Seen GOD? But have we at-least seen us?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Seen GOD? But have we at-least seen us?

People quote “GOD is not seen?”

But then have we at-least seen ourselves?

When it seems impossible to find ourselves, how can we find GOD?

Are we in the face, are we in the hands, are we the head, are we in the brain?
The answer is “No? or Don't know”

But then we say we exist? So, why not GOD?

Visit to see responses from other groups as well http://wp.me/p2JWH-4O

[Olrik]

Layered Shrimp Salad


Prep Time:
25 min
--
Cook Time:
8 min

Serves:
4 to 6 servings

Ingredients

12 ounces cooked chilled shrimp, chopped
2 fresh jalapenos, seeded, ribbed and finely chopped divided
6 teaspoons lemon flavored olive oil, divided
Salt and freshly cracked black pepper
4 medium vine-ripened tomatoes, seeded and diced
1 to 2 avocados, peeled, pitted, and diced
Chopped chives, for garnish

Directions

Put the shrimp in a small bowl and add 1/2 of the jalapeno, 2 teaspoons
lemon oil, and salt and pepper, to taste, and toss to combine. In a
second bowl, mix the tomatoes with 2 teaspoons oil and salt and pepper,
to taste. Put the diced avocado in a third bowl, add the remaining 2
teaspoons lemon oil, remaining 1/2 of the jalapeno, salt and pepper, to
taste, and toss well.

To assemble, divide 3/4 of the shrimp among 4 short 6-ounce wide-rimmed
glasses. Top the shrimp in each glass with 1/4 of the tomatoes, followed
by 1/4 of the avocado. Finely chop the remaining shrimp to garnish each
glass and sprinkle the chives evenly over each salad. Alternately, you
can layer this salad in a large glass trifle bowl, to share. Serve
immediately or chill and serve within 1 hour.
Notes

Turn this into a dip by simply serving with chips!

Go light on black pepper in this dish because of the jalapeno.

Use 1 jalapeno if you are not lover of heat.

Try substituting shrimp with fresh crab or lime-cooked fresh white fish.
AWESOME!

[Josef Balluch]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:10:51 -0800 (PST), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:

> Seen GOD? But have we at-least seen us?
>

> People quote ļæ½GOD is not seen?ļæ½

>
> But then have we at-least seen ourselves?
>
> When it seems impossible to find ourselves, how can we find GOD?
>
> Are we in the face, are we in the hands, are we the head, are we in the brain?

> The answer is ļæ½No? or Don't knowļæ½

>
> But then we say we exist? So, why not GOD?

yawwwnnn

Can you say "Cogito"?

I knew you could. Now, can you read your deity's mind?


Regards,

Josef



Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not
even superficial.

-- Nietzsche

[John Locke]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:10:51 -0800 (PST), "Ganesh J. Acharya"

<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Seen GOD?
>
...no !! and if I ever do I've instructed my wife to have me
committed to a mental institution.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:10:51 -0800 (PST), "Ganesh J. Acharya"
<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Idiot.

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seen GOD?

No.

> But have we at-least seen us?

I've seen a lot of people. I've seen most of my body, but my face I've only
seen in a mirror.

> People quote ???GOD is not seen????

Theists assert God is not seen. Most atheists therefore conclude he doesn't
exist.

> But then have we at-least seen ourselves?

We've covered that. Yes, we've seen ourselves. I haven't seen you, though.

> When it seems impossible to find ourselves, how can we find GOD?

I've found myself. I'm right here.

> Are we in the face, are we in the hands, are we the head, are we in the brain?

Yes, we're in the brain.

> The answer is ???No? or Don't know???

No, the answer is "Yes, we know". People who suffer catastrophic brain
injuries either die, or suffer irreversible mental and personality changes.
Our "personalities" are in our brain.

> But then we say we exist?

Yes, because we're measurably here.

> So, why not GOD?

Please indicate where God is.

> Visit to see responses from other groups as well http://wp.me/p2JWH-4O

--
__ _ | Make way for liberty!
(_ |_) | -- Arnold von Winkelried
__)|_) |

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Where in brain?

[Uncle Vic]

Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:kghebd$pnj$1...@dont-email.me:

> Layered Shrimp Salad
>
>
> Prep Time:
> 25 min

<snip>

I hate shrimp. Can I substitute scallops?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
The meaning of life is to find your gift.
The purpose of life is to give it away.

