Challenge: Define "material"

[Free Floating Radical]

I see the term "material" much bandied about here on the fora. One would expect that it would be. After all, there are Marxists about and they have been taught that "materialism" is one of the terms that they must employ in order to be Leftist PC.

Of course, they also imagine that they know what they are talking about when they use the phrase "dialectical materialism".

So, I'd like to present a challenge to the "materialists".

Define "material" in terms of what we now know about QM and QP, based on the discoveries of Heisenberg, et al.

Bear in mind that Hegel and Marx both lived before the discovery of quantum effects.

Hegel was contemporaneous with John Dalton, so we have an idea of what "matter" looked like to him.

The discovery of the electron by JJ Thomsom had not yet been made when Marx was prolific.

Certainly, they did not know that the mere observation of matter affects it.

They did not begin to understand the interactions between consciousness and matter.

What does the interaction between consciousness and material, as explained in light of QP and QM, tell us about the term "empiricism"?

Frankly, Hegal and Marx didn't know what they were talking about when they talked about "materialism" - and I'm setting out to prove that neither do those who bandy the term about as Hegal and Marx did. They are wholly ignorant of the discoveries of the 20th C and think of matter as it was thought about in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

The same goes for those who imagine that they know what "empiricism" is.

Prove me wrong scientifically. If you can't, just do the weak and weak-minded thing and move this thread to another forum.

[Free Floating Radical]

Recommendation: If you have not seen a movie entitled: "What the Bleep Do We Know?", I highly recommend that you do so.

I found it on the net through Google for free and downloaded it.

It's no longer available through Google, but may be downloadable from elsewhere.

Even if you have to rent it, it is worth your while to do so.

I know of no better introduction to QP and QM than that movie. It is marvellously executed and explains the ramifications of the discoveries of quantum effects in terms that respect the intelligence of lay people, but doesn't go into heavy math.

It simply does not make sense to grasp desperately to a conception of material reality that has been scientifically proven to be incorrect and is passe.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You take that piece of postmodern garbage seriously? There's no hope for you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR: you will find that us materialist here, in general, do not pay much attention to Hegel and/or dialectical materialism. In fact, that loopy theory has been rounding trashed here over the last few months.

And I do not think we have much to learn from a science that puts differential equations, scalar and tensor fields, abstract Hilbert spaces -- with a few probablity density functions thrown in for good measure --, in place of mattter. Mathematical functions and structures are not made of anything material, nor can they exercise a causal influence on anything physical. Sure they help us 'balance' the books, and make predictions, and explain things theoretically, but that is all. They cannot explain why anything actually happens (save they use ordinary words, and then only as metaphors, etc.)

And matter as such does not need defining; we have countless thousands of words in ordinary language that allow us to speak about the material world, and without the help of physicists, who change their minds like the weather, anyway.

[ComradeRed]

Man, this is the most platonic thread I've ever seen! :o

QM/QP is not something that's a mystery; I've been thinking about it recently (well, QFT), and it's actually surprisingly ingenius (Feynman's "Democracy of Histories" at least).

One of the first principles of QM is the existence of discrete quantities ("quantized" quantities, actually). Well, how are you going to measure something that's (say) 3.5 discrete units? You can't have half a discrete unit!

So "logically" that means our consciousness causes the wavefunction collapse as What the Bleep do we Know implies, right? :lol:

Or perhaps, if we ignore such a platonic psychobabble analysis, we could figure out a better way to do it.

The mathematical structure of the uncertainty of a variable is equivalent to standard deviation. The mean (in this case, expected classical value) plus or minus 3 times the standard deviation has 99.73% of the data within it (that is, you are 99.73% likely to find an answer within there).

If you take the uncertainty of the two conjugate variables in question to be one planck unit (with respect to whatever unit it may be), you will need 7 (remember, discrete measurement of the expected value added to -3.-2,-1,+0,+1,+2,+3) values...for both variables. That's 49 different quantities (by combinatorics).

Then you use something to fuse them all together (cough*topoi*cough), and you've got the quantized answer. It's a more accurate measurement, oddly enough, of a discrete quantity "continuously".



Prove me wrong scientifically.
You've been ggpwn3d :D

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:32 PM
Man, this is the most platonic thread I've ever seen! :o

...our consciousness causes the wavefunction collapse as What the Bleep do we Know implies, right? :lol:

... we could figure out a better way to do it.
You didn't answer the question ComradeRed, but the pirouettes around the issue were entertaining. You must look lovely in your little red tutu.

