Recent posts by wargamer1000 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Enlightenment

Originally posted by SirEthan719:

The realization that we are all one, that we all have the same objective in life. To be happy and to not experience suffering. To experience a peaceful tranquility of mind and body. To resist anger and hatred and embrace love and compassion.

Begin then, how we ought to best achieve these ends. For I assume these to be as conclusive as they can be and needs no further reason for doing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Enlightenment

I recently have begun my path on spiritual enlightenment.

I must ask: what is spiritual enlightenment?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The origin of sexism - are men better than women?

Originally posted by Destruction98:

Women are better then men.

This is a fancy construct as true as its opposite. But more importantly, an example of a non-argument.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

what I am saying is that experience and consciousness cannot be separated. There exists consciousness, which is experiential by nature. Ultimately there is only consciousness and it’s behaviors.

And you define consciousness that whose behaviors are subjective experience- which is all things. So it is an absolute imperative for consciousness to interact with itself; which forms basis of the reality, and consequently have an experience of itself, and what it is itself is a behavior of subjective experience. Or simply put as: all of reality is a series of experience which experiences an experience, isn’t it?

Indeed this would imply that there would be no separation of what is an experience from what has an experience.

This does not imply that everything that you see is conscious.

Why is this if everything, as you say, is ultimately consciousness? I really don’t follow.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

In the above example you are not aware of your driving because it has been obfuscated by your thoughts. Bernardo likes to use the stars as an analogy to relay this concept. When you look up at the sky at night, you can see plenty of stars. When you look at the sky at noon these stars are nowhere to be found. The light from the stars is still hitting your retina, but it is being obfuscated by the much stronger glare of the sun.

The glare of the sun ‘obfuscates’ the light from the stars, not because of my thoughts or even my judgement and simple apprehension of a phenomena but the mere matter of fact that the light of the sun obscures the light of the star. What is this even proving?

You are never not conscious. Absence of memory does not demonstrate absence of experience.

Is experience a part of consciousness? Is experience a necessary or sufficient condition for consciousness-that is: does experience follow from consciousness or consciousness from experience?

There is no dualism between what we call the unconscious aspects of mind and our waking consciousness. They are both made of the same ‘stuff’. The difference is the ‘unconscious’ aspects of mind happen outside of our personal awareness. These mental processes are not outside of mind itself.

Isn’t it then, from what you say, that the consciousness has aspects within itself that is basically unconscious, that which is contrarily an opposite quality?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

Have you ever driven home from work while being caught up in your thoughts, and suddenly found yourself back at your house? The car did not drive itself. On some level you were conscious of your driving or you would not have made it back home, but you were not self-reflectively aware of it, so it seemed unconscious. The driving experience was obfuscated by the your thoughts.

Let assume this is true and it actually occurs.

If what I am is consciousness, how is it that I am occasionally not conscious? The one mind is self-reflectively aware of itself, and I too am manifest of this mind, as you say, and yet I’m not always self-reflectively aware of myself. Indeed, why?

It is because your separating ‘I’, the thinking subject, from the ‘consciousness’ despite saying ‘I’ is very well ‘consciousness’. I believe your imposing how I have somehow different ‘mental processes’ than the mind. Hence a sort of dualism.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

I do not mean that mind literally fragments, this is not necessary to have multiple perspectives within one mind. I will use an analogy to explain “divison” of perspective. Imagine yourself standing on a stage. From your vantage point you can see the whole stage and everything in it. Then somebody places a curtain in front of you. Now you can only see a partition of the stage. The stage itself has not been cut. Your awareness of the stage outside of the curtain has simply been obfuscated by the curtain. You are still standing on the stage of mind.

Alright. However, supposing all is consciousness, as you say, why is it that consciousness ‘obfuscates’ consciousness? How something intelligible renders itself obscure? This isn’t a problem of the filtration of consciousness per se rather the ludicrous folly of its experience of itself that which is somehow incomplete.

Truly if it underlies reality, there would be no necessary ‘curtain’ that which partitions the experience of itself simply because there is no sufficient reason for it. Unless there is?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

Monistic idealism holds that there is one mind that underlies reality, but allows for division.

The primacy of the one mind, that which is absolute as presupposed by underlying reality, allows for a divisibility of itself? Nonsense! All things which are to be coherent to underlying reality ought to be its indivisibility or have indivisibility as a quality. You do not suppose that if I hypothetically cut a thing it ceases to be a thing eventually? Reality and its fundamentals cannot be done so in the same manner otherwise its pluralistic idealism.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

The form of idealism that I favor postulates nothing outside of consciousness. What we see as material objects are viewed to be of the same nature as objects in a dream. They are the result of mental processes. Ultimately there are no ‘things’, there is just consciousness interacting with itself.

