,
encompassing everything you sense and process at any given moment."
- Sam Harris
On 6/23/26 5:15 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 11:14 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 11:07 PM, Dude wrote:It's not that complicated, Nick.
On 6/22/2026 3:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 1:19 PM, Wilson wrote:"As to definitive evidence, perhaps only overt madness and suicide
On 6/22/2026 3:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else. In other words, cognition takes place only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in consciousness and nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
experienced outside of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects,
conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and >>>>>>>>> move about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none
cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of
cognition, and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition.
personally i view it more like an executive head of a
organization (with limited control even), more involved with >>>>>>>>> shaping the orchestration rather than being directly involved >>>>>>>>> with all or even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the
conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of
"consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example >>>>>>>> of "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state
awareness that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects >>>>>>> of experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is >>>>>>> in language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. >>>>>>> the classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be
considered it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own
quale. feelings are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is
therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything,
but it just isn't...
-a-a> even for our own cognition
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
No. But consciousness is everything you experience.
and we don't experience all our cognition
count. Everything else is conjecture." - Tang Huyen
i presented the evidence dud, u just ignored it because ur a dud
yes it's not that complicated: ur just wrong,
and u can't figure it out because u've lied to urself,
so much that truth become hidden in plain sight
#god
"rUaWhatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
consciousness isn't binary information dud
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:41:35 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 15:10:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You would not exist without consciousness.
On 6/24/2026 8:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:17:39 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>According to Sam Harris, if consciousness means self-consciousness, then >>>> it cannot be identified by logic with the human body..
On 6/23/2026 5:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 5:19 PM, Dude wrote:Try logic and reasoning:
On 6/23/2026 11:16 AM, dart200 wrote:and that may just be a fundamental flaw in current physical theory, not >>>>>>> an absolute matter of fact
On 6/22/26 11:04 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Pal. There is no material evidence for the existence of >>>>>>>
On 6/22/2026 12:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:Everything we experience comes through conscious awareness. Every >>>>>>>>>> single cell in the universe is conscious.
On 6/20/2026 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 9:47 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you experienced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of consciousness. Go!
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:Whatever we think about, know, experience, or conceptualize, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i "experience" falls without the bounds of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" ... but not all of my cognition, or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even most, falls within that purview.
the blind sight studies prove we can know about objects, >>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize their location in respect to our movement, and move >>>>>>>>>>>>> about them without actually being conscious that we did... >>>>>>>>>>>>>
heck modern neuroscience is more along the lines that none >>>>>>>>>>>>> cognition takes place within consciousness. i'm i don't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>> with it to that extent, but it's clear we do a lot of cognition, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly most, at a subconscious level.
consciousness certainly does not direct all cognition. personally >>>>>>>>>>>>> i view it more like an executive head of a organization (with >>>>>>>>>>>>> limited control even), more involved with shaping the >>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestration rather than being directly involved with all or >>>>>>>>>>>>> even more runtime cognition.
You two are defining consciousness differently.
As Dude and most other explorers of awareness define it, the >>>>>>>>>>>> conscious and subconscious realms are /both/ part of "consciousness".
Blind people being aware of things they can't see is an example of >>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" that transcends the normal waking state awareness >>>>>>>>>>>> that most of us operate within.
i define consciousness as the sum of all qualia (various aspects of >>>>>>>>>>> experienced-a awareness). i can't fully define what a quale is in >>>>>>>>>>> language because that kind of meaning can only be experienced. the >>>>>>>>>>> classic example is a red 2D square:
https://imgur.com/a/YiXgOIV
look at that and given ur monitor is functional you now know what >>>>>>>>>>> the quale of red is. now each variation of color can be considered >>>>>>>>>>> it's own quale. various sounds are each it's own quale. feelings >>>>>>>>>>> are qualia. etc, etc, etc
subconsciousness specifically doesn't involve qualia, and is >>>>>>>>>>> therefor not part of consciousness or conscious processing >>>>>>>>>>>
duds just be trying to act like consciousness _is_ everything, but >>>>>>>>>>> it just isn't...
we just have we better models than that
Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>>>> things themselves. Consciousness is driven by karmic
intentionalities (the habitual tendencies produced by past actions), >>>>>>>>>> and how we perceive is shaped by that conditioning. The goal of >>>>>>>>>> Yogacara is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and finally >>>>>>>>>> wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous conceptual >>>>>>>>>> projections.
dud, u've ended up with cosmic narcissism instead
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if
consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to be
perceived like other material objects.
In other words, there can be no properties that cannot be detected by >>>>> physical means. Poked, prodded, punched. Further there is nothing
that we have not yet detected.
Tell sam to have his lawyer contact my lawyer.
Tell your lawyer to contact my lawyer.
-a> we just don't know right now
-a>
-a> #god
consciousness in the physical world. Consciousness is an emergent >>>>>>>> property of the brain.
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-asc.htm >>>>>>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:22:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:28:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness >>>>> and nowhere else.
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, theIt is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a >>>>>>> matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex >>>> out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience >>>> due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a>
-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of consciousness?
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
Because seeming cause and effect are really unrelated events that
happen in sequence without one causing the other.
Does B always follow A?
Does B happen without A?
Are you saying that cause and effect does not lead one thing to another?
That doesn't even make any sense. Everyone knows about the law of cause >and effect means one thing causes another.
I'm saying sequence of events does not prove that one event caused the
other.
--"The Law of Cause and Effect states that every action, event, or "cause" >has a corresponding reaction or "effect". Often considered an iron rule
of the universe, it asserts that nothing happens by pure chance and that >identical causes will always produce identical effects." - Britannica
On 6/27/26 9:27 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The answer is simple: We experience everything in space and time, both
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an Idealist.
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:that was not coherent response Efn+
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in >>>>>>>> his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. Thanks. >>>>>>>
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, WilsonMaybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and >>>>>>>>>> Buddha;s theory of karma.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that >>>>>>>>>> underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human >>>>>>>>>> reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no >>>>>>>>>> chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny >>>>>>>>>> self- consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness >>>>>>>>> and still exist without self-consciousness
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the future:
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that physical
matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely explained
by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is fundamentally
mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness are the
true foundation of existence, rather than physical matter.
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching out and
interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why is it
stuck following all these rules that are entirely independent of
conscious intent?
of which are constructed by the mind through cognition.
what is even doing this "construction through cognition" if only consciousness is fundamental?
Soto Zen is referred to sometimes as the "Mind Only" school of Buddhism.
show me the monk who can bend a spoon without some kind of physical interaction with the spoon and
we'll all become believers for sure
#god
Cognition is perception: Interpreting sensory information (what you
see, hear, taste, touch, and smell) to make sense of your environment.
i know u can't cognate this but i'll repeat myself:
the vast majority of cognition is sub-perceptual. we only perceive a
small portion of the brain's cognition.
there an incredible amount rather interesting neuroscience here ur just glossing over because u don't understand what u don't understand dud and haven't bothered to look into it...
including, and again i repeat myself: the blindsight studies are direct experimental proof of this sub-perceptual cognition
On 6/26/2026 10:03 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:11:17 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 1:07 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:21:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>If you were insane or demented.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>> wrote:Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s >>>> theory of karma.
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>> make it a natural law. Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies >>>> all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self-consciousness, or you would not exist.
I bet, if I were to deny my self-consciousness, I would still be
sitting here.
In a debate at university you would first need to define your terms. You >> have not done that, so I looked it up on Webster's and in Buddha's Lotus >> Sutra: Aristotle on natural law and Buddha on enlightenment.
According to both, self-consciousness in humans is both rational and
inherent. Look it up.
I can deny natural law, but that would not make apples fall up intoDid anyone say the the free market was natural law? Somebody is getting
the tree. I can say, free market is a natural law, but that would not >>> affect those who disagree, even though you would probably say it does. >>> The virtue of free market or even the existence of such is disputable, >>> therefore not a natural law.
really confused!
It was an example. Like property rights. If you say one, saying the
other would follow the same faulty logic.
It doesn't seem rational to deny consciousness. Also, because science.
That would not be rational.If apples fell up, we would both know what we saw and not be able torationally dispute it.
It would be if you saw it.
So, I don't think anyone who would witness you sitting somewhere,
denying that you are conscious, would think you're being rational.
YMMV.>> Key words: rational, human, consciousness.--
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't
investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>> natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to
winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>> mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to
consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>> how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.-a There has >>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years
more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions
matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur
previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism
nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>> it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.-a But >>>>> do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu.-a I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in Noahland.
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>> previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure
nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, >>>>>>>>>> does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then >>>>>>>>> we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and >>>>>>>>> talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any >>>>>>>>> open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate
property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be >>>>>>> the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu.-a I >>>>>>> say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>> opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do what >>>>> I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try.
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational analysis,
not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate >>>>>>> them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural >>>>>> laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's >>>>>>> own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas >>>>> about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it >>>>> might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a >>> self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or self-
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then >>>>>>>> we can
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>> this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>> previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, >>>>>>>>> does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and >>>>>>>> talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any >>>>>>>> open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate
property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the >>>>>> equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu.-a I >>>>>> say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do what >>>> I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's exploring
what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
awareness. Better to try Nick.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of view.
It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
and wealth inequality _is_ oligarchy
#god
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't
investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>> natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow >>>>>>>>> one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>> mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. >>>>>>> Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>> how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.-a There has >>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>> it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.-a But >>>> do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary decree.
Key word: reason
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to
consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.-a There has >>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is >>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>So, you can't explain consciousness.
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being >>>>>> rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>> university debate class.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- >>>> awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at >>>> the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
what is this buddha even???
#god
You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/27/26 9:10 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:So, you can't explain consciousness.
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being >>>>>>>> rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>>>> university debate class.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>>>
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on
self- awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut
out, so at the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a-a> what is this buddha even???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
i'm sorry i didn't catch that....
what were saying on how much u wanted to exile muzzie children again???
that doesn't seem very ideal
#god
On 6/27/26 9:17 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:00 PM, dart200 wrote:its _MY_ /POST/ *BIATCH*
On 6/27/26 7:20 PM, Dude wrote:It's rLeN+ArLeN+ArLeN+A
On 6/27/2026 2:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:41:45 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>So, you're the moderator of the group.
On 6/27/2026 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:It looks like I got cut out.
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of >>>>>>>>>> engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, >>>>>>>>>>> justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about >>>>>>> the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c- >>>>>>> dbd02e95b6a2
because you added nothing to the discussion.
i'm the moderator of my post bitch...
-a-a> watchu finna do about it? bitch about it s'more??
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
...how fitting...
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:45:13 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:22:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:28:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Are you saying that cause and effect does not lead one thing to another? >>>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness >>>>>>> and nowhere else.
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, theIt is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>>>
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a >>>>>>>>> matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>>
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex >>>>>> out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience >>>>>> due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a>
-a> #god
-a> Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of consciousness?
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
Because seeming cause and effect are really unrelated events that
happen in sequence without one causing the other.
Does B always follow A?
Does B happen without A?
That doesn't even make any sense. Everyone knows about the law of cause
and effect means one thing causes another.
I'm saying sequence of events does not prove that one event caused the
other.
Otherwise sometimes stated as "correlation is not causation".
Also, there are non-deterministic processes in the Cosmos.
Perhaps consciousness is one of them? (after John Searle).
"The Law of Cause and Effect states that every action, event, or "cause" >>> has a corresponding reaction or "effect". Often considered an iron rule
of the universe, it asserts that nothing happens by pure chance and that >>> identical causes will always produce identical effects." - Britannica
On 6/27/2026 9:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:17 PM, Dude wrote:Fuck you Bitch! You're not my boss.
On 6/27/2026 8:00 PM, dart200 wrote:its _MY_ /POST/ *BIATCH*
On 6/27/26 7:20 PM, Dude wrote:It's rLeN+ArLeN+ArLeN+A
On 6/27/2026 2:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:41:45 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>So, you're the moderator of the group.
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:It looks like I got cut out.
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of >>>>>>>>>>> engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against >>>>>>>>>>>> targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, >>>>>>>>>>>> justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about >>>>>>>> the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c- >>>>>>>> dbd02e95b6a2
because you added nothing to the discussion.
i'm the moderator of my post bitch...
-a-a> watchu finna do about it? bitch about it s'more??
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
...how fitting...
On 6/27/26 9:39 PM, Dude wrote:discussions BEFORE you post your query. The Kama Sutra is fiction, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 7:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:34 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you still have not read the Buddha''s Lotus Sutra, nor
On 6/27/2026 6:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Congratulations, Nick! You are now a Buddhist. Good work! This is a
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of >>>>>>>>>>> engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against >>>>>>>>>>>> targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, >>>>>>>>>>>> justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about >>>>>>>> the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c- >>>>>>>> dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have
anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the
"immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by >>>>>> govts.
i'm a deontologist, so instead of framing a right a to life as
inherently iMmUtAbLe,
i frame it as we have an inherent duty to ensure we maintain that
right as absolutely as possible.
breakthrough for sure.
nah i'm not a jooddhist
i view even self-defense killings as a level of wrong: in that weSure. Just say "Don't come at me bro!"
ought to be seeking ways to put down threats with non-lethal
methods, _and_ we ought to be seeking structural solutions within
society that eliminate the creation of such threats ever in the
first place.
EfiaEfAa .... woops
Kant's Critique on Pure Reason.
Why not? You came here to get enlightenment, right?
Posting porn emojis is just not going to impress. Are you smarter than
a 5th grader. You're way out of your league on this board. Better luck
of al.,messianic.
apparently u haven't read v-Utsy-Uyana's kama sutraWe discussed this in detail years ago. You are supposed to read the
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>So, you can't explain consciousness.
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being >>>>>>>> rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>>>> university debate class.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>>>
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- >>>>>> awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at >>>>>> the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a> what is this buddha even???
-a>
-a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>>>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is viewed as
an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality. They are simply opinions.
On 6/27/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:Money and wealth and power are not the basis for human rights, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or self-
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>> previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure
nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, >>>>>>>>>> does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then >>>>>>>>> we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and >>>>>>>>> talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any >>>>>>>>> open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate
property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be >>>>>>> the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu.-a I >>>>>>> say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>> opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do what >>>>> I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's
exploring what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is all
about.
My goal is not to convince you.
awareness. Better to try Nick.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of
view. It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
And, certainly not the goal of equality. If you really think it's all
about the money, then you are a rank materialist.
-a-a> and wealth inequality _is_ oligarchy
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't
understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that >>>>>>>>>>>> ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would >>>>>>>> be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. >>>>>>>> I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>>> opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do >>>>>> what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate.-a If >>>> you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try.
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational analysis,
not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:25:11 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:In war, people's lives are lost?
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the
ROE in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
Therefore there is no right to life, only a duty to protect it in
other people. Humans are often derelict in performing their duties.
Life is considered immutable and inalienable in natural law and
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
universal human rights, but it is legally conditional and mutable in
practice across different nations and justice systems. Hopes that helps
your confusion.
On 6/27/26 9:43 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:27 PM, Dude wrote:Let me be clear: Your theory is unthinkable: A concept that goes
On 6/23/2026 10:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:08 PM, Dude wrote:Let me be clear: The claim you are referring to is entirely false
On 6/21/2026 11:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 4:51 PM, Dude wrote:The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated,
On 6/20/2026 10:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:26 PM, Dude wrote:So, I think I already commented on this. But let me say this:
On 6/20/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 5:30 PM, Dude wrote:Let me say this about that:
On 6/20/2026 3:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:Have you served?
On 6/20/2026 10:55 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 20, 2026 at 1:17:41rC>PM EDT, "Tara"Nick came here to get enlightened and instead, he got >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trashed by Croon.
<tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 11:00 PM, Dude wrote:Al-Qaeda has always taken credit for WTC-7 destruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was part of
On 6/19/2026 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:You fell for the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside job by Jews
On 6/19/2026 12:17 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
Which reality?wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality: pure
consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of the
universe,
Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also doesn't
capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that
exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and dualism
(wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a > merely select when either best applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the per the context
-a-a-a >
-a-a-a > #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying reality.
There's another that says life is a random >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk, quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each other made
everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The attempt
to pin it
down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears as many.
Don't get me started on time and space and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly
happens to
them at the speed of light.
The consequence for you of knowing all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be: none.
Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human short >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term self interest.
I like reality.
reality doesn't have nation-state borders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You came here to get enlightened. Now you're post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
how do we prove that? because by what method do we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective
measure them?
Non-dual.
none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A mind reader eh?
"choosing" to be retarded, still leaves you a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retard dud
in order to provoke the US into a war on terror - and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm the retard?
i have a long body of evidence that likes of which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falls outside ur
gimped cognitive ability to reckon about, so i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly won't be
repeating myself to joo in any great detail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Al-Qaeda has repeatedly claimed responsibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the attacks, with
they didn't plant the explosives dummy, and they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't even hit WTC7
the plan, obviously.
It's not funny, Nick. You're really crude, dud. No, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cringe is a better
chief deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri accusing Shia Iran and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hezbollah of
denigrating Sunni successes in hurting the U.S. by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally
starting rumors that Israel carried out the attacks." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Wiki
that's pretty freaking hilarious, but again... joo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted the muzzies to
take the credit
description.
A total of 2,753 people died at the World Trade Center >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site on September
11, 2001,
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spurious, crude
racist and biased.
Not to worry:
The drive to stand out is a powerful psychological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism that
frequently draws people to conspiracy theories. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing in hidden truths
makes individuals feel special, granting them a sense of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intellectual
superiority and uniqueness because they possess >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that the
"mainstream" public seemingly does not
In essence: don't bother taking him seriously. Flip it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off and ignore. He's no
threat, (and he had better not be), other than to himself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a>
So, that should be a wrap.
Unless some other informant wants to pile on and add some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more trashing.
Maybe Nick feels better now, after talking to other people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for awhile, even strangers in a chat room. YMMV.
an unamerican traitor can't trash on me
serve the zionist warmonging we've been doing for the past >>>>>>>>>>> decades???
what would that even mean u fucking treasonous bastard... >>>>>>>>>>>
i don't care how many muzzies you killed in the name of zion, >>>>>>>>>>> it won't ever make you american u cunt
You came here for enlightenment?
traitor won't answer the question
For the record: I'm on the side of the US and all the UN
countries that recognize Israel as a sovereign state.
So, I am opposed to the radical Islamic terrorist religious
extremism and all followers of cult of Mo and the fucking Koran >>>>>>>> so shut up.
In my opinion, Islam is fundamentally opposed to Democracy.
That's my final answer.
fucking traitor siding with a zionist cabal who committed the
largest single strike on us soil ever, over ur own country men
wtc7 wasn't hit by a plane, and it certainly wasn't fucking
demolitions by the muzzies
joo can keep meekly repeating jourself, and i'll keep accusing
joo of willful treason to this great country
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by >>>>>> informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious,
crude racist and biased.
that's because again: we've gone outside the limited overton window >>>>> ur cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep denying
endlessly,
and fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
informants
which have all been refuted and found to be spurious, crude racist
and biased.
sure let me be clear too: we've gone outside the limited overton
window ur cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep
denying endlessly,
entirely against current societal norms and is considered too extreme
to be taken seriously.
that's literally what i just did:
capable ofwe've gone outside the limited overton window ur cognitively
responding to
that's a you problem dud
On 6/27/26 8:08 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/25/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:48 PM, Dude wrote:You are incorrect: While a few individuals and politicized movements...
On 6/25/2026 1:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:46 AM, Creon wrote:So, I guess everyone can see why Creon wrote you off as a troll.
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for the >>>>>>>>>> things themselves.
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real >>>>>>>>>>>>>
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong direction is >>>>>>>>>>>>> we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after >>>>>>>>>>>>> aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the mind >>>>>>>>>>>> a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the >>>>>>>>>>>> opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism and >>>>>>>>>> finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous >>>>>>>>>> conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to eat >>>>>>>>> it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
sometimes it's hard to remind myself that everyone i see walking
around has a little bit of the divine up there experiencing ...
-a-a> "a little bit" being a misnomer ofc
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the
entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian >>>>>> poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
-a _ _ _ _ _ _ _
damn dud, so actually joo were quoting one of those medieval nazi-
muzzies trying to exile the joos, eh??? next joo'll be quoting
hitler kus emek!
Good work, Nick.
ur the dud quoting a medieval joo-exiling nazi muzzie! ur words not
mine!
rLeN+A
i don't really care about ur holocaust denial dud
Virtually every claim you have referenced is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes
made up by informants which have all been refuted and found to be
spurious, crude racist and biased - on this very forum!
On 6/27/26 9:56 PM, Dude wrote:Science says you have cognition due to being conscious, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 6:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 1:33 PM, Dude wrote:Be reasonable, Nick. The ultimate reality is consciousness. You would
On 6/26/2026 12:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 9:28 AM, Dude wrote:There seems to be some kind of confusion, Nick.
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Nick: Do you know what "cognition" means?
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon >>>>>>>>> knows.
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical >>>>>>>>>> terms, the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Force...
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate
reality:
pure consciousness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without it, you would not exist. Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it also
doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather abundant
dualities that exist ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
no, i don't have to choose between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nondualism and
dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyways???),
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk,
quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view
affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the trees.
we model quanta as waves between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions, and
particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just means
interaction with another quanta wilson. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When measuring, does that change the nature of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious.
it's not really that mysterious: the reason we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
"observe" or
measure quantum-waves is because the act of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring
requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really very
mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what ur
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
talking about
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flattens to a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyeball ...
So when you see a star (when the photon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacts with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial
frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy" to reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> models we use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in a
vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then
expend
energy to go in that direction, it will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed
point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (your clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance) ... but
the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framed up
against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> galaxy, which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality: pure
consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and
nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subconsciously
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
ur not a rational person anyways, dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty). ofc
everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" ...
but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - if
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
consciousness is a property of the body it should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to be
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical.
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to
fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character of
knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and
foremost a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is >>>>>>>>>> the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>>>
consciousness and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual >>>>>>> cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative >>>>>>> experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we >>>>>>> cut out
cognition: the mental process of acquiring, processing, and storing >>>>> information
when someone who is blind navigates/avoids objects while walking
down a hallway, this is at the very least acquiring and processing
information without being consciously aware of it
the subconscious part of the mind does an incredible amount of
cognition dud
i'm not really sure why ur still trying to deny it
Consciousness is the ultimate reality. Without it you would not exist.
that's a non-sequitur. yes i won't exist without consciousness ...
but like i also wouldn't exist without a body to facilitate the
existence of that consciousness
-a-a> neither are "ultimate reality" whatever the fuck u mean by that
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Reason is the supreme faculty of the human mind. Rather than being a
passive receiver of information, reason is the active force that
organizes and unifies all our thoughts, sensations, and moral
principles.
not a relevant comment.
not exist without being conscious.
i also wouldn't exist without a body supporting that consciousness,
or the earth providing a stable environment for life,
or the sun providing energy for all of the above...
It's as xlear as the lights being off or on.
You might consider reading up on the science, Nick.
ur making a philosophy claim dud, not a scientific one
'
This has already been explained on this board by Tang Huyen.
See: philosophy, Tang, Martin Heidegger
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't
experience things as they really are - only through >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean all
_is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via >>>>>>>>>>>>> sense organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience >>>>>>>>>>>>> from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see >>>>>>>>>>>> things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory
experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things >>>>>>>>>>>> which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually >>>>>>>>>>>> outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have >>>>>>>>>>> an impact on
my life
On 6/27/2026 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:27 PM, Dude wrote:Through cognition we make sense of our environment so we can make
On 6/27/2026 7:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The answer is simple: We experience everything in space and time,
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the future:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an Idealist. >>>>
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in >>>>>>>>> his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, WilsonMaybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and >>>>>>>>>>> Buddha;s theory of karma.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of >>>>>>>>>>>> the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but >>>>>>>>>>>> that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that >>>>>>>>>>> underlies all human existence which can be discerned by human >>>>>>>>>>> reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no >>>>>>>>>>> chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny >>>>>>>>>>> self- consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-consciousness >>>>>>>>>> and still exist without self-consciousness
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that physical
matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely explained >>>>> by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is fundamentally
mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness are the
true foundation of existence, rather than physical matter.
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching out and
interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why is it
stuck following all these rules that are entirely independent of
conscious intent?
both of which are constructed by the mind through cognition.
what is even doing this "construction through cognition" if only
consciousness is fundamental?
rational decisions.
Everything we experience takes place in time and space, Nick, everything.
Soto Zen is referred to sometimes as the "Mind Only" school of Buddhism.
show me the monk who can bend a spoon without some kind of physical
interaction with the spoon and
Time and space are empirically real. While space and time are "ideal" (mental constructs), they are "empirically real". Why?
Because everyonerCOs mind is structured the same way, the physical world
we experience behaves with objective predictability.
This framework allowed Kant to explain how we can have universal,
undeniable knowledge of mathematics and geometryrCobecause those spatial
and temporal rules are built right into our own cognitive machinery.
-a-a> we'll all become believers for sureDamage to the primary visual cortex removes the major input from the
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cognition is perception: Interpreting sensory information (what you
see, hear, taste, touch, and smell) to make sense of your environment.
i know u can't cognate this but i'll repeat myself:
the vast majority of cognition is sub-perceptual. we only perceive a
small portion of the brain's cognition.
there an incredible amount rather interesting neuroscience here ur
just glossing over because u don't understand what u don't understand
dud and haven't bothered to look into it...
including, and again i repeat myself: the blindsight studies are
direct experimental proof of this sub-perceptual cognition
eyes to the brain, causing significant visual loss but even using blind sight, they are still conscious.
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>So, you can't explain consciousness.
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being >>>>>>>> rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>>>> university debate class.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>>>
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- >>>>>> awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at >>>>>> the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a> what is this buddha even???
-a>
-a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
On 6/27/2026 9:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:39 PM, Dude wrote:discussions BEFORE you post your query. The Kama Sutra is fiction, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 7:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:34 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you still have not read the Buddha''s Lotus Sutra, nor
On 6/27/2026 6:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Congratulations, Nick! You are now a Buddhist. Good work! This is a >>>>> breakthrough for sure.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of >>>>>>>>>>>> engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against >>>>>>>>>>>>> targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, >>>>>>>>>>>>> justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something
about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c- >>>>>>>>> dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have
anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the
"immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not
granted by
govts.
i'm a deontologist, so instead of framing a right a to life as
inherently iMmUtAbLe,
i frame it as we have an inherent duty to ensure we maintain that >>>>>> right as absolutely as possible.
nah i'm not a jooddhist
i view even self-defense killings as a level of wrong: in that we >>>>>> ought to be seeking ways to put down threats with non-lethalSure. Just say "Don't come at me bro!"
methods, _and_ we ought to be seeking structural solutions within >>>>>> society that eliminate the creation of such threats ever in the
first place.
EfiaEfAa .... woops
Kant's Critique on Pure Reason.
Why not? You came here to get enlightenment, right?
Posting porn emojis is just not going to impress. Are you smarter
than a 5th grader. You're way out of your league on this board.
Better luck of al.,messianic.
-a-a> apparently u haven't read v-Utsy-Uyana's kama sutra
-aWe discussed this in detail years ago. You are supposed to read the
On 6/27/2026 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:43 PM, Dude wrote:You take yourself seriously?
On 6/23/2026 2:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/23/26 2:27 PM, Dude wrote:Let me be clear: Your theory is unthinkable: A concept that goes
On 6/23/2026 10:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:08 PM, Dude wrote:Let me be clear: The claim you are referring to is entirely false
On 6/21/2026 11:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 4:51 PM, Dude wrote:The claim you are referring to is entirely false and fabricated, >>>>>>> originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by >>>>>>> informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious, >>>>>>> crude racist and biased.
On 6/20/2026 10:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:26 PM, Dude wrote:So, I think I already commented on this. But let me say this: >>>>>>>>>
On 6/20/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 5:30 PM, Dude wrote:Let me say this about that:
On 6/20/2026 3:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:Have you served?
On 6/20/2026 10:55 AM, Tara wrote:an unamerican traitor can't trash on me
On Jun 20, 2026 at 1:17:41rC>PM EDT, "Tara"Nick came here to get enlightened and instead, he got >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trashed by Croon.
<tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 11:00 PM, Dude wrote:Al-Qaeda has always taken credit for WTC-7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destruction. It was part of
On 6/19/2026 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:46 PM, Dude wrote:You fell for the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside job by Jews
On 6/19/2026 12:17 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 9:47 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:06:14 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
Which reality?wrote:
On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:The consequence for you of knowing all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be: none.
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to rule them all" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality: pure
consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature of the
universe,
Dude. Let him cook.
idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also doesn't
capture all
_kinds_ of meaning, like the rather abundant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualities that
exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and dualism
(wouldn't that
contradict non-dualism anyways???), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a > merely select when either best applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the per the context
-a-a-a >
-a-a-a > #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying reality.
There's another that says life is a random >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk, quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into each other made
everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The attempt
to pin it
down might be missing the forest for the trees. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears as many.
Don't get me started on time and space and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what allegedly
happens to
them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your
behaviors and attitudes remain basic human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short term self interest.
I like reality.
reality doesn't have nation-state borders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You came here to get enlightened. Now you're post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
how do we prove that? because by what method do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we objective
measure them?
Non-dual.
none
ur in love with fictions wilson, not reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A mind reader eh?
"choosing" to be retarded, still leaves you a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retard dud
in order to provoke the US into a war on terror - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I'm the retard?
i have a long body of evidence that likes of which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falls outside ur
gimped cognitive ability to reckon about, so i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly won't be
repeating myself to joo in any great detail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Al-Qaeda has repeatedly claimed responsibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the attacks, with
they didn't plant the explosives dummy, and they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't even hit WTC7
the plan, obviously.
It's not funny, Nick. You're really crude, dud. No, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cringe is a better
chief deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri accusing Shia Iran >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Hezbollah of
denigrating Sunni successes in hurting the U.S. by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally
starting rumors that Israel carried out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacks." - Wiki
that's pretty freaking hilarious, but again... joo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted the muzzies to
take the credit
description.