You know the answer: Matter doesn't exist in and of itself.

The only thing that you wrote which is of import are the quotes that I left.

That's right, our consciousness causes the "wavefunction collapse". It is the packets of intelligence that subatomic particles are in conjuction and in contact with our consciousness that makes reality line up around us.

If we knew how to do it we could cause the collapse at will and describe the configurations as we wish. We would, of course, now how to reverse the collapse and return material existence to wavefunction.

That would obviate the need for a bloody revolution.

That is freedom, my boy. And that is what I'm all about - freedom.

Now do you get my point?

[ComradeRed]

You didn't answer the question ComradeRed, but the pirouettes around the issue were entertaining. You must look lovely in your little red tutu. Man, you must have muscles of steel lugging around that huge bloated head of yours.



You know the answer: Matter doesn't exist in and of itself. And the proof?

Hell, you haven't even disproven materialism yet. Now you assert that idealism is correct; what a brilliant logician you are!

Just give up now, your post sadly demonstrates your incapability to comprehend a simple concept such as materialism, much less one more complicated like QM (which you are undoubtedly a world authority on since your viewing of What the Bleep).


That's right, our consciousness causes the "wavefunction collapse". It is the packets of intelligence that subatomic particles are in conjuction and in contact with our consciousness that makes reality line up around us. Your proof?

Oh right, we don't need proof for science because we can't look at a nonexistent reality. :rolleyes:


If we knew how to do it we could cause the collapse at will and describe the configurations as we wish. We would, of course, now how to reverse the collapse and return material existence to wavefunction. And you completely miss my post, good work!


That would obviate the need for a bloody revolution.

That is freedom, my boy. And that is what I'm all about - freedom.

Now do you get my point? The only point you've had in your lifetime would be on the top of your head, "my boy."

Lemme just recap the major points of your post that you should bother responding to:

...I left...now...to...return [to] material existence[...]. Ah, you contradict yourself! :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR:


Matter doesn't exist in and of itself.

What exactly does not exist?

Can you say; if not what are you denying?

And if 'it' does not exist, what are you referring to?

[bisclavret]

Matter doesn't exist in and of itself.

I am not exactly sure how free floating radical would explain this statement but here is my crude explanation of the matter. Take as an example, the category or material property 'color'. Is 'color' unique and resident to an object or is it how our brains process the information? Lets take a 'red' pen for example. Light reaches the pen reflects to our eyes and the signals and information reach our brain. So how did 'red' emerge then? A snake or a pigeon sees 'red' differently. So is 'red' inherent in the pen or is it how our brains process the information? Id say it would have to be both. The only way we could confirm matter as existent is through its properties that's why I used 'color' as an example. And material properties are relative, at least among different species. I am not sure if I have done justice to free thinking radical's post but this is what I think of it. In terms of perception and Consciousness, I side with the late Puerto Rican(?) neuroscientist Francisco Varela and his concept of the embodied mind and I think this concept is similar to the later Wittgenstein's phenomenology and theory of language. It really is the old matter-mind debate, dichotomized by a lot of thinkers giving one primacy over the other whereas we could just embody mind into matter then sit back and relax for now:)
BTW:Consciousness hasn't been adequately explained yet, Penrose is waiting for a theory on quantum gravity and the AI group who think the brain is an information processing meat are yet to create a robot with consciousness.

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 12:37 AM
FFR:


Matter doesn't exist in and of itself.

What exactly does not exist?

Can you say; if not what are you denying?

And if 'it' does not exist, what are you referring to?
Matter does not exist in and of itself. The key words, which you ignored, are in and of itself.

Matter exists only when pure potential ("wave functions" if you will) interacts with our consciousness. Then pure potential becomes something actual.

Let's take an analogy: Let's imagine a state is which there is H2 and O2, but they do not come in contact with one another.

In such a state water does not exist in actuality, only in potentiality.

If the oxygen and the hydrogen come in contact, water, which was simply potential previous to the contact, comes into actuality - big time.

So it is with consciousness and "wave functions", which describe infinite potential.

When they come in contact with one another material realities come into actual existence.

Most of us are not even aware of the role that our own consciousness has in the making of potential reality actual reality, not to speak of knowing how to do it.