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Uncle Vic]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in news:6e110276-28d9-
4ff6-a6a7-2...@googlegroups.com:

> Where in brain?
>

Are you afraid of the answer if you google? I typed in "personality,
brain". Here's the first hit.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622142601.htm

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where in brain?

In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ourselves".

--
__ _ | It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures,
(_ |_) | but the foolish to be a slave to them.
__)|_) | -- Epictetus

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Where in brain?
>
>
>
> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ourselves".
>

What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:46:09 PM UTC+5:30, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Where in brain?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ourselves".
>
> >
>
>
>
> What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>
>

http://near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html
by Dr. Kenneth Ring's NDE Research of the Blind

[Uncle Vic]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Where in brain?
>>
>>
>>
>> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to
>> "ourselves".
>>
>
> What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>

The one that escaped your skull, apparently.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > Where in brain?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to
>
> >> "ourselves".
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>

>
> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>

The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?

domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:

> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Where in brain?
>
>
>
> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ourselves".
>

In the whole thing where is the feeling of "consciousness" existing?

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Where in brain?
>>
>>
>>
>> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ourselves".
>>
>
> What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?

WHAT extracorporeal consciousness? Can you provide any evidence that it
exists?

--
__ _ | If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that
(_ |_) | simple statement is the key to science.
__)|_) | -- Richard Feynmann

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Where in brain?
>>
>>
>>
>> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ourselves".
>>
>
> In the whole thing where is the feeling of "consciousness" existing?

Science is still researching this topic. However, we do know it's somewhere in
there. Here's a good article that talks about some of the current research
going on:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-seat-of-consciousness/

One might get better answers by asking an actual neurobiologist, rather than
people on alt.atheism. If I want to find out how to build a box-girder bridge,
one expects to get better answers out of a structural engineer, rather than,
say, a florist.

--
__ _ | I would rather discover one scientific fact
(_ |_) | than become King of Persia.
__)|_) | -- Democritus

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:46:09 PM UTC+5:30, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > Where in brain?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ourselves".
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>>
>>
>
> http://near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html
> by Dr. Kenneth Ring's NDE Research of the Blind

Just because someone's eyes don't work doesn't mean the millions of years of
evolution that have produced the visual cortex in the brain are negated. When
the brain is going into oxygen starvation mode, one expects that parts of the
brain may get triggered that are normally dormant.

The drunk hallucinate pink elephants, and drug users see bugs crawling under
their skin. Neither of these are real. Why would what someone "sees" during
an NDE be any more real?

--
__ _ | There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that
(_ |_) | flags do not wave in a vacuum.
__)|_) | -- Arthur C. Clarke

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > Where in brain?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to
>>
>> >> "ourselves".
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>>
>
>>
>> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>>
>
> The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
> could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>
> domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?

Mystical word salad. Do some critical thinking.

--
__ _ | When one burns one's bridges,
(_ |_) | what a very nice fire it makes.
__)|_) | -- Dylan Thomas

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:00:52 -0800 (PST), "Ganesh J. Acharya"
<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed.
>Science could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to
>broaden the scope?

And if pigs had wings they might fly.

Do you have a point?

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 25, 11:10 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Seen GOD?

Not even while tripping.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Yes, if they had would they not?

>
> Do you have a point?

You said that already?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25:14 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >>
>
> >> news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > Where in brain?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to
>
> >>
>
> >> >> "ourselves".
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
>
> > could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>
> >
>
> > domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?
>
>
>

> Do some critical thinking.
>

Doing the same. "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist"?

[Uncle Vic]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:b8fc0a6b-1cd2-49a3...@googlegroups.com:

>> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present
>> > there?
>>
>
>>
>> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>>
>
> The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed.
> Science could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to
> broaden the scope?
>
> domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm

[kni...@baawa.com]

I do a killer Panko shrimp and I use Cheyenne as it adds heat but
not flavor. Would this work with your recipe?

2 pounds peeled and cleaned shrimp. In a bowl add one or two
tablespoons sugar, 'powdered' garlic to taste (not wet garlic!) and a
sprinkling of Cheyenne pepper.

In three bowls, Panko, Tempera flour and four eggs beaten well.

Dip shrimp into flour then egg and then Panko.

Prepare a 12 inch frying pan with 1 inch of corn oil and heat to
medium. Using tongs, put the shimp in the oil and fry two or three
minutes or until golden. Set of paper towels towels to drain.