I think of myself separate from another entity that which exists present in a different space as I, so this must be an illusion because I am, in fact, experiencing myself, that which is of one and the same thing as I am? Surely, ‘I’ must be real. All the plurality of things I see before me are abstract, like in a dream, and temporally finite- there is just consciousness, as you say, but where is ‘me’ in the interaction of consciousness with itself?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

What is the nature of things that we cannot directly perceive or that we have no awareness of?

Precisely my point. It’s all pegged on the representation of the subject, conditioned by the subject, belonging to the subject not the object hence an idealism.

If all reality were consciousness, says OP (in the absence of material reality), consciousness represents itself; conditioned by itself, belonging to itself, through a subjective manner. In other words, reality as consciousness is tricking itself as being not itself sometimes or incorrectly perceives of itself sometimes.

I think that these conversations have no hope of getting traction in my mind when words like “consciousness” and “reality” are not clearly defined.

I think “consciousness” is cognition and “reality” is all the things you can feel and reason out.

EDIT: my point is reality is objective and not subjective as subjectivity is problematic (just as much as materialism)… there are objective idealisms though, I suppose.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

Originally posted by Helltank:

Everything in reality can be reduced to base substances like quarks.

Metaphysical consciousness cannot.

Therefore, metaphysical consciousness cannot exist in reality.

Therefore, it is not real.

I think that reality reduced into base substances is a grand metaphysical assertion in itself and does not even answer itself.

We have not directly observed materialism or any of its baseless metaphysical speculations to be true.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

It is entirely unnecessary if our subjective experience can be explained in terms of consciousness alone.

I am putting forth the idea that there is no material reality. There is only consciousness.

Does this imply other non-consciousness beings to explain our subjective experience? Or is our experience of anything merely an experience of consciousness experiencing itself? even still..

All things must exist in consciousness, consciousness reveals itself through itself by subjective experience of itself?

The absurdity in ‘there is only consciousness’.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do we value authenticity?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Why is “authentic” or “original” important to us?

(Extra credit: What does “authentic” or “original” mean?)

It’s because the Human creature values what’s real and concrete over the abstract which he considers true, and at the same time value creativity and imagination which are abstract in themselves. First, man must appeal to his senses. Secondly, his reason then lastly, feed his irrationality. If the human creature fails his task to do these, he turns to a lunatic of the worst kind or passes to non-being.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What benefits do you get out of being Satanist, that you can't get for being Christian?

Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Anyway, for those interested in Satanic sects, I’d like to defer you to the Yazidi religion. These hold that Satan/Lucifer is still one of the Archangels, and rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ/humankind on Earth.

It’s as if you’ve taken ISIS proclamations as first hand facts. But I think not, because the Yazidi sect has been falsely assumed to be worshipers of the judeo-christian and islamic Satan for centuries by mainstream monotheists. The Yazidi are somewhat Gnostic in belief, thus run along the lines of heresy for abrahamic-monotheistic faiths, but truthfully their worship of Satan was rather unique: He went down from the heavens, refusing God’s command, and wept from seeing all the evil of the world and from his tears he extinguished the fires of hell. He was one of the seven archangels left to mediate between God and Man.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

:) You all make good points. I think I can’t maintain my argument. But…

What is even the purpose of marriage?
Is marriage something civil, holy or both?
Is a marriage moral in itself or independent of it?
How do we define the genders (if at all), and would this segregate them from each other?
Does legalization of marriage aim towards something?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

What power gave you the monopoly on defining “natural and normal?”

I could ask the same on the particular group of people begging for gay marriage.

I said “cult-like.” Similarity is not identicality.

Yes, that’s right.

societal perceptions change over time

Yes. However, it’s not given that all changes are necessarily progressive.

in this case, SCOTUS has officially recognized that state bans on same-sex marriage are discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

Discriminatory? Homosexuality is fine, but the license of their marriage likewise ‘discriminates’ others. In the manner that it ignores their tradition which is just as discriminatory. Not for me though, instead I merely find it disgusting

But HOW does same-sex marriage undermine social and natural order?

The relativism of morals. Needless to say that morals are the foundation of social and natural order.

So, because some dickweed sets them self up as a judge of what is and is not “natural & normal”, the Constitution of the United States becomes null & void … esp. in the area of equal justice (see, they CAN be combined) for a group of ppl that are being natural & normal for who they are?

If people (not dickweeds) regularly shift notions of what is ‘normal and natural’, then there is no strong sense of ‘normal and unnatural’. If constitutions operates like this, then it offers no definite ‘rights and freedoms’ and would as well license us to do anything. About ‘equal justice’: All justices are equal. Not all equalities are just.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Gay relationships are not an ‘unnatural drive’, wargamer. They’re as natural as any other part of the complex biochemical processes of life. They’re certainly not unique to humans

Yes. But do other creatures take wedlock or have marriages? This isn’t the point but let me continue…

national recognition of same-sex marriage is a step towards equal treatment under the law. Failures in moderation are far more apparent in more deeply-ingrained aspects of [American] culture: namely, the cult-like veneration of tradition, even when said tradition is of negative value for those worshiping it.