But there is a level of awareness whereupon not only do we know that we do it, but how.

At that point we can make material reality line up around us at will and as we will.

At that point, it should be clear, there is no enslaving us.

There are all too many physicists, evidently our friend in the red tutu among them, who understand the math of quantum theory, but who have not grasped the implications and ramifications.

People who reify not only the State, but physical reality itself, do not understand the implications and ramifications of the discovery of quantum effects.

About such people Gustav Landauer wrote (without knowing quantum theory, but apprehending der Geist [Spirit]):

"One can throw away a chair and destroy a pane of glass; but those are idle talkers and credulous idolaters of words who regard the state as such a thing or as a fetish that one can smash in order to destroy it. The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behavior; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another - One day it will be realized that socialism is not the invention of anything new but the discovery of something actually present, of something that has grown; We are the state and we shall continue to be the state until we have created the institutions that form a real community and society of men. - Gustav Landauer
"Schwache Stattsmänner, Schwacheres Volk!" ["Weak Statesmen, Weaker People!"]
Der Sozialist, June 1910

When we interact differently we change our consciousness and when we change our consciousness physical reality lines up around us differently.

Think of our minds as magnets. Remember how metal shavings on a piece of paper over a magnet lined up in different configurations around the electro-magentic field as the magnet was moved under the piece of paper?

So it is with reality.

As we learn to move our collective consciousness en masse by interacting in more positive ways Society lines up around us in a far more benevolent way.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR:


Matter does not exist in and of itself.

Once again: what exactly does not exist in and of itself?

If you cannot say, then you are denying nohing.

If you can, why deny it?


Matter exists only when pure potential ("wave functions" if you will) interacts with our consciousness.

If the word 'matter' has no physical correlate, what could possibly interact with anything -- even if it were clear what the word 'consciousness' itself meant?

Using the word 'wave' is no good, unless we know of what waves are made.

Your analogy with hydrogen nd oxygen is no good, since they are material.

Waves are mathematical objects (unless you know different) -- or unless you are using the word metaphorically (as I suggested you had to).


When they come in contact with one another material realities come into actual existence.

But you have yet to say what 'material realities' are; they look entirely fictional, given the way you depict them.


Most of us are not even aware of the role that our own consciousness has in the making of potential reality actual reality, not to speak of knowing how to do it.

This might be because you just made it up.


There are all too many physicists, evidently our friend in the red tutu among them, who understand the math of quantum theory, but who have not grasped the implications and ramifications.

Oh, I'd put my money on Red to be clearer about this than someone who makes stuff up about 'consciousness' (a term that lacks a clear sense), and for whom the world seems unreal.

As to the Landauer quote, I suspect you need to look up the meaning of the word 'relevant'.


Think of our minds as magnets.

So, our minds have North and South poles, do they?

"So it is with reality."

So it is with what? The way you talk, you cannot tell reality from fiction.

[LSD]

So, I'd like to present a challenge to the "materialists".

Define "material" in terms of what we now know about QM and QP, based on the discoveries of Heisenberg, et al.

"Material" is all that which can be empirically and logially demonstrated to exist.

Materialism is the recognition that only that which can be scientifically found and examined can be considered; it's a rational and deductive approach to understanding the universe.

That's in contrast to idealist thinking, which views the world as full of mysterious "forces" which are undetectable as they are powerful, and which can be "harnessed" to do all sorts of magical things.

FFM, I know that you consider your postmodern idealist pseudoscientific misinterpretation of qunatum physics to be "rational", it's actually nothing of the sort. Subjectivist hyper-postpositivism isn't "cutting edge" or "revolutionary", it's just plain wrong.

Yeah, the univserse looks different to different people and yeah, obervation affects what is being observed; but our "consciesness" does not "shape" anything.

We're just not that fucking important!


Recommendation: If you have not seen a movie entitled: "What the Bleep Do We Know?", I highly recommend that you do so.

:rolleyes:

If you actually bought that idealist pile of cultish nonsense it begins to explain your grosse abuses of science.

No serious scientists take that film as anything other than a joke. It's chock full of lies, exagerations, and down-right inventions and, aside from propaganda for TM cultists and other assorted loonies, it mainly consists of fluff "science" and attrocious CG.

You may enjoy wasting your time with that kind of nonsense, but I sure as hell don't.


When we interact differently we change our consciousness and when we change our consciousness physical reality lines up around us differently.