Then eat.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 26, 10:20 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25:14 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:

> > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>

> > >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in

>
> > >>news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>

> > >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > Where in brain?
>
> > >> >> In the whole thing.  All the neurons in the brain contribute to
>
> > >> >> "ourselves".
>
> > >> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>
> > >> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>
> > > The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
>
> > > could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>
> > > domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?
>
> > Do some critical thinking.
>
> Doing the same. "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist"?

If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?

[sbalneav]

Do you have any evidence that there ARE any domains beyond what the senses
could perceive? How would you know? If they did exist, how could you
*reliably* find out any information about them, since they're imperceptible, by
definition? How would you distinguish an imperceptible domain from simple
non-existance?

--
__ _ | The question is not, Can they reason?
(_ |_) | nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
__)|_) | -- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) on animal rights

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:18:29 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25:14 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> > Where in brain?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> "ourselves".
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
>
> >>
>
> >> > could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Do some critical thinking.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Doing the same. "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist"?
>
>
>
> Do you have any evidence that there ARE any domains beyond what the senses
>
> could perceive? How would you know?

Do we have any evidence that there AREN'T domains beyond what the senses could perceive?

> If they did exist, how could you
>

> *reliably* find out any information about them, since they're imperceptible, by
>
> definition? How would you distinguish an imperceptible domain from simple
>
> non-existance?
>
>

Undetectable/Untraceable to senses and non-existence are the same?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be sensed, is it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?

[Uncle Vic]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:091891bf-eba5-4c4a...@googlegroups.com:

>> > "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could
>> > exist"?
>>
>>
>>
>> If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?
>
> A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be sensed, is
> it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?
>

Bullets can be shown to exist.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:38:41 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:091891bf-eba5-4c4a...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> > "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could
>
> >> > exist"?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?
>
> >
>
> > A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be sensed, is
>
> > it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Bullets can be shown to exist.
>
>

If human with unhealthy ideas learn how to remain Undetectable/Untraceable even then?

[Uncle Vic]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:507357ad-0bea-46d9...@googlegroups.com:

Humans with unhealthy ideas can be shown to exist. Anything beyond what
the senses can perceive cannot be shown to exist, since they cannot be
perceived. Therefore, why should anyone care?

Do you see what's happening here? You're spewing one false analogy after
another. You have to lie to support your beliefs, or at least to somehow
equate them with reality. Doesn't this bother you in the least?

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:24:41 PM UTC+5:30, Father Haskell wrote:

>> On Feb 26, 10:20ï¿œpm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25:14 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> > > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >>news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> >> > Where in brain?
>>
>> >
>>

>> > > >> >> In the whole thing. ï¿œAll the neurons in the brain contribute to

>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> >> "ourselves".
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > > The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > > could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > > domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > Do some critical thinking.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Doing the same. "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist"?
>>
>>
>>
>> If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?
>
> A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be sensed, is it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?

A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away certainly CAN be sensed. It's
trajectory can be measured. It displaces air as it moves, creating a
shockwave. It has mass, which can be measured. Just because the person it's
going to HIT doesn't know it's coming, doesn't mean it can't be sensed AT ALL.

You're dishonestly trying to conflate two ideas: something which can be sensed,
but maybe not by a particular person at a particular time, and something which,
by definition, can't be sensed BY ANYONE, at ANY TIME. Father Haskell was
responding to that. Quit moving the goalposts.

--
__ _ | The point is, not how long you live,
(_ |_) | but how nobly you live.
__)|_) | -- Seneca the Younger

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:18:29 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25:14 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> > Where in brain?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> In the whole thing. All the neurons in the brain contribute to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> "ourselves".
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Do some critical thinking.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Doing the same. "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist"?
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have any evidence that there ARE any domains beyond what the senses
>>
>> could perceive? How would you know?
>
> Do we have any evidence that there AREN'T domains beyond what the senses could perceive?

Yes. The fact that we don't PERCEIVE them. Combine this with Occam's Razor,
and you come to the conclusion that things for which there's no perception that
they exist, simply don't exist.

Tell me Ganesh, do you believe in invisible pink unicorns?

>> If they did exist, how could you
>>
>
>> *reliably* find out any information about them, since they're imperceptible, by
>>
>> definition? How would you distinguish an imperceptible domain from simple
>>
>> non-existance?
>>
>>
>
> Undetectable/Untraceable to senses and non-existence are the same?