The concept of principles are deeply ingrained on the ideas of culture. Traditions are principles, and are part of culture. However, cult-like veneration of tradition is false. Cults apply tradition and are a culture, tradition is a culture not a religion thus cult-like veneration of it is nonsense. Rather it is the mere obedience of principles which conflicts with disobedience of the same principles; this conflict is apparent and people blame aggression when its all in fact natural as a process of simple opposition.

So, how could we speak of ‘equal’ treatment when principles are turned upside down? The law dispenses correctives through justice not equality ( only utopia can do both at once successfully ). ‘Gay marriage’ bends the dispensation of justice under false pretense of unreal equality rooted from incomplete apprehensions of one’s ‘rights and freedom’ and undermine the nature of order, which is the obedience of principles, hence ‘unnatural’ in my sense.

In a more basic interpretation, ‘gay marriage’ is an example of people twisting things to accommodate their petty conveniences/tendencies thus a failure of moderation, under a defensible position of ‘equality’. The argument was never about pesky religion.

P.S. In another thread, I talked of how a mechanism of philosophy, culture and religion are necessary for utopia or the correct society. Gay marriage negates a part of the essential interplay. It follows that I must go against it. I also don’t refer to the specific ‘american’ society.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

The beliefs of one person shouldn’t be able to forcefully hinder the rights and freedoms of another, who may not say or believe the same thing.

Indeed, a ‘right and a freedom’ cannot hinder yet another ‘right and a freedom’. Nowadays, unnatural tendencies are pursued and people raise a false apprehension that this ought to be the manifest of their right and freedom, it is just rather their radical freedom in fact.

Why should your religion hinder the freedom of a person to do what he or she wants?

It doesn’t, it simply regulates our cravings. What one mistakenly wants and desires is what hinders principles. Philosophy does a far better job than religion in this case, but even still do others deliberately incline against it. ( A failure of education)

‘Gay marriage’ is the failure of moderation, an unfiltered and unnatural desire opposite of a virtue.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you agree with this quote? "History is written by the victors" - Winston Churchill

If we were to agree that history is written by the victors, then all of history is propaganda.

Vanquished nations reshape their psychology and culture to accommodate the shock of defeat and indeed would gain self-consciousness or a perspective change to relieve a shattered or humiliated society or state. It is common to blame the victors, yet history is not shaped by them solely, when in fact the victor’s superiority of culture is simply confirmed in their victory therefore no change in history had to shift towards their favor rather it was for the defeated to do so. In the case of total annihilation, wherein an entire culture dissipates or gets eradicated by defeat, the victor necessarily imposes his culture to a vacuum left to fill; he had not disturbed history but instigated it. It is failure rather than victory that churns the historical progression. We do not suppose to blame any state or over-emphasize the role of the defeated: history isn’t a collection of perspectives per se, therefore we may disregard the need to see alternatives of other possible cases and witness the opinions of the defeated, only that what was surely did happened.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace

@yeasy

First, I will state counterexample, religious wars. These are wars that happened due to religion. Therefore, to get rid off religious wars, it might be necessary to get rid off religions, as religion can be the cause.

?James? used word ‘may’, you can’t disprove his thesis, because it’s almost impossible to know background of every pre-war event.

If it was almost impossible to know the background of events prior to war, how could one mention a religious war? for that matter, any kind of war. How shall we distinguish brute fist fights from a war?

EDIT:
It might be necessary to state a genuinely ‘religious’ war, yeasy. I agree with what Pete said on the nature of religious wars.

This sentence implies , that getting rid off r/c might be not enough to achieve peace, as there still can be nr/nc wars.
However, If there’re no nr/nc wars, getting rid off r/c may be the only necessary element to peace.
Therefore, If there’re no nr/nc wars (or there’ll be a point, when we’ll stop them), the only necessary thing to achieve peace might be !! undermining religion and culture !!.

So, sure, I can agree that ‘undermining r/c’ ALONE won’t lead to peace, but I’m unwilling to agree that:

If A isn’t the only cause, then it’s not the cause

If undermining religion and culture, therefore, be the only necessary thing to achieve peace- how is it that undermining religion and culture alone won’t lead to peace?
_____________________________________________________________________________

Well, it’s hard question, some of us would, some of us wouldn’t.