So if we all "think really hard", poverty will disappear? :rolleyes:

Look, FFM, that kind of "logic" is called "magical thinking" and it's only connection to quantum physics, is that, like any other complicated science, some people misinterpret QM to "prove" their own superstitious beliefs.

It's no different from Christians claiming that the Big Bang theory is "proof" that Genesis is correct.

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 09:17 PM

We're just not that fucking important!




LSD:

I think herein lies the crux of where we differ.

I know I am of infinite importance. And I know that everyone who realizes infinity in herself and himself is likewise.

You will not impose your inferiority complex on me.

You may not be that important. I am and so are all those who believe they and others are.

Your reductionism of Human-beingness becomes a generalized reduction of existence to material.

I am of the school of Anarchy of Gustav Landauer.

I am able to perceive the Spirit that animates all things and which propels all Human advancement to freedom.

I realize that not everyone has the capacity to be able to apprehend that level of reality.

It does not mean that it does not exist.

It means that you are lacking the faculty necessary to perceive it.

Are you familiar with the story of the sighted man who comes to a town wherein all the residents are blind?

They think he is mad when he describes the things that he can see and think that if the "bulges" in his face were put out he would stop his ideating.

You are precisely like them. In fact, it is about people like you that the story was written - about people who are blind and do not begrudge the sighted their sight.

You will not put my eyes out and you will not demand of me to blunder through the world as though I was blind as you are.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR, I note you cannot answer my questions/objections.

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 12:02 AM
FFR, I note you cannot answer my questions/objections.
Rosa:

Your questions are too involved for me to give Reader's Digest answers.

I think that the pertinent parts are questions that you have to wrestle with yourself and study if it is important to you.

The spurious parts of your posts do not seem to require response.

Rosa, my whole life cannot be doing others' homework.

I present ideas and I do so perforce in a perfunctory manner if I'm writing on message boards. Those who grasp them because they already think in those directions do. Those that do not do not.

Those who do not grasp them but are intrigued by them study.

Those who do not grasp them and do not care to dismiss them.

You are demanding that I explain many tomes worth of understanding in the space of posts on a message board.

I cannot.

If you care to know what I am talking about do what I did - put a couple of decades into the learning.

I cannot do more than write in very a very abbreviated manner here. You have to fill in the blanks if you care to.

You remind me of something my husband said to me when he was teaching.

He tried to elicit independent thought from the students, but they wanted him to dictate to them or just write on the board so they could copy the material.

That is what you are doing with me now.

I am eliciting independent thought from those I address. I will not dictate the answers or write them on the board.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Free Floating Radical+Jun 29 2006, 08:49 PM--> (Free Floating Radical @ Jun 29 2006, 08:49 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 09:17 PM

We're just not that fucking important!




LSD:

I think herein lies the crux of where we differ.

I know I am of infinite importance. And I know that everyone who realizes infinity in herself and himself is likewise.

You will not impose your inferiority complex on me. [/b]
I think it lies with you to prove that you are important. Anyone can go around saying 'I'm really important, I can change the world just by thinking rweally hard about it.' but it lies with them to prove that they aren't nutters.



You may not be that important. I am and so are all those who believe they and others are.

Prove it.


Your reductionism of Human-beingness becomes a generalized reduction of existence to material.

...and?


I am of the school of Anarchy of Gustav Landauer.

You're out of your tree.


I am able to perceive the Spirit that animates all things and which propels all Human advancement to freedom.

what flavour is it?


I realize that not everyone has the capacity to be able to apprehend that level of reality.

You know there is a special term for things that you can pericive but no one else can don't you FFR.


It does not mean that it does not exist.

It means that you are lacking the faculty necessary to perceive it.

What faculty is that? Is it anywhere near the Pineal Gland?


Are you familiar with the story of the sighted man who comes to a town wherein all the residents are blind?

They think he is mad when he describes the things that he can see and think that if the "bulges" in his face were put out he would stop his ideating.

You are precisely like them. In fact, it is about people like you that the story was written - about people who are blind and do not begrudge the sighted their sight.

Anyone with a delusion can claim that though. If I said that everyone actually had a tiny camel on their head and I was the only one who could percieve it because I had a special perceptive faculty and then cited that story can you honsetly say you'd go: "oh okay I have a camel on my head"?


You will not put my eyes out and you will not demand of me to blunder through the world as though I was blind as you are.