For all practical purposes, yes. You didn't answer my question: if you're
asserting they're not, how would you reliably find out any information about
them?

--
__ _ | By denying scientific principles,
(_ |_) | one may maintain any paradox.
__)|_) | -- Galileo Galilei

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 27, 10:02 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

Believing prayer to render bullets harmless is a purely religious
delusion.

[sbalneav]

Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:02ï¿œam, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:24:41 PM UTC+5:30, Father Haskell wrote:

>> > On Feb 26, 10:20ï¿œpm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25:14 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> > > > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> > > > >>news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > > > >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> >> > Where in brain?
>>

>> > > > >> >> In the whole thing. ï¿œAll the neurons in the brain contribute to

>>
>> > > > >> >> "ourselves".
>>
>> > > > >> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>>
>> > > > >> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>>
>> > > > > The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
>>
>> > > > > could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>>
>> > > > > domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?
>>
>> > > > Do some critical thinking.
>>
>> > > Doing the same. "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist"?
>>
>> > If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?
>>
>> A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be sensed, is it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?
>
> Believing prayer to render bullets harmless is a purely religious
> delusion.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sd7ha/

--
__ _ | It is better to destroy one's own errors
(_ |_) | than those of others.
__)|_) | -- Democritus

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23:45 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:507357ad-0bea-46d9...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:38:41 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >>
>
> >> news:091891bf-eba5-4c4a...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > exist"?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be sensed,
>
> >> > is
>
> >>
>
> >> > it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Bullets can be shown to exist.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > If human with unhealthy ideas learn how to remain
>
> > Undetectable/Untraceable even then?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Humans with unhealthy ideas can be shown to exist. Anything beyond what
>
> the senses can perceive cannot be shown to exist,

> since they cannot be
>
> perceived. Therefore, why should anyone care?

What if remaining Untraceable to senses they effect lives?

Suppose they induce unnecessary ideas about you in your bosses brains?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:43:35 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > On Feb 27, 10:02 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:24:41 PM UTC+5:30, Father Haskell wrote:
>

> >> > On Feb 26, 10:20 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

>
> >>
>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25:14 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > >>news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > >> >> > Where in brain?
>
> >>
>

> >> > > > >> >> In the whole thing.  All the neurons in the brain contribute to

>
> >>
>
> >> > > > >> >> "ourselves".
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > >> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > >> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > > The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > > could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > > domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?
>
> >>
>
> >> > > > Do some critical thinking.
>
> >>
>
> >> > > Doing the same. "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist"?
>
> >>
>
> >> > If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?
>
> >>
>
> >> A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be sensed, is it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?
>
> >
>
> > Believing prayer to render bullets harmless is a purely religious
>
> > delusion.
>
>
>
> http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sd7ha/
>
>

One must preach others what one can follow self... This seems logical on the first look

==2 Arguments==

1. But then what to do about the lessons of life that has been told by teachers earlier to him? Should he be selfish about not disclosing those? What if undisclosed teachings are lost with him itself? So, must everything understood and not understood must be taught?

2. What if he wants to move in public without a bullet proof and he has tried explaining people around not to protect him, but then people around are concerned risking their lives in-order to save him and are putting him in a bullet proof by requesting him?

[Uncle Vic]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:4cb27359-74ab-4f43...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23:45 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> news:507357ad-0bea-46d9...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:38:41 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> news:091891bf-eba5-4c4a...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>

Sheesh, let's get rid of the attribution marks.

>>
>> >> >> > "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could
>> >> >> > exist"?
>> >> >> If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?
>> >> > A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be
>> >> > sensed, is it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?
>> >> Bullets can be shown to exist.
>> > If human with unhealthy ideas learn how to remain
>> > Undetectable/Untraceable even then?
>> Humans with unhealthy ideas can be shown to exist. Anything beyond
>> what the senses can perceive cannot be shown to exist,
>> since they cannot be perceived. Therefore, why should anyone care?
>
> What if remaining Untraceable to senses they effect lives?
> Suppose they induce unnecessary ideas about you in your bosses brains?

Well, you got me there, Ganny. Where do I sign up?

[sbalneav]

How would the ideas have gotten in there if they couldn't be perceived?