If one asks a question: “Would you want to have peace and utopia (by set definition)?” People answer with a resounding yes. If one asks: “Would you want to sleep forever?” Some do, some don’t, as you say. Indeed, there’s a flaw, for how would one refuse what leads to what one pursues relentlessly?

It must first be necessary to uphold religion, culture and philosophy:
All successful laws adhere to every person justly, all ethical conducts must be applicable to every person to be ethical, without unitary religion, culture and philosophy there can be no adherence or application of neither law nor ethics. Both good law and ethic answers to criterion. Therefore, non-religion and non-culture fail to reach good law and ethic, furthermore fail in achieving peace.


JEEZ, it comes down to a few simple factors of which man kind will NEVER cover:
Every country getting along with the next,
Criminals ceasing to commit crime,
Money crazy people realizing there is more to life

How when some clearly do? Surely you know this yourself, what makes others not? If other people knew a diagnosis of their own disease, then people seek to cure. You cannot say such, for countries do know and actually do get along with each other, criminals do stop committing crime and people still realize that there’s more to life.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace

@yeasy

I was mainly focusing on sentence B (with a bit of A), because it appears to be implying (but directly isn’t, I’m just trying to manoeuvre) that you might consider religion/culture as necessary to peace. I would like you to clarify your stand here, If you don’t mind.

Yes. Actually I assume religion and culture necessary to utopia. I assert that non-military conflict, and ethical conduct is only possible with the successful interplay of culture, philosophy and religion; this is our humanity. Popular contentions in this forum revolve around the eradication of religion and culture however the removal of such and especially the latter which would fundamentally suspend the ethical through sheer relativism therefore blur the second criterion.

I don’t see how your example proves general thesis. I’m not sure, what are you trying to point out with it, could you clarifiy? Please provide necessary link between thesis and argument, I’ve hard time guessing here and I don’t want to risk hasty/faulty conclusions.

It was mentioned how ‘undermining religion and culture’ may lead to peace. I protest through example that it isn’t the case at all as wars happen regardless of culture and religion hence fail the first criterion. Continuing that religion and culture too are requisite to ethical conduct and successful law.

Well, we can reduce the case to own personal world, as it’s easier to control.

Perhaps if we conclude that putting humanity to sleep keeps peace. Peace is , in fact, achieved.
If we put all in virtual simulation, then peace is achieved. Definitely fits the OP’s criterion.
However, for the sake of argument, would people deliberately put themselves in this position?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace

How funny, but it’s okay as long as you do it?

Yep. That’s why I’ve noticed its just as much as I do. :P

I don’t consider general philosophy as religion or culture and in my opinion, it might be enough to stop conflicts as long as humans will keep developing positive (ethics/law based) traits. To me, logic, reason & common strong will seem to be enough.

Ethics and Law aren’t universal to every state and society. And indeed does tradition, culture and religion influence law of the land. Let’s use History as example: Merchant Republics (i.e Genoa) vary greatly on law and punishment compared to Absolute Monarchies ( i.e Bourbon France). Even more so when we compare the judiciary systems of the Ottoman Empire and the Qing dynasty of China and their organization of government. Or even how the bill rights existed only to some states and not others elsewhere.

EDIT:

Undermining religion and culture fail to achieve the criterion for peace

proof?

how about the Syrian Civil War? this isn’t a war for resources or a war of discrimination or a war of religion and a deliberate clash of cultures. Even if such factors don’t exist, war still happens.

virtual murder isn’t murder

Right. Neither can you assault anyone physically on a virtual world. Unless this ‘virtual’ world were connected to others or was simply your own personal realm is something I need to know.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace

Let’s define peace as:
• No wars or military conflict happening anywhere
• No murder, assault, or theft

@ PrincessLeia101
I notice how you claim falsehood on stuff, but fail to prove why it isn’t even possible.

@FlyingCat
Limiting populations and accumulating more resources scarcely reaches the criterion of no military conflict, and general unethical misconduct.

@James146
Undermining religion and culture fail to achieve the criterion for peace. For these keep men from doing murder, assault & theft. You arrogantly refuse to consider religion to begin with, thereby neglecting perspectives entirely.

@yeasy
Peace and Utopia are non-virtual by set definition. ( But a whole new argument can start here.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do atheists justify their existence?

Matter existed for an infinite amount of time.

“infinite” does not have an “amount”.

If matter existed immeasurably in time, who is to say that it existed within time? If it was before time, wouldn’t nothing by phenomena, consequently being empirically untouchable, could have caused its conception into being? hence a further necessary assumption of a noumenal world (an antithesis of the phenomenal) perhaps?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do atheists justify their existence?

Atheists believe that everything existed the entire time (they are not made) and believe that God does not exist.

Everything existed the entire time hence nothing was made. If everything had existed already as firmly assumed, and that nothing was made, why was one thing assumed not to?