No one needs to put out something that isn't there.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR:


I think that the pertinent parts are questions that you have to wrestle with yourself and study if it is important to you.

Oh, but I can answer them, and I think you cannot.


The spurious parts of your posts do not seem to require response.

You mean the parts you cannot answer, you call 'spurious'.

You sound very vague to me -- and terminally confused.

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 12:35 AM
FFR:


I think that the pertinent parts are questions that you have to wrestle with yourself and study if it is important to you.

Oh, but I can answer them, and I think you cannot.


The spurious parts of your posts do not seem to require response.

You mean the parts you cannot answer, you call 'spurious'.

You sound very vague to me -- and terminally confused.
I meant that the sarcasm in your posts are spurious, not the questions. The questions are good. You're just being too lazy to do your homework. Your HS teachers didn't do a very good job with you.

It is not unusual that a person who does not understand the depth of another's thought prefers to think that the other person is confounded.

Those who are humble and generous of spirit allow themselves to entertain the notion that, mayhaps, they do not understand something. Those are the people who can be educated and can grow.

Those who cannot accept that others may know what they do not prefer to think that that which they cannot apprehend is nonsense. Those are they who cannot extricate themselves from the quick sand-like pits of ignorance.

It is not so much a matter of intelligence, as it is a matter of character or lack thereof.

Choose who you want to be.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR:


I meant that the sarcasm in your posts are spurious, not the questions.


Whatever, you still can't answer them.

And I think you need new glasses:


You're just being too lazy to do your homework. Your HS teachers didn't do a very good job with you.

You must have missed the part where I said I could answer those questions, but I reckon you cannot.

[And it is not about 'doing homework'; Idealists like you have been arguing this way since Plato was lad, and they could not answer questions like this either. That is why I posed them -- to put you on the same spot.]

And it looks like I was right.


It is not unusual that a person who does not understand the depth of another's thought prefers to think that the other person is confounded.

I do not doubt it, just like I think the depth of your thought (at least those gems you have deigned to reveal to us benighted souls) can be measured in millimetres.


Choose who you want to be.

OK, I choose to be the person who asked you those unanswerable (for an idealist)questions.

Let's see if you can choose to be someone who can answer them.

[LSD]

I know I am of infinite importance. And I know that everyone who realizes infinity in herself and himself is likewise.

Have you ever been tested for a personality disorder? 'Cause so far you're scoring 6/10 on the DSM criteria for Schizotypal PD and I'm thinking that the only reason I'm not checking off the other 4 is that I've not met you in person.

Seriously, I suggest that you do some research on psychological conditions and their effects. There aren't any "cures" as yet for personality disorders, but treatment is always possible and can be quite effective in many cases. :)


You will not impose your inferiority complex on me.

:lol:

It's not an "inferiority complex" to believe that one is not "infinitely important", it's normal. Indeed, believing one to be overly important is itself usually sign of mental disorder.

I don't know if you're just using hyperbolic rhetoric, but if you genuinely believe yourself to be "infinitely" significant, that is if you think that your thoughts "shape" the world around you, you may be suffering from a mild form of catatonic schizophrenia, although my bet is still on schizotypal personality disorder.


I am of the school of Anarchy of Gustav Landauer.

That's nice, although I doubt that the late Mr. Landauer would agree with your characterization of yourself as "infinitely important".

That degree of narcisism is hardly "anarchist". :P


I am able to perceive the Spirit that animates all things and which propels all Human advancement to freedom.

:huh: Uh, oh. Whenever "the Spirit" is brought into the discussion, any chance for rational discourse is pretty much gone.

I guess it&#39;s not totally surprising that you would turn out to be a God-sucker given your rather idealist "take" on the world, but still, I was somewhat hoping that you were just a confused idealist ....not a deluded theist. <_<

But, OK, I&#39;ll bite.

Tell me about this "spirit". How does "it" (He? She?) manifest? How does it "animate" all things and what is it&#39;s motivation in doing so? Most importantly, of course, can you please provide me with the evidence for the existance of this "spirit" or of any "spirits"?


Are you familiar with the story of the sighted man who comes to a town wherein all the residents are blind?

They think he is mad when he describes the things that he can see and think that if the "bulges" in his face were put out he would stop his ideating.

There is a critical difference between the proverbial "sighted man" of your story and ...you. And that you&#39;re incapable of recognizing that difference is simply one more sign of your tragic delusion.