--
__ _ | Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience.
(_ |_) | -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
__)|_) |

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

This doesn't even make sense. When are you going to answer the other questions
I've put to you? Here it is again:

How can you distinguish an "unperceived domain" from something that simply
doesn't exist?

--
__ _ | I must say I find television very educational. The minute
(_ |_) | somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read
__)|_) | a good book. -- Groucho Marx

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Q.1. We get problems, but how do the answers appear inside the brain?

Summary: "For some problems the probability of getting the answers from infinite possibilities get diminished but brain surprisingly sorts out the answer??

Many a times it looks like someone else prompts the answer? B'se isn't getting answers from infinite possibilities very tough? Rationally one should not get answers at all, but then one still gets them within?"

Here if someone else is prompting are we able to sense that someone else?

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:24:35 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23:45 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in

<snip crap inserted by yet another noob poster who uses gaggle grups>

>> > What if remaining Untraceable to senses they effect lives?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Suppose they induce unnecessary ideas about you in your bosses brains?
>>
>>
>>
>> How would the ideas have gotten in there if they couldn't be perceived?
>>
>>
>
> Q.1. We get problems, but how do the answers appear inside the brain?

Current research indicates through naturalistic processes in the brain.

> Summary: "For some problems the probability of getting the answers from infinite possibilities get diminished but brain surprisingly sorts out the answer??

That's because the brain is turning out to be a lot more deterministicc that we
thought it was. Instead of smoking da ganja and going "Like, wow, man! Where
do thoughts, like, COME from?! So trippy...", why not read a book on
neuroscience?

> Many a times it looks like someone else prompts the answer? B'se isn't getting answers from infinite possibilities very tough? Rationally one should not get answers at all, but then one still gets them within?"

"Well, I went into the deli today. The lady at the counter asked me what I
wanted. I could have chosen a rocketship to mars, to be the king of the world,
or to grow an extra set of arms! Instead, from the infinite possibilities, I
chose a pastrami on rye with hot mustard. How did I *do* that?!"

> Here if someone else is prompting are we able to sense that someone else?

Have you read any science books?

--
(` |) | Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art
_) |) | deeper than we ourselves possess.
a.a #2171 | -- Gandalf [J.R.R. Tolkien, "Lord of the Rings"]

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 27, 5:13 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sd7ha/

If Herr Pontiff is plugged, isn't it by god's plan? By
whose right does he DARE interfere with god's will?

If he REALLY believed what he spewed, he'd ride around
with his butt hanging out the window, with a huge target
painted on it.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Friday, March 1, 2013 9:05:11 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:24:35 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23:45 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
>
>
> <snip crap inserted by yet another noob poster who uses gaggle grups>
>
>
>
> >> > What if remaining Untraceable to senses they effect lives?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > Suppose they induce unnecessary ideas about you in your bosses brains?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How would the ideas have gotten in there if they couldn't be perceived?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Q.1. We get problems, but how do the answers appear inside the brain?
>
>
>
> Current research indicates through naturalistic processes in the brain.
>
>
>
> > Summary: "For some problems the probability of getting the answers from infinite possibilities get diminished but brain surprisingly sorts out the answer??
>
>
>
> That's because the brain is turning out to be a lot more deterministicc that we
>
> thought it was. Instead of smoking da ganja and going

I am a teetotaler, a half fruitarian, don't touch alcohol and don't smoke. Don't the possibility you are quoting does not fit right for me.

> "Like, wow, man! Where
>
> do thoughts, like, COME from?! So trippy...", why not read a book on
>
> neuroscience?
>

That's a big science, if you know the answer please refer the exact research instead.

>
> > Many a times it looks like someone else prompts the answer? B'se isn't getting answers from infinite possibilities very tough? Rationally one should not get answers at all, but then one still gets them within?"
>
>
>
> "Well, I went into the deli today. The lady at the counter asked me what I
>
> wanted. I could have chosen a rocketship to mars, to be the king of the world,
>
> or to grow an extra set of arms! Instead, from the infinite possibilities, I
>
> chose a pastrami on rye with hot mustard. How did I *do* that?!"
>
>

Why did you chose "pastrami on rye with hot mustard"?

>
> > Here if someone else is prompting are we able to sense that someone else?
>
>
>
> Have you read any science books?
>
>

I did complete my B.Sc physics and walked out a running of M.Sc classroom to do business in those days as I was pretty clear about my goals. I am that straight.

Now, after seeing the sky I wanted (