For anyone who is interested, the forums will be relocated. Currently the way things are set up it's not serving my needs, and I feel the need to downgrade things a bit. While here, I intend to focus more on the contents of my book and probably won't participate so much. Who knows, maybe people will be me more inclined to participate? Feel free to sign up over there if you like. Thank you very much!

Click here to return to the main forums index (on this site). You can post here till towards the end of March, but then I intend to shut things down.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well, when you make up your mind to do something you don't fool around. I was quite surprised to say the least. I just tried to save the website on a diskette but I got a message that a file was missing. Maybe the website won't fit on a diskette. Do you plan to archive the forums? If not, I certainly would like to have a copy of it on CD-ROM or something. I'd certainly hate to lose everything. I'm a packrat, you see.

Iacchus,

I saved it as a Web Archive, single file instead of Web Page, complete and I was able to do it. So, do your thing. I got over the initial heart failure.

Which file are you talking about here? The whole web site? Actually I may be able archive it onto CD ROM now that you mention it. Will try and keep that in mind.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I notice that one of the forum rules over there is an agreement not to post anything "inaccurate". Who decides on the accuracy of what is posted?

And, if you had read further down ...

While I guess the "we" must imply me ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I did read further down. I just didn't know who "we" was. How are you planning to decide if information is inaccurate? Would anything I have said on this forum be deemed "inaccurate" on you new forum?

If someone could demonstrate, say, using empirical evidence from peer-reviewed journals, that an assertion made by you, Iacchus, was "inaccurate"--that is, that you were saying something which was contrary to evidence--would you be found in violation of your own rules? Or would you find the journals to be in the wrong, because they disagree with your "truth"?

If you claimed, as you have here, that you are interested in what is already known about a subject, and then claim, as you have here, that you have no need to read what is written by those who study that subject, is one or the other of those statements "inaccurate"?

Or would you say that my characterization of your actions is, itself, "inaccurate"?

This is obviously a generic agreement that came with the forum. And, when it starts speaking of things in terms of "inaccuracy" and "vulgar," one can't help but conclude it's referring to such things as libel and slander. These are the things I think you need to look out for which are liable to cause the most trouble in a public forum ... as opposed to presenting material which you deem necessary in order to argue your case which, may or may not have been established. If it furthers the research, how can it be deemed inaccurate?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes, even in this day and age of information, it is entirely possible to be misinformed. But, if you think I have something to prove to you, then you've got another story coming.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Does this mean I can no longer tell you about my erotic dreams?

And I'm pretty sure it is impossible to libel or slander a person on forum boards unless they are using their real name and everyone is aware that it is their real name. I do not believe any court would recognize the legal right for "Goozleberry" to sue anyone.If it hinders research or contradicts well-established principles, I think you could call it "inaccurate".

BTW, I've tried twice to register for your new boards, but it doesn't seem to want to let me in.
***
Edit: I'm in now. Thanks.

So you are saying I am being inaccurate when I catch you contradicting yourself. Given that you have already banned people for that, I will bear that in mind. Oh, I have no doubt that you could not prove anything you say. So don't worry in that regard.


***

If I sound a bit bitter...I have never been banned for telling the truth before.

Well, for someone who doesn't believe in motive or intent, how can you possibly say such a thing?

No, I am not here to try and prove anything, just challenge the way people think a bit. Which, is really what the notion behind this "Science vs Religion" thing is all about. Got that gooze?

Do you mean like the truth of an oncoming locomotive? ... That if you don't get the hell out of the way you'll be smashed to bits?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

What an odd thing to say. Could you tell me what it has to do with what I said?There is a way to challenge science. It is done all the time. It is called "provide evidence." It would appear there is no way to challenge the way you think. Evidence does not work, logic does not work, and there is no way for me to influence your dreams, the one thing you do seem to attend to. I suppose if this were post #666 or some other arbitrary number, that might help...Again, what an odd thing to say. I meant simply pointing out your logical inconsistencies and your disagreements with observed evidence. If those observations smashed your ideas to bits, then they deserved to be smashed. Banning is an odd response. Do you arrest the train's engineer for running over your imaginary friend?

If I am nothing more than what my behaviorism determines, what is there to contradict? Certainly not me, because I as a causal agent don't exist.

Challenge the way I think? No, the point is to get you to challenge the way you think. That is, to get you to have faith in yourself (as Bariyon suggests) which, when you get right down to it, is really all you've got.

The question here is if we are more than just flesh and blood? And thus far you have demonstrated -- quite clearly -- that you can smash a human body to bits with a locomotive. However, it says nothing about the entity (i.e., your imaginary friend) which resides within the body. And maybe I'm getting just a bit tired of you trying to run me down with your loco-motives all the time.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Get the vocabulary right, if you are going to pretend to understand behaviorism. It would be "nothing more than what my environment determines", and it still does not bear on what I said. Your past behavior--also determined by your environment--suggests that you will ban those who disagree with you. I could infer that you "intend" to, but that does not add anything to the explanation.Why does it not surprise me that the point is not to challenge the way you think? And while it sounds all new-agey to say faith is all you've got...what does it mean?It has been explained to you, although not in recent weeks, that critical examination is not unusual when examining emperical claims. You have made empirical claims--why should yours be treated any differently than any others? (Oh, and this has not been a "locomotive" smashing a human body to bits. It has been a fairly gentle critical examination of your ideas. If you tried submitting these ideas to a peer-reviewed scientific journal--the appropriate place for examining empirical claims--you would wish you were back here again.) I am not trying to "run you down"--this is not about you, it is about claims which are unsupported and mostly unsupportable. If you said something worthwhile, I would be very happy to support your claim.

The problem here is that in order for the whole thing to work, one has to participate, and that I'm afraid involves intent which, directly affects the choices we make.

It's sort of like this walking encyclopedia thing that patelvipulk was talking about in one of the other threads.

The point being, is not trying to get me to prove anything, but rather, get people to question how they think. I can't prove to you that God exists, neither can I prove it to anyone else ... albeit I can give you some indication as to where to look.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

This usage of "intent" is circular and does not contribute to an understanding of the human experience. If your goal is understanding your experience as a human, you are not helping yourself any. It is, of course, no surprise that you would use circular logic--you have never demonstrated that you understand circularity, and you seem to prefer explanations which obfuscate rather than illuminate. I don't care whether you can prove anything--indeed, proof is something that only happens in math and formal logic. I want you to support your ideas when they make empirical claims. See? It is a very very small thing I ask. Only some of your ideas make empirical claims, so only part of your ideas are even open to my analysis...but if even that is too much for you, you can ignore my critical analysis...like you have done for months.

"you can ignore my critical analysis...like you have done for months"

"My critical analysis?" You haven't been a member for months.