But, OK, I&#39;ll spell it out for you: sight is objectively demonstrable.

If the blind residents of this hypothetical town doubt the existance of sight, all that this man need do is demonstrate his capacity for identifying objects at a distance. He could, for instance, indicate how many fingures a townsperson is holding up.

In doing so he would conclusively show that he truly possessed an ability that they did not. That doesn&#39;t mean that they would suddently be able to conceptualize what sight means, but they would certainly be unable to deny that it exists.

You however are incapable of materially showing off your so-called "second sight". Indeed, you go so far as to deny that material even exists. I suppose that&#39;s one way to try and skirt the issue, but it&#39;s really not going to fly here.

You think that you&#39;re "infinitely important"? You think that there&#39;s some "spirit" which "animates" you? You think that your thoughts "define reality"? OK, prove it&#33;

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:18 AM

I know I am of infinite importance. And I know that everyone who realizes infinity in herself and himself is likewise.

You think that you&#39;re "infinitely important"? You think that there&#39;s some "spirit" which "animates" you? You think that your thoughts "define reality"? OK, prove it&#33;
First, the mentally deluded think that only they can do "magical" things or that others are using mental abilities to harm them.

What I am saying is that we all possess infinite potential with which we can do good - if we choose to.

The mentally deluded are "me" centered. I see the infinite potential that I see in myself in all others and all things around me.

That is another point to consider carefully. The mentally deluded think that their delusions have been actualized. I see only the potential.

In fact, the only justification for anarchy is to allow that potentiality to actualize itself.

If we are limited in our abilities then there is no reason that our freedoms should not be limited.

In fact, the limiting societies we live in are nothing but an expression of how we limit ourselves and others.

You are contributing to that unhappy state of affairs when you claim that we "aren&#39;t that important".

As to proof: That&#39;s easy. What I say is causing you and others to question. I am moving something inside you. You are responding with cynicism but you are responding.

You are assuming a stance of cynicism and sarcasm because I challenge every message that you have always been given: "You&#39;re of little worth."

That message is used by the Capitalists to get you to buy things so that you will feel better about yourself - temporarily. All of the goods that the Capitalists sell give a temporary feeling of being a little bit more worthwhile. That keeps people buying and buying and...

That message is used by those who "sell" all kinds of ideologies, including Leftist ideologies. "Become part of our movement and be less of a nothing." Too many people have to be "into something" in order to have a sense of identity.

I am frightening you with my message because it is calling you into an ocean of potential of being vast beyond your wildest imaginings, where formerly you waded timidly in the shallowest waters close to the shore. You are comfortable only with the surface of the ocean and its shallowest edge: "material".

Yes; I know there is a God. I do not believe, I know.

You think of God as other, so you imagine that you can disspell the thought.

You do not yet realize that God is first, second and third persons plural and singular and everything around you.

There is nothing that is not God, including your denial.

Did no one ever tell you you were God before? That was because they wished to manipulate and limit you.

Only with that realization is there understanding why anarchy is workable and why it is essential.

Without that knowledge anarchy is just a call to the ultimate American me-ism and rugged individualism.

It doesn&#39;t get any more Spiritual/Moral than Anarchy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR, you are a waste of time -- you sound like a religious nut, and one who does not listen.

The worst sort.

You are welcome to your loopy ideas; they are a fitting punishment.

[kurt]

What I am saying is that we all possess infinite potential with which we can do good - if we choose to.

I just don&#39;t understand how a finite being can posses something infinitely. The mind boggles.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kurt, FFR is loopy; you might as well ask your feet that question.

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:22 AM

What I am saying is that we all possess infinite potential with which we can do good - if we choose to.

I just don&#39;t understand how a finite being can posses something infinitely. The mind boggles.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the
ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

One of the most serious problems with all ideologies, and within Leftits circles it is most pernicious indeed, is the insistence that the adherents follow a set of principles unilaterally to the very bitter end, no matter how apparent it becomes that the ideas are insufficient and lead to problems.

Learn to think conjunctively, i.e., in terms of this and that, not disjunctively, i.e., in terms of this or that.

Cultivate being a first rate intelligence.

You were trained to think unilaterally and disjunctively. When you hear the buzz words that you were brainwashed to respond to as "correct" Leftists, your mind blocks off all other possibilities as "contradictory" or "irrational" or "unempirical".