A total of 2,753 people died at the World Trade Center >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site on September
11, 2001,
The claim you are referring to is entirely false and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made up by
informants which have all been refuted and found to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spurious, crude
racist and biased.
Not to worry:
The drive to stand out is a powerful psychological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism that
frequently draws people to conspiracy theories. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing in hidden truths
makes individuals feel special, granting them a sense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of intellectual
superiority and uniqueness because they possess >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that the
"mainstream" public seemingly does not
In essence: don't bother taking him seriously. Flip it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off and ignore. He's no
threat, (and he had better not be), other than to himself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a>
So, that should be a wrap.
Unless some other informant wants to pile on and add some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more trashing.
Maybe Nick feels better now, after talking to other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people for awhile, even strangers in a chat room. YMMV. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
serve the zionist warmonging we've been doing for the past >>>>>>>>>>>> decades???
what would that even mean u fucking treasonous bastard... >>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't care how many muzzies you killed in the name of >>>>>>>>>>>> zion, it won't ever make you american u cunt
You came here for enlightenment?
traitor won't answer the question
For the record: I'm on the side of the US and all the UN
countries that recognize Israel as a sovereign state.
So, I am opposed to the radical Islamic terrorist religious >>>>>>>>> extremism and all followers of cult of Mo and the fucking Koran >>>>>>>>> so shut up.
In my opinion, Islam is fundamentally opposed to Democracy. >>>>>>>>> That's my final answer.
fucking traitor siding with a zionist cabal who committed the >>>>>>>> largest single strike on us soil ever, over ur own country men >>>>>>>>
wtc7 wasn't hit by a plane, and it certainly wasn't fucking
demolitions by the muzzies
joo can keep meekly repeating jourself, and i'll keep accusing >>>>>>>> joo of willful treason to this great country
that's because again: we've gone outside the limited overton
window ur cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep >>>>>> denying endlessly,
and fabricated,
originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes made up by
informants
which have all been refuted and found to be spurious, crude racist
and biased.
sure let me be clear too: we've gone outside the limited overton
window ur cognitively capable of responding to. so u'll just keep
denying endlessly,
entirely against current societal norms and is considered too extreme
to be taken seriously.
that's literally what i just did:
capable ofwe've gone outside the limited overton window ur cognitively
responding toYour problem, Nick, is that the claim you are referring to are entirely false and fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and
-a-a> that's a you problem dud
-a-a>
memes made up by informants which have all been refuted and found to be spurious, crude racist and biased - on this very board!
On 6/27/2026 8:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:08 PM, Dude wrote:You are an honest debater, Nick!
On 6/25/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:48 PM, Dude wrote:You are incorrect: While a few individuals and politicized movements...
On 6/25/2026 1:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:46 AM, Creon wrote:So, I guess everyone can see why Creon wrote you off as a troll.
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things for >>>>>>>>>>> the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction is
we lack those processes, and we're already at the point where >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are starting to need them for stability reasons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
the same results as actual consensus-making across the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>> population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the >>>>>>>>>>>>> mind
a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the >>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains have >>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively shapes >>>>>>>>>>>>> the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive narcissism >>>>>>>>>>> and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous >>>>>>>>>>> conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which to >>>>>>>>>> eat
it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the
ocean in a droplet." - Creon
sometimes it's hard to remind myself that everyone i see walking
around has a little bit of the divine up there experiencing ...
-a-a> "a little bit" being a misnomer ofc
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the >>>>>>> entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian >>>>>>> poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
-a _ _ _ _ _ _ _
damn dud, so actually joo were quoting one of those medieval nazi- >>>>>> muzzies trying to exile the joos, eh??? next joo'll be quoting
hitler kus emek!
Good work, Nick.
ur the dud quoting a medieval joo-exiling nazi muzzie! ur words not
mine!
rLeN+A
i don't really care about ur holocaust denial dud
Virtually every claim you have referenced is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes
made up by informants which have all been refuted and found to be
spurious, crude racist and biased - on this very forum!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:45:13 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:22:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:28:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Are you saying that cause and effect does not lead one thing to another?
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness >> >>>>> and nowhere else.
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a
matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >> >>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >> >>>>>>
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex >> >>>> out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience >> >>>> due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
a> would that be convincing enough for you?
a>
a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of consciousness?
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
Because seeming cause and effect are really unrelated events that
happen in sequence without one causing the other.
Does B always follow A?
Does B happen without A?
That doesn't even make any sense. Everyone knows about the law of cause
and effect means one thing causes another.
I'm saying sequence of events does not prove that one event caused the
other.
Otherwise sometimes stated as "correlation is not causation".
Also, there are non-deterministic processes in the Cosmos.
Perhaps consciousness is one of them? (after John Searle).
--
"The Law of Cause and Effect states that every action, event, or "cause" >> >has a corresponding reaction or "effect". Often considered an iron rule
of the universe, it asserts that nothing happens by pure chance and that >> >identical causes will always produce identical effects." - Britannica
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't
investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be
natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to
winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.a But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >> >>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to
consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about
how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.a There has >> >>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years
more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >> >>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions
matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur
previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism
nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >> >>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >> >>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.a But
do go calling them natural laws.a You know what happens when god
laughs.a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >> >>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >> >>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >> >>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.a Primate property is >> >>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree. >> >>
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >> >> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >> >> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck?
Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:57:30 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't
investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be
natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow >> >>>>>>>>> one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.a But I can certainly claim that >> >>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this
mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. >> >>>>>>> Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about
how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >> >>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.a There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or >> >>>>>> less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >> >>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at >> >>>>>> all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous >> >>>>> statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing >> >>>>> we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter?
it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.a But >> >>>> do go calling them natural laws.a You know what happens when god
laughs.a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >> >>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >> >>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >> >>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.a Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know >> > if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary decree. >>
Key word: reason
There are also efforts to derive systems of ethics from observations
of various outcomes found in Game Theory.
At Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:42:41 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 10:03 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:11:17 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:It doesn't seem rational to deny consciousness. Also, because science.
On 6/25/2026 1:07 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:21:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>If you were insane or demented.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s >> >>>> theory of karma.
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic
reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >> >>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >> >>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >> >>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the
logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >> >>>>> make it a natural law. Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies >> >>>> all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self-consciousness, or you would not exist.
I bet, if I were to deny my self-consciousness, I would still be
sitting here.
In a debate at university you would first need to define your terms. You >> >> have not done that, so I looked it up on Webster's and in Buddha's Lotus >> >> Sutra: Aristotle on natural law and Buddha on enlightenment.
According to both, self-consciousness in humans is both rational and
inherent. Look it up.
I can deny natural law, but that would not make apples fall up intoDid anyone say the the free market was natural law? Somebody is getting >> >> really confused!
the tree. I can say, free market is a natural law, but that would not >> >>> affect those who disagree, even though you would probably say it does. >> >>> The virtue of free market or even the existence of such is disputable, >> >>> therefore not a natural law.
It was an example. Like property rights. If you say one, saying the
other would follow the same faulty logic.
So, I don't think anyone who would witness you sitting somewhere,
That would not be rational.If apples fell up, we would both know what we saw and not be able torationally dispute it.
It would be if you saw it.
denying that you are conscious, would think you're being rational.
If someone denies they are conscious -- believe them!
That means they are either mistaken, fibbing, or a
philosophical zombie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie--
YMMV.>> Key words: rational, human, consciousness.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree. >>>>>
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >>>>> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >>>>> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck?
Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the
right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my
personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house
though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets.
If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for
them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on
the car, you know.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree. >>>>>
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >>>>> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >>>>> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck?
Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the
right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my
personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house
though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets.
If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for
them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on
the car, you know.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:My objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But >>>>>>>> do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the >>>>> equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. I say, >>>>> that is up to the hindu's to decide. Let me know you they proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in Noahland. >>>
opinions. Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here. Mr Avatar. Not that I think you will do what
I say. My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is. You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it. Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate. If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot. Nice try.
On 6/27/2026 5:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:My objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the >>>>>> equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. I say, >>>>>> that is up to the hindu's to decide. Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in Noahland. >>>>
opinions. Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here. Mr Avatar. Not that I think you will do what >>>> I say. My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is. You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it. Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate. If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot. Nice try.
My idea is not natural law. I can however have ideas about what is.
On 6/27/26 11:20 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:27 PM, Dude wrote:Through cognition we make sense of our environment so we can make
On 6/27/2026 7:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The answer is simple: We experience everything in space and time,
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the future:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an Idealist. >>>>>
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha in >>>>>>>>>> his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to us. >>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, WilsonMaybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and >>>>>>>>>>>> Buddha;s theory of karma.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law >>>>>>>>>>>> that underlies all human existence which can be discerned by >>>>>>>>>>>> human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no >>>>>>>>>>>> chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny >>>>>>>>>>>> self- consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-
consciousness and still exist without self-consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that physical >>>>>> matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely
explained by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is fundamentally
mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness are the >>>>>> true foundation of existence, rather than physical matter.
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching out and >>>>> interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why is it
stuck following all these rules that are entirely independent of
conscious intent?
both of which are constructed by the mind through cognition.
what is even doing this "construction through cognition" if only
consciousness is fundamental?
rational decisions.
*what* is even doing the cognition???
Everything we experience takes place in time and space, Nick, everything.
Soto Zen is referred to sometimes as the "Mind Only" school of
Buddhism.
show me the monk who can bend a spoon without some kind of physical
interaction with the spoon and
Time and space are empirically real. While space and time are "ideal"
(mental constructs), they are "empirically real". Why?
actually the 4D spacetime manifold is fundamental reality while time/
space perspectives are just specific foliations (or coordinate
divisions) based on a particular frames of reference...
didn't u even read einstein dud???
Because everyonerCOs mind is structured the same way, the physical world
we experience behaves with objective predictability.
well that is the darndedest thing i've heard so far:
you think everyone's mind is structured in the _same_ way???
#god
and what is even this "mind" that can be "structured" given that consciousness is the only thing that exists???
This framework allowed Kant to explain how we can have universal,
undeniable knowledge of mathematics and geometryrCobecause those spatial
and temporal rules are built right into our own cognitive machinery.
we actually don't experience the 4D fundamental spacetime manifold that
just like exists...
we have merely a 3D experience that happens over time, not all at once
i can cut Kant some slack cause he died a century before einstein
figured that out...
what's ur excuse dud???
#god
-a-a> we'll all become believers for sureDamage to the primary visual cortex removes the major input from the
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cognition is perception: Interpreting sensory information (what you
see, hear, taste, touch, and smell) to make sense of your environment.
i know u can't cognate this but i'll repeat myself:
the vast majority of cognition is sub-perceptual. we only perceive a
small portion of the brain's cognition.
there an incredible amount rather interesting neuroscience here ur
just glossing over because u don't understand what u don't understand
dud and haven't bothered to look into it...
including, and again i repeat myself: the blindsight studies are
direct experimental proof of this sub-perceptual cognition
eyes to the brain, causing significant visual loss but even using
blind sight, they are still conscious.
if the conscious experience of sight is dependent on the physical
structures of brain to manifest ... what makes u think the rest isn't dependent???
there are other parts of the brain and/or sensory inputs we can cut out
to remove other sense as well,
from there it's just induction that the rest of consciousness is
dependent on brain morphology as well,
that's not the say that consciousness *is* _just_ brain morphology, i'm
not claiming that. i'm not even claiming that the brain "produces" consciousness. but i think it's beyond proven that there is some
dependency on brain morphology.
On 6/27/26 11:37 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:Money and wealth and power are not the basis for human rights, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or self-
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't
understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that >>>>>>>>>>>> ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would >>>>>>>> be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. >>>>>>>> I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>>> opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do >>>>>> what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's
exploring what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is all >>>>> about.
My goal is not to convince you.
awareness. Better to try Nick.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of
view. It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
And, certainly not the goal of equality. If you really think it's all
about the money, then you are a rank materialist.
lol, so the l0lbErTaRiAnS are all gunna become iDeAlIsTs so they can
find iNnEr PeAcE while blaming those struggling with inequity as *rank materialists* ??? EfnuEfnuEfnu
At Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:42:41 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 10:03 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:11:17 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:It doesn't seem rational to deny consciousness. Also, because science.
On 6/25/2026 1:07 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:21:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>If you were insane or demented.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s >>>>>> theory of karma.
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>> logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>>>> make it a natural law. Either.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Karma is not only about reincarnation.
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies >>>>>> all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self-consciousness, or you would not exist.
I bet, if I were to deny my self-consciousness, I would still be
sitting here.
In a debate at university you would first need to define your terms. You >>>> have not done that, so I looked it up on Webster's and in Buddha's Lotus >>>> Sutra: Aristotle on natural law and Buddha on enlightenment.
According to both, self-consciousness in humans is both rational and
inherent. Look it up.
I can deny natural law, but that would not make apples fall up intoDid anyone say the the free market was natural law? Somebody is getting >>>> really confused!
the tree. I can say, free market is a natural law, but that would not >>>>> affect those who disagree, even though you would probably say it does. >>>>> The virtue of free market or even the existence of such is disputable, >>>>> therefore not a natural law.
It was an example. Like property rights. If you say one, saying the
other would follow the same faulty logic.
>
So, I don't think anyone who would witness you sitting somewhere,That would not be rational.If apples fell up, we would both know what we saw and not be able to >>>>> rationally dispute it.
It would be if you saw it.
denying that you are conscious, would think you're being rational.
If someone denies they are conscious -- believe them!
That means they are either mistaken, fibbing, or a philosophical zombie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
YMMV.>> Key words: rational, human, consciousness.
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:57:30 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.-a But >>>>>> do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is >>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know >>> if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary decree. >>
Key word: reason
There are also efforts to derive systems of ethics from observations
of various outcomes found in Game Theory.
On 6/28/2026 3:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:37 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:Money and wealth and power are not the basis for human rights, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or self- >>>>> awareness. Better to try Nick.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>> ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>>>> out.a But
do go calling them natural laws.a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>>> laughs.a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.a Primate >>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would >>>>>>>>> be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. >>>>>>>>> I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>> Noahland.
Mya objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>>>> opinions.a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>>> out in discussion here.a Mr Avatar.a Not that I think you will do >>>>>>> what
I say.a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.a So you >>>>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's
exploring what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is all >>>>>> about.
My goal is not to convince you.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of
view. It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
And, certainly not the goal of equality. If you really think it's all
about the money, then you are a rank materialist.
lol, so the l0lbErTaRiAnS are all gunna become iDeAlIsTs so they can
find iNnEr PeAcE while blaming those struggling with inequity as *rank
materialists* ??? ???
Materialism is genuinely retarded.
Every spiritual teacher taught that the physical world is not the source
of being. And that being is awareness. Money won't buy you love.
On 6/28/2026 2:43 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:57:30 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
That's the thing.a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.a But >>>>>>> do go calling them natural laws.a You know what happens when god >>>>>>> laughs.a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.a Primate property is >>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know >>>> if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >>> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary decree.
Key word: reason
There are also efforts to derive systems of ethics from observations
of various outcomes found in Game Theory.
I don't know a ton about game theory but it seems to be an attempt to >understand reality. If that's accurate, it's similar to investigations
into what is and what isn't natural law.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:28:19 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:42:41 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 10:03 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:11:17 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>It doesn't seem rational to deny consciousness. Also, because science.
On 6/25/2026 1:07 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:21:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>If you were insane or demented.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s >>>>>>> theory of karma.
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>> logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not >>>>>>>> make it a natural law. Either.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Karma is not only about reincarnation.
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine >>>>>>>>>> it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies >>>>>>> all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self-consciousness, or you would not exist.
I bet, if I were to deny my self-consciousness, I would still be
sitting here.
In a debate at university you would first need to define your terms. You >>>>> have not done that, so I looked it up on Webster's and in Buddha's Lotus >>>>> Sutra: Aristotle on natural law and Buddha on enlightenment.
According to both, self-consciousness in humans is both rational and >>>>> inherent. Look it up.
I can deny natural law, but that would not make apples fall up into >>>>>> the tree. I can say, free market is a natural law, but that would not >>>>>> affect those who disagree, even though you would probably say it does. >>>>>> The virtue of free market or even the existence of such is disputable, >>>>>> therefore not a natural law.Did anyone say the the free market was natural law? Somebody is getting >>>>> really confused!
It was an example. Like property rights. If you say one, saying the
other would follow the same faulty logic.
>
So, I don't think anyone who would witness you sitting somewhere,That would not be rational.If apples fell up, we would both know what we saw and not be able to >>>>>> rationally dispute it.
It would be if you saw it.
denying that you are conscious, would think you're being rational.
If someone denies they are conscious -- believe them!
That means they are either mistaken, fibbing, or a
philosophical zombie...
Notice that they do not vanish after making that claim, however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
YMMV.>> Key words: rational, human, consciousness.
On 6/28/2026 8:16 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:28:19 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:That would be mistaken: When someone dies they lose consciousness. They
At Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:42:41 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 10:03 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:11:17 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>It doesn't seem rational to deny consciousness. Also, because science. >>>> >
On 6/25/2026 1:07 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:21:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>If you were insane or demented.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law and Buddha;s >>>>>>>> theory of karma.
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas. You are free to believe in karma, but that does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Karma is not only about reincarnation.
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me. They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation. If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you. I do not accept you new definition. >>>>>>>>>>>
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with you on >>>>>>>>>>> what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law. Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law that underlies
all human existence which can be discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can deny
self-consciousness, or you would not exist.
I bet, if I were to deny my self-consciousness, I would still be >>>>>>> sitting here.
In a debate at university you would first need to define your terms. You >>>>>> have not done that, so I looked it up on Webster's and in Buddha's Lotus >>>>>> Sutra: Aristotle on natural law and Buddha on enlightenment.
According to both, self-consciousness in humans is both rational and >>>>>> inherent. Look it up.
I can deny natural law, but that would not make apples fall up into >>>>>>> the tree. I can say, free market is a natural law, but that would not >>>>>>> affect those who disagree, even though you would probably say it does. >>>>>>> The virtue of free market or even the existence of such is disputable, >>>>>>> therefore not a natural law.Did anyone say the the free market was natural law? Somebody is getting >>>>>> really confused!
It was an example. Like property rights. If you say one, saying the >>>>> other would follow the same faulty logic.
So, I don't think anyone who would witness you sitting somewhere,That would not be rational.If apples fell up, we would both know what we saw and not be able to >>>>>>> rationally dispute it.
It would be if you saw it.
denying that you are conscious, would think you're being rational.
If someone denies they are conscious -- believe them!
That means they are either mistaken, fibbing, or a
philosophical zombie...
Notice that they do not vanish after making that claim, however.
are a corpse. Dead. No consciousness. The end. See you on the other
side. Or, catch you next time around.
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
YMMV.>> Key words: rational, human, consciousness.
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>> ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when >>>>>>>>>>>> god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would >>>>>>>>> be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. >>>>>>>>> I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>>>> opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do >>>>>>> what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it >>>>> that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate.-a If >>>>> you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try.
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is the
only thing that exists???
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational
analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On 6/27/2026 5:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then >>>>>>>> we can
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>> this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>> previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, >>>>>>>>> does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and >>>>>>>> talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any >>>>>>>> open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate
property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would be the >>>>>> equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu.-a I >>>>>> say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do what >>>> I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try.
My idea is not natural law. I can however have ideas about what is.
On 6/27/26 11:37 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:Money and wealth and power are not the basis for human rights, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or self-
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't
understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that >>>>>>>>>>>> ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would >>>>>>>> be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. >>>>>>>> I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>>> opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do >>>>>> what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's
exploring what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is all >>>>> about.
My goal is not to convince you.
awareness. Better to try Nick.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of
view. It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
And, certainly not the goal of equality. If you really think it's all
about the money, then you are a rank materialist.
lol, so the l0lbErTaRiAnS are all gunna become iDeAlIsTs so they can
find iNnEr PeAcE while blaming those struggling with inequity as *rank materialists* ??? EfnuEfnuEfnu
is that the future we're in for, eh??? EfOA
#god
-a-a> and wealth inequality _is_ oligarchy
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46rC>AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has >>>>>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>>
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>>>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree. >>>>>>
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >>>>>> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >>>>>> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck?
Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the
right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my
personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house
though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets.
If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for
them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on
the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So, no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:12:28 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:45:13 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:22:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:28:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Are you saying that cause and effect does not lead one thing to another? >>>>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in consciousness >>>>>>>> and nowhere else.
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, theIt is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>>>>
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a >>>>>>>>>> matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>>>
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual cortex >>>>>>> out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative experience >>>>>>> due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a>
-a> #god
-a> Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of consciousness?
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
Because seeming cause and effect are really unrelated events that
happen in sequence without one causing the other.
Does B always follow A?
Does B happen without A?
That doesn't even make any sense. Everyone knows about the law of cause >>>> and effect means one thing causes another.
I'm saying sequence of events does not prove that one event caused the
other.
Otherwise sometimes stated as "correlation is not causation".
Also, there are non-deterministic processes in the Cosmos.
Perhaps consciousness is one of them? (after John Searle).
One could deterministically assert. I'm not sure if it would be
possible to test all processes to make sure none to them are
deterministic.
"The Law of Cause and Effect states that every action, event, or "cause" >>>> has a corresponding reaction or "effect". Often considered an iron rule >>>> of the universe, it asserts that nothing happens by pure chance and that >>>> identical causes will always produce identical effects." - Britannica
On 6/28/2026 12:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:20 PM, Dude wrote:My point does not concern brain morphology. I'm not a brain surgeon.
On 6/27/2026 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:27 PM, Dude wrote:Through cognition we make sense of our environment so we can make
On 6/27/2026 7:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The answer is simple: We experience everything in space and time,
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha >>>>>>>>>>> in his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to >>>>>>>>>>> us. Thanks.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, WilsonMaybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>> and Buddha;s theory of karma.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>> that underlies all human existence which can be discerned >>>>>>>>>>>>> by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no >>>>>>>>>>>>> chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can >>>>>>>>>>>>> deny self- consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-
consciousness and still exist without self-consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>>
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
Idealist.
like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the future: >>>>>>
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that physical >>>>>>> matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely
explained by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is fundamentally >>>>>>> mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness are the >>>>>>> true foundation of existence, rather than physical matter.
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching out
and interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why is it >>>>>> stuck following all these rules that are entirely independent of
conscious intent?
both of which are constructed by the mind through cognition.
what is even doing this "construction through cognition" if only
consciousness is fundamental?
rational decisions.
*what* is even doing the cognition???
Everything we experience takes place in time and space, Nick,
Soto Zen is referred to sometimes as the "Mind Only" school of
Buddhism.
show me the monk who can bend a spoon without some kind of physical
interaction with the spoon and
everything.
Time and space are empirically real. While space and time are "ideal"
(mental constructs), they are "empirically real". Why?
actually the 4D spacetime manifold is fundamental reality while time/
space perspectives are just specific foliations (or coordinate
divisions) based on a particular frames of reference...
didn't u even read einstein dud???
Because everyonerCOs mind is structured the same way, the physical
world we experience behaves with objective predictability.
well that is the darndedest thing i've heard so far:
-a-a> you think everyone's mind is structured in the _same_ way???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
and what is even this "mind" that can be "structured" given that
consciousness is the only thing that exists???
This framework allowed Kant to explain how we can have universal,
undeniable knowledge of mathematics and geometryrCobecause those
spatial and temporal rules are built right into our own cognitive
machinery.
we actually don't experience the 4D fundamental spacetime manifold
that just like exists...
we have merely a 3D experience that happens over time, not all at once
i can cut Kant some slack cause he died a century before einstein
figured that out...
-a-a> what's ur excuse dud???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
-a-a> we'll all become believers for sureDamage to the primary visual cortex removes the major input from the
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
i know u can't cognate this but i'll repeat myself:
Cognition is perception: Interpreting sensory information (what you >>>>> see, hear, taste, touch, and smell) to make sense of your environment. >>>>
the vast majority of cognition is sub-perceptual. we only perceive a
small portion of the brain's cognition.
there an incredible amount rather interesting neuroscience here ur
just glossing over because u don't understand what u don't
understand dud and haven't bothered to look into it...
including, and again i repeat myself: the blindsight studies are
direct experimental proof of this sub-perceptual cognition
eyes to the brain, causing significant visual loss but even using
blind sight, they are still conscious.
if the conscious experience of sight is dependent on the physical
structures of brain to manifest ... what makes u think the rest isn't
dependent???
there are other parts of the brain and/or sensory inputs we can cut
out to remove other sense as well,
from there it's just induction that the rest of consciousness is
dependent on brain morphology as well,
that's not the say that consciousness *is* _just_ brain morphology,
i'm not claiming that. i'm not even claiming that the brain "produces"
consciousness. but i think it's beyond proven that there is some
dependency on brain morphology.
I'm just a normal practicing Buddhist seeker trying to relate to you
what Buddhist say about the nature of consciousness as a school of thought.
You may have landed on the wrong board. On this board we mostly discuss Buddhism, the various Zen schools and history of philosophy. Along with copious riddle solving from Zen books by Zen Master Nyogen Sensaki.
It's only in the last few years that partisan politics has dominated the
board. mostly because of inflammatory political postings and lately,--
porn emojis being used to win debates along with character assassination
and personal attacks.
The board didn't start out this way - in the beginning there were
debates, but I'm not sure it was based on hatred, like it seems to be
now. There used to be a certain esprit de corm on the board; proud to be utilizing the new tech for free speech.
So, I'm still proud of what I post here - too bad you're not even
respecting yourself. You came her to get enlightened apparently -
instead you trashed the board and everyone subscribed. Good work, Nick.
Now back to your 850 lines of text you snipped.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of misrepresentation.
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would >>>>>>>>>> be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. >>>>>>>>>> I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for >>>>>>>> your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So >>>>>>>> you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who >>>>>> challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it >>>>>> that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down
debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try.
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is the
only thing that exists???
intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human rights.
You got confused.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious humans.
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational
analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>So, you can't explain consciousness.
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being >>>>>>>> rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>>>> university debate class.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by karmic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks cause and >>>>>>>>>>>> effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>>>
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- >>>>>> awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at >>>>>> the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a> what is this buddha even???
-a>
-a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
On 6/28/2026 3:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:37 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:Money and wealth and power are not the basis for human rights, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>> ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when >>>>>>>>>>>> god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would >>>>>>>>> be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. >>>>>>>>> I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>>>> opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do >>>>>>> what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's
exploring what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is
all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
self- awareness. Better to try Nick.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of
view. It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
And, certainly not the goal of equality. If you really think it's all
about the money, then you are a rank materialist.
lol, so the l0lbErTaRiAnS are all gunna become iDeAlIsTs so they can
find iNnEr PeAcE while blaming those struggling with inequity as *rank
materialists* ??? EfnuEfnuEfnu
Materialism is genuinely retarded.
Every spiritual teacher taught that the physical world is not the source
of being. And that being is awareness. Money won't buy you love.
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46rC>AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't
understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>> matter?
it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>>>> deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by >>>>>>> decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law >>>>>>> posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and >>>>>>> wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck?
Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the
right to do whatever out there in the wild.-a But when they invade my
personal space, they must die.-a He did keep a pet crow in his house
though.-a If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets.
If you are an ornithologist.-a I suspect they sensed his affection for
them.-a Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on
the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already
established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our
cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds
would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even
helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad
would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly
up a
ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something),
which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of
getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their
revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest
down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
Let's talk about human beings.
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) enshrines
the right to property as follows:
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property.
So, I rest my case.
On 6/28/2026 8:03 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:12:28 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:For most normal reasonable people, cause and effect is an observable fact:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:45:13 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:22:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 6/25/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:28:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:Are you saying that cause and effect does not lead one thing to
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, DudeAccording to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical >>>>>>>>>>> terms, theIt is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon >>>>>>>>>> knows.
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and
foremost a
matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is >>>>>>>>>>> the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>>>>
consciousness
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual >>>>>>>> cortex
out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience
due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out
-a-a -a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a -a>
-a-a -a> #god
-a -a> Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of
consciousness?
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
Because seeming cause and effect are really unrelated events that
happen in sequence without one causing the other.
Does B always follow A?
Does B happen without A?
another?
That doesn't even make any sense. Everyone knows about the law of
cause
and effect means one thing causes another.
I'm saying sequence of events does not prove that one event caused the >>>> other.
Otherwise sometimes stated as "correlation is not causation".
Also, there are non-deterministic processes in the Cosmos.
Perhaps consciousness is one of them?-a (after John Searle).
One could deterministically assert.-a I'm not sure if it would be
possible to test all processes to make sure none to them are
deterministic.
human excrement always flows downstream. It's not really an argument at
this point.
"The Law of Cause and Effect states that every action, event, or
"cause"
has a corresponding reaction or "effect". Often considered an iron
rule
of the universe, it asserts that nothing happens by pure chance and >>>>> that
identical causes will always produce identical effects." - Britannica
On 6/28/26 9:52 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:20 PM, Dude wrote:My point does not concern brain morphology. I'm not a brain surgeon.
On 6/27/2026 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:27 PM, Dude wrote:Through cognition we make sense of our environment so we can make
On 6/27/2026 7:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The answer is simple: We experience everything in space and time, >>>>>> both of which are constructed by the mind through cognition.
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha >>>>>>>>>>>> in his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to >>>>>>>>>>>> us. Thanks.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, WilsonMaybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Buddha;s theory of karma.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that underlies all human existence which can be discerned >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deny self- consciousness, or you would not exist.
a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self-
consciousness and still exist without self-consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>>>
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
Idealist.
like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the future: >>>>>>>
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that
physical matter is the fundamental substance of all things,
meaning consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be
entirely explained by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is fundamentally >>>>>>>> mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness are >>>>>>>> the true foundation of existence, rather than physical matter. >>>>>>>>
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching out >>>>>>> and interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why is >>>>>>> it stuck following all these rules that are entirely independent >>>>>>> of conscious intent?
what is even doing this "construction through cognition" if only
consciousness is fundamental?
rational decisions.