As to empircism, Einstein said: "Not all things that can be counted count and not all things that count can be counted."

You can will yourself to think in vastly more encompassing modes.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Free Floating Radical+Jun 30 2006, 03:42 PM--> (Free Floating Radical @ Jun 30 2006, 03:42 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 07:22 AM

What I am saying is that we all possess infinite potential with which we can do good - if we choose to.

I just don&#39;t understand how a finite being can posses something infinitely. The mind boggles.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the
ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald [/b]
What a surprise it&#39;s F. Scott Fitxgerald talking shit. The &#39;abilitiy&#39; to hold two opposed ideas in your head (i&#39;m assuming meaning thinking them both true) shows an inablity to understand the nature of opposed ideas.



One of the most serious problems with all ideologies, and within Leftits circles it is most pernicious indeed, is the insistence that the adherents follow a set of principles unilaterally to the very bitter end, no matter how apparent it becomes that the ideas are insufficient and lead to problems.
No one is insisting that you don&#39;t modifiy the theory to remove flaws.


Learn to think conjunctively, i.e., in terms of this and that, not disjunctively, i.e., in terms of this or that.
This and that only applies when the "this" is complimentary or at least not contradictory to "that" otherwise it&#39;s this or that.


Cultivate being a first rate intelligence.

There you go with your narcissism again.


You were trained to think unilaterally and disjunctively. When you hear the buzz words that you were brainwashed to respond to as "correct" Leftists, your mind blocks off all other possibilities as "contradictory" or "irrational" or "unempirical".

Sorry, when were we brainwashed? Is it too late to turn this process around? Should I have been wearing a tin foil hat?


As to empircism, Einstein said: "Not all things that can be counted count and not all things that count can be counted."
Einstien also believed in God. He got some things wrong, everyone does it is the role of science to continually correct and improve on old ways of thinking.


You can will yourself to think in vastly more encompassing modes.
How does one go about this willing? Do they consult their Pineal gland?

Seriously FFR. Stop it, you cannot reconcile two opposing ideas and then say "Well this person said it made me more intellegent than most others." without offering much of a back up beyond: "You&#39;re all brainwashed. (probably by the people who put all those fluorides in the water and chemtrails in the sky eh?)" and "If you try REALLY hard to think something stupid, you can do it&#33;"

[LSD]

First, the mentally deluded think that only they can do "magical" things or that others are using mental abilities to harm them.

Not nescessarily. There are a great many forms of psychological delusion and yours is by not mean unique. You&#39;re just taking "magical thinking" and extending it. That doesn&#39;t make it any less delusional, it just makes your particular delusion a little more complex.

In fact, I am more certain now that you are suffering from some psychological disoder (probably a personality disorder) than I was before reading your last post.

Seriously, again, read up on Schizotypal Personality Disorder because I really do think that it describes you. I may be wrong, of course, but I would be willing to put money on your suffering from some condition.

Maybe you should flip through the DSM, see if anything "catches your eye". &#39;Cause, really, "infinitely important"... trust me, that&#39;s not normal&#33;


What I am saying is that we all possess infinite potential with which we can do good - if we choose to.

I&#39;m sure that that&#39;s a comforting thought -- all we have to do is "will" and "good" will happen -- but it&#39;s not the way the real world works.

I&#39;m afraid you&#39;re most likely suffering what are called reference delusions; that is, you believe that unrelated events are actually due to your own "special powers".

Needless to say, you don&#39;t actually have "superpowers".


If we are limited in our abilities then there is no reason that our freedoms should not be limited.

Absolutely&#33; Society, by definition, must limit behaviour; that&#39;s the whole point.

Tell me, FFM, are you perhaps under the delusion that an anarchist society would be "limitless"?

Let me guess, "good thoughts" would be used to stop murder and other crimes. :lol:

Anarchist society would be democratic and stateless, but that doesn&#39;t mean that "anything goes". The point of a democracy, after all, is to make rules. Now, those rules should be minimalist in nature, but they cannot be nonesistant.

Whether we like it or not, there will always be interpersonal violence and there will always be that small minority that preys on the majority. Unless there is some mechanism to keep them in check, they would eventually overrun Anarchist society and we&#39;d be back where we started.


As to proof [of infinite powers]: That&#39;s easy. What I say is causing you and others to question. I am moving something inside you. You are responding with cynicism but you are responding.