*what* is even doing the cognition???
Everything we experience takes place in time and space, Nick,
Soto Zen is referred to sometimes as the "Mind Only" school of
Buddhism.
show me the monk who can bend a spoon without some kind of physical >>>>> interaction with the spoon and
everything.
Time and space are empirically real. While space and time are
"ideal" (mental constructs), they are "empirically real". Why?
actually the 4D spacetime manifold is fundamental reality while time/
space perspectives are just specific foliations (or coordinate
divisions) based on a particular frames of reference...
didn't u even read einstein dud???
Because everyonerCOs mind is structured the same way, the physical
world we experience behaves with objective predictability.
well that is the darndedest thing i've heard so far:
-a-a> you think everyone's mind is structured in the _same_ way???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
and what is even this "mind" that can be "structured" given that
consciousness is the only thing that exists???
This framework allowed Kant to explain how we can have universal,
undeniable knowledge of mathematics and geometryrCobecause those
spatial and temporal rules are built right into our own cognitive
machinery.
we actually don't experience the 4D fundamental spacetime manifold
that just like exists...
we have merely a 3D experience that happens over time, not all at once
i can cut Kant some slack cause he died a century before einstein
figured that out...
-a-a> what's ur excuse dud???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
-a-a> we'll all become believers for sureDamage to the primary visual cortex removes the major input from the
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cognition is perception: Interpreting sensory information (what
you see, hear, taste, touch, and smell) to make sense of your
environment.
i know u can't cognate this but i'll repeat myself:
the vast majority of cognition is sub-perceptual. we only perceive
a small portion of the brain's cognition.
there an incredible amount rather interesting neuroscience here ur
just glossing over because u don't understand what u don't
understand dud and haven't bothered to look into it...
including, and again i repeat myself: the blindsight studies are
direct experimental proof of this sub-perceptual cognition
eyes to the brain, causing significant visual loss but even using
blind sight, they are still conscious.
if the conscious experience of sight is dependent on the physical
structures of brain to manifest ... what makes u think the rest isn't
dependent???
there are other parts of the brain and/or sensory inputs we can cut
out to remove other sense as well,
from there it's just induction that the rest of consciousness is
dependent on brain morphology as well,
that's not the say that consciousness *is* _just_ brain morphology,
i'm not claiming that. i'm not even claiming that the brain
"produces" consciousness. but i think it's beyond proven that there
is some dependency on brain morphology.
besides ignoring evidence collected in the last century,
u don't seem to have much of a point dud
#god
I'm just a normal practicing Buddhist seeker trying to relate to you
what Buddhist say about the nature of consciousness as a school of
thought.
You may have landed on the wrong board. On this board we mostly
discuss Buddhism, the various Zen schools and history of philosophy.
Along with copious riddle solving from Zen books by Zen Master Nyogen
Sensaki.
It's only in the last few years that partisan politics has dominated the
somehow i doubt ur being truthful
board. mostly because of inflammatory political postings and lately,
porn emojis being used to win debates along with character
assassination and personal attacks.
The board didn't start out this way - in the beginning there were
debates, but I'm not sure it was based on hatred, like it seems to be
now. There used to be a certain esprit de corm on the board; proud to
be utilizing the new tech for free speech.
So, I'm still proud of what I post here - too bad you're not even
respecting yourself. You came her to get enlightened apparently -
instead you trashed the board and everyone subscribed. Good work,
Nick. Now back to your 850 lines of text you snipped.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading
to accusations of misrepresentation.
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero
<fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of
vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for >>>>>>>>> your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave >>>>>>>>> them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who >>>>>>> challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it >>>>>>> that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down
debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try.
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is the
only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one true fundamental reality...
intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human rights.
You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur just mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to respond
too.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious humans.
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational
analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 12:58:19 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 3:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:37 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:Money and wealth and power are not the basis for human rights, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or self- >>>>>> awareness. Better to try Nick.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and >>>>>>>>>>>> deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would >>>>>>>>>> be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. >>>>>>>>>> I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they proclaim >>>>>>>>>> you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>>>>> opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will do >>>>>>>> what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So you >>>>>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's
exploring what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is all >>>>>>> about.
My goal is not to convince you.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of
view. It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
And, certainly not the goal of equality. If you really think it's all
about the money, then you are a rank materialist.
lol, so the l0lbErTaRiAnS are all gunna become iDeAlIsTs so they can
find iNnEr PeAcE while blaming those struggling with inequity as *rank
materialists* ??? ???
Materialism is genuinely retarded.
Sorry, the monastery rejected your application.
Every spiritual teacher taught that the physical world is not the source
of being. And that being is awareness. Money won't buy you love.
But it will buy you a share of spacex. You probably should wait a
month for the price to finish its downward correction though.
On 6/28/26 9:58 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 3:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:37 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:Money and wealth and power are not the basis for human rights, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur previous
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law would >>>>>>>>>> be the
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of vishnu. >>>>>>>>>> I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for >>>>>>>> your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>>>> out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it.-a So >>>>>>>> you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's
exploring what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is >>>>>>> all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
self- awareness. Better to try Nick.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of
view. It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
And, certainly not the goal of equality. If you really think it's
all about the money, then you are a rank materialist.
lol, so the l0lbErTaRiAnS are all gunna become iDeAlIsTs so they can
find iNnEr PeAcE while blaming those struggling with inequity as
*rank materialists* ??? EfnuEfnuEfnu
Materialism is genuinely retarded.
Every spiritual teacher taught that the physical world is not the source
idk about buddha but jesus was pretty big on actually feeding people
law. You and Noah backed yourselves into a dead end corner with all your argumentative mixed up conspiracy theories.of being. And that being is awareness. Money won't buy you love.
... so that is exactly why ur so damn attached to ur material
conditions, eh???
"
base hypocrisy is genuinely retardedDon't be a hypocrite. There are human rights based on reason and natural
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of misrepresentation.Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of old
On 6/28/26 10:41 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46rC>AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st>Let's talk about human beings.
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter?
it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and >>>>>>>>>>>> out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when >>>>>>>>>>>> god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>> and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how >>>>>>>>> will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by >>>>>>>> decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural >>>>>>>> law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and >>>>>>>> wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by
arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>> laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck?
Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild.-a But when they invade my
personal space, they must die.-a He did keep a pet crow in his house
though.-a If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets. >>>> If you are an ornithologist.-a I suspect they sensed his affection for >>>> them.-a Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on
the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already
established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our
cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent
birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even
helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad
would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly
up a
ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something),
which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of
getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get
their
revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest
down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
enshrines the right to property as follows:
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property.
So, I rest my case.
by an appeal to authority fallacy
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targetingThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>> natural law.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the
ROE in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" actually not true
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:08:13 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 2:43 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:57:30 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree. >>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is >>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know >>>>> if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >>>> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >>>> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary decree.
Key word: reason
There are also efforts to derive systems of ethics from observations
of various outcomes found in Game Theory.
I don't know a ton about game theory but it seems to be an attempt to
understand reality. If that's accurate, it's similar to investigations
into what is and what isn't natural law.
Without the pretensions. As a gamer, I have some idea of what game
theory is. Mathematical modeling of the behavior of teenagers playing
World of Warcraft might be of predictive use for the game, but I am
don't see it influencing a new social structure.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is viewed as
an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality. They are simply opinions.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:25:11 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
In war, people's lives are lost?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
Therefore there is no right to life, only a duty to protect it in
other people. Humans are often derelict in performing their duties.
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being >>>>>>>>> rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>>>>> university debate class.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>>>>
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- >>>>>>> awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at >>>>>>> the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
still butt hurt about ur toy internet company eh???
ya know creon: i ask people who've lived in the bay their whole lives:
you know about sonic internet ???
and they're like .... EfauEfauEfau .... no ....
so i can't even explain how cool u are, eh???
On 6/28/2026 11:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 9:52 AM, Dude wrote:You can read the board archive here:
On 6/28/2026 12:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:20 PM, Dude wrote:My point does not concern brain morphology. I'm not a brain surgeon.
On 6/27/2026 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:27 PM, Dude wrote:Through cognition we make sense of our environment so we can make
On 6/27/2026 7:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The answer is simple: We experience everything in space and time, >>>>>>> both of which are constructed by the mind through cognition.
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an >>>>>>>>> Idealist.
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the Buddha >>>>>>>>>>>>> in his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get back to >>>>>>>>>>>>> us. Thanks.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and still exist without self-consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, WilsonMaybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Buddha;s theory of karma.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of me.
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that underlies all human existence which can be discerned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deny self- consciousness, or you would not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the future: >>>>>>>>
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it >>>>>>>>
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that
physical matter is the fundamental substance of all things, >>>>>>>>> meaning consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be
entirely explained by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is fundamentally >>>>>>>>> mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness are >>>>>>>>> the true foundation of existence, rather than physical matter. >>>>>>>>>
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching out >>>>>>>> and interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why is >>>>>>>> it stuck following all these rules that are entirely independent >>>>>>>> of conscious intent?
what is even doing this "construction through cognition" if only
consciousness is fundamental?
rational decisions.
*what* is even doing the cognition???
Everything we experience takes place in time and space, Nick,
Soto Zen is referred to sometimes as the "Mind Only" school of
Buddhism.
show me the monk who can bend a spoon without some kind of
physical interaction with the spoon and
everything.
Time and space are empirically real. While space and time are
"ideal" (mental constructs), they are "empirically real". Why?
actually the 4D spacetime manifold is fundamental reality while
time/ space perspectives are just specific foliations (or coordinate
divisions) based on a particular frames of reference...
didn't u even read einstein dud???
Because everyonerCOs mind is structured the same way, the physical
world we experience behaves with objective predictability.
well that is the darndedest thing i've heard so far:
-a-a> you think everyone's mind is structured in the _same_ way???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
and what is even this "mind" that can be "structured" given that
consciousness is the only thing that exists???
This framework allowed Kant to explain how we can have universal,
undeniable knowledge of mathematics and geometryrCobecause those
spatial and temporal rules are built right into our own cognitive
machinery.
we actually don't experience the 4D fundamental spacetime manifold
that just like exists...
we have merely a 3D experience that happens over time, not all at once >>>>
i can cut Kant some slack cause he died a century before einstein
figured that out...
-a-a> what's ur excuse dud???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
-a-a> we'll all become believers for sureDamage to the primary visual cortex removes the major input from
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cognition is perception: Interpreting sensory information (what >>>>>>> you see, hear, taste, touch, and smell) to make sense of your
environment.
i know u can't cognate this but i'll repeat myself:
the vast majority of cognition is sub-perceptual. we only perceive >>>>>> a small portion of the brain's cognition.
there an incredible amount rather interesting neuroscience here ur >>>>>> just glossing over because u don't understand what u don't
understand dud and haven't bothered to look into it...
including, and again i repeat myself: the blindsight studies are
direct experimental proof of this sub-perceptual cognition
the eyes to the brain, causing significant visual loss but even
using blind sight, they are still conscious.
if the conscious experience of sight is dependent on the physical
structures of brain to manifest ... what makes u think the rest
isn't dependent???
there are other parts of the brain and/or sensory inputs we can cut
out to remove other sense as well,
from there it's just induction that the rest of consciousness is
dependent on brain morphology as well,
that's not the say that consciousness *is* _just_ brain morphology,
i'm not claiming that. i'm not even claiming that the brain
"produces" consciousness. but i think it's beyond proven that there
is some dependency on brain morphology.
besides ignoring evidence collected in the last century,
-a-a> u don't seem to have much of a point dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
somehow i doubt ur being truthful
I'm just a normal practicing Buddhist seeker trying to relate to you
what Buddhist say about the nature of consciousness as a school of
thought.
You may have landed on the wrong board. On this board we mostly
discuss Buddhism, the various Zen schools and history of philosophy.
Along with copious riddle solving from Zen books by Zen Master Nyogen
Sensaki.
It's only in the last few years that partisan politics has dominated the >>
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
Get back to us after you've caught up. Thanks.
board. mostly because of inflammatory political postings and lately,
porn emojis being used to win debates along with character
assassination and personal attacks.
The board didn't start out this way - in the beginning there were
debates, but I'm not sure it was based on hatred, like it seems to be
now. There used to be a certain esprit de corm on the board; proud to
be utilizing the new tech for free speech.
So, I'm still proud of what I post here - too bad you're not even
respecting yourself. You came her to get enlightened apparently -
instead you trashed the board and everyone subscribed. Good work,
Nick. Now back to your 850 lines of text you snipped.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading
to accusations of misrepresentation.
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not exist. >It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero
<fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.a But
do go calling them natural laws.a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>>>>> Noahland.
Mya objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for >>>>>>>>>> your
opinions.a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave >>>>>>>>>> them
out in discussion here.a Mr Avatar.a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>>>> do what
I say.a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.a You want to bolster your claim against those who >>>>>>>> challenge it.a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it >>>>>>>> that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down
debate.a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.a Nice try.
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol >>>>>>
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is the
only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one true
fundamental reality...
--The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law.intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human rights.
You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur just
mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to respond
too.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious humans. >>>
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational
analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of old
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text of
another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying their
words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of
misrepresentation.
text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only bad >netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the post harder.
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread >conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of older >replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not exist. It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero
<fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed >>>>>>>>>>> in Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority >>>>>>>>>> for your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave >>>>>>>>>> them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who >>>>>>>> challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to >>>>>>>> do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down
debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try.
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol >>>>>>
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is the
only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one
true fundamental reality...
The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law.intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human rights.
You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur
just mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to
respond too.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious humans. >>>
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational
analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:29:43 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not exist.
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero
<fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for >>>>>>>>>>> your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave >>>>>>>>>>> them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who >>>>>>>>> challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it >>>>>>>>> that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down
debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try. >>>>>>>> -a>
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol >>>>>>>
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is the >>>>> only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one true
fundamental reality...
It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
Actually, that is not true. The baby begins to notice where it ends
and everything else begins as it feels pain and discomfort. Before
that, it has no sense of itself.
--The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law.intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human rights. >>>>You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur just
mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to respond
too.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious humans. >>>>
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational
analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On 6/28/2026 11:57 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 9:58 AM, Wilson wrote:Obviously, Jesus was a rank materialist
On 6/28/2026 3:16 AM, dart200 wrote:idk about buddha but jesus was pretty big on actually feeding people
On 6/27/26 11:37 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:Money and wealth and power are not the basis for human rights, Nick. >>>>>
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero
<fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of
vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for >>>>>>>>> your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave >>>>>>>>> them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's
exploring what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is >>>>>>>> all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
self- awareness. Better to try Nick.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of >>>>>>> view. It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
And, certainly not the goal of equality. If you really think it's
all about the money, then you are a rank materialist.
lol, so the l0lbErTaRiAnS are all gunna become iDeAlIsTs so they can
find iNnEr PeAcE while blaming those struggling with inequity as
*rank materialists* ??? EfnuEfnuEfnu
Materialism is genuinely retarded.
Every spiritual teacher taught that the physical world is not the source >>
law. You and Noah backed yourselves into a dead end corner with all your argumentative mixed up conspiracy theories.of being. And that being is awareness. Money won't buy you love.
... so that is exactly why ur so damn attached to ur material
conditions, eh???
"
-a-a> base hypocrisy is genuinely retarded
-a Don't be a hypocrite. There are human rights based on reason and
natural
You revealed yourself to being rank materialists by claiming your
philosophy is all about the wealth of nations, not human rights.
You failed to prove any human rights of the Palestinian refugees to
their own own property.
You got confused, Nick, and went over to the dark side of alt.messianic, posting porn emojis.
Now see the light, Nick: The world is your idea.
"The World as Will and Idea" is a foundational philosophical work by
Arthur Schopenhauer. You should read it twice and think about it (pun intended).
On 6/28/2026 11:59 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:41 AM, Dude wrote:The humans rights declaration by the United Nations is based on natural
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46rC>AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> >>>> wrote:Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote: >>>>>
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years
more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism
nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter?
it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>> and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how >>>>>>>>>> will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by >>>>>>>>> decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural >>>>>>>>> law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right >>>>>>>>> and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by
arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>>> laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck? >>>>>> Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild.-a But when they invade my >>>>> personal space, they must die.-a He did keep a pet crow in his house >>>>> though.-a If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets. >>>>> If you are an ornithologist.-a I suspect they sensed his affection for >>>>> them.-a Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on >>>>> the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already >>>> established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our
cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent
birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even
helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad
would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl
quietly up a
ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something),
which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of
getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get
their
revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest
down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
enshrines the right to property as follows:
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property.
So, I rest my case.
by an appeal to authority fallacy
law, not by decree.
On 6/28/2026 12:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:JELLOS.
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about >>>>>>>>>> being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of >>>>>>>>>>>> the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>>>> does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>>>>>
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>>>>>> university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- >>>>>>>> awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at >>>>>>>> the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
still butt hurt about ur toy internet company eh???
ya know creon: i ask people who've lived in the bay their whole lives:Sonic's subscribers experience elite internet speeds reaching up to 1 gigabit per second (Gbps), or 1,000 megabits per second (Mbps).
you know about sonic internet ???
and they're like .... EfauEfauEfau .... no ....Sonic fiber service is only available in California. Google Fiber in the past offered five options, depending on location: Fiber 1 Gig, 2 Gig, 5
so i can't even explain how cool u are, eh???
Gig, 8 Gig.
Apparently, the fastest internet in the San Francisco Bay area comes
from Frontier, which offers the fastest fiber plans up to 7 Gbps,
followed by AT&T Fiber with up to 4.7 Gbps. Xfinity cable internet also offers up to 2,000 Mbps, but with slower upload speeds that will vary depending on your location.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 12:27:49 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
My objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>> opinions. Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them
out in discussion here. Mr Avatar. Not that I think you will do what >>>>> I say. My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. So you >>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is. You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it. Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it
that way.
It's exploring what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate. If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot. Nice try.
My idea is not natural law. I can however have ideas about what is.
However, when you try to shut down conversation about your idea by
calling it natural law, I say, no deal.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 16:55:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of old
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text of
another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying their
words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of
misrepresentation.
text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only bad
netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the post harder. >>
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread
conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of older
replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
Agreed.
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>> actually not true
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by >>>> govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is viewed as >>> an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no >>> government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to
consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.-a There has >>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions
matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur
previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.-a But >>>>>>> do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens when god >>>>>>> laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate property is >>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >>> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>Sure there is.
wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the
ROE in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights.
If you don't understand this do some reading on the nature of natural
rights by someone who's not a freaking commie or other flavor of authoritarian.
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by >>>>> govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke >>>> and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is
viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no >>>> government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
On 6/28/26 2:00 PM, Wilson wrote:"The commons" he was talking about is society in general.
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything
to do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights.
If you don't understand this do some reading on the nature of natural
rights by someone who's not a freaking commie or other flavor of
authoritarian.
...even john locke himself state the right to property thru mixing labor
was contingent on there being enough in the commons to go around...
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>> actually not true
There are no immutable rights. Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is viewed as >>> an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality. They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>>> actually not true
There are no immutable rights.a Only rights granted or not granted by >>>>> govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke >>>> and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is viewed as >>>> an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no >>>> government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little--
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.a Only rights granted or not granted by >>>>>> govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke >>>>> and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is
viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no >>>>> government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
On 6/27/2026 11:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:25:11 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
In war, people's lives are lost?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>> do with war???
Therefore there is no right to life, only a duty to protect it in
other people. Humans are often derelict in performing their duties.
What is the source of that duty to protect life in other people?
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the
ROE in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights.
If you don't understand this do some reading on the nature of natural--
rights by someone who's not a freaking commie or other flavor of >authoritarian.
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about being >>>>>>>>> rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>>>>> university debate class.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of the >>>>>>>>>>> logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>>> does not
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity.
"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in karma. >>>>>>>>>>>
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>>>>
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- >>>>>>> awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at >>>>>>> the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
#god
On 6/28/26 12:09 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 9:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:39 PM, Dude wrote:discussions BEFORE you post your query. The Kama Sutra is fiction, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 7:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:34 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you still have not read the Buddha''s Lotus Sutra, nor
On 6/27/2026 6:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Congratulations, Nick! You are now a Buddhist. Good work! This is >>>>>> a breakthrough for sure.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:41:53 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against >>>>>>>>>>>>>> targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something >>>>>>>>>> about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c- >>>>>>>>>> dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have
anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the
"immutable"
actually not true
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not
granted by
govts.
i'm a deontologist, so instead of framing a right a to life as
inherently iMmUtAbLe,
i frame it as we have an inherent duty to ensure we maintain that >>>>>>> right as absolutely as possible.
nah i'm not a jooddhist
i view even self-defense killings as a level of wrong: in that we >>>>>>> ought to be seeking ways to put down threats with non-lethalSure. Just say "Don't come at me bro!"
methods, _and_ we ought to be seeking structural solutions within >>>>>>> society that eliminate the creation of such threats ever in the >>>>>>> first place.
EfiaEfAa .... woops
Kant's Critique on Pure Reason.
Why not? You came here to get enlightenment, right?
Posting porn emojis is just not going to impress. Are you smarter
than a 5th grader. You're way out of your league on this board.
Better luck of al.,messianic.
-a-a> apparently u haven't read v-Utsy-Uyana's kama sutra
-aWe discussed this in detail years ago. You are supposed to read the
the kama sutra is fiction???
maybe for ur sorry-ass life!
i will pray it's not fiction for so much longer EfnuEfOA
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by >>>>>>> govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke >>>>>> and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is
viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no >>>>>> government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about >>>>>>>>>> being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, discoverable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
without any underlying principles manifesting reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware of >>>>>>>>>>>> the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>>>> does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural law. >>>>>>>>>>>
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated in a >>>>>>>>>> university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on self- >>>>>>>> awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, so at >>>>>>>> the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to the group.
We are down to five informants now; one known lurker; and just one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if you're
writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just think - while you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in the Subject box, and emojis -
I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little editing help
from Rita.
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 12:27:49 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
My objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for your >>>>>> opinions. Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave them >>>>>> out in discussion here. Mr Avatar. Not that I think you will do what >>>>>> I say. My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. So you >>>>>> understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is. You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it. Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it
that way.
It's exploring what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate. If >>>> you assume that is true makes further debate moot. Nice try.
My idea is not natural law. I can however have ideas about what is.
However, when you try to shut down conversation about your idea by
calling it natural law, I say, no deal.
I never try to shut down the conversation. That might be your perception
but it's never my intent.
On 6/27/2026 8:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion.
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.a But I can certainly claim that >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to
consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it. >>>>>>>>>> We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky.a There has >>>>>>>>>> been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion >>>>>>>>>> years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing.a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.a But >>>>>>>> do go calling them natural laws.a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>> laughs.a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.a Primate property is >>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree. >>>>
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >>>> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >>>> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
I don't think I'm going to win an argument by saying my side aligns with >natural law. That's only context for one reason why I believe it.
You're really feeling threatened by this whole natural law thing eh?
On 6/28/2026 10:14 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:08:13 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 2:43 AM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:57:30 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree. >>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
That's the thing.a The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out.a But
do go calling them natural laws.a You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>> laughs.a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.a Primate property is >>>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know >>>>>> if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits >>>>> that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >>>>> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary decree.
Key word: reason
There are also efforts to derive systems of ethics from observations
of various outcomes found in Game Theory.
I don't know a ton about game theory but it seems to be an attempt to
understand reality. If that's accurate, it's similar to investigations
into what is and what isn't natural law.
Without the pretensions. As a gamer, I have some idea of what game
theory is. Mathematical modeling of the behavior of teenagers playing
World of Warcraft might be of predictive use for the game, but I am
don't see it influencing a new social structure.
Apparently, game theory is not what most people think of when we hear
the word ogameo.
Game theory provides conceptual models and logical explanations to
describe and predict the decisions rational agents make and the
strategies they choose when they interact with other rational agents.
That's why the United Nations got all those countries to sign on to the--
idea of universal human rights based on reason in natural law.
Human rights just seem right based on reason and reflection. It just
feels right to have human rights that are reasonable. YMMV.
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.a Only rights granted or not granted by >>>>>>>> govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke >>>>>>> and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is
viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no >>>>>>> government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.a They are simply opinions. >>>>>
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and >circumference in flat 2D space
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they
can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern
international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon
rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the
dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing
absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot
worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their
ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom
from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke >>>>>>>> and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply opinions. >>>>>>
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do. But most of us do not live our lives
by math truths.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:00:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the
ROE in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights.
Which makes "right" a misnomer. Right implies an inevitability and
force which the situation does not provide.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:44:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 12:27:49 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is. You want to bolster your claim against those who
challenge it. Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it >>>>> that way.
It's exploring what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate. If >>>>> you assume that is true makes further debate moot. Nice try.
My idea is not natural law. I can however have ideas about what is.
However, when you try to shut down conversation about your idea by
calling it natural law, I say, no deal.
I never try to shut down the conversation. That might be your perception
but it's never my intent.
And the discussion of property rights does not become moot if you
declare that property rights are a natural law? What is left to
discuss?
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>>>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they
can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern
international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon
rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the >>> dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on
precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing
absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot
worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their
ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom
from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths.
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were >pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning
have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible >standard.
Your professorAs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective
attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we
holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnAt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to >discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced
better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right action are >natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do
have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall
short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the
realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue
alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that order
and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural law,
I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog.
Talking about things with others who push back is one of the best ways--
to test whether what we believe holds up in the real world. That's why
I"m here.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 14:04:05 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 10:14 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:08:13 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Apparently, game theory is not what most people think of when we hear
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 2:43 AM, Creon wrote:
There are also efforts to derive systems of ethics from observations >>>>> of various outcomes found in Game Theory.
I don't know a ton about game theory but it seems to be an attempt to
understand reality. If that's accurate, it's similar to investigations >>>> into what is and what isn't natural law.
Without the pretensions. As a gamer, I have some idea of what game
theory is. Mathematical modeling of the behavior of teenagers playing
World of Warcraft might be of predictive use for the game, but I am
don't see it influencing a new social structure.
the word rCLgamerCY.
Game theory provides conceptual models and logical explanations to
describe and predict the decisions rational agents make and the
strategies they choose when they interact with other rational agents.
In a game context. Otherwise why "game"?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE >>>>>> in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they
can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern
international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon
rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the >>>> dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on
precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing
absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot
worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their
ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom
from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths.
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were
pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning
have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible
standard.
Your professorrCOs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective
attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we
holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnrCOt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to
discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced
better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right action are
natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do
have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall
short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the
realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue
alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that order
and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural law,
I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog.
Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
On 6/28/2026 8:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they
can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern
international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon >>>>> rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the >>>>> dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on
precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing
absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot >>>> worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their
ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom
from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths.
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were
pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning
have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible
standard.
Your professorAs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective
attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we
holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnAt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to
discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced
better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right action are >>> natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do
have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall
short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the
realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue
alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that order
and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural law, >>> I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog.
Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
It's certainly not moot. You're free to disagree as you do. That
furthers the dialog when it's done in a spirit of discovery.
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.a They are simply opinions. >>>>>>>
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how >>>>> you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do. But most of us do not live our lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
On 6/28/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:00:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:Which makes "right" a misnomer. Right implies an inevitability and
On 6/27/26 10:49 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Sure there is.
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules of >>>>>>>>> engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and >>>>>>>>> natural law.There is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement. >>>>>>>
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the >>>>> ROE in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-
dbd02e95b6a2
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable"
actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights. >>
force which the situation does not provide.
A right implies a universal principle that stands on its own. Such >principles are /very good ideas/ that when followed make life better for >everyone. It requires no force for it to be true, and no acts of
aggression can disprove it.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
On 6/28/2026 7:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:44:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 12:27:49 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is. You want to bolster your claim against those who >>>>>> challenge it. Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it >>>>>> that way.
It's exploring what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down debate. If >>>>>> you assume that is true makes further debate moot. Nice try.
My idea is not natural law. I can however have ideas about what is.
However, when you try to shut down conversation about your idea by
calling it natural law, I say, no deal.
I never try to shut down the conversation. That might be your perception >>> but it's never my intent.
And the discussion of property rights does not become moot if you
declare that property rights are a natural law? What is left to
discuss?
No the discussion does not become moot. And I did not create the idea of >property being a natural right.
On 6/28/2026 7:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 14:04:05 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 10:14 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:08:13 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Apparently, game theory is not what most people think of when we hear
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 2:43 AM, Creon wrote:
There are also efforts to derive systems of ethics from observations >>>>>> of various outcomes found in Game Theory.
I don't know a ton about game theory but it seems to be an attempt to >>>>> understand reality. If that's accurate, it's similar to investigations >>>>> into what is and what isn't natural law.
Without the pretensions. As a gamer, I have some idea of what game
theory is. Mathematical modeling of the behavior of teenagers playing >>>> World of Warcraft might be of predictive use for the game, but I am
don't see it influencing a new social structure.
the word ogameo.
Game theory provides conceptual models and logical explanations to
describe and predict the decisions rational agents make and the
strategies they choose when they interact with other rational agents.
In a game context. Otherwise why "game"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:22:08 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could >>>> be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply opinions. >>>>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how >>>>>> you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business... >>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of >>>> all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do. But most of us do not live our lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Math majors like to say, math underlies everything. That does not
mean that my life is determined by math.
On 6/28/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
The experience of reality is to a degree subjective. Reality itself
though is not our understanding of it. It exists outside of our
experience, is truth, and not within the subjective realm.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they >>>>>>> can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern >>>>>> international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon >>>>>> rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the >>>>>> dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on >>>>> precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing
absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot >>>>> worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their
ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom >>>>> from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths.
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were >>>> pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning >>>> have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible >>>> standard.
Your professorAs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective
attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we
holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnAt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to
discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced
better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right action are >>>> natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do
have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall
short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the >>>> realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue
alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that order >>>> and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural law, >>>> I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog.
Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
It's certainly not moot. You're free to disagree as you do. That
furthers the dialog when it's done in a spirit of discovery.
Still we are at a situation where you claim natural law, and I can say
only, no it is not.
On 6/28/26 5:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:22:08 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could >>>>> be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.a They are simply opinions. >>>>>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how >>>>>>> you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business... >>>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of >>>>> all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do. But most of us do not live our lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Math majors like to say, math underlies everything. That does not
mean that my life is determined by math.
i never it underlies _everything_, whatever that is supposed to mean...
but ur most definitely subject to it's truths in everyday existence ?
mabye u should consider studying it bit more, to realize what an
objective truth, beyond any claim of possibly subjectivity
beyond any god's reach of sway
actually looks like
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:39:08 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 7:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 14:04:05 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 10:14 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:08:13 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Apparently, game theory is not what most people think of when we hear
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 2:43 AM, Creon wrote:
There are also efforts to derive systems of ethics from observations >>>>>>> of various outcomes found in Game Theory.
I don't know a ton about game theory but it seems to be an attempt to >>>>>> understand reality. If that's accurate, it's similar to investigations >>>>>> into what is and what isn't natural law.
Without the pretensions. As a gamer, I have some idea of what game
theory is. Mathematical modeling of the behavior of teenagers playing >>>>> World of Warcraft might be of predictive use for the game, but I am
don't see it influencing a new social structure.
the word ogameo.
Game theory provides conceptual models and logical explanations to
describe and predict the decisions rational agents make and the
strategies they choose when they interact with other rational agents.
In a game context. Otherwise why "game"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
Initially, game theory addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which a >participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by the losses and
gains of the other participant. In the 1950s, it was extended to the
study of non zero-sum games, and was eventually applied to a wide
range of behavioral relations. It is now an umbrella term for the
science of rational decision making in humans, animals, and computers.
Modern game theory began with the idea of mixed-strategy equilibria in >two-person zero-sum games and its proof by John von Neumann.
Games. Game strategy. It has come a long way to World of Warcraft.
A study of rational decision making. In other words predicting what
most people will do. It has no relation, as far as I can tell, to
what the wisest thing would be to do. In fact it cannot from that
basis, because most of us are not very wise, so studying what most of
us do can not very predictive.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:14:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:25:11 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
In war, people's lives are lost?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>> do with war???
Therefore there is no right to life, only a duty to protect it in
other people. Humans are often derelict in performing their duties.
What is the source of that duty to protect life in other people?
It makes no difference, we remain prone to dereliction.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:26:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:00:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:Which makes "right" a misnomer. Right implies an inevitability and
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>> actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights. >>>
force which the situation does not provide.
A right implies a universal principle that stands on its own. Such
principles are /very good ideas/ that when followed make life better for
everyone. It requires no force for it to be true, and no acts of
aggression can disprove it.
So, it effect it is worthless. It might as well not exist.
It is also your assumption that a right will always make life better
for everyone. How can that be so, if it has no effect?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they >>>>>>> can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern >>>>>> international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon >>>>>> rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the >>>>>> dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on >>>>> precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing
absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot >>>>> worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their
ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom >>>>> from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths.
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were >>>> pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning >>>> have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible >>>> standard.
Your professorrCOs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective
attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we
holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnrCOt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to >>>> discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced
better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right action are >>>> natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do
have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall
short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the >>>> realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue
alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that order >>>> and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural law, >>>> I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog.
Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
It's certainly not moot. You're free to disagree as you do. That
furthers the dialog when it's done in a spirit of discovery.
Still we are at a situation where you claim natural law, and I can say
only, no it is not.
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46rC>AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>>>
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>>>>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree. >>>>>>>
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >>>>>>> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck?
Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the
right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my
personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house
though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets.
If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for
them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on
the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already
established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would >> be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped >> the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a >> ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting >> out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their
revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
On 6/28/2026 8:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they >>>>>>>> can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern >>>>>>> international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon >>>>>>> rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the
dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on >>>>>> precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing
absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot >>>>>> worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their >>>>>> ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom >>>>>> from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths.
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were >>>>> pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning >>>>> have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible >>>>> standard.
Your professorAs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective
attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we >>>>> holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnAt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to >>>>> discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced
better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right action are >>>>> natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do >>>>> have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall >>>>> short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the >>>>> realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue
alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that order >>>>> and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural law, >>>>> I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog.
Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
It's certainly not moot. You're free to disagree as you do. That
furthers the dialog when it's done in a spirit of discovery.
Still we are at a situation where you claim natural law, and I can say
only, no it is not.
Does life work better overall when property rights are respected, or
when they are disregarded?
On 6/28/2026 6:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:14:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:25:11 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/27/2026 5:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
In war, people's lives are lost?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>>> do with war???
Therefore there is no right to life, only a duty to protect it in
other people. Humans are often derelict in performing their duties.
What is the source of that duty to protect life in other people?
It makes no difference, we remain prone to dereliction.
Like most things in life, ignoring the question does not make it go away.
There's a source for the perception that we have a duty to protect life. >Where does it come from?
On 6/28/2026 8:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:26:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:00:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:Which makes "right" a misnomer. Right implies an inevitability and
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>>> actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights. >>>>
force which the situation does not provide.
A right implies a universal principle that stands on its own. Such
principles are /very good ideas/ that when followed make life better for >>> everyone. It requires no force for it to be true, and no acts of
aggression can disprove it.
So, it effect it is worthless. It might as well not exist.
It is also your assumption that a right will always make life better
for everyone. How can that be so, if it has no effect?
By definition the things we call rights are universal principles that
when applied tend to make life better. That's why we have paid attention
to them.
That they are not inevitable, or do not require force to be, does make--
them worthless. In fact it makes them even more valuable.
No amount of despotism or tyranny can destroy natural rights forever.
For a time they might be suppressed and forgotten, but even then, they are.
On Jun 28, 2026 at 1:41:08?PM EDT, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46?AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>>>>
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>>>>>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >>>>>>>> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>> laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck?
Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my
personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house
though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets.
If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for
them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on
the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already
established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped >>> the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a >>> ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting >>> out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their >>> revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
The story above is about human beings! It was Creon who asked (see above) >what is the 'consciencious thing to do with doves who nested on a light on his >property. I addressed that question by talkig about what my family did in two >separate but similar situations.
--
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46rC>AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter? >>>>>>>>>>>> it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does >>>>>>>>>>> not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen. >>>>>>>>>>
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal >>>>>>>>>> with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree. >>>>>>>
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong >>>>>>> that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural
laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck?
Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the
right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my
personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house
though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets.
If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for
them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on
the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already
established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would >> be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped >> the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a >> ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting >> out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their
revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
On 6/28/2026 8:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of >>>>>>>>>>>> engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against >>>>>>>>>>>>> targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, >>>>>>>>>>>>> justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something
about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13- >>>>>>>>> ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source.-a They make stuff up when they >>>>>>>> can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern >>>>>>> international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed- >>>>>>> upon
rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is >>>>>>> now the
dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on >>>>>> precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing
absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity.-a That is all it can be at its very best.-a It can be a >>>>>> lot
worse though.-a Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their >>>>>> ideas as natural law.-a We have no such powers of discernment, freedom >>>>>> from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths.
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were >>>>> pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning >>>>> have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible >>>>> standard.
Your professorrCOs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective >>>>> attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we >>>>> holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnrCOt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to >>>>> discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced
better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right
action are
natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do >>>>> have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall >>>>> short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the >>>>> realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue
alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that
order
and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural >>>>> law,
I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog.
Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
It's certainly not moot. You're free to disagree as you do. That
furthers the dialog when it's done in a spirit of discovery.
Still we are at a situation where you claim natural law, and I can say
only, no it is not.
Does life work better overall when property rights are respected, or
when they are disregarded?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:06:02 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 5:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:22:08 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could >>>>>> be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how >>>>>>>> you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business... >>>>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of >>>>>> all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do. But most of us do not live our lives >>>>> by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Math majors like to say, math underlies everything. That does not
mean that my life is determined by math.
i never it underlies _everything_, whatever that is supposed to mean...
Music, art, poetry, electronics. It is a big list, what can be
excluded from it?
but ur most definitely subject to it's truths in everyday existence ?
mabye u should consider studying it bit more, to realize what an
objective truth, beyond any claim of possibly subjectivity
The laws of math are our own inventions. In the first place our math
is finite. Infinity breaks it if we try to include it. The universe
is infinite. We are already in big trouble.
--beyond any god's reach of sway
God thinks he is not limited by our puny ideas. As job attempted to
say. "I have said things that are too great for me." How unawre we
all are of what is too great for us.
actually looks like
Cannot look like.
On 6/28/26 6:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:06:02 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 5:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:22:08 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could >>>>>>> be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how >>>>>>>>> you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business... >>>>>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of >>>>>>> all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and >>>>>>> circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do. But most of us do not live our lives >>>>>> by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Math majors like to say, math underlies everything. That does not
mean that my life is determined by math.
i never it underlies _everything_, whatever that is supposed to mean...
Music, art, poetry, electronics. It is a big list, what can be
excluded from it?
but ur most definitely subject to it's truths in everyday existence ?
mabye u should consider studying it bit more, to realize what an
objective truth, beyond any claim of possibly subjectivity
The laws of math are our own inventions. In the first place our math
we did not invent, or create, the relationship between the circumference
and diameter of a circle. there is no choice in what the truth of that
is. we discovered it.
is finite. Infinity breaks it if we try to include it. The universe
errr ... math can and does include infinite sets what do you mean math >breaks upon infinite?
maybe simple algebra, but more fundamental math ... no ...
is infinite. We are already in big trouble.
we don't actually know if the universe is infinite in space, and the
hard astronomical evidence is it's not infinitely old
--
beyond any god's reach of sway
God thinks he is not limited by our puny ideas. As job attempted to
say. "I have said things that are too great for me." How unawre we
all are of what is too great for us.
actually looks like
Cannot look like.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 02:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>In other words, his response will always be an attempt to get you to
wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 1:41:08?PM EDT, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46?AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>>Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote: >>>>>
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter?
it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>>>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>>> laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck? >>>>>> Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my >>>>> personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house
though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets. >>>>> If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for >>>>> them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on >>>>> the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already >>>> established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a >>>> ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their >>>> revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
The story above is about human beings! It was Creon who asked (see above) >>what is the 'consciencious thing to do with doves who nested on a light on his
property. I addressed that question by talkig about what my family did in two >>separate but similar situations.
It gets hard to remember sometimes that you cannot carry on a rational >conversation with dude. Sometimes it is best to let him rattle on
like a noisy shutter in the wind.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 23:18:31 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 02:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>In other words, his response will always be an attempt to get you to
wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 1:41:08?PM EDT, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46?AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote: >>>>>>
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>>>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about
how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter?
it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>>>>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about >>>>>>>> property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>>>> laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck? >>>>>>> Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my >>>>>> personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house >>>>>> though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets. >>>>>> If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for >>>>>> them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on >>>>>> the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already >>>>> established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a
ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their >>>>> revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
The story above is about human beings! It was Creon who asked (see above) >>> what is the 'consciencious thing to do with doves who nested on a light on his
property. I addressed that question by talkig about what my family did in two
separate but similar situations.
It gets hard to remember sometimes that you cannot carry on a rational
conversation with dude. Sometimes it is best to let him rattle on
like a noisy shutter in the wind.
defend what you said. Even if it is to simply recite what he must
know. He must know that you were talking about people (your parents)
and their reaction to nearby creatures. So, if you say that, you have
fallen into his trap.
On Jun 29, 2026 at 10:20:56?AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 23:18:31 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 02:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>In other words, his response will always be an attempt to get you to
wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 1:41:08?PM EDT, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46?AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote: >>>>>>>
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about
how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter?
it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about >>>>>>>>> property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>>>>> laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck? >>>>>>>> Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space? >>>>>>>>
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>>>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my >>>>>>> personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house >>>>>>> though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets. >>>>>>> If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for >>>>>>> them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on >>>>>>> the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already >>>>>> established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a
ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their
revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
The story above is about human beings! It was Creon who asked (see above) >>>> what is the 'consciencious thing to do with doves who nested on a light on his
property. I addressed that question by talkig about what my family did in two
separate but similar situations.
It gets hard to remember sometimes that you cannot carry on a rational
conversation with dude. Sometimes it is best to let him rattle on
like a noisy shutter in the wind.
defend what you said. Even if it is to simply recite what he must
know. He must know that you were talking about people (your parents)
and their reaction to nearby creatures. So, if you say that, you have
fallen into his trap.
Provocateurs - Dude and Dart - 2 sides of the same... One side strives for >attention, the other strives for power. Both belong in the redundant penny >pile. I just wanted to share my story. Absfg is no longer a place to do that.
If it ever was.
On Jun 29, 2026 at 10:20:56rC>AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 23:18:31 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 02:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>In other words, his response will always be an attempt to get you to
wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 1:41:08?PM EDT, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46?AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote: >>>>>>>
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about
how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter?
it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about >>>>>>>>> property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>>>>> laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck? >>>>>>>> Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space? >>>>>>>>
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>>>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my >>>>>>> personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house >>>>>>> though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets. >>>>>>> If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for >>>>>>> them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on >>>>>>> the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already >>>>>> established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a
ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their
revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
The story above is about human beings! It was Creon who asked (see above) >>>> what is the 'consciencious thing to do with doves who nested on a light on his
property. I addressed that question by talkig about what my family did in two
separate but similar situations.
It gets hard to remember sometimes that you cannot carry on a rational
conversation with dude. Sometimes it is best to let him rattle on
like a noisy shutter in the wind.
defend what you said. Even if it is to simply recite what he must
know. He must know that you were talking about people (your parents)
and their reaction to nearby creatures. So, if you say that, you have
fallen into his trap.
Provocateurs - Dude and Dart - 2 sides of the same... One side strives for attention, the other strives for power. Both belong in the redundant penny pile. I just wanted to share my story. Absfg is no longer a place to do that.
If it ever was.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 22:03:22 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they >>>>>>>>> can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern >>>>>>>> international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon >>>>>>>> rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the
dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on >>>>>>> precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing >>>>>>> absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot >>>>>>> worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their >>>>>>> ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom >>>>>>> from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths. >>>>>>
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were >>>>>> pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning >>>>>> have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible >>>>>> standard.
Your professorrCOs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective >>>>>> attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we >>>>>> holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnrCOt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to >>>>>> discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced >>>>>> better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right action are >>>>>> natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do >>>>>> have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall >>>>>> short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the >>>>>> realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue
alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that order >>>>>> and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural law, >>>>>> I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog.
Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
It's certainly not moot. You're free to disagree as you do. That
furthers the dialog when it's done in a spirit of discovery.
Still we are at a situation where you claim natural law, and I can say
only, no it is not.
Does life work better overall when property rights are respected, or
when they are disregarded?
We have an example where they are not doing so well right now in some
ways.
Do you have an example where they have not been respected and done
worse?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 21:42:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:14:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:25:11 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/27/2026 5:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
In war, people's lives are lost?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>>>> do with war???
Therefore there is no right to life, only a duty to protect it in
other people. Humans are often derelict in performing their duties.
What is the source of that duty to protect life in other people?
It makes no difference, we remain prone to dereliction.
Like most things in life, ignoring the question does not make it go away.
There's a source for the perception that we have a duty to protect life.
Where does it come from?
The question can go or stay as you like, it remains irrelevant.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 21:52:26 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:26:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:00:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>>>> actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights.
Which makes "right" a misnomer. Right implies an inevitability and
force which the situation does not provide.
A right implies a universal principle that stands on its own. Such
principles are /very good ideas/ that when followed make life better for >>>> everyone. It requires no force for it to be true, and no acts of
aggression can disprove it.
So, it effect it is worthless. It might as well not exist.
It is also your assumption that a right will always make life better
for everyone. How can that be so, if it has no effect?
By definition the things we call rights are universal principles that
when applied tend to make life better. That's why we have paid attention
to them.
How can that be so, if they have no effect?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:04:55 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:07:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with >>>>>> the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know >>>> if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
The fallacy is appeal to authority. State what evidence you have to
support your idea with out such appeals. People will decide. That is
all there is.
Done.
Attempting to disassociate my opinion on what works best from what I see
as natural law? My opinion is based on what I understand.
Another attempt to bolster your opinion and make further debate moot.
Nice try.
On 6/28/2026 11:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 21:42:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:14:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:25:11 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>What is the source of that duty to protect life in other people?
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
In war, people's lives are lost?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have
anything to
do with war???
Therefore there is no right to life, only a duty to protect it in
other people.-a Humans are often derelict in performing their duties. >>>>>
It makes no difference, we remain prone to dereliction.
Like most things in life, ignoring the question does not make it go
away.
There's a source for the perception that we have a duty to protect life. >>> Where does it come from?
The question can go or stay as you like, it remains irrelevant.
Life as a nihilist. It must be something believing in nothing.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 22:19:07 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:06:02 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 5:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Music, art, poetry, electronics. It is a big list, what can be
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:22:08 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>>>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could >>>>>>>> be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of >>>>>>>> all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and >>>>>>>> circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do. But most of us do not live our lives >>>>>>> by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Math majors like to say, math underlies everything. That does not
mean that my life is determined by math.
i never it underlies _everything_, whatever that is supposed to mean... >>>
excluded from it?
but ur most definitely subject to it's truths in everyday existence ?
mabye u should consider studying it bit more, to realize what an
objective truth, beyond any claim of possibly subjectivity
The laws of math are our own inventions. In the first place our math
we did not invent, or create, the relationship between the circumference
and diameter of a circle. there is no choice in what the truth of that
is. we discovered it.
is finite. Infinity breaks it if we try to include it. The universe
errr ... math can and does include infinite sets what do you mean math
breaks upon infinite?
Also includes infinite numbers, but we cannot enumerate them all, nor
can we enumerate all sets. For that we need a symbol. Which we
cannot operate on.
maybe simple algebra, but more fundamental math ... no ...
is infinite. We are already in big trouble.
we don't actually know if the universe is infinite in space, and the
hard astronomical evidence is it's not infinitely old
We don't know that. What we see out there are the remaining stars
still burning. Those that have burned out are not visible to us. How
old might they be?
--
beyond any god's reach of sway
God thinks he is not limited by our puny ideas. As job attempted to
say. "I have said things that are too great for me." How unawre we
all are of what is too great for us.
actually looks like
Cannot look like.
On 6/28/2026 11:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 22:03:22 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they >>>>>>>>>> can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern >>>>>>>>> international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon >>>>>>>>> rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the
dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on >>>>>>>> precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing >>>>>>>> absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot >>>>>>>> worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their >>>>>>>> ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom >>>>>>>> from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths. >>>>>>>
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were >>>>>>> pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning >>>>>>> have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible >>>>>>> standard.
Your professorAs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective >>>>>>> attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we >>>>>>> holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnAt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to >>>>>>> discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced >>>>>>> better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right action are
natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do >>>>>>> have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall >>>>>>> short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the >>>>>>> realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue >>>>>>> alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that order >>>>>>> and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural law,
I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog. >>>>>>
It's certainly not moot. You're free to disagree as you do. That
furthers the dialog when it's done in a spirit of discovery.
Still we are at a situation where you claim natural law, and I can say >>>> only, no it is not.
Does life work better overall when property rights are respected, or
when they are disregarded?
We have an example where they are not doing so well right now in some
ways.
Do you have an example where they have not been respected and done
worse?
There are literally millions of such stories under communism. Property >confiscated and people thrown into poverty and worse, resulting in >widespread destruction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
https://communistcrimes.org/en/brutal-crime-against-rural-life-collectivisation-soviet-union
https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/cambodia/cambodia-1975
More recently, Venezuela implemented wealth redistribution to address >inequality by seizing farms, factories, entire companies, and other
assets. These policies were justified by the rejection of capitalism, >redistributing resources to the poor, and sovereignty against foreign >corporations.
Over 1,000 companies were seized from 2003-2012 including agriculture, >steel, cement, glass, food production, supermarkets, hotels,
electricity, telecom, banking, and media. Private industrial companies >dropped from 14,000 in 1998 to 9,000 by 2011.
Over 12 million acres (comparable in size to Massachusetts) were >expropriated for redistribution to peasants, cooperatives, or state >projects.
Food production fell by 75% while the population grew. The country went
from self-sufficiency in food to heavy reliance on imports. Thriving
cattle ranches saw herds plummet because of theft and poor management.
Milk output dropped drastically.
Steel production collapsed, cement output was roughly halved, oil
production fell from over 3 million barrels per day to around 1 million. >Today 96% of Venezuelan households live in poverty and 79% in extreme >poverty. Since 2013 its gross domestic product decreased by 62% and in
2019 the annualized inflation was 39,113%.
More than 5 million Venezuelans have left the country since 2015.
https://landportal.org/book/narratives/2023/venezuelaNoah Sombrero mustachioed villain
https://www.npr.org/2009/07/15/106620230/in-venezuela-land-redistribution-program-backfires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynl4MgT7SAY
https://www.thepolicycircle.org/minibrief/socialism-a-case-study-on-venezuela/ --
On 6/29/26 6:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 22:19:07 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:06:02 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 5:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Music, art, poetry, electronics. It is a big list, what can be
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:22:08 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable u you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities >>>>>>>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and >>>>>>>>> circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do. But most of us do not live our lives >>>>>>>> by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Math majors like to say, math underlies everything. That does not >>>>>> mean that my life is determined by math.
i never it underlies _everything_, whatever that is supposed to mean... >>>>
excluded from it?
but ur most definitely subject to it's truths in everyday existence ? >>>>>
mabye u should consider studying it bit more, to realize what an
objective truth, beyond any claim of possibly subjectivity
The laws of math are our own inventions. In the first place our math
we did not invent, or create, the relationship between the circumference >>> and diameter of a circle. there is no choice in what the truth of that
is. we discovered it.
is finite. Infinity breaks it if we try to include it. The universe
errr ... math can and does include infinite sets what do you mean math
breaks upon infinite?
Also includes infinite numbers, but we cannot enumerate them all, nor
can we enumerate all sets. For that we need a symbol. Which we
cannot operate on.
because the action of "enumeration" require one to be able to define >discrete (finite) sized steps between _all_ members of the set (even if >variable in size),
and irrational real numbers don't generally have that due to theirHowever they are part of infinity. Must be part of a complete
infinite precision.
maybe simple algebra, but more fundamental math ... no ...
is infinite. We are already in big trouble.
we don't actually know if the universe is infinite in space, and the
hard astronomical evidence is it's not infinitely old
We don't know that. What we see out there are the remaining stars
still burning. Those that have burned out are not visible to us. How
old might they be?
i literally just explained the physical evidence a few days ago wilson:
we use type 1A supernovae created by white dwarfs which always explode
with the same luminosity and light spectrum, so we can measure the age
of the supernova by how dim it's measured in respect to the original >explosion.
the oldest we've recorded is ~10B years ago, which puts the age of the >universe a few billions years before that for the lifespan of the start
that exploded. if the universe were say 50B, 100B or infinitely old ...
we would see far older supernovae, but we don't
we also know the universe is expanding with increasing rates over time
based on the correlation of increased redshift from old supernovae.
beyond any god's reach of sway
--God thinks he is not limited by our puny ideas. As job attempted to
say. "I have said things that are too great for me." How unawre we
all are of what is too great for us.
actually looks like
Cannot look like.
On 6/28/2026 11:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 21:42:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:14:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:25:11 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 5:41 PM, dart200 wrote:What is the source of that duty to protect life in other people?
In war, people's lives are lost?
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>>>>> do with war???
Therefore there is no right to life, only a duty to protect it in
other people. Humans are often derelict in performing their duties. >>>>>
It makes no difference, we remain prone to dereliction.
Like most things in life, ignoring the question does not make it go away. >>>
There's a source for the perception that we have a duty to protect life. >>> Where does it come from?
The question can go or stay as you like, it remains irrelevant.
Life as a nihilist. It must be something believing in nothing.
On 6/28/26 1:18 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 9:52 AM, Dude wrote:You can read the board archive here:
On 6/28/2026 12:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:20 PM, Dude wrote:My point does not concern brain morphology. I'm not a brain surgeon.
On 6/27/2026 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:27 PM, Dude wrote:Through cognition we make sense of our environment so we can make >>>>>> rational decisions.
On 6/27/2026 7:55 PM, dart200 wrote:what is even doing this "construction through cognition" if only >>>>>>> consciousness is fundamental?
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The answer is simple: We experience everything in space and
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an >>>>>>>>>> Idealist.
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddha in his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to us. Thanks.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and still exist without self-consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, WilsonMaybe it's time to review both the theory of natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Buddha;s theory of karma.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They don't really applly to me.-a They show your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of me.
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that certain
moral rights and ethical principles are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that underlies all human existence which can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deny self- consciousness, or you would not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the future: >>>>>>>>>
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it >>>>>>>>>
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that
physical matter is the fundamental substance of all things, >>>>>>>>>> meaning consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be
entirely explained by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and >>>>>>>>>> consciousness are the true foundation of existence, rather >>>>>>>>>> than physical matter.
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching out >>>>>>>>> and interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why is >>>>>>>>> it stuck following all these rules that are entirely
independent of conscious intent?
time, both of which are constructed by the mind through cognition. >>>>>>>
*what* is even doing the cognition???
Everything we experience takes place in time and space, Nick,
Soto Zen is referred to sometimes as the "Mind Only" school of >>>>>>>> Buddhism.
show me the monk who can bend a spoon without some kind of
physical interaction with the spoon and
everything.
Time and space are empirically real. While space and time are
"ideal" (mental constructs), they are "empirically real". Why?
actually the 4D spacetime manifold is fundamental reality while
time/ space perspectives are just specific foliations (or
coordinate divisions) based on a particular frames of reference...
didn't u even read einstein dud???
Because everyonerCOs mind is structured the same way, the physical >>>>>> world we experience behaves with objective predictability.
well that is the darndedest thing i've heard so far:
-a-a> you think everyone's mind is structured in the _same_ way???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
and what is even this "mind" that can be "structured" given that
consciousness is the only thing that exists???
This framework allowed Kant to explain how we can have universal, >>>>>> undeniable knowledge of mathematics and geometryrCobecause those
spatial and temporal rules are built right into our own cognitive >>>>>> machinery.
we actually don't experience the 4D fundamental spacetime manifold
that just like exists...
we have merely a 3D experience that happens over time, not all at once >>>>>
i can cut Kant some slack cause he died a century before einstein
figured that out...
-a-a> what's ur excuse dud???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
-a-a> we'll all become believers for sureDamage to the primary visual cortex removes the major input from
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cognition is perception: Interpreting sensory information (what >>>>>>>> you see, hear, taste, touch, and smell) to make sense of your >>>>>>>> environment.
i know u can't cognate this but i'll repeat myself:
the vast majority of cognition is sub-perceptual. we only
perceive a small portion of the brain's cognition.
there an incredible amount rather interesting neuroscience here >>>>>>> ur just glossing over because u don't understand what u don't
understand dud and haven't bothered to look into it...
including, and again i repeat myself: the blindsight studies are >>>>>>> direct experimental proof of this sub-perceptual cognition
the eyes to the brain, causing significant visual loss but even
using blind sight, they are still conscious.
if the conscious experience of sight is dependent on the physical
structures of brain to manifest ... what makes u think the rest
isn't dependent???
there are other parts of the brain and/or sensory inputs we can cut >>>>> out to remove other sense as well,
from there it's just induction that the rest of consciousness is
dependent on brain morphology as well,
that's not the say that consciousness *is* _just_ brain morphology, >>>>> i'm not claiming that. i'm not even claiming that the brain
"produces" consciousness. but i think it's beyond proven that there >>>>> is some dependency on brain morphology.
besides ignoring evidence collected in the last century,
-a-a> u don't seem to have much of a point dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
I'm just a normal practicing Buddhist seeker trying to relate to you
what Buddhist say about the nature of consciousness as a school of
thought.
You may have landed on the wrong board. On this board we mostly
discuss Buddhism, the various Zen schools and history of philosophy.
Along with copious riddle solving from Zen books by Zen Master
Nyogen Sensaki.
It's only in the last few years that partisan politics has dominated
the
somehow i doubt ur being truthful
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
Get back to us after you've caught up. Thanks.
ain't reading that shit cause i just don't care dud
ur here now posting con brainrot mostly. whatever jooddhist slant you
might have had historically is gone,
and rendered completely hypocritical by the idiocy you now preach
#god
board. mostly because of inflammatory political postings and lately,
porn emojis being used to win debates along with character
assassination and personal attacks.
The board didn't start out this way - in the beginning there were
debates, but I'm not sure it was based on hatred, like it seems to
be now. There used to be a certain esprit de corm on the board;
proud to be utilizing the new tech for free speech.
So, I'm still proud of what I post here - too bad you're not even
respecting yourself. You came her to get enlightened apparently -
instead you trashed the board and everyone subscribed. Good work,
Nick. Now back to your 850 lines of text you snipped.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading
to accusations of misrepresentation.
On 6/28/2026 11:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 21:52:26 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:26:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:00:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>>>>> actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights.
Which makes "right" a misnomer. Right implies an inevitability and >>>>>> force which the situation does not provide.
A right implies a universal principle that stands on its own. Such
principles are /very good ideas/ that when followed make life better for >>>>> everyone. It requires no force for it to be true, and no acts of
aggression can disprove it.
So, it effect it is worthless. It might as well not exist.
It is also your assumption that a right will always make life better
for everyone. How can that be so, if it has no effect?
By definition the things we call rights are universal principles that
when applied tend to make life better. That's why we have paid attention >>> to them.
How can that be so, if they have no effect?
If you don't know why beneficial principles are good things to have I
don't know what to tell you.
On 6/27/2026 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:04:55 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:07:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can >>>>>>> think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking >>>>>>> being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is >>>>>> not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he know >>>>> if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
The fallacy is appeal to authority. State what evidence you have to
support your idea with out such appeals. People will decide. That is >>>> all there is.
Done.
Attempting to disassociate my opinion on what works best from what I see >>> as natural law? My opinion is based on what I understand.
Another attempt to bolster your opinion and make further debate moot.
Nice try.
Bolstering an opinion is the basis of debate.
Open dialog at its best is an attempt to discover reality.
Citing a natural law isn't an appeal to authority, it's an opinion. And >having an opinion about what is or isn't natural law doesn't create or >uncreate natural law. It exists outside of that. The best we can do is
to comprehend reality as it is and then try to live in harmony with that.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:29:43 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not exist.
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:You failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero
<fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for >>>>>>>>>>> your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave >>>>>>>>>>> them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who >>>>>>>>> challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to do it >>>>>>>>> that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down
debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try. >>>>>>>> -a>
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol >>>>>>>
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is the >>>>> only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one true
fundamental reality...
It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
Actually, that is not true. The baby begins to notice where it ends
and everything else begins as it feels pain and discomfort. Before
that, it has no sense of itself.
The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law.intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human rights. >>>>You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur just
mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to respond
too.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious humans. >>>>
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational
analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On 6/28/26 2:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:29:43 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not exist. >>> It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, WilsonYou failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero
<fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority for >>>>>>>>>>>> your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave >>>>>>>>>>>> them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those >>>>>>>>>> who
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to >>>>>>>>>> do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down >>>>>>>>>> debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try. >>>>>>>>> -a-a>
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol >>>>>>>>
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is the >>>>>> only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one true >>>> fundamental reality...
Actually, that is not true.-a The baby begins to notice where it ends
and everything else begins as it feels pain and discomfort.-a Before
that, it has no sense of itself.
it's crazy... dud claims he has kids, but like did he ever actually take care of the baby???
babies aren't aware of very much, let alone themselves
The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law.intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human rights. >>>>>You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur just >>>> mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to respond >>>> too.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious
humans.
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational
analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On 6/28/26 1:29 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, WilsonYou failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero
<fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20,000 years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed >>>>>>>>>>>> in Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority >>>>>>>>>>> for your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but >>>>>>>>>>> leave them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you >>>>>>>>>>> will do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those who >>>>>>>>> challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to >>>>>>>>> do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down
debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try. >>>>>>>> -a>
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol >>>>>>>
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is
the only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one
true fundamental reality...
exist. It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
there are many thing that - without it, i would not exist
i get that u can't logic to save ur soul, but repeatedly cherry-picking
one of those many things that makes up an "i", should not be a
convincing argument to anyone who doesn't already agree with u dud
rights.intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human
The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law.
You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur
just mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to
respond too.
i'm still not sure what's even getting violated if everything is
literally just projection of consciousness. surely if an event happened, consciousness decided it must be so, so who are we to question why???
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious
humans.
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational
analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On 6/27/2026 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:04:55 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:07:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then >>>>>>> we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and >>>>>>> talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work.
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and
deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open >>>>>>> discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate
property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>> know
if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
The fallacy is appeal to authority.-a State what evidence you have to
support your idea with out such appeals.-a People will decide.-a That is >>>> all there is.
Done.
Attempting to disassociate my opinion on what works best from what I see >>> as natural law? My opinion is based on what I understand.
Another attempt to bolster your opinion and make further debate moot.
Nice try.
Bolstering an opinion is the basis of debate.
Open dialog at its best is an attempt to discover reality.
Citing a natural law isn't an appeal to authority, it's an opinion. And having an opinion about what is or isn't natural law doesn't create or uncreate natural law. It exists outside of that. The best we can do is
to comprehend reality as it is and then try to live in harmony with that.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 02:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>It's all about the money, right? Not about human rights.
wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 1:41:08?PM EDT, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46?AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>>Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote: >>>>>
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural laws.
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?
... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter?
it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god >>>>>>>>>>>>> laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an >>>>>>>>>>>> OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status. >>>>>>>>>>> Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.
If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he >>>>>>>>>> know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?
So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary >>>>>>>>> decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>>> laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck? >>>>>> Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my >>>>> personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house
though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets. >>>>> If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for >>>>> them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on >>>>> the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already >>>> established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a >>>> ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their >>>> revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.
The story above is about human beings! It was Creon who asked (see above) >> what is the 'consciencious thing to do with doves who nested on a light on his
property. I addressed that question by talkig about what my family did in two
separate but similar situations.
It gets hard to remember sometimes that you cannot carry on a rational conversation with dude. Sometimes it is best to let him rattle on
like a noisy shutter in the wind.>
On Jun 29, 2026 at 11:00:17rC>AM EDT, "Tara" <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
On Jun 29, 2026 at 10:20:56rC>AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 23:18:31 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 02:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>In other words, his response will always be an attempt to get you to
wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 1:41:08?PM EDT, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46?AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:Let's talk about human beings.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote: >>>>>>>>
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by decree.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how will he
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions can be
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
natural laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws. But I can certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't understand this
mindset at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea about
how it might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 years
more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure nihilism
nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then matter?
it's a self-defeating position.
That's the thing. The fact that we know next to nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside and out. But
do go calling them natural laws. You know what happens when god
laughs. Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by arbitrary
decree.
Key word: reason
Yes, I think that's it exactly.
Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about >>>>>>>>>> property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>>>>>> laws.
You deceive yourself.
What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck? >>>>>>>>> Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space? >>>>>>>>>
What does your conscience say about that?
As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>>>>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild. But when they invade my >>>>>>>> personal space, they must die. He did keep a pet crow in his house >>>>>>>> though. If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets. >>>>>>>> If you are an ornithologist. I suspect they sensed his affection for >>>>>>>> them. Crows are smart.
Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on >>>>>>>> the car, you know.
By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already >>>>>>> established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl quietly up a
ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something), which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get their
revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe. >>>>>>> Summer fun.
The story above is about human beings! It was Creon who asked (see above)
what is the 'consciencious thing to do with doves who nested on a light on his
property. I addressed that question by talkig about what my family did in two
separate but similar situations.
It gets hard to remember sometimes that you cannot carry on a rational >>>> conversation with dude. Sometimes it is best to let him rattle on
like a noisy shutter in the wind.
defend what you said. Even if it is to simply recite what he must
know. He must know that you were talking about people (your parents)
and their reaction to nearby creatures. So, if you say that, you have
fallen into his trap.
Provocateurs - Dude and Dart - 2 sides of the same... One side strives for >> attention, the other strives for power. Both belong in the redundant penny >> pile. I just wanted to share my story. Absfg is no longer a place to do that.
If it ever was.
The point - you guys have been going on and on about property rights and encroachment etc etc. My story said ..... 'It Depends"
Sorry to interrupt. Not
On 6/28/26 7:03 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against >>>>>>>>>>>>>> targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something >>>>>>>>>> about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13- >>>>>>>>>> ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source.-a They make stuff up when they >>>>>>>>> can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern >>>>>>>> international law is primarily based on legal positivism
(agreed- upon
rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is >>>>>>>> now the
dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is
rooted on
precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing >>>>>>> absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity.-a That is all it can be at its very best.-a It can be >>>>>>> a lot
worse though.-a Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their >>>>>>> ideas as natural law.-a We have no such powers of discernment,
freedom
from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths. >>>>>>
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans >>>>>> were
pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and
reasoning
have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an
impossible
standard.
Your professorrCOs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective >>>>>> attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we >>>>>> holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnrCOt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to >>>>>> discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced >>>>>> better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right
action are
natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do >>>>>> have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall >>>>>> short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in >>>>>> the
realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue
alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that >>>>>> order
and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as
natural law,
I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog.
Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
It's certainly not moot. You're free to disagree as you do. That
furthers the dialog when it's done in a spirit of discovery.
Still we are at a situation where you claim natural law, and I can say
only, no it is not.
Does life work better overall when property rights are respected, or
when they are disregarded?
as it stands we've been systematic sacrificing community, friends, and family for muh property rights
u rank materialist
#god
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of old
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text
of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying
their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of
misrepresentation.
text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only bad netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the post harder.
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of older replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 16:55:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
In short, start snipping more.
Agreed.
On 6/28/26 2:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 16:55:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of old
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text of >>>> another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying their >>>> words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of
misrepresentation.
text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only bad
netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the post
harder.
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread
conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of older >>> replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
Agreed.
does dud block the consensus?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:54:25 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
The experience of reality is to a degree subjective. Reality itself
though is not our understanding of it. It exists outside of our
experience, is truth, and not within the subjective realm.
Or as we used to say in apz: reality is not what it is.
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not >>>>>>>>>> granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of >>>>>>>>> John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, >>>>>>>>> and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply opinions. >>>>>>>
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how >>>>> you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth business... >>>
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live our lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 13:39:50 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 21:52:26 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:26:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:00:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to
do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>>>>>> actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights.
Which makes "right" a misnomer. Right implies an inevitability and >>>>>>> force which the situation does not provide.
A right implies a universal principle that stands on its own. Such >>>>>> principles are /very good ideas/ that when followed make life better for >>>>>> everyone. It requires no force for it to be true, and no acts of
aggression can disprove it.
So, it effect it is worthless. It might as well not exist.
It is also your assumption that a right will always make life better >>>>> for everyone. How can that be so, if it has no effect?
By definition the things we call rights are universal principles that
when applied tend to make life better. That's why we have paid attention >>>> to them.
How can that be so, if they have no effect?
If you don't know why beneficial principles are good things to have I
don't know what to tell you.
Show me rights making a difference in the real world.
Do they prevent people being killed in ukraine, in iran, in israel?
Of course a simple single story will not do. If the effect is not
consistent every time, it still might as well not be an effect.
A beneficial principle is not necessarily a right.
You say, of course, some bad actor can come along and kill you. Sorry,
if he can do that your right was useless to *you*.
On 6/28/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:54:25 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how >>>>> you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
The experience of reality is to a degree subjective. Reality itself
though is not our understanding of it. It exists outside of our
experience, is truth, and not within the subjective realm.
Or as we used to say in apz: reality is not what it is.
There's been some snipping but let me say this again:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 16:02:14 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:54:25 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>There's been some snipping but let me say this again:
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>The experience of reality is to a degree subjective. Reality itself
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>>
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how >>>>>> you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business... >>>>
though is not our understanding of it. It exists outside of our
experience, is truth, and not within the subjective realm.
Or as we used to say in apz: reality is not what it is.
nutz.
On 6/27/26 10:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 1:13 PM, Dude wrote:In philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally mental,
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness does not depend on the sense of sight, Nick
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>>
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea that >>>>>>>>>>>> the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.
On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality:
pure consciousness.
Without it, you would not exist. Also, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather abundant
dualities that exist ?
no, i don't have to choose between nondualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyways???),
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
interaction with another quanta wilson. physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN?
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious.
it's not really that mysterious: the reason we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "observe" or
measure quantum-waves is because the act of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring
requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were conscious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyeball ...
So when you see a star (when the photon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacts with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in a
vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed
point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam
reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance) ... but
the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framed up
against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> galaxy, which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure
consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place subconsciously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ur not a rational person anyways, dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ...
but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that purview.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object - if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is a property of the body it should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to be
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to
fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
terms, the
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost >>>>>>>> a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the one >>>>>>>> thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>
consciousness and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut >>>>> out
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's a partial loss of consciousness, dud, that's most i can grant you.
i cannot suggest anything total, because one cannot "experience" a
total loss of consciousness
if ur not capable of making the intuitive leap from that, i can't help u >>>
spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
again: ur not explaining how physical limits exist then...
i can't just imagine the spoon in a glass closure bending, i'd have to physically break thru the enclosure to then physically bend the spoon...
Rather than physical matter existing independently out in the world,
they argue that objects and experiences only exist because they are
perceived or processed by a mind.
so the tree that that falls alone in the woods,
not only doesn't make a sound,
but it doesn't even exist???
ok dud
#god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We >>>>>>>>>>>> don't
experience things as they really are - only through
consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> mean all
_is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via sense >>>>>>>>>>> organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience >>>>>>>>>>> from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see >>>>>>>>>> things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory
experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things >>>>>>>>>> which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually >>>>>>>>>> outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an >>>>>>>>> impact on
my life
On 6/28/26 10:48 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:03 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:12:28 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:For most normal reasonable people, cause and effect is an observable
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:45:13 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:22:53 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/25/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:28:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Are you saying that cause and effect does not lead one thing to
On 6/24/2026 8:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, DudeAccording to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical >>>>>>>>>>>> terms, the
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and >>>>>>>>>>>> foremost a
matter of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is >>>>>>>>>>>> the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam >>>>>>>>>>>> Harris
It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon >>>>>>>>>>> knows.
consciousness
and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur
visual cortex
out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative
experience
due to it's dependence on the physical structures we cut out >>>>>>>>>
-a-a -a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a -a>
-a-a -a> #god
-a -a> Cut right here...lights out.
Is the brain the source of, or like a radio the receiver of
consciousness?
Cause and effect are sometimes not easy to discern.
Because seeming cause and effect are really unrelated events that >>>>>>> happen in sequence without one causing the other.
Does B always follow A?
Does B happen without A?
another?
That doesn't even make any sense. Everyone knows about the law of >>>>>> cause
and effect means one thing causes another.
I'm saying sequence of events does not prove that one event caused the >>>>> other.
Otherwise sometimes stated as "correlation is not causation".
Also, there are non-deterministic processes in the Cosmos.
Perhaps consciousness is one of them?-a (after John Searle).
One could deterministically assert.-a I'm not sure if it would be
possible to test all processes to make sure none to them are
deterministic.
fact:
apparently u've never read david hume either
human excrement always flows downstream. It's not really an argument
at this point.
"The Law of Cause and Effect states that every action, event, or
"cause"
has a corresponding reaction or "effect". Often considered an iron >>>>>> rule
of the universe, it asserts that nothing happens by pure chance
and that
identical causes will always produce identical effects." - Britannica
On 6/28/26 12:28 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:08 PM, Dude wrote:You are an honest debater, Nick!
On 6/25/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:rLeN+A
On 6/25/26 12:48 PM, Dude wrote:You are incorrect: While a few individuals and politicized movements... >>>
On 6/25/2026 1:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:46 AM, Creon wrote:So, I guess everyone can see why Creon wrote you off as a troll.
At Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:55:31 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/23/2026 5:40 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick didn't listen to Creon. Moon in a dewdrop.
On 6/23/26 2:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/22/26 10:14 PM, Dude wrote:Put another way, we mistake our interpretations of things >>>>>>>>>>>> for the
On 6/21/2026 11:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
consensus-making is precisely the process of how we align on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all those social contracts that aren't objectively real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
one reason society seems to be going in the wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction is
we lack those processes, and we're already at the point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
we are starting to need them for stability reasons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
oligarchy with a side of democracy isn't good enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
the same results as actual consensus-making across the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire
population.
sure, it was a good step in the right direction after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aristocratic oligarchy, no doubt about that. but with modern >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and global problems, shit ain't cutting it and i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
The Copernican Turn in PhilosophyBefore Kant, it was assumed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that human knowledge must conform to the world, making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind
a passive observer. Kant revolutionized this by arguing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite: the world must conform to our minds. Our brains >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
built-in "hardware" (like space and time) that actively >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shapes
the raw data we perceive.
there is no spoon dud!
things themselves.
The goal of Yoga is to break out of this cognitive
narcissism and
finally wake up to things as they are, devoid of erroneous >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptual projections.
how can there ever be soup, when there is no spoon by which >>>>>>>>>>> to eat
it???
https://youtu.be/Z3OCW-g7pEE?si=LVQh-gA00lfAGHZE
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the ocean...you are the >>>>>>>>> ocean in a droplet." - Creon
sometimes it's hard to remind myself that everyone i see walking >>>>>>> around has a little bit of the divine up there experiencing ...
-a-a> "a little bit" being a misnomer ofc
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
See my mea culpa in another thread.
That's ancient Sufi wisdom:
Gemini sez:
The famous quote, "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the >>>>>>>> entire
ocean, in a drop," is widely attributed to the 13th-century Persian >>>>>>>> poet and Sufi mystic Rumi.
-a _ _ _ _ _ _ _
damn dud, so actually joo were quoting one of those medieval
nazi- muzzies trying to exile the joos, eh??? next joo'll be
quoting hitler kus emek!
Good work, Nick.
ur the dud quoting a medieval joo-exiling nazi muzzie! ur words not >>>>> mine!
why thank you dud! maybe i _can_ forgive u for ur holocaust denial!
the It's not that your emojis are pornographic, Nick. It'sthe ambivalence.
i don't really care about ur holocaust denial dud
Virtually every claim you have referenced is entirely false and
fabricated, originating from a mashup of internet rumors and memes >>>>>> made up by informants which have all been refuted and found to be >>>>>> spurious, crude racist and biased - on this very forum!
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 21:52:26 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:26:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:00:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
how is a "right to life" being an immutable principle have anything to >>>>>>> do with war???
do u know what the fuck "immutable" mean??? lol
even losing the right up an act of aggression renders the "immutable" >>>>>>> actually not true
Rights can be infringed. Even when they are they don't stop being rights.
Which makes "right" a misnomer. Right implies an inevitability and
force which the situation does not provide.
A right implies a universal principle that stands on its own. Such
principles are /very good ideas/ that when followed make life better for >>>> everyone. It requires no force for it to be true, and no acts of
aggression can disprove it.
So, it effect it is worthless. It might as well not exist.
It is also your assumption that a right will always make life better
for everyone. How can that be so, if it has no effect?
By definition the things we call rights are universal principles that
when applied tend to make life better. That's why we have paid attention
to them.
How can that be so, if they have no effect?
That they are not inevitable, or do not require force to be, does make
them worthless. In fact it makes them even more valuable.
No amount of despotism or tyranny can destroy natural rights forever.
For a time they might be suppressed and forgotten, but even then, they are.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 13:09:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 22:03:22 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:42:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:07:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 5:42 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Which is moot as soon as you claim natural law.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:48 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:49:33 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/25/2026 4:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:28:19 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
International Law is based on natural law: For example, the rules ofThere is no natural law that says anything about rules of engagement.
engagement during war, such as the prohibition against targeting
civilians, are rooted in universal concepts of humanity, justice and
natural law.
Sure there is.
more _bear_ assertions eh?
In support of the idea that natural law does say something about the ROE
in warfare:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_1c290118-169f-4e13-ab5c-dbd02e95b6a2
Sorry, ai is not a reliable source. They make stuff up when they >>>>>>>>>>> can't find a quick answer. Try reason.
International law is historically rooted in natural law, but modern >>>>>>>>>> international law is primarily based on legal positivism (agreed-upon
rules). It operates on a hybrid of both, though state consent is now the
dominant foundation.
Modern law is rooted on precedent from common law, which is rooted on >>>>>>>>> precedent leading all the way back to roman law. There is nothing >>>>>>>>> absolute or a priori (natural law) about it.
As a law prof said one time, law is a subjective attempt at
objectivity. That is all it can be at its very best. It can be a lot
worse though. Especially when advocates attempt to enshrine their >>>>>>>>> ideas as natural law. We have no such powers of discernment, freedom >>>>>>>>> from bias, towering wisdom to be able to divine such great truths. >>>>>>>>
I think you're viewing natural law claims as hubris. As if humans were >>>>>>>> pretending to discern absolute truths. But science, law, and reasoning >>>>>>>> have never required perfect neutrality or wisdom. That's an impossible >>>>>>>> standard.
Your professorrCOs description is exactly right. Law is a subjective >>>>>>>> attempt at objectivity. But what are we trying to model? What are we >>>>>>>> holding as the standard?
Roman and common law didnrCOt emerge from nowhere. Both used reason to >>>>>>>> discover a deeper moral order, to find the things that had produced >>>>>>>> better outcomes over the centuries. These principles of right action are
natural law.
The work to discover those better ideas is as old as humanity. We do >>>>>>>> have the capacity to pursue that truth even though we sometimes fall >>>>>>>> short and miss the mark.
The underlying idea is that the universe has discoverable order in the >>>>>>>> realm of action and ethics. To thrive I believe we *must* pursue >>>>>>>> alignment with that reality. When I post my understanding of that order
and those alignments I'm not trying to enshrine my ideas as natural law,
I'm attempting to discover a better understanding through dialog. >>>>>>>
It's certainly not moot. You're free to disagree as you do. That
furthers the dialog when it's done in a spirit of discovery.
Still we are at a situation where you claim natural law, and I can say >>>>> only, no it is not.
Does life work better overall when property rights are respected, or
when they are disregarded?
We have an example where they are not doing so well right now in some
ways.
Do you have an example where they have not been respected and done
worse?
There are literally millions of such stories under communism. Property
confiscated and people thrown into poverty and worse, resulting in
widespread destruction.
Any system under dictatorship will be like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
https://communistcrimes.org/en/brutal-crime-against-rural-life-collectivisation-soviet-union
https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/cambodia/cambodia-1975 >>
More recently, Venezuela implemented wealth redistribution to address
inequality by seizing farms, factories, entire companies, and other
assets. These policies were justified by the rejection of capitalism,
redistributing resources to the poor, and sovereignty against foreign
corporations.
I think if you talk to dart, you will find he does not envision such measures.
The issue is what to do about towering ambition, great wealth next to
great poverty. So far neither commercialism nor communism have very
good records. I say, doing better is going to require wise,
benevolent leadership. See anybody like that standing around waiting
to be leader?
As I say to dart, how do you deal with rich folks who scream bloody
murder when their opportunities to be billionaires are diminished? And
I say to both of you, where are these benevolent wise leaders without
which we will really not do better?
Over 1,000 companies were seized from 2003-2012 including agriculture,
steel, cement, glass, food production, supermarkets, hotels,
electricity, telecom, banking, and media. Private industrial companies
dropped from 14,000 in 1998 to 9,000 by 2011.
Mostly foreign then. I'd say it is significant that 9000 remained.
Over 12 million acres (comparable in size to Massachusetts) were
expropriated for redistribution to peasants, cooperatives, or state
projects.
Food production fell by 75% while the population grew. The country went >>from self-sufficiency in food to heavy reliance on imports. Thriving
cattle ranches saw herds plummet because of theft and poor management.
Milk output dropped drastically.
Steel production collapsed, cement output was roughly halved, oil
production fell from over 3 million barrels per day to around 1 million.
Today 96% of Venezuelan households live in poverty and 79% in extreme
poverty. Since 2013 its gross domestic product decreased by 62% and in
2019 the annualized inflation was 39,113%.
More than 5 million Venezuelans have left the country since 2015.
Mostly because of maduro?
https://landportal.org/book/narratives/2023/venezuela
https://www.npr.org/2009/07/15/106620230/in-venezuela-land-redistribution-program-backfires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynl4MgT7SAY
https://www.thepolicycircle.org/minibrief/socialism-a-case-study-on-venezuela/
On 6/28/2026 2:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 1:18 PM, Dude wrote:From the archives, May 22, 2004, 11:47:59rC>AM:
On 6/28/2026 11:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 9:52 AM, Dude wrote:You can read the board archive here:
On 6/28/2026 12:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:20 PM, Dude wrote:My point does not concern brain morphology. I'm not a brain surgeon.
On 6/27/2026 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:27 PM, Dude wrote:Through cognition we make sense of our environment so we can make >>>>>>> rational decisions.
On 6/27/2026 7:55 PM, dart200 wrote:what is even doing this "construction through cognition" if only >>>>>>>> consciousness is fundamental?
On 6/27/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:The answer is simple: We experience everything in space and >>>>>>>>> time, both of which are constructed by the mind through cognition. >>>>>>>>
On 6/26/2026 11:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You would not understand, Nick, not being a Buddhist nor an >>>>>>>>>>> Idealist.
On 6/26/2026 11:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:52 AM, Dude wrote:You have no arguments, Nick.
On 6/25/2026 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Only humans can become enlightened. According to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddha in his Lotus Sutra. Get some smarts, Nick, and get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to us. Thanks.
On 6/25/2026 10:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>a modern LLM can generate arguments denying self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and still exist without self-consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:Maybe it's time to review both the theory of natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law and Buddha;s theory of karma.
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and redefine
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They don't really applly to me.-a They show your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of me.
wrote:You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory proposing that certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral rights and ethical principles are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable through human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that just happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational response to
my idea of what natural law is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
To review:
According to Aristotle, there is a universal natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law that underlies all human existence which can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discerned by human reason.
Buddha said everything happens for a reason - there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no chance events.
Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve, but nobody can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deny self- consciousness, or you would not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that was not coherent response Efn+
that was also not a coherent response Efn+
like i've said to many before, and will say to many in the >>>>>>>>>> future:
not accepting something isn't the same as not understanding it >>>>>>>>>>
In Philosophy a Materialist is someone who believes that >>>>>>>>>>> physical matter is the fundamental substance of all things, >>>>>>>>>>> meaning consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be >>>>>>>>>>> entirely explained by physical interactions.
In contrast, an Idealist believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and >>>>>>>>>>> consciousness are the true foundation of existence, rather >>>>>>>>>>> than physical matter.
"there is no spoon",
yet ur unable to bend the spoon without physically reaching >>>>>>>>>> out and interacting with it ur hands...
if consciousness is the "true foundation" of everything, why >>>>>>>>>> is it stuck following all these rules that are entirely
independent of conscious intent?
*what* is even doing the cognition???
Everything we experience takes place in time and space, Nick,
Soto Zen is referred to sometimes as the "Mind Only" school of >>>>>>>>> Buddhism.
show me the monk who can bend a spoon without some kind of
physical interaction with the spoon and
everything.
Time and space are empirically real. While space and time are
"ideal" (mental constructs), they are "empirically real". Why?
actually the 4D spacetime manifold is fundamental reality while
time/ space perspectives are just specific foliations (or
coordinate divisions) based on a particular frames of reference... >>>>>>
didn't u even read einstein dud???
Because everyonerCOs mind is structured the same way, the physical >>>>>>> world we experience behaves with objective predictability.
well that is the darndedest thing i've heard so far:
-a-a> you think everyone's mind is structured in the _same_ way??? >>>>>> -a-a>
-a-a> #god
and what is even this "mind" that can be "structured" given that
consciousness is the only thing that exists???
This framework allowed Kant to explain how we can have universal, >>>>>>> undeniable knowledge of mathematics and geometryrCobecause those >>>>>>> spatial and temporal rules are built right into our own cognitive >>>>>>> machinery.
we actually don't experience the 4D fundamental spacetime manifold >>>>>> that just like exists...
we have merely a 3D experience that happens over time, not all at >>>>>> once
i can cut Kant some slack cause he died a century before einstein >>>>>> figured that out...
-a-a> what's ur excuse dud???
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
-a-a> we'll all become believers for sureDamage to the primary visual cortex removes the major input from >>>>>>> the eyes to the brain, causing significant visual loss but even >>>>>>> using blind sight, they are still conscious.
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cognition is perception: Interpreting sensory information (what >>>>>>>>> you see, hear, taste, touch, and smell) to make sense of your >>>>>>>>> environment.
i know u can't cognate this but i'll repeat myself:
the vast majority of cognition is sub-perceptual. we only
perceive a small portion of the brain's cognition.
there an incredible amount rather interesting neuroscience here >>>>>>>> ur just glossing over because u don't understand what u don't >>>>>>>> understand dud and haven't bothered to look into it...
including, and again i repeat myself: the blindsight studies are >>>>>>>> direct experimental proof of this sub-perceptual cognition
if the conscious experience of sight is dependent on the physical >>>>>> structures of brain to manifest ... what makes u think the rest
isn't dependent???
there are other parts of the brain and/or sensory inputs we can
cut out to remove other sense as well,
from there it's just induction that the rest of consciousness is
dependent on brain morphology as well,
that's not the say that consciousness *is* _just_ brain
morphology, i'm not claiming that. i'm not even claiming that the >>>>>> brain "produces" consciousness. but i think it's beyond proven
that there is some dependency on brain morphology.
besides ignoring evidence collected in the last century,
-a-a> u don't seem to have much of a point dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
I'm just a normal practicing Buddhist seeker trying to relate to
you what Buddhist say about the nature of consciousness as a school >>>>> of thought.
You may have landed on the wrong board. On this board we mostly
discuss Buddhism, the various Zen schools and history of
philosophy. Along with copious riddle solving from Zen books by Zen >>>>> Master Nyogen Sensaki.
It's only in the last few years that partisan politics has
dominated the
somehow i doubt ur being truthful
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
Get back to us after you've caught up. Thanks.
ain't reading that shit cause i just don't care dud
ur here now posting con brainrot mostly. whatever jooddhist slant you
might have had historically is gone,
-a-a> and rendered completely hypocritical by the idiocy you now preach
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
"Far be it for anyone in some group to respect another group we don't
want your shit cross posted. you think that your thoughts are so grand
that everyone must hear you. My asshole has seen more light."
- Stavros of Pureshitland:
board. mostly because of inflammatory political postings and
lately, porn emojis being used to win debates along with character
assassination and personal attacks.
The board didn't start out this way - in the beginning there were
debates, but I'm not sure it was based on hatred, like it seems to
be now. There used to be a certain esprit de corm on the board;
proud to be utilizing the new tech for free speech.
So, I'm still proud of what I post here - too bad you're not even
respecting yourself. You came her to get enlightened apparently -
instead you trashed the board and everyone subscribed. Good work,
Nick. Now back to your 850 lines of text you snipped.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially
leading to accusations of misrepresentation.
On 6/28/2026 2:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Not really. We had an RN wet nurse live in with us. Nice!
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:29:43 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, WilsonYou failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, WilsonTalking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to
consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that to
happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail
any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave >>>>>>>>>>>>> them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against >>>>>>>>>>> those who
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt >>>>>>>>>>> to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down >>>>>>>>>>> debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try. >>>>>>>>>> -a-a>
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud >>>>>>>>> lol
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is the >>>>>>> only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one
true
fundamental reality...
exist.