"Cynicism" is a finite response and your ability to "invoke" it in me is likewise a finite act. I&#39;m still waiting for evidence of your so-called "infinite" abilities.

Science has long explained the human capacity to affect other people; in this case by the use of written language. What you need to do is demonstrate an ability beyond that which science can presently explain.

That is, "infiinite" capacity is effectively omnipotence which, if present, would afford the ability ot literally do anything, including those things which materialism says are impossible.

Therefore, again, demonstrate this "infinite" capacity of yours or retract the claim. So far, I am thoroughly unimpressed.


Yes; I know there is a God. I do not believe, I know.

You think of God as other, so you imagine that you can disspell the thought.

You do not yet realize that God is first, second and third persons plural and singular and everything around you.

There is nothing that is not God, including your denial.

Did no one ever tell you you were God before? That was because they wished to manipulate and limit you.

<_<


Originally posted by RevLeft Guidelines
In addition, religious preachers of any sort are automatically restricted. Justifying religious hierarchy, preaching to or attempting to convert other members, or in any other way promoting religion is not tolerated on this board. If any religious sentiments are expressed, they obviously belong in the “Religion” subforum in OI but this is not to say that preaching is acceptable in "Religion". -- emphasis added

Consider yourself restricted.

[Publius]

:lol:


And I know that everyone who realizes infinity in herself and himself is likewise.

What&#39;s greater, the infinity in myself, or my own conception of my own infinity? If they aren&#39;t equal, and one is greater than the other, you have a contradiction. If you say one is greater, you&#39;re necessarily limiting something that cannot be limited.

So presuming I were infinite, then my thoughts would be infinite, so then if, being infinite, I conceived of another infinity, there would be two infinities in existence, my own and the one I was thinking of; a clear contradiction as there cannot be two &#39;infinities&#39;, as there is no boundry, obviously, to seperate one infinity from another.

Now multiply that contradiction by every single person on earth and you&#39;ll see why spouting off about &#39;infinity&#39; when you don&#39;t know shit about will get you logically embarrassed.

If you say we and our thoughts are all part of &#39;one infinity&#39;, I ask you to prove that everything (or anything) is infinite.


I believe that all logicall follows.

That was just one of the many glaring logical holes in your &#39;argument&#39;.

[bisclavret]

FFR, I know just a bit where you are coming from but I have to say that its all

about &#39;language games&#39; and that is the point you are missing. Materialism has/is a

different language game from Idealism. You are promoting an entirely new

and interesting language game , that is somewhat a

combination of both and even has a poetic/mystical flavor. Your categories are

however incompatible with a strictly materialist language game. Given humanity&#39;s

present conditions though, I&#39;d side with the more accurate/scientific, and thus

useful language game that is materialism than with the maniac-filled and erratic

often erroneous idealism. Once socialist conditions have been met and established

though, we may have room for your exploratory metaphors, who knows..For the

meantime however we have some serious debunking-capitalism to do and we

need the best tools of the trade, tools offered by hard core materialism and

science and not ethereal imaginings.

[kurt]

Originally posted by Free Floating Radical+Jun 30 2006, 07:42 AM--> (Free Floating Radical @ Jun 30 2006, 07:42 AM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 07:22 AM

What I am saying is that we all possess infinite potential with which we can do good - if we choose to.

I just don&#39;t understand how a finite being can posses something infinitely. The mind boggles.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the
ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

One of the most serious problems with all ideologies, and within Leftits circles it is most pernicious indeed, is the insistence that the adherents follow a set of principles unilaterally to the very bitter end, no matter how apparent it becomes that the ideas are insufficient and lead to problems.

Learn to think conjunctively, i.e., in terms of this and that, not disjunctively, i.e., in terms of this or that.

Cultivate being a first rate intelligence.

You were trained to think unilaterally and disjunctively. When you hear the buzz words that you were brainwashed to respond to as "correct" Leftists, your mind blocks off all other possibilities as "contradictory" or "irrational" or "unempirical".

As to empircism, Einstein said: "Not all things that can be counted count and not all things that count can be counted."

You can will yourself to think in vastly more encompassing modes. [/b]
None of this reconciles the contradiction that was your first statement.

Try again?

[STI]

Originally posted by FFR
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the
ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

I assume you&#39;re aware that "holding two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and retaining the ability to function" is the definition of doublethink?