It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
Actually, that is not true.-a The baby begins to notice where it ends
and everything else begins as it feels pain and discomfort.-a Before
that, it has no sense of itself.
it's crazy... dud claims he has kids, but like did he ever actually
take care of the baby???
babies aren't aware of very much, let alone themselvesFollow the science, Nick. Babies are born self-conscious - that's why we call them human babies instead of animals. Regardless, according to the Indian and Japanese Zen Buddhism, you are born enlightened - you just
don't realize it. Yet.
The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law. >>>>>intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human
rights.
You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur
just
mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to
respond
too.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious
humans.
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational >>>>>>>>>> analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat. >>>>>>>>>
On 6/28/2026 2:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 1:29 PM, Dude wrote:Good point.
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, WilsonYou failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lucky. There has
been no significant human evolution for the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20,000 years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Primate property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>> in Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority >>>>>>>>>>>> for your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but >>>>>>>>>>>> leave them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you >>>>>>>>>>>> will do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority.
Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against those >>>>>>>>>> who
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt to >>>>>>>>>> do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down >>>>>>>>>> debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try. >>>>>>>>> -a>
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss dud lol >>>>>>>>
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is
the only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one
true fundamental reality...
exist. It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
there are many thing that - without it, i would not exist
According to the Zen Buddhist sect, consciousness is the ultimate
reality. Everything originates in the mind and is conditioned by time
and space.
i get that u can't logic to save ur soul, but repeatedly cherry-In short, Causation is the central philosophy of Buddhism: everything happens for a reason; there are no chance events.
picking one of those many things that makes up an "i", should not be a
convincing argument to anyone who doesn't already agree with u dud
It's all about perception.rights.intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human
The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law.
You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur
just mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to
respond too.
i'm still not sure what's even getting violated if everything is
literally just projection of consciousness. surely if an event
happened, consciousness decided it must be so, so who are we to
question why???
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are altered
by the very fact of being perceived. You will never see the thing-in-
itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are unreal in the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
--
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious
humans.
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational >>>>>>>>> analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 11:55:25 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/29/26 6:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 22:19:07 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:06:02 -0700, dart200we did not invent, or create, the relationship between the circumference >>>> and diameter of a circle. there is no choice in what the truth of that >>>> is. we discovered it.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 5:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Music, art, poetry, electronics. It is a big list, what can be
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:22:08 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Math majors like to say, math underlies everything. That does not >>>>>>> mean that my life is determined by math.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective. Now about that truth business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities >>>>>>>>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and >>>>>>>>>> circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do. But most of us do not live our lives >>>>>>>>> by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them >>>>>>>
i never it underlies _everything_, whatever that is supposed to mean... >>>>>
excluded from it?
but ur most definitely subject to it's truths in everyday existence ? >>>>>>
mabye u should consider studying it bit more, to realize what an
objective truth, beyond any claim of possibly subjectivity
The laws of math are our own inventions. In the first place our math >>>>
is finite. Infinity breaks it if we try to include it. The universe >>>>errr ... math can and does include infinite sets what do you mean math >>>> breaks upon infinite?
Also includes infinite numbers, but we cannot enumerate them all, nor
can we enumerate all sets. For that we need a symbol. Which we
cannot operate on.
because the action of "enumeration" require one to be able to define
discrete (finite) sized steps between _all_ members of the set (even if
variable in size),
discrete finite steps. so
So you have already removed infinity from the equation.
and irrational real numbers don't generally have that due to theirHowever they are part of infinity. Must be part of a complete
infinite precision.
enumeration.
maybe simple algebra, but more fundamental math ... no ...
is infinite. We are already in big trouble.
we don't actually know if the universe is infinite in space, and the
hard astronomical evidence is it's not infinitely old
We don't know that. What we see out there are the remaining stars
still burning. Those that have burned out are not visible to us. How
old might they be?
i literally just explained the physical evidence a few days ago wilson:
we use type 1A supernovae created by white dwarfs which always explode
with the same luminosity and light spectrum, so we can measure the age
of the supernova by how dim it's measured in respect to the original
explosion.
the oldest we've recorded is ~10B years ago, which puts the age of the
universe a few billions years before that for the lifespan of the start
that exploded. if the universe were say 50B, 100B or infinitely old ...
we would see far older supernovae, but we don't
we also know the universe is expanding with increasing rates over time
based on the correlation of increased redshift from old supernovae.
No tell me how to detect and measure the age of burnt out stars that
emit no light.
--beyond any god's reach of sway
A god that created the whole thing cannot be unable to do what he
wants with it. Including destroying the whole thing and starting
over.
Best not to include such limits, I think. Either there is no god or
like job, our thoughts are not his thoughts. He is not limited not
limited not limited at all at all.
God thinks he is not limited by our puny ideas. As job attempted to >>>>> say. "I have said things that are too great for me." How unawre we >>>>> all are of what is too great for us.
actually looks like
Cannot look like.
On 6/28/2026 5:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Follow the science, Nick.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could >>>> be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not >>>>>>>>>>> granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of >>>>>>>>>> John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with >>>>>>>>>> it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply
opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in how >>>>>> you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth business... >>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of >>>> all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live our lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Consider:
Math is a highly effective conceptual framework invented by human brains
to organize and predict the world around us.
Formulas do not exist a priori as independent objects.
Before the existence of physical matter and conscious beings to observe
it, there were no "numbers" or "equations" rCo only the raw potential for the universe to behave in consistent, measurable ways.
It's all in your Mind, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 10:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:00 PM, Dude wrote:According to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind that does the perceiving. We have the right tools, like time and space, mentally to
On 6/27/2026 6:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 1:13 PM, Dude wrote:In philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness does not depend on the sense of sight, Nick
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon knows. >>>>>>>>
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical >>>>>>>>> terms, the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:
In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate
reality:
pure consciousness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without it, you would not exist. Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it also
doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather abundant
dualities that exist ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
no, i don't have to choose between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nondualism and
dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyways???),
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random walk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view
affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the trees.
we model quanta as waves between interactions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just means
interaction with another quanta wilson. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When measuring, does that change the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious.
it's not really that mysterious: the reason we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
"observe" or
measure quantum-waves is because the act of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring
requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really very
mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe flattens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyeball ...
So when you see a star (when the photon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacts with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. Both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial
frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite energy" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the models >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in a
vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then
expend
energy to go in that direction, it will continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed
point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam
reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation (your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance) ... but
the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framed up
against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> galaxy, which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate reality: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure
consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and
nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subconsciously
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
ur not a rational person anyways, dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud dishonesty). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofc
everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of
"consciousness" ...
but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - if
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
consciousness is a property of the body it should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to be
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to
fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed character of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost >>>>>>>>> a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is the >>>>>>>>> one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>>
consciousness and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual
cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative >>>>>> experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we
cut out
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's a partial loss of consciousness, dud, that's most i can grant you. >>>>
i cannot suggest anything total, because one cannot "experience" a
total loss of consciousness
if ur not capable of making the intuitive leap from that, i can't
help u
mental, spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
figure things out using reason and intelligence. Things that seem to be
out there are cognized by the mind, in the very act of cognition, thus changing them, so they can be processed.
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself - only a representation. It's all mental - that's why they call Hume and Kant idealists. They caused a Copernican revolution in philosophy.
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because they are presented to us. But, they are not real in the absolute sense.
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
again: ur not explaining how physical limits exist then...
i can't just imagine the spoon in a glass closure bending, i'd have to
physically break thru the enclosure to then physically bend the spoon...
Rather than physical matter existing independently out in the world,
they argue that objects and experiences only exist because they are
perceived or processed by a mind.
so the tree that that falls alone in the woods,
not only doesn't make a sound,
but it doesn't even exist???
-a-a> ok dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. We >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
experience things as they really are - only through >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> mean all
_is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via >>>>>>>>>>>> sense organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience >>>>>>>>>>>> from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see >>>>>>>>>>> things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory
experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things >>>>>>>>>>> which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually >>>>>>>>>>> outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have an >>>>>>>>>> impact on
my life
On 6/28/2026 1:55 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text
of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying
their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of
misrepresentation.
old text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only
bad netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the
post harder.
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread
conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of
older replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
It's actually easier to just copy and paste and post a New thread topic
with a Subject and a comment. That way, it is easily searchable on the archive.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of misrepresentation.
On 6/29/2026 6:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 1:55 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:It's actually easier to just copy and paste and post a New thread topic
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text
of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying
their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of
misrepresentation.
old text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only
bad netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the
post harder.
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread
conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of
older replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
with a Subject and a comment. That way, it is easily searchable on the
archive.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading to
accusations of misrepresentation.
Keeping the response within the same message thread is better because
the reader can easily go back and see previous exchanges.
Making a whole new thread with a new subject breaks that continuity and makes it all but impossible to see earlier posts.
So sniping out the parts of the message that aren't pertinent to your
reply and keeping it in the same message thread is the best practice.
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/29/2026 6:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 1:55 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:It's actually easier to just copy and paste and post a New thread topic >>> with a Subject and a comment. That way, it is easily searchable on the
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text >>>>> of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying >>>>> their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of
misrepresentation.
old text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only >>>> bad netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the
post harder.
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread >>>> conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of
older replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
archive.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading to >>> accusations of misrepresentation.
Keeping the response within the same message thread is better because
the reader can easily go back and see previous exchanges.
Making a whole new thread with a new subject breaks that continuity and
makes it all but impossible to see earlier posts.
So sniping out the parts of the message that aren't pertinent to your
reply and keeping it in the same message thread is the best practice.
Common sense is just so darned nice.
On 6/29/26 12:52 PM, Dude wrote:
-aFrom the archives, May 22, 2004, 11:47:59rC>AM:
"Far be it for anyone in some group to respect another group we don't
want your shit cross posted. you think that your thoughts are so grand
that everyone must hear you. My asshole has seen more light."
- Stavros of Pureshitland:
shut the fuck up dud and find a grave sooner rather than later
board. mostly because of inflammatory political postings and
lately, porn emojis being used to win debates along with character >>>>>> assassination and personal attacks.
The board didn't start out this way - in the beginning there were >>>>>> debates, but I'm not sure it was based on hatred, like it seems to >>>>>> be now. There used to be a certain esprit de corm on the board;
proud to be utilizing the new tech for free speech.
So, I'm still proud of what I post here - too bad you're not even >>>>>> respecting yourself. You came her to get enlightened apparently - >>>>>> instead you trashed the board and everyone subscribed. Good work, >>>>>> Nick. Now back to your 850 lines of text you snipped.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be >>>>>> viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially
leading to accusations of misrepresentation.
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law.
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are altered
by the very fact of being perceived. You will never see the thing-in-
itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are unreal in
the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational >>>>>>>>>> analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat. >>>>>>>>>
On 6/28/26 2:25 PM, Dude wrote:
so i can't even explain how cool u are, eh???Sonic fiber service is only available in California. Google Fiber in
the past offered five options, depending on location: Fiber 1 Gig, 2
Gig, 5 Gig, 8 Gig.
Apparently, the fastest internet in the San Francisco Bay area comes
from Frontier, which offers the fastest fiber plans up to 7 Gbps,
followed by AT&T Fiber with up to 4.7 Gbps. Xfinity cable internet
also offers up to 2,000 Mbps, but with slower upload speeds that will
vary depending on your location.
the fact creon reads the dribble you put out,
and doesn't call you out from the disgusting piece of walking garbage
that you are,
makes him almost as much a piece of garbage.
the fucking toy internet company that hasn't made a goddamn dent against
the big telcos ain't count for fucking shit
On 6/28/26 12:04 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 9:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
Fuck you Bitch! You're not my boss.its _MY_ /POST/ *BIATCH*i'm the moderator of my post bitch...It's rLeN+ArLeN+ArLeN+A
its EfaA _MY_ EfaA /POST/ EfaA *BIATCH* EfaA
i EfaA do EfaA wat EfaA i EfaA want EfaA
-a-a> watchu finna do about it? bitch about it s'more??
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/29/2026 6:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 1:55 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:It's actually easier to just copy and paste and post a New thread topic
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text >>>>> of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying >>>>> their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of
misrepresentation.
old text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only
bad netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the
post harder.
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread
conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of
older replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
with a Subject and a comment. That way, it is easily searchable on the
archive.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading to
accusations of misrepresentation.
Keeping the response within the same message thread is better because
the reader can easily go back and see previous exchanges.
Making a whole new thread with a new subject breaks that continuity and
makes it all but impossible to see earlier posts.
So sniping out the parts of the message that aren't pertinent to your
reply and keeping it in the same message thread is the best practice.
Common sense is just so darned nice.
On 6/29/26 4:11 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Follow the science, Nick.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, and >>>>>>>> actions we take, which then affects the how the future is generated >>>>>>>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not >>>>>>>>>>>> granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of >>>>>>>>>>> John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with >>>>>>>>>>> it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply >>>>>>>>>> opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>>
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little
appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference in >>>>>>> how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth
business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it could >>>>> be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true independent of >>>>> all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live our lives >>>> by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Consider:
Math is a highly effective conceptual framework invented by human
brains to organize and predict the world around us.
Formulas do not exist a priori as independent objects.
Before the existence of physical matter and conscious beings to
observe it, there were no "numbers" or "equations" rCo only the raw
potential for the universe to behave in consistent, measurable ways.
It's all in your Mind, Nick.
the light from type 1A supernovae the happened billions of years ago, radiated in a sphere and dimmed in accordance with the basic geometric relations of a sphere, long before we were ever around to consciously observe the result of it.
heck if light didn't respect this basic geometric relation independently
of our knowledge of it... sunlight would be as hot as the sun's surface everywhere and we'd have been cooked long before the first cell evolved
but idk,
what's the point of debating with a religious nutter?
#god
they never really listen, eh dud?
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:13:56 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/29/2026 6:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 1:55 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:It's actually easier to just copy and paste and post a New thread topic >>>> with a Subject and a comment. That way, it is easily searchable on the >>>> archive.
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text >>>>>> of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying >>>>>> their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of >>>>>> misrepresentation.
old text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only >>>>> bad netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the
post harder.
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread >>>>> conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of
older replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading to >>>> accusations of misrepresentation.
Keeping the response within the same message thread is better because
the reader can easily go back and see previous exchanges.
Making a whole new thread with a new subject breaks that continuity and
makes it all but impossible to see earlier posts.
So sniping out the parts of the message that aren't pertinent to your
reply and keeping it in the same message thread is the best practice.
Common sense is just so darned nice.
For common problems.
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/29/2026 6:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 1:55 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:20 PM, Dude wrote:It's actually easier to just copy and paste and post a New thread topic
Sniping out unrelated text is /good/ netiquette. Reposting reams of
Note on Netiquette: To avoid tampering accusations altering the text >>>>> of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be viewed as modifying >>>>> their words without consent, potentially leading to accusations of
misrepresentation.
old text ESPECIALLY long tails that fall below your reply is not only
bad netiquette, it's annoying as hell because it makes reading the
post harder.
Everyone here is an adult and likely has a newsreader than can thread
conversations, which makes it trivially easy to see the context of
older replies if they want to do that.
In short, start snipping more.
with a Subject and a comment. That way, it is easily searchable on the
archive.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can be
viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially leading to
accusations of misrepresentation.
Keeping the response within the same message thread is better because
the reader can easily go back and see previous exchanges.
Making a whole new thread with a new subject breaks that continuity and
makes it all but impossible to see earlier posts.
So sniping out the parts of the message that aren't pertinent to your
reply and keeping it in the same message thread is the best practice.
Common sense is just so darned nice.
On 6/29/26 7:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 10:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:00 PM, Dude wrote:According to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind that does the
On 6/27/2026 6:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 1:13 PM, Dude wrote:In philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness does not depend on the sense of sight, Nick
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:According to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon >>>>>>>>> knows.
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical >>>>>>>>>> terms, the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced
On 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In your dreams. but, it's not real in the absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, Nick.There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement isnondualism doesn't solve all our problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Force...
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to rule
them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
self- contradictory. There's only one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate
reality:
pure consciousness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without it, you would not exist. Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it also
doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather abundant
dualities that exist ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
no, i don't have to choose between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nondualism and
dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyways???),
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk,
quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view
affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the trees.
we model quanta as waves between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions, and
particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just means
interaction with another quanta wilson. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When measuring, does that change the nature of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / realms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious.
it's not really that mysterious: the reason we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
"observe" or
measure quantum-waves is because the act of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring
requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really very
mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what ur
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
talking about
idiocy...
Photons have no mass. If a photon were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
journey no
matter how far it travels.
well, also from it's "pov" the universe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flattens to a 2D
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyeball ...
So when you see a star (when the photon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacts with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial
frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy" to reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> models we use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in a
vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then
expend
energy to go in that direction, it will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed
point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (your clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance) ... but
the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framed up
against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> galaxy, which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality: pure
consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and
nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subconsciously
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
ur not a rational person anyways, dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty). ofc
everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" ...
but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material object >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - if
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that (certain) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
consciousness is a property of the body it should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to be
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical.
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to
fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character of
knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body dichotomy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and
foremost a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is >>>>>>>>>> the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>>>
consciousness and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual >>>>>>> cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that qualitative >>>>>>> experience due to it's dependence on the physical structures we >>>>>>> cut out
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's a partial loss of consciousness, dud, that's most i can grant
you.
i cannot suggest anything total, because one cannot "experience" a
total loss of consciousness
if ur not capable of making the intuitive leap from that, i can't
help u
mental, spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
perceiving. We have the right tools, like time and space, mentally to
figure things out using reason and intelligence. Things that seem to
be out there are cognized by the mind, in the very act of cognition,
thus changing them, so they can be processed.
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself - only
a representation. It's all mental - that's why they call Hume and Kant
idealists. They caused a Copernican revolution in philosophy.
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because they are
presented to us. But, they are not real in the absolute sense.
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
the fact we perceive information from objects, instead of objects
directly themselves, does not make the object any less real dud,
like if you see me point a gun at your head dud, and hear me cock thehammer, the fact ur not directly experiencing me or the gun, does not
make my threat any less real
hume and kant lived before we figure out what light physically is, or
what generates it, what sound physically is, or what generates it, and
how they all convey information, etc...
again: i can cut hume and kant a break, they lived before the age of information
whats ur excuse dud?
#god
again: ur not explaining how physical limits exist then...
i can't just imagine the spoon in a glass closure bending, i'd have
to physically break thru the enclosure to then physically bend the
spoon...
Rather than physical matter existing independently out in the world,
they argue that objects and experiences only exist because they are
perceived or processed by a mind.
so the tree that that falls alone in the woods,
not only doesn't make a sound,
but it doesn't even exist???
-a-a> ok dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't
experience things as they really are - only through >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean all
_is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for various >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via >>>>>>>>>>>>> sense organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience >>>>>>>>>>>>> from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see >>>>>>>>>>>> things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory
experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those things >>>>>>>>>>>> which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually >>>>>>>>>>>> outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have >>>>>>>>>>> an impact on
my life
On 6/29/2026 11:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 12:52 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
You came here to get enlightened?-aFrom the archives, May 22, 2004, 11:47:59rC>AM:
"Far be it for anyone in some group to respect another group we don't
want your shit cross posted. you think that your thoughts are so
grand that everyone must hear you. My asshole has seen more light."
- Stavros of Pureshitland:
shut the fuck up dud and find a grave sooner rather than later
board. mostly because of inflammatory political postings and
lately, porn emojis being used to win debates along with
character assassination and personal attacks.
The board didn't start out this way - in the beginning there were >>>>>>> debates, but I'm not sure it was based on hatred, like it seems >>>>>>> to be now. There used to be a certain esprit de corm on the
board; proud to be utilizing the new tech for free speech.
So, I'm still proud of what I post here - too bad you're not even >>>>>>> respecting yourself. You came her to get enlightened apparently - >>>>>>> instead you trashed the board and everyone subscribed. Good work, >>>>>>> Nick. Now back to your 850 lines of text you snipped.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can >>>>>>> be viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially >>>>>>> leading to accusations of misrepresentation.
On 6/29/2026 11:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
Dear Frank: It's all in your Mind. You are really Nick.It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law. >>>>
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are
altered by the very fact of being perceived. You will never see the
thing-in- itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are unreal in
the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational >>>>>>>>>>> analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat. >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 4:11 PM, Dude wrote:Materialists believe that nothing exists except matter and its
On 6/28/2026 5:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Follow the science, Nick.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we make, >>>>>>>>> and
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not >>>>>>>>>>>>> granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of >>>>>>>>>>>> John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with >>>>>>>>>>>> it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply >>>>>>>>>>> opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>>>
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is
generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference >>>>>>>> in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth
business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it
could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true
independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live our lives >>>>> by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Consider:
Math is a highly effective conceptual framework invented by human
brains to organize and predict the world around us.
Formulas do not exist a priori as independent objects.
Before the existence of physical matter and conscious beings to
observe it, there were no "numbers" or "equations" rCo only the raw
potential for the universe to behave in consistent, measurable ways.
It's all in your Mind, Nick.
the light from type 1A supernovae the happened billions of years ago,
radiated in a sphere and dimmed in accordance with the basic geometric
relations of a sphere, long before we were ever around to consciously
observe the result of it.
heck if light didn't respect this basic geometric relation
independently of our knowledge of it... sunlight would be as hot as
the sun's surface everywhere and we'd have been cooked long before the
first cell evolved
but idk,
-a-a> what's the point of debating with a religious nutter?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
they never really listen, eh dud?
movements. In this view, everything in the universerCoincluding thoughts, consciousness, and emotionsrCois the result of physical interactions and
can be explained entirely by the laws of physics and chemistry.
On 6/30/2026 12:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 7:32 PM, Dude wrote:Nobody said things aren't real, Nick. You made that up. Neither Hume nor Kant believed that.
On 6/27/2026 10:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:00 PM, Dude wrote:According to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind that does
On 6/27/2026 6:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 1:13 PM, Dude wrote:In philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally
On 6/24/2026 5:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 3:03 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness does not depend on the sense of sight, Nick
On 6/23/2026 6:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 -0700, DudeAccording to Sam Harris, cognition takes place only in
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 2:15 PM, dart200 wrote:It is however very physically dependent as any brain surgeon >>>>>>>>>> knows.
On 6/22/26 10:45 PM, Dude wrote:"?Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical >>>>>>>>>>> terms, the
On 6/21/2026 11:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/21/26 8:48 PM, Dude wrote:Are you brain dead when you sleep?
On 6/20/2026 7:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/20/26 7:39 PM, Dude wrote:Sleep is just another aspect of consciousness. The idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the brain
On 6/20/2026 11:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:47:55 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com>-a-a>
wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/19/26 9:16 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? Whatever we think about, know, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, or
On 6/19/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:
You name one single thought in existence that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencedOn 6/19/2026 4:34 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 1:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/26 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2026 1:31 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/26 8:06 AM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 6:42 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 2:22 PM, Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 5:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:09:18 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dart200
In your dreams. but, it's not real in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute sense, Nick.There's only one Singular. Otherwise your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is self-that ofc doesn't mean what u think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>idk what duds going on about tbh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/26 12:21 AM, Creon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:11 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only one Singular. Otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- contradictory. There's only one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate
nondualism doesn't solve all our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems,Don't throw crayons at us, Nick! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I felt a great disturbance in The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Force... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://youtu.be/ADYdypHZb2A?t=29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember:-a "You are not a droplet in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean...you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
ocean in a droplet." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unfortunately there is no "one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution to rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all"
Gave up on your one solution, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reality:
pure consciousness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without it, you would not exist. Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
logic. Two
reals? What?
Nick's educating us about non-dualism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature
of the
universe, Dude. Let him cook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nondualism has some good meaning for sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it also
doesn't
capture all _kinds_ of meaning, like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather abundant
dualities that exist ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
no, i don't have to choose between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nondualism and
dualism
(wouldn't that contradict non-dualism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyways???),
-a-a-a-a> merely select when either best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies as the
per the
context
-a-a-a-a>
-a-a-a-a> #god
There's a postulate that claims there's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
reality.
There's another that says life is a random >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk,
quantum foam
manifesting from the vacuum, atoms bumping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into each
other
made everything, without meaning or purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nondualism might say that neither is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely.
Physics implies that the observer's point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of view
affects the
manifestation of reality, wave or particle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both or neither, or maybe something else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. The
attempt
to pin it down might be missing the forest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the trees.
we model quanta as waves between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions, and
particles at
the point of interaction. an "observation" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just means
interaction with another quanta wilson. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics doesn't
really
have more to say on the matter other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those model
align
without measurements.
Yeah but what does that MEAN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When measuring, does that change the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
event? If
not, why isn't it still observable as a wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
we / can/
see waves in action in other contexts / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realms of reality.
Hand wave that away all you want but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious.
it's not really that mysterious: the reason we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
"observe" or
measure quantum-waves is because the act of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring
requires an
interaction, and interactions between quanta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are inherently
particle- like.
this isn't "changing" the nature, that is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fundamental
duality of a quantum's nature. between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions quantum
adhere to wave models, but interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves adhere to
particle models.
the why behind that is still mysterious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we don't
have an
explanation, but the behavior itself isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really very
mysterious
you read that as fear??? ? i'm just tired of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to
You're just afraid to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inherently everything is one. And the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears asplease don't, cause u don't actually know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what ur
many.
Don't get me started on time and space and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what allegedly
happens to them at the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
talking about
idiocy...
well, also from it's "pov" the universe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flattens to a 2D
Photons have no mass. If a photon were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious it would
experience zero time. Emission and absorption >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
essentially
the same instant for it, no time passes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during its
journey no
matter how far it travels. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sheet
with zero depth between the star and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyeball ...
So when you see a star (when the photon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacts with your
eye), from that photon's pov that happens at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
instant it
leaves the star.
well, the photo's "pov" or frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
even exist,
as from that hypothesized "pov" it is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitted and
absorbed
in the same instant
If the photon is entangled with the star (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it might
be), the
star experiences you seeing it at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instant you
see it.
i'm not sure i'd call the effect of quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entanglement as
"experience"
As we understand it, an object with mass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot travel
the speed
of light because to do so would require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite energy.
But if
it could, its mass would increase to infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire
universe) and time would effectively stop. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both time &
space
collapses.
light always travel the same speed from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial
frames of
reference, wilson. mass taking "infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy" to reach
the
speed of light is just an artifact of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> models we use...
Infinity / Oneness.
In my view the speed of light is the wall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between this
and the
next dimension. Physical objects cannot get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past that wall.
the truth is mass _cannot_ "increase" its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed (in a
vacuum) in
respect to a traveling photon _at all_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if you shoot a laser beam out in a direction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then
expend
energy to go in that direction, it will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue moving
away from
you at the same speed of light. you can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change your
"speed"
relative to other frames of reference, like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the frame you
started
your acceleration in.
and it gets weirder: if you shot that beam at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fixed
point P,
and then accelerated to P, you will perceive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam
reaching
there sooner because of both time dilation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (your clock ticks
slower) and length contraction (less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance) ... but
the beam
will still be moving away from you at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of
light
the speed of light doesn't act like a "wall", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more
like a
constant causal framework the of reality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framed up
against ...
relativity is cool because it doesn't require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutes to
produce "stillness". stillness is found in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of
reference that aren't actively accelerating. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it allows
stillness
to exist here on earth despite the fact the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sun is
rotating, and
orbiting the sun, which orbiting around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> galaxy, which
in of
itself it moving about the universe. without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
reality,
no stillness could be found in a such a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
contradictory. There's only one ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality: pure
consciousness.
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,
occurs to us only in our consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
In other
words, cognition takes place only in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and
nowhere else.
actually a lot of cognition takes place >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subconsciously
But, dreams are not unreal either, because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented to you.
-a-a-a> >>
Whatever we think about, know, experience, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptualize,No rational person would claim that they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
ur not a rational person anyways, dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
occurs
to us only in our consciousness and nowhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other
words,
cognition takes place only in consciousness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere else.
that's simply not true dud, the blindsight studies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
proven otherwise
outside
of consciousness. Go!
that's a loaded question dud (classic dud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty). ofc
everything i
"experience" falls without the bounds of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" ...
but not all
of my cognition, or perhaps even most, falls within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that purview.
conceptualize, occurs to us only in our consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
nowhere else.
The cause of consciousness cannot be a material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object - if
blindsight case studies have demonstrated that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (certain)
functionally
blind people can walk thru and avoid obstacles in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hallways
without
being conscious of it. this demonstrate advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitional
(object
recognition, visual spatial reasoning about those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects, and
direct
motor skill) all happening subconsciously... so they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't even
know
they even did it, let alone how
consciousness is a property of the body it should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to be
perceived like other material objects.
Unless you are insane or demented - it's just not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical.
but ur a fucking dribbling moron dud, so u won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to
fact check
this, and u'll instead respond with more baseless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity
We are conscious of ourselves enough to know that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and are
self-conscious. So, we all have a constructed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character of
knowing that
is self-consciousness itself.
It is a good thing that the world is not limited by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we can be
conscious of.-a Otherwise, 7 billion years of evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not
have
brought us to where we are.-a How could it if we were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not aware of
it?
So, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, held >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
consciousness is not a passive mirror reflecting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world.
Instead, the mind actively structures our experiences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing
"built- in" conceptual frameworks (like space, time, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causality) to synthesize raw sensory data into a coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious reality.
This sounds logical, as opposed to a mind/body >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dichotomy supported
by materialism. YMMV.
so if everyone sleeps, reality stops working?
i don't consider sleep part of consciousness
no, just unconscious
difference between it and unconsciousness is first and
foremost a matter
of subjective experience.
Either the lights are on, or they are not. Consciousness is >>>>>>>>>>> the one
thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris >>>>>>>>>>
consciousness and nowhere else.
ok dud, here's a non-thot experiment for u: we can cut ur visual >>>>>>>> cortex out and u can then experience the loss of that
qualitative experience due to it's dependence on the physical >>>>>>>> structures we cut out
-a-a> would that be convincing enough for you?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
it's a partial loss of consciousness, dud, that's most i can grant >>>>>> you.
i cannot suggest anything total, because one cannot "experience" a >>>>>> total loss of consciousness
if ur not capable of making the intuitive leap from that, i can't >>>>>> help u
mental, spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
the perceiving. We have the right tools, like time and space,
mentally to figure things out using reason and intelligence. Things
that seem to be out there are cognized by the mind, in the very act
of cognition, thus changing them, so they can be processed.
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself - only
a representation. It's all mental - that's why they call Hume and
Kant idealists. They caused a Copernican revolution in philosophy.
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because they
are presented to us. But, they are not real in the absolute sense.
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
the fact we perceive information from objects, instead of objects
directly themselves, does not make the object any less real dud,
Without consciousness, you would not know it; if you had a mind youlike if you see me point a gun at your head dud, and hear me cock thehammer, the fact ur not directly experiencing me or the gun, does not
make my threat any less real
would recognize it. The point is, Nick, the mind is a priori-aand
interprets everything in time and space.
Hope that helps.
hume and kant lived before we figure out what light physically is, orIt goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare to your insight, however, you came here for enlightenment.
what generates it, what sound physically is, or what generates it, and
how they all convey information, etc...
again: i can cut hume and kant a break, they lived before the age of
information
In Philosophy: It refers to someone who believes that physical matter is
the fundamental substance of all things, meaning consciousness, the
mind, and the universe can be entirely explained by physical interactions.
Philosophical Meaning: A person who believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and consciousness
are the true foundation of existence, rather than physical matter.
-a -a> whats ur excuse dud?-a-a>
-a-a> #god
again: ur not explaining how physical limits exist then...
i can't just imagine the spoon in a glass closure bending, i'd have
to physically break thru the enclosure to then physically bend the
spoon...
Rather than physical matter existing independently out in the
world, they argue that objects and experiences only exist because
they are perceived or processed by a mind.
so the tree that that falls alone in the woods,
not only doesn't make a sound,
but it doesn't even exist???
-a-a> ok dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Cut right here...lights out.
dreaming maybe, but but non-dreaming sleep noEvery single cell in the universe is conscious.
changes things by the very act of sensing seems logical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't
experience things as they really are - only through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
we only experience consciousnesses, correct. this doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean all
_is_ consciousness.
-a-a>
and we still depend on the external environment for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> various consciousYou are correct. So, what's the problem?
experiences. our brain funnels information gathered via >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense organs
from the external world and generates conscious experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it
We see through a glass, darkly. We are not enlightened, so the >>>>>>>>>>>>> solution is to increase conscious awareness in order to see >>>>>>>>>>>>> things as
they really are.
"Everything we know we have acquired through sensory >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience. We
are fooled by consciousness into believing that those >>>>>>>>>>>>> things which we
perceive and appropriate within consciousness are actually >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside our
cognitive sphere." - Vasabandhu
again: i don't have to be aware of something for it to have >>>>>>>>>>>> an impact on
my life
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if >>>>>>> you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about >>>>>>>>>>> being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, WilsonKarma is not only about reincarnation.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't karma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>>>>> does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural >>>>>>>>>>>> law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated >>>>>>>>>>> in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has his >>>>>>>>>>> opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on >>>>>>>>> self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, >>>>>>>>> so at
the expense of repeating myself:
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to the
group. We are down to five informants now; one known lurker; and just
one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if you're
writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just think - while
you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in the Subject box, and
emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little editing help
from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually read dud
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard
On 6/28/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:Keep up the good work. We've moved beyond the smear game.
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if >>>>>>>> you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding about >>>>>>>>>>>> being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote:
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake natural >>>>>>>>>>>>> law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never participated >>>>>>>>>>>> in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah has >>>>>>>>>>>> his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on >>>>>>>>>> self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, >>>>>>>>>> so at
the expense of repeating myself:
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to the
group. We are down to five informants now; one known lurker; and just
one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if you're
writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just think - while
you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in the Subject box, and
emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little editing
help from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually read dud
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard
On 6/30/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/29/2026 11:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 12:52 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
You came here to get enlightened?-aFrom the archives, May 22, 2004, 11:47:59rC>AM:
"Far be it for anyone in some group to respect another group we
don't want your shit cross posted. you think that your thoughts are
so grand that everyone must hear you. My asshole has seen more light." >>>>
- Stavros of Pureshitland:
shut the fuck up dud and find a grave sooner rather than later
no
board. mostly because of inflammatory political postings and
lately, porn emojis being used to win debates along with
character assassination and personal attacks.
The board didn't start out this way - in the beginning there
were debates, but I'm not sure it was based on hatred, like it >>>>>>>> seems to be now. There used to be a certain esprit de corm on >>>>>>>> the board; proud to be utilizing the new tech for free speech. >>>>>>>>
So, I'm still proud of what I post here - too bad you're not
even respecting yourself. You came her to get enlightened
apparently - instead you trashed the board and everyone
subscribed. Good work, Nick. Now back to your 850 lines of text >>>>>>>> you snipped.
Altering the text of another user's post (even with <snip>) can >>>>>>>> be viewed as modifying their words without consent, potentially >>>>>>>> leading to accusations of misrepresentation.
On 6/30/26 10:06 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/29/2026 11:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
Dear Frank: It's all in your Mind. You are really Nick.It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural >>>>>> law.
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are
altered by the very fact of being perceived. You will never see the
thing-in- itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are unreal in
the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
what's not just in my mind is how pathetic you are:
you really are that pathetic
#god
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational >>>>>>>>>>>> analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat. >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/26 8:27 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:Keep up the good work. We've moved beyond the smear game.
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here. >>>>>>
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if >>>>>>>>> you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>> about being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that just
happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things.
They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of me.
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious tradition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are aware >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake >>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never
participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah >>>>>>>>>>>>> has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book on >>>>>>>>>>> self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut out, >>>>>>>>>>> so at
the expense of repeating myself:
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to the
group. We are down to five informants now; one known lurker; and
just one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if you're
writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just think - while
you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in the Subject box, and
emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little editing
help from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually read dud
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard
for sure i will dud,
at least if u stop distracting me from studying /recursively enumerable
sets of positive integers and their decision problems/ by emil l. post Efai
On 6/30/26 6:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 12:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
Nobody said things aren't real, Nick. You made that up. Neither HumeAccording to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind that doesIn philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally
mental, spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
the perceiving. We have the right tools, like time and space,
mentally to figure things out using reason and intelligence. Things
that seem to be out there are cognized by the mind, in the very act
of cognition, thus changing them, so they can be processed.
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself -
only a representation. It's all mental - that's why they call Hume
and Kant idealists. They caused a Copernican revolution in philosophy. >>>>
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because they
are presented to us. But, they are not real in the absolute sense.
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
the fact we perceive information from objects, instead of objects
directly themselves, does not make the object any less real dud,
nor Kant believed that.
u literally just said they are "not real in the absolute sense" while simultaneously claiming they are "not unreal". clearly u can't make up
your "mind" about whether they are real or not.
i don't have time or desire of such nonsense. it serves no purpose and explains nothing important at all, clearly
thelike if you see me point a gun at your head dud, and hear me cock
hammer, the fact ur not directly experiencing me or the gun, does notWithout consciousness, you would not know it; if you had a mind you
make my threat any less real
would recognize it. The point is, Nick, the mind is a priori-aand
interprets everything in time and space.
i get ur barely rairse ur children dud, but in watching a child being
born - "the mind" is clearly not a priori to reality existing before the birth of a child
idk it's really simple common sense that strikes thru claims about consciousness being more fundamental than reality itself.
Hope that helps.
i'm not sure what level of cosmic narcissism u must have in order to subscribe to such bullshit...
but here we are, eh dud?
#god
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
hume and kant lived before we figure out what light physically is, orIt goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare to your
what generates it, what sound physically is, or what generates it,
and how they all convey information, etc...
again: i can cut hume and kant a break, they lived before the age of
information
insight, however, you came here for enlightenment.
In Philosophy: It refers to someone who believes that physical matter
is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning consciousness, the
mind, and the universe can be entirely explained by physical
interactions.
Philosophical Meaning: A person who believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and
consciousness are the true foundation of existence, rather than
physical matter.
On 6/30/2026 6:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:06 AM, Dude wrote:Will the real Nick please stand up? They are calling you "card".
On 6/29/2026 11:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
Dear Frank: It's all in your Mind. You are really Nick.It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural >>>>>>> law.
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are
altered by the very fact of being perceived. You will never see the >>>>> thing-in- itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are unreal in >>>>> the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
what's not just in my mind is how pathetic you are:
You have no name, no handle, no cvc from university. You are nobody,
Nick. This is a newsgroup chat room. Not a place to get mental advice.
Sorry for the confusion.
-a-a> you really are that pathetic
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational >>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 8:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 8:27 PM, Dude wrote:You just smeared me. And, you're calling yourself #god?
On 6/28/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:Keep up the good work. We've moved beyond the smear game.
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here. >>>>>>>
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if >>>>>>>>>> you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They don't really applly to me.-a They show your idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of me.
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are inherent in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that just
happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not enforced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never
participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book >>>>>>>>>>>> on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut >>>>>>>>>>>> out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to the
group. We are down to five informants now; one known lurker; and
just one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if you're >>>>> writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just think - while >>>>> you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in the Subject box, and
emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little editing
help from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually read dud
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard
for sure i will dud,
Case in point.
at least if u stop distracting me from studying /recursively
enumerable sets of positive integers and their decision problems/ by
emil l. post Efai
On 6/30/2026 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 6:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 12:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
<snip>
It probably goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare toNobody said things aren't real, Nick. You made that up. Neither HumeAccording to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind that doesIn philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally
mental, spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
the perceiving. We have the right tools, like time and space,
mentally to figure things out using reason and intelligence. Things >>>>> that seem to be out there are cognized by the mind, in the very act >>>>> of cognition, thus changing them, so they can be processed.
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself -
only a representation. It's all mental - that's why they call Hume
and Kant idealists. They caused a Copernican revolution in philosophy. >>>>>
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because they
are presented to us. But, they are not real in the absolute sense.
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
the fact we perceive information from objects, instead of objects
directly themselves, does not make the object any less real dud,
nor Kant believed that.
u literally just said they are "not real in the absolute sense" while
simultaneously claiming they are "not unreal". clearly u can't make up
your "mind" about whether they are real or not.
i don't have time or desire of such nonsense. it serves no purpose and
explains nothing important at all, clearly
cock thelike if you see me point a gun at your head dud, and hear me
hammer, the fact ur not directly experiencing me or the gun, doesWithout consciousness, you would not know it; if you had a mind you
not make my threat any less real
would recognize it. The point is, Nick, the mind is a priori-aand
interprets everything in time and space.
i get ur barely rairse ur children dud, but in watching a child being
born - "the mind" is clearly not a priori to reality existing before
the birth of a child
idk it's really simple common sense that strikes thru claims about
consciousness being more fundamental than reality itself.
Hope that helps.
i'm not sure what level of cosmic narcissism u must have in order to
subscribe to such bullshit...
your deep philosophical insight, however, you came here for small talk,
not enlightenment. YMMV.
-a-a> but here we are, eh dud?You are actually reading this? Thank #god! For small favors. What
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
language are you coding in?
--
hume and kant lived before we figure out what light physically is,It goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare to your
or what generates it, what sound physically is, or what generates
it, and how they all convey information, etc...
again: i can cut hume and kant a break, they lived before the age of
information
insight, however, you came here for enlightenment.
In Philosophy: It refers to someone who believes that physical matter
is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning consciousness,
the mind, and the universe can be entirely explained by physical
interactions.
Philosophical Meaning: A person who believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and
consciousness are the true foundation of existence, rather than
physical matter.
On 7/1/26 11:05 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 6:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 12:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
<snip>
It probably goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare toNobody said things aren't real, Nick. You made that up. Neither HumeAccording to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind that does >>>>>> the perceiving. We have the right tools, like time and space,In philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally >>>>>>>> mental, spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
mentally to figure things out using reason and intelligence.
Things that seem to be out there are cognized by the mind, in the >>>>>> very act of cognition, thus changing them, so they can be processed. >>>>>>
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself -
only a representation. It's all mental - that's why they call Hume >>>>>> and Kant idealists. They caused a Copernican revolution in
philosophy.
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because they >>>>>> are presented to us. But, they are not real in the absolute sense. >>>>>>
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
the fact we perceive information from objects, instead of objects
directly themselves, does not make the object any less real dud,
nor Kant believed that.
u literally just said they are "not real in the absolute sense" while
simultaneously claiming they are "not unreal". clearly u can't make
up your "mind" about whether they are real or not.
i don't have time or desire of such nonsense. it serves no purpose
and explains nothing important at all, clearly
cock thelike if you see me point a gun at your head dud, and hear me
hammer, the fact ur not directly experiencing me or the gun, doesWithout consciousness, you would not know it; if you had a mind you
not make my threat any less real
would recognize it. The point is, Nick, the mind is a priori-aand
interprets everything in time and space.
i get ur barely rairse ur children dud, but in watching a child being
born - "the mind" is clearly not a priori to reality existing before
the birth of a child
idk it's really simple common sense that strikes thru claims about
consciousness being more fundamental than reality itself.
Hope that helps.
i'm not sure what level of cosmic narcissism u must have in order to
subscribe to such bullshit...
probably not
your deep philosophical insight, however, you came here for small
talk, not enlightenment. YMMV.
You are actually reading this? Thank #god! For small favors. What
-a-a> but here we are, eh dud?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
language are you coding in?
pseudo-pyscript
hume and kant lived before we figure out what light physically is,It goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare to your
or what generates it, what sound physically is, or what generates
it, and how they all convey information, etc...
again: i can cut hume and kant a break, they lived before the age
of information
insight, however, you came here for enlightenment.
In Philosophy: It refers to someone who believes that physical
matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely explained
by physical interactions.
Philosophical Meaning: A person who believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and
consciousness are the true foundation of existence, rather than
physical matter.
On 6/30/26 4:25 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 4:11 PM, Dude wrote:Materialists believe that nothing exists except matter and its
On 6/28/2026 5:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Follow the science, Nick.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we >>>>>>>>>> make, and
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies of >>>>>>>>>>>>> John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to life is >>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born with >>>>>>>>>>>>> it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply >>>>>>>>>>>> opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect reality. >>>>>>>>>>
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is >>>>>>>>>> generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference >>>>>>>>> in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth
business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it >>>>>>> could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true
independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and >>>>>>> circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live our lives >>>>>> by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Consider:
Math is a highly effective conceptual framework invented by human
brains to organize and predict the world around us.
Formulas do not exist a priori as independent objects.
Before the existence of physical matter and conscious beings to
observe it, there were no "numbers" or "equations" rCo only the raw
potential for the universe to behave in consistent, measurable ways.
It's all in your Mind, Nick.
the light from type 1A supernovae the happened billions of years ago,
radiated in a sphere and dimmed in accordance with the basic
geometric relations of a sphere, long before we were ever around to
consciously observe the result of it.
heck if light didn't respect this basic geometric relation
independently of our knowledge of it... sunlight would be as hot as
the sun's surface everywhere and we'd have been cooked long before
the first cell evolved
but idk,
-a-a> what's the point of debating with a religious nutter?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
they never really listen, eh dud?
movements. In this view, everything in the universerCoincluding
thoughts, consciousness, and emotionsrCois the result of physical
interactions and can be explained entirely by the laws of physics and
chemistry.
tell me more about how little you understand
On 6/30/2026 6:54 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 4:25 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through, Nick.
On 6/30/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 4:11 PM, Dude wrote:Materialists believe that nothing exists except matter and its
On 6/28/2026 5:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Follow the science, Nick.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is
viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect >>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we >>>>>>>>>>> make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is >>>>>>>>>>> generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our future is >>>>>>>>>> generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a difference >>>>>>>>>> in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth >>>>>>>>> business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since it >>>>>>>> could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true
independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and >>>>>>>> circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live our >>>>>>> lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Consider:
Math is a highly effective conceptual framework invented by human
brains to organize and predict the world around us.
Formulas do not exist a priori as independent objects.
Before the existence of physical matter and conscious beings to
observe it, there were no "numbers" or "equations" rCo only the raw >>>>> potential for the universe to behave in consistent, measurable ways. >>>>>
It's all in your Mind, Nick.
the light from type 1A supernovae the happened billions of years
ago, radiated in a sphere and dimmed in accordance with the basic
geometric relations of a sphere, long before we were ever around to
consciously observe the result of it.
heck if light didn't respect this basic geometric relation
independently of our knowledge of it... sunlight would be as hot as
the sun's surface everywhere and we'd have been cooked long before
the first cell evolved
but idk,
-a-a> what's the point of debating with a religious nutter?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
they never really listen, eh dud?
movements. In this view, everything in the universerCoincluding
thoughts, consciousness, and emotionsrCois the result of physical
interactions and can be explained entirely by the laws of physics and
chemistry.
tell me more about how little you understand
On 7/1/2026 2:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 11:05 AM, Dude wrote:There are at least five subscribers on this board; one known lurker and
On 6/30/2026 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote:probably not
On 6/30/26 6:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 12:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
<snip>
It probably goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare to >>Nobody said things aren't real, Nick. You made that up. NeitherAccording to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind thatIn philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally >>>>>>>>> mental, spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
does the perceiving. We have the right tools, like time and
space, mentally to figure things out using reason and
intelligence. Things that seem to be out there are cognized by
the mind, in the very act of cognition, thus changing them, so
they can be processed.
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself - >>>>>>> only a representation. It's all mental - that's why they call
Hume and Kant idealists. They caused a Copernican revolution in >>>>>>> philosophy.
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because
they are presented to us. But, they are not real in the absolute >>>>>>> sense.
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
the fact we perceive information from objects, instead of objects >>>>>> directly themselves, does not make the object any less real dud,
Hume nor Kant believed that.
u literally just said they are "not real in the absolute sense"
while simultaneously claiming they are "not unreal". clearly u can't
make up your "mind" about whether they are real or not.
i don't have time or desire of such nonsense. it serves no purpose
and explains nothing important at all, clearly
cock thelike if you see me point a gun at your head dud, and hear me
hammer, the fact ur not directly experiencing me or the gun, does >>>>>> not make my threat any less realWithout consciousness, you would not know it; if you had a mind you >>>>> would recognize it. The point is, Nick, the mind is a priori-aand
interprets everything in time and space.
i get ur barely rairse ur children dud, but in watching a child
being born - "the mind" is clearly not a priori to reality existing
before the birth of a child
idk it's really simple common sense that strikes thru claims about
consciousness being more fundamental than reality itself.
Hope that helps.
i'm not sure what level of cosmic narcissism u must have in order to
subscribe to such bullshit...
one full-timer. So it's a contest. Go!
The other subscribers are all using plain text in mostly English. YMMV.your deep philosophical insight, however, you came here for small
talk, not enlightenment. YMMV.
You are actually reading this? Thank #god! For small favors. What
-a-a> but here we are, eh dud?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
language are you coding in?
pseudo-pyscript
hume and kant lived before we figure out what light physically is, >>>>>> or what generates it, what sound physically is, or what generates >>>>>> it, and how they all convey information, etc...It goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare to
again: i can cut hume and kant a break, they lived before the age >>>>>> of information
your insight, however, you came here for enlightenment.
In Philosophy: It refers to someone who believes that physical
matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely explained >>>>> by physical interactions.
Philosophical Meaning: A person who believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and
consciousness are the true foundation of existence, rather than
physical matter.
On 7/1/26 10:54 AM, Dude wrote:at me!
On 6/30/2026 6:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:06 AM, Dude wrote:Will the real Nick please stand up? They are calling you "card".
On 6/29/2026 11:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
Dear Frank: It's all in your Mind. You are really Nick.It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on
natural law.
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are
altered by the very fact of being perceived. You will never see
the thing-in- itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are unreal
in the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
what's not just in my mind is how pathetic you are:
You have no name, no handle, no cvc from university. You are nobody,
Nick. This is a newsgroup chat room. Not a place to get mental advice.
Sorry for the confusion.
there is no confusion about how much a pathetic bigoted loser you are
Come on you SOB! That all you got? You talking to me? Are you nuts? Come
On 7/1/26 10:58 AM, Dude wrote:--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On 6/30/2026 8:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 8:27 PM, Dude wrote:You just smeared me. And, you're calling yourself #god?
On 6/28/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:Keep up the good work. We've moved beyond the smear game.
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come here. >>>>>>>>
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this board if >>>>>>>>>>> you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They don't really applly to me.-a They show your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of me.
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in
human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that just
happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is.
You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation.
True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with
you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book >>>>>>>>>>>>> on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut >>>>>>>>>>>>> out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to the
group. We are down to five informants now; one known lurker; and
just one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if
you're writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just think >>>>>> - while you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in the Subject >>>>>> box, and emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little editing >>>>>> help from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually read dud
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard
for sure i will dud,
Case in point.
duds deserve to be smearedYou came here to get enlightened?
On 7/1/2026 2:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:54 AM, Dude wrote:at me!
On 6/30/2026 6:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:06 AM, Dude wrote:Will the real Nick please stand up? They are calling you "card".
On 6/29/2026 11:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
Dear Frank: It's all in your Mind. You are really Nick.It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on
natural law.
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are
altered by the very fact of being perceived. You will never see >>>>>>> the thing-in- itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are unreal >>>>>>> in the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
what's not just in my mind is how pathetic you are:
You have no name, no handle, no cvc from university. You are nobody,
Nick. This is a newsgroup chat room. Not a place to get mental advice.
Sorry for the confusion.
there is no confusion about how much a pathetic bigoted loser you are
Come on you SOB! That all you got? You talking to me? Are you nuts? Come
Hack the planet!
https://tinyurl.com/mvjyr79m
On 7/1/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:58 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 8:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 8:27 PM, Dude wrote:You just smeared me. And, you're calling yourself #god?
On 6/28/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:Keep up the good work. We've moved beyond the smear game.
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come >>>>>>>>>> here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this >>>>>>>>>>>> board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about being
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They don't really applly to me.-a They show your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of me.
wrote:You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in
human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for evaluating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that just
happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with
you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and Noah >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the book >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding
to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to the >>>>>>> group. We are down to five informants now; one known lurker; and >>>>>>> just one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if
you're writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just
think - while you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in the >>>>>>> Subject box, and emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little editing >>>>>>> help from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually read dud >>>>>>
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard
for sure i will dud,
Case in point.
-a-a> duds deserve to be smeared
-aYou came here to get enlightened?
On 7/1/26 4:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 2:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 11:05 AM, Dude wrote:There are at least five subscribers on this board; one known lurker
On 6/30/2026 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 6:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 12:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
<snip>
It probably goes without saying that nobody on this board canNobody said things aren't real, Nick. You made that up. NeitherAccording to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind that >>>>>>>> does the perceiving. We have the right tools, like time andIn philosophy, idealists believe that reality is fundamentally >>>>>>>>>> mental, spiritual, or constructed by consciousness.
space, mentally to figure things out using reason and
intelligence. Things that seem to be out there are cognized by >>>>>>>> the mind, in the very act of cognition, thus changing them, so >>>>>>>> they can be processed.
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself - >>>>>>>> only a representation. It's all mental - that's why they call >>>>>>>> Hume and Kant idealists. They caused a Copernican revolution in >>>>>>>> philosophy.
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because >>>>>>>> they are presented to us. But, they are not real in the absolute >>>>>>>> sense.
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
the fact we perceive information from objects, instead of objects >>>>>>> directly themselves, does not make the object any less real dud, >>>>>>>
Hume nor Kant believed that.
u literally just said they are "not real in the absolute sense"
while simultaneously claiming they are "not unreal". clearly u
can't make up your "mind" about whether they are real or not.
i don't have time or desire of such nonsense. it serves no purpose
and explains nothing important at all, clearly
Without consciousness, you would not know it; if you had a mindlike if you see me point a gun at your head dud, and hear me >>>>>> cock thehammer, the fact ur not directly experiencing me or the gun, does >>>>>>> not make my threat any less real
you would recognize it. The point is, Nick, the mind is a
priori-aand interprets everything in time and space.
i get ur barely rairse ur children dud, but in watching a child
being born - "the mind" is clearly not a priori to reality existing >>>>> before the birth of a child
idk it's really simple common sense that strikes thru claims about
consciousness being more fundamental than reality itself.
Hope that helps.
i'm not sure what level of cosmic narcissism u must have in order
to subscribe to such bullshit...
compare to
probably not
and one full-timer. So it's a contest. Go!
there's no contest dud
The other subscribers are all using plain text in mostly English. YMMV.your deep philosophical insight, however, you came here for small
talk, not enlightenment. YMMV.
You are actually reading this? Thank #god! For small favors. What
-a-a> but here we are, eh dud?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
language are you coding in?
pseudo-pyscript
u don't code in plain text
hume and kant lived before we figure out what light physicallyIt goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare to
is, or what generates it, what sound physically is, or what
generates it, and how they all convey information, etc...
again: i can cut hume and kant a break, they lived before the age >>>>>>> of information
your insight, however, you came here for enlightenment.
In Philosophy: It refers to someone who believes that physical
matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely
explained by physical interactions.
Philosophical Meaning: A person who believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and
consciousness are the true foundation of existence, rather than
physical matter.
On 7/1/26 6:35 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 2:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:54 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 6:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:06 AM, Dude wrote:Will the real Nick please stand up? They are calling you "card".
On 6/29/2026 11:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
Dear Frank: It's all in your Mind. You are really Nick.It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on >>>>>>>>>> natural law.
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are >>>>>>>> altered by the very fact of being perceived. You will never see >>>>>>>> the thing-in- itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are unreal >>>>>>>> in the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
what's not just in my mind is how pathetic you are:
You have no name, no handle, no cvc from university. You are nobody,
Nick. This is a newsgroup chat room. Not a place to get mental advice. >>>>
Sorry for the confusion.
there is no confusion about how much a pathetic bigoted loser you are
Come on you SOB! That all you got? You talking to me? Are you nuts? Come >> at me!
Hack the planet!
https://tinyurl.com/mvjyr79m
ur fucking pathetic dud
On 7/1/26 6:38 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:58 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 8:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 8:27 PM, Dude wrote:You just smeared me. And, you're calling yourself #god?
On 6/28/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:Keep up the good work. We've moved beyond the smear game.
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come >>>>>>>>>>> here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this >>>>>>>>>>>>> board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about being
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They don't really applly to me.-a They show your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of me.
wrote:You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in
human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluating right and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law, thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random walk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that just
happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a viable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with
you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noah has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding >>>>>>>>>> to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to the >>>>>>>> group. We are down to five informants now; one known lurker; and >>>>>>>> just one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if
you're writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just
think - while you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in the >>>>>>>> Subject box, and emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little
editing help from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually read dud >>>>>>>
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard
for sure i will dud,
Case in point.
-a-a> duds deserve to be smeared
-aYou came here to get enlightened?
no
On 7/1/26 4:39 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 6:54 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 4:25 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through, Nick.
On 6/30/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 4:11 PM, Dude wrote:Materialists believe that nothing exists except matter and its
On 6/28/2026 5:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Follow the science, Nick.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is
viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect >>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we >>>>>>>>>>>> make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is >>>>>>>>>>>> generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of random >>>>>>>>>>>> consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our >>>>>>>>>>> future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality.
I think this is important. How you see this makes a
difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth >>>>>>>>>> business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since >>>>>>>>> it could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities >>>>>>>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true
independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and >>>>>>>>> circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live our >>>>>>>> lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them
Consider:
Math is a highly effective conceptual framework invented by human >>>>>> brains to organize and predict the world around us.
Formulas do not exist a priori as independent objects.
Before the existence of physical matter and conscious beings to
observe it, there were no "numbers" or "equations" rCo only the raw >>>>>> potential for the universe to behave in consistent, measurable ways. >>>>>>
It's all in your Mind, Nick.
the light from type 1A supernovae the happened billions of years
ago, radiated in a sphere and dimmed in accordance with the basic
geometric relations of a sphere, long before we were ever around to >>>>> consciously observe the result of it.
heck if light didn't respect this basic geometric relation
independently of our knowledge of it... sunlight would be as hot as >>>>> the sun's surface everywhere and we'd have been cooked long before
the first cell evolved
but idk,
-a-a> what's the point of debating with a religious nutter?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
they never really listen, eh dud?
movements. In this view, everything in the universerCoincluding
thoughts, consciousness, and emotionsrCois the result of physical
interactions and can be explained entirely by the laws of physics
and chemistry.
tell me more about how little you understand
apparently u aren't capable of thought
On 7/1/2026 6:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 6:38 PM, Dude wrote:Why do all your comments contain just one word?
On 7/1/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:58 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 8:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 8:27 PM, Dude wrote:You just smeared me. And, you're calling yourself #god?
On 6/28/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:Keep up the good work. We've moved beyond the smear game.
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would come >>>>>>>>>>>> here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude-a-a>
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about being
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They don't really applly to me.-a They show your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of me.
wrote:You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in
human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluating right and
wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law, thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk that just
happened
without any underlying principles manifesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that
affect the
outcome of human action.
Wilson think attacking my integrity is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viable rational
response to
my idea of what natural law is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you new
definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with
you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in karma, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noah has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got cut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding >>>>>>>>>>> to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to >>>>>>>>> the group. We are down to five informants now; one known
lurker; and just one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if >>>>>>>>> you're writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just >>>>>>>>> think - while you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in the >>>>>>>>> Subject box, and emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little
editing help from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually read dud >>>>>>>>
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard
for sure i will dud,
Case in point.
-a-a> duds deserve to be smeared
-aYou came here to get enlightened?
no
You came here for small talk?
On 7/1/2026 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 4:39 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 6:54 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 4:25 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through, Nick.
On 6/30/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 4:11 PM, Dude wrote:Materialists believe that nothing exists except matter and its
On 6/28/2026 5:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Follow the science, Nick.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the philosophies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is
viewed as an innate, God-given natural right.
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we >>>>>>>>>>>>> make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is >>>>>>>>>>>>> generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of >>>>>>>>>>>>> random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our >>>>>>>>>>>> future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I think this is important. How you see this makes a
difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth >>>>>>>>>>> business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since >>>>>>>>>> it could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities >>>>>>>>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true
independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius and >>>>>>>>>> circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live our >>>>>>>>> lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them >>>>>>>>
Consider:
Math is a highly effective conceptual framework invented by human >>>>>>> brains to organize and predict the world around us.
Formulas do not exist a priori as independent objects.
Before the existence of physical matter and conscious beings to >>>>>>> observe it, there were no "numbers" or "equations" rCo only the raw >>>>>>> potential for the universe to behave in consistent, measurable ways. >>>>>>>
It's all in your Mind, Nick.
the light from type 1A supernovae the happened billions of years
ago, radiated in a sphere and dimmed in accordance with the basic >>>>>> geometric relations of a sphere, long before we were ever around
to consciously observe the result of it.
heck if light didn't respect this basic geometric relation
independently of our knowledge of it... sunlight would be as hot
as the sun's surface everywhere and we'd have been cooked long
before the first cell evolved
but idk,
-a-a> what's the point of debating with a religious nutter?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
they never really listen, eh dud?
movements. In this view, everything in the universerCoincluding
thoughts, consciousness, and emotionsrCois the result of physical
interactions and can be explained entirely by the laws of physics
and chemistry.
tell me more about how little you understand
-a-a> apparently u aren't capable of thought
"I think. Therefore I am." - Rene Descartes
Note: "Cogito, ergo sum")
On 7/1/2026 5:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 4:32 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently all the subscribers remaining on this list use English for everything, up to and including the human bio-computer. YMMV.
On 7/1/2026 2:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 11:05 AM, Dude wrote:There are at least five subscribers on this board; one known lurker
On 6/30/2026 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 6:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 12:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
<snip>
It probably goes without saying that nobody on this board canNobody said things aren't real, Nick. You made that up. Neither >>>>>>> Hume nor Kant believed that.According to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind that >>>>>>>>> does the perceiving. We have the right tools, like time and >>>>>>>>> space, mentally to figure things out using reason andIn philosophy, idealists believe that reality is
fundamentally mental, spiritual, or constructed by
consciousness.
intelligence. Things that seem to be out there are cognized by >>>>>>>>> the mind, in the very act of cognition, thus changing them, so >>>>>>>>> they can be processed.
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself >>>>>>>>> - only a representation. It's all mental - that's why they call >>>>>>>>> Hume and Kant idealists. They caused a Copernican revolution in >>>>>>>>> philosophy.
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because >>>>>>>>> they are presented to us. But, they are not real in the
absolute sense.
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
the fact we perceive information from objects, instead of
objects directly themselves, does not make the object any less >>>>>>>> real dud,
u literally just said they are "not real in the absolute sense"
while simultaneously claiming they are "not unreal". clearly u
can't make up your "mind" about whether they are real or not.
i don't have time or desire of such nonsense. it serves no purpose >>>>>> and explains nothing important at all, clearly
Without consciousness, you would not know it; if you had a mind >>>>>>> you would recognize it. The point is, Nick, the mind is alike if you see me point a gun at your head dud, and hear me >>>>>>> cock thehammer, the fact ur not directly experiencing me or the gun,
does not make my threat any less real
priori-aand interprets everything in time and space.
i get ur barely rairse ur children dud, but in watching a child
being born - "the mind" is clearly not a priori to reality
existing before the birth of a child
idk it's really simple common sense that strikes thru claims about >>>>>> consciousness being more fundamental than reality itself.
Hope that helps.
i'm not sure what level of cosmic narcissism u must have in order >>>>>> to subscribe to such bullshit...
compare to
probably not
and one full-timer. So it's a contest. Go!
there's no contest dud
The other subscribers are all using plain text in mostly English. YMMV.your deep philosophical insight, however, you came here for small
talk, not enlightenment. YMMV.
You are actually reading this? Thank #god! For small favors. What
-a-a> but here we are, eh dud?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
language are you coding in?
pseudo-pyscript
u don't code in plain text
When you write a Python program, you type human-readable instructions
using standard letters, numbers, and symbols in English.
These files are saved as plain text files (typically with a .py
extension). You can open, read, and edit Python code in any basic text editor, such as Notepad, TextEdit or Editpad.
hume and kant lived before we figure out what light physically >>>>>>>> is, or what generates it, what sound physically is, or whatIt goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare to >>>>>>> your insight, however, you came here for enlightenment.
generates it, and how they all convey information, etc...
again: i can cut hume and kant a break, they lived before the >>>>>>>> age of information
In Philosophy: It refers to someone who believes that physical
matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely
explained by physical interactions.
Philosophical Meaning: A person who believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and
consciousness are the true foundation of existence, rather than >>>>>>> physical matter.
On 7/1/2026 6:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 6:35 PM, Dude wrote:You came here for enlightenment?
On 7/1/2026 2:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:54 AM, Dude wrote:at me!
On 6/30/2026 6:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:06 AM, Dude wrote:Will the real Nick please stand up? They are calling you "card".
On 6/29/2026 11:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
Dear Frank: It's all in your Mind. You are really Nick.It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on >>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are >>>>>>>>> altered by the very fact of being perceived. You will never see >>>>>>>>> the thing-in- itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are
unreal in the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
what's not just in my mind is how pathetic you are:
You have no name, no handle, no cvc from university. You are
nobody, Nick. This is a newsgroup chat room. Not a place to get
mental advice.
Sorry for the confusion.
there is no confusion about how much a pathetic bigoted loser you are
Come on you SOB! That all you got? You talking to me? Are you nuts?
Come
Hack the planet!
https://tinyurl.com/mvjyr79m
ur fucking pathetic dud
On 6/29/26 1:28 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 2:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Not really. We had an RN wet nurse live in with us. Nice!
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:29:43 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick.
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, WilsonYou failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against >>>>>>>>>>>> those who
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, WilsonTalking about natural law is not a claim to authority. >>>>>>>>>>>>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good way
to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to
consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lucky.
There has
been no significant human evolution for the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20,000
years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that to
happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do,
then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it up
and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail
any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority for
your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave
them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt >>>>>>>>>>>> to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down >>>>>>>>>>>> debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try. >>>>>>>>>>> -a-a>
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss >>>>>>>>>> dud lol
how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness is >>>>>>>> the
only thing that exists???
i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the one >>>>>> true
fundamental reality...
exist.
It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
Actually, that is not true.-a The baby begins to notice where it ends
and everything else begins as it feels pain and discomfort.-a Before
that, it has no sense of itself.
it's crazy... dud claims he has kids, but like did he ever actually
take care of the baby???
that's actually really fucking sad dud
#god
babies aren't aware of very much, let alone themselvesFollow the science, Nick. Babies are born self-conscious - that's why
we call them human babies instead of animals. Regardless, according to
the Indian and Japanese Zen Buddhism, you are born enlightened - you
just don't realize it. Yet.
ur just a sad fucking pathetic fool dud, and u have no idea even
The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural law. >>>>>>intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human >>>>>>>> rights.
You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like ur >>>>>> just
mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to
respond
too.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious >>>>>>> humans.
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational >>>>>>>>>>> analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat. >>>>>>>>>>
On 7/1/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 6:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 6:35 PM, Dude wrote:You came here for enlightenment?
On 7/1/2026 2:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:54 AM, Dude wrote:at me!
On 6/30/2026 6:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:06 AM, Dude wrote:Will the real Nick please stand up? They are calling you "card".
On 6/29/2026 11:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
Dear Frank: It's all in your Mind. You are really Nick.It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on >>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions are >>>>>>>>>> altered by the very fact of being perceived. You will never >>>>>>>>>> see the thing-in- itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are >>>>>>>>>> unreal in the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
what's not just in my mind is how pathetic you are:
You have no name, no handle, no cvc from university. You are
nobody, Nick. This is a newsgroup chat room. Not a place to get
mental advice.
Sorry for the confusion.
there is no confusion about how much a pathetic bigoted loser you are >>>>> Come on you SOB! That all you got? You talking to me? Are you nuts? >>>>> Come
Hack the planet!
https://tinyurl.com/mvjyr79m
ur fucking pathetic dud
no
On 6/28/26 1:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:57 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 9:58 AM, Wilson wrote:Obviously, Jesus was a rank materialist
On 6/28/2026 3:16 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:37 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 8:23 PM, Dude wrote:Money and wealth and power are not the basis for human rights, Nick. >>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 12:02 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Noah does not want to talk about natural law, or philosophy or >>>>>>>> self- awareness. Better to try Nick.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero
<fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, WilsonClaiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be natural
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not.
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are allowed >>>>>>>>>>> in Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim authority >>>>>>>>>> for your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but leave >>>>>>>>>> them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you will >>>>>>>>>> do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that.
Talking about natural law is not a claim to authority. It's >>>>>>>>> exploring what is and what it might mean. That's what dialog is >>>>>>>>> all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
Neither seems to agree with the transcendental idealist point of >>>>>>>> view. It's all about the money.
well yeah, because money _is_ power,
And, certainly not the goal of equality. If you really think it's >>>>>> all about the money, then you are a rank materialist.
lol, so the l0lbErTaRiAnS are all gunna become iDeAlIsTs so they
can find iNnEr PeAcE while blaming those struggling with inequity
as *rank materialists* ??? EfnuEfnuEfnu
Materialism is genuinely retarded.
Every spiritual teacher taught that the physical world is not the
source
idk about buddha but jesus was pretty big on actually feeding people
yeah bro if people were only just self-aware enough,
they could just live on air like the breatharians!
ensuring they be fed otherwise is _rAnK mAtErIaLiSm_ ...
holy fuck dud, it's pretty sick how much disdain you have for your
fellow humanity
law. You and Noah backed yourselves into a dead end corner with allof being. And that being is awareness. Money won't buy you love.
... so that is exactly why ur so damn attached to ur material
conditions, eh???
"
-a-a> base hypocrisy is genuinely retarded
-a Don't be a hypocrite. There are human rights based on reason and
natural
your argumentative mixed up conspiracy theories.
You revealed yourself to being rank materialists by claiming your
philosophy is all about the wealth of nations, not human rights.
You failed to prove any human rights of the Palestinian refugees to
their own own property.
You got confused, Nick, and went over to the dark side of
alt.messianic, posting porn emojis.
Now see the light, Nick: The world is your idea.
"The World as Will and Idea" is a foundational philosophical work by
Arthur Schopenhauer. You should read it twice and think about it (pun
intended).
u slobber down incoherent words mashed together on a screen in hopes it
will save u from the abject unrepentant sinner you are dud ...
On 7/1/26 7:49 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 6:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 6:38 PM, Dude wrote:Why do all your comments contain just one word?
On 7/1/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:58 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 8:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 8:27 PM, Dude wrote:You just smeared me. And, you're calling yourself #god?
On 6/28/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:Keep up the good work. We've moved beyond the smear game.
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would >>>>>>>>>>>>> come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dudesorry what'd u say again?
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:-a-a>
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:E=mc^2
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding about being
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:They don't really applly to me.-a They show your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of me.
You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wilson think attacking my integrity is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viable rational
Natural law is a philosophical and legal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory
proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in
human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law, thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk that just
happened
without any underlying principles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
response to
my idea of what natural law is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you new
definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with
you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma, but that
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noah has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science?
f=ma
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cut out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding >>>>>>>>>>>> to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to >>>>>>>>>> the group. We are down to five informants now; one known
lurker; and just one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if >>>>>>>>>> you're writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just >>>>>>>>>> think - while you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in >>>>>>>>>> the Subject box, and emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little >>>>>>>>>> editing help from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually read >>>>>>>>> dud
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard >>>>>>>>>
for sure i will dud,
Case in point.
-a-a> duds deserve to be smeared
-aYou came here to get enlightened?
no
You came here for small talk?
y do u ask dumb questions?
On 7/1/26 8:19 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 4:39 PM, Dude wrote:"I think. Therefore I am." - Rene Descartes
On 6/30/2026 6:54 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 4:25 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through, Nick.
On 6/30/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 4:11 PM, Dude wrote:Materialists believe that nothing exists except matter and its
On 6/28/2026 5:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Follow the science, Nick.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not granted by
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is
viewed as an innate, God-given natural right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make and >>>>>>>>>>>>> the actions we take. And those things do affect how our >>>>>>>>>>>>> future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think this is important. How you see this makes a >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth >>>>>>>>>>>> business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective since >>>>>>>>>>> it could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities >>>>>>>>>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true >>>>>>>>>>> independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's radius >>>>>>>>>>> and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live >>>>>>>>>> our lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them >>>>>>>>>
Consider:
Math is a highly effective conceptual framework invented by
human brains to organize and predict the world around us.
Formulas do not exist a priori as independent objects.
Before the existence of physical matter and conscious beings to >>>>>>>> observe it, there were no "numbers" or "equations" rCo only the >>>>>>>> raw potential for the universe to behave in consistent,
measurable ways.
It's all in your Mind, Nick.
the light from type 1A supernovae the happened billions of years >>>>>>> ago, radiated in a sphere and dimmed in accordance with the basic >>>>>>> geometric relations of a sphere, long before we were ever around >>>>>>> to consciously observe the result of it.
heck if light didn't respect this basic geometric relation
independently of our knowledge of it... sunlight would be as hot >>>>>>> as the sun's surface everywhere and we'd have been cooked long
before the first cell evolved
but idk,
-a-a> what's the point of debating with a religious nutter?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
they never really listen, eh dud?
movements. In this view, everything in the universerCoincluding
thoughts, consciousness, and emotionsrCois the result of physical >>>>>> interactions and can be explained entirely by the laws of physics >>>>>> and chemistry.
tell me more about how little you understand
-a-a> apparently u aren't capable of thought
Note: "Cogito, ergo sum")
clearly you aren't then
On 7/1/26 7:29 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 4:32 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently all the subscribers remaining on this list use English for
On 7/1/2026 2:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 11:05 AM, Dude wrote:There are at least five subscribers on this board; one known lurker
On 6/30/2026 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 6:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 12:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
<snip>
It probably goes without saying that nobody on this board canNobody said things aren't real, Nick. You made that up. Neither >>>>>>>> Hume nor Kant believed that.According to Hume and Kant everything comes fro the Mind that >>>>>>>>>> does the perceiving. We have the right tools, like time and >>>>>>>>>> space, mentally to figure things out using reason andIn philosophy, idealists believe that reality is
fundamentally mental, spiritual, or constructed by
consciousness.
intelligence. Things that seem to be out there are cognized by >>>>>>>>>> the mind, in the very act of cognition, thus changing them, so >>>>>>>>>> they can be processed.
With the human senses you don't really see the thing-in-itself >>>>>>>>>> - only a representation. It's all mental - that's why they >>>>>>>>>> call Hume and Kant idealists. They caused a Copernican
revolution in philosophy.
Think about it.
Note: Existence or things "out there" are not unreal, because >>>>>>>>>> they are presented to us. But, they are not real in the
absolute sense.
Hope that helps.
See:
David Hume on how minds work
Immanuel Kant on a critique on pure reason
the fact we perceive information from objects, instead of
objects directly themselves, does not make the object any less >>>>>>>>> real dud,
u literally just said they are "not real in the absolute sense" >>>>>>> while simultaneously claiming they are "not unreal". clearly u
can't make up your "mind" about whether they are real or not.
i don't have time or desire of such nonsense. it serves no
purpose and explains nothing important at all, clearly
Without consciousness, you would not know it; if you had a mind >>>>>>>> you would recognize it. The point is, Nick, the mind is alike if you see me point a gun at your head dud, and hear >>>>>>>> me cock thehammer, the fact ur not directly experiencing me or the gun, >>>>>>>>> does not make my threat any less real
priori-aand interprets everything in time and space.
i get ur barely rairse ur children dud, but in watching a child >>>>>>> being born - "the mind" is clearly not a priori to reality
existing before the birth of a child
idk it's really simple common sense that strikes thru claims
about consciousness being more fundamental than reality itself.
Hope that helps.
i'm not sure what level of cosmic narcissism u must have in order >>>>>>> to subscribe to such bullshit...
compare to
probably not
and one full-timer. So it's a contest. Go!
there's no contest dud
u don't code in plain text
The other subscribers are all using plain text in mostly English. YMMV. >>>your deep philosophical insight, however, you came here for small >>>>>> talk, not enlightenment. YMMV.
You are actually reading this? Thank #god! For small favors. What >>>>>> language are you coding in?
-a-a> but here we are, eh dud?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
pseudo-pyscript
everything, up to and including the human bio-computer. YMMV.
When you write a Python program, you type human-readable instructions
using standard letters, numbers, and symbols in English.
These files are saved as plain text files (typically with a .py
extension). You can open, read, and edit Python code in any basic text
editor, such as Notepad, TextEdit or Editpad.
ok unwise guy, u don't code in plain *english
hume and kant lived before we figure out what light physically >>>>>>>>> is, or what generates it, what sound physically is, or what >>>>>>>>> generates it, and how they all convey information, etc...It goes without saying that nobody on this board can compare to >>>>>>>> your insight, however, you came here for enlightenment.
again: i can cut hume and kant a break, they lived before the >>>>>>>>> age of information
In Philosophy: It refers to someone who believes that physical >>>>>>>> matter is the fundamental substance of all things, meaning
consciousness, the mind, and the universe can be entirely
explained by physical interactions.
Philosophical Meaning: A person who believes that reality is
fundamentally mental or spiritual, meaning that ideas and
consciousness are the true foundation of existence, rather than >>>>>>>> physical matter.
On 6/29/2026 11:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:28 PM, Dude wrote:You're the unemployed stud that has a baby and a wife to support - and
On 6/28/2026 2:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Not really. We had an RN wet nurse live in with us. Nice!
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 13:29:43 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/28/2026 11:11 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 10:20 AM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality - without it, you would not >>>>>> exist.
On 6/28/2026 12:17 AM, dart200 wrote:i think u were tryin to claim it was basis for everything, the
On 6/27/26 11:33 PM, Dude wrote:Listen, Little Snipper: Consciousness is the basis for all human >>>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 8:19 PM, dart200 wrote:how can basic human rights even be violated, if consciousness >>>>>>>>> is the
On 6/27/26 8:15 PM, Dude wrote:Anyone that denies basic human rights is a regressive, Nick. >>>>>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:02:38 -0400, WilsonYou failed to define natural law. You lose the debate.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Of course it is.-a You want to bolster your claim against >>>>>>>>>>>>> those who
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:08:34 -0400, WilsonTalking about natural law is not a claim to authority. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Claiming that an opinion of yours could be a natural law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ur previous
On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions
How do you expect to discover natural laws if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
can be natural
laws.
Interacting with the ideas people have are a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good way
to winnow one's
own ideas.
None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly claim that
anyway.
Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this mindset
at all.
People think about stuff. Natural laws are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to
consider. Ideas
about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how it
might be or not be.
A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lucky.
There has
been no significant human evolution for the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20,000
years more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So how much hubris does it take to think that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement here matters at all ...
if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought then
matter? it's a
self-defeating position.
That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside
and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that to
happen.
If natural laws exist, and you say that you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they do,
then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it up
and deal with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail
any open
discussion.
Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach for the
confirmation of your opinion being a natural law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Primate
property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
equivalent of claiming that you are the 10th avatar of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vishnu. I say,
that is up to the hindu's to decide.-a Let me know you they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proclaim
you.
So no opinions about the nature of natural laws are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed in
Noahland.
My-a objection is that you reach for them to claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority for
your
opinions.-a Believe what you like about natural laws, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave
them
out in discussion here.-a Mr Avatar.-a Not that I think you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
do what
I say.-a My intention then is to clearly and strongly say it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you
understand that you are not convincing based on that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
challenge it.-a Except you invoke a fallacy when you attempt >>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it
that way.
It's exploring
what is and what it might mean.
Exploring based on what you want to assume is.
That's what dialog is all about.
My goal is not to convince you.
I don't think even you believe that.
Your assumption that your idea is a natural law shuts down >>>>>>>>>>>>> debate.-a If
you assume that is true makes further debate moot.-a Nice try. >>>>>>>>>>>> -a-a>
failing to define something that doesn't exist isn't a loss >>>>>>>>>>> dud lol
only thing that exists???
one true
fundamental reality...
It's not confusing Nick. You are self-aware from birth.
Actually, that is not true.-a The baby begins to notice where it ends >>>>> and everything else begins as it feels pain and discomfort.-a Before >>>>> that, it has no sense of itself.
it's crazy... dud claims he has kids, but like did he ever actually
take care of the baby???
-a-a> that's actually really fucking sad dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
babies aren't aware of very much, let alone themselvesFollow the science, Nick. Babies are born self-conscious - that's why
we call them human babies instead of animals. Regardless, according
to the Indian and Japanese Zen Buddhism, you are born enlightened -
you just don't realize it. Yet.
ur just a sad fucking pathetic fool dud, and u have no idea even
I'm the sad fucking pathetic fool?
You came here to get enlightened.
The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on natural >>>>>> law.intelligence. It has not been shown to be the basis for human >>>>>>>>> rights.
You got confused.
ur right, i find ur position to be very confused. it seems like >>>>>>> ur just
mashing words together in hopes that i find it too confusing to >>>>>>> respond
too.
Human rights comes from reason and natural law by self-conscious >>>>>>>> humans.
Right and wrong are known through human reason and rational >>>>>>>>>>>> analysis, not just religious revelation or government fiat. >>>>>>>>>>>
On 7/2/2026 12:43 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 7:46 PM, Dude wrote:You came here because some people feel better when have someone to talk
On 7/1/2026 6:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 6:35 PM, Dude wrote:You came here for enlightenment?
On 7/1/2026 2:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:54 AM, Dude wrote:at me!
On 6/30/2026 6:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:06 AM, Dude wrote:Will the real Nick please stand up? They are calling you "card". >>>>>>>
On 6/29/2026 11:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:45 PM, Dude wrote:
<snip>
Dear Frank: It's all in your Mind. You are really Nick.It's all about perception.The idea of human right comes from reason, Nick, based on >>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
You can never know the thing-in-itself because perceptions >>>>>>>>>>> are altered by the very fact of being perceived. You will >>>>>>>>>>> never see the thing-in- itself because of mind.
I's all in your Mind.
Your perceptions are not real, yet not unreal either.
They are real because they are presented to you; they are >>>>>>>>>>> unreal in the sense of being absolutely real.
So, nothing is absolutely real, Nick.
what is real is how pathetic u are to be frank
what's not just in my mind is how pathetic you are:
You have no name, no handle, no cvc from university. You are
nobody, Nick. This is a newsgroup chat room. Not a place to get >>>>>>> mental advice.
Sorry for the confusion.
there is no confusion about how much a pathetic bigoted loser you are >>>>>> Come on you SOB! That all you got? You talking to me? Are you
nuts? Come
Hack the planet!
https://tinyurl.com/mvjyr79m
ur fucking pathetic dud
no
to. YMMV.
On 7/2/2026 12:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 7:49 PM, Dude wrote:So, why did you come here, Nick?
On 7/1/2026 6:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 6:38 PM, Dude wrote:Why do all your comments contain just one word?
On 7/1/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:58 AM, Dude wrote:
On 6/30/2026 8:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 8:27 PM, Dude wrote:You just smeared me. And, you're calling yourself #god?
On 6/28/2026 3:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:39 PM, Dude wrote:Keep up the good work. We've moved beyond the smear game.
On 6/28/2026 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 11:50 PM, Creon wrote:Keep up the good work, Nick!
At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:10:10 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 7:09 PM, Dude wrote:You've got to wonder why a couple of materialists would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> come here.
On 6/26/2026 11:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 8:07 PM, Dude wrote:Never mind. Obviously you're out of your league on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> board if
On 6/26/2026 10:06 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:19:27 -0700, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:sorry what'd u say again?
-a-a>
On 6/26/2026 7:57 AM, Wilson wrote:f=ma
On 6/25/2026 1:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:57:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So, I'm not at all sure Nick or Noah are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding about being
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:42:43 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:21:05 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>True you can take any word from any religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradition and
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 11:51 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:01:18 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:They don't really applly to me.-a They show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your idea of me.
You didn't address any of the things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 6/23/2026 4:46 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wilson think attacking my integrity is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viable rational
Natural law is a philosophical and legal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory
proposing that
certain
moral rights and ethical principles are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in
human nature.
It argues that these truths are universal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverable
through human
reason, and serve as a standard for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluating right and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law, thinks cause
and effect
karma is fictional, that life is a random >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk that just
happened
without any underlying principles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifesting reality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
outcome of human action. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
response to
my idea of what natural law is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And once again, your economic ideas are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced by karmic
reincarnation.-a If it isn't reincarnation, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't karma.
Karma is not only about reincarnation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
redefine
it to mean whatever suits you.-a I do not accept >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you new
definition.
None of that was about "attacking" your integrity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Noah apparently doesn't believe in natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks cause and
effect karma is fictional"
I surely do believe in natural laws, but I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with
you on
what they are, et cetera.
Could have fooled me.
You certainly have in the past said you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in karma.
Even many actual buddhists don't believe in it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are aware of the
logical dilemmas.-a You are free to believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma, but that
does not
make it a natural law.-a Either.
Belief in or belief against does not make or unmake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law.
rational and logical. Apparently, they've never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participated in a
university debate class.
Nick is trying to bring his god into the debate and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noah has his
opinions.
Why can't they just present the science? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E=mc^2
So, you can't explain consciousness.
Ancient Buddhists and Hindu yogis veritably wrote the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book on self-
awareness and consciousness. Somehow my comments got >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cut out, so at
the expense of repeating myself:
you've never heard of Buddha and Tang.
-a -a> what is this buddha even???
-a -a>
-a -a> #god
I'm wondering when you're going to learn to stop responding >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the guy. ;)
well, i need disciples...
and dud appears to need someone to follow...
so he just can't help himself,
and neither can i!
-a-a> a match made in heaven! EfnuEfOA
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
We are depending on you to keep the information coming in to >>>>>>>>>>> the group. We are down to five informants now; one known >>>>>>>>>>> lurker; and just one full- timer. It's slow.
Texting is an addiction, but a handy searchable data base if >>>>>>>>>>> you're writing a book about a topic that interests you. Just >>>>>>>>>>> think - while you posted hundreds of one-liners, queries in >>>>>>>>>>> the Subject box, and emojis - I wrote a whole book!
Why do all your comments begin and end on one line?
So, I think maybe I will self-publish soon, with a little >>>>>>>>>>> editing help from Rita.
meanwhile i will get actually published, and then actually >>>>>>>>>> read dud
because i have things to say, that actually need to be heard >>>>>>>>>>
for sure i will dud,
Case in point.
-a-a> duds deserve to be smeared
-aYou came here to get enlightened?
no
You came here for small talk?
y do u ask dumb questions?
On 7/2/2026 12:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:19 PM, Dude wrote:"I am, therefore I think." - Dude Abides
On 7/1/2026 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 4:39 PM, Dude wrote:"I think. Therefore I am." - Rene Descartes
On 6/30/2026 6:54 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 4:25 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through, Nick.
On 6/30/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 4:11 PM, Dude wrote:Materialists believe that nothing exists except matter and its
On 6/28/2026 5:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Follow the science, Nick.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:47:34 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 3:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:08:40 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/27/2026 11:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:07 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 6:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are no immutable rights.-a Only rights granted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not granted byAre you smarter than a 5th grader?
govts.
The concept of natural law is rooted in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophies of John Locke
and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the right to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is
viewed as an innate, God-given natural right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Under this view, the right is immutable rCo you are born >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it, and no
government can justly grant or revoke it.
Views are not known to generate reality.-a They are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply opinions.
Views can never generate reality. They can only reflect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
false: the views we hold as true, impact the decisions we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make, and
actions we take, which then affects the how the future is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated
the fact you don't know this is probably why you have little >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for serious science,
and are whole delusions about the truth seeking power of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> random
consumers selecting without meaningful coordination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes the viewpoints we hold do affect the decisions we make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
the actions we take. And those things do affect how our >>>>>>>>>>>>>> future is
generated.
But all of that stuff is taking place *within* reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think this is important. How you see this makes a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how
you experience life.
All of which is entirely subjective.-a Now about that truth >>>>>>>>>>>>> business...
certain physical law _might_ be (marginally) subjective >>>>>>>>>>>> since it could
be local to our reality ... vs true in all possible realities >>>>>>>>>>>>
but mathematical truth can be absolutely objective true >>>>>>>>>>>> independent of
all reality.
no god can change the relationships between a circle's >>>>>>>>>>>> radius and
circumference in flat 2D space
I'm not sure what a god can do.-a But most of us do not live >>>>>>>>>>> our lives
by math truths.
well ur life is what it is because of them, u can't escape them >>>>>>>>>>
Consider:
Math is a highly effective conceptual framework invented by >>>>>>>>> human brains to organize and predict the world around us.
Formulas do not exist a priori as independent objects.
Before the existence of physical matter and conscious beings to >>>>>>>>> observe it, there were no "numbers" or "equations" rCo only the >>>>>>>>> raw potential for the universe to behave in consistent,
measurable ways.
It's all in your Mind, Nick.
the light from type 1A supernovae the happened billions of years >>>>>>>> ago, radiated in a sphere and dimmed in accordance with the
basic geometric relations of a sphere, long before we were ever >>>>>>>> around to consciously observe the result of it.
heck if light didn't respect this basic geometric relation
independently of our knowledge of it... sunlight would be as hot >>>>>>>> as the sun's surface everywhere and we'd have been cooked long >>>>>>>> before the first cell evolved
but idk,
-a-a> what's the point of debating with a religious nutter?
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
they never really listen, eh dud?
movements. In this view, everything in the universerCoincluding >>>>>>> thoughts, consciousness, and emotionsrCois the result of physical >>>>>>> interactions and can be explained entirely by the laws of physics >>>>>>> and chemistry.
tell me more about how little you understand
-a-a> apparently u aren't capable of thought
Note: "Cogito, ergo sum")
clearly you aren't then
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:37:52 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,462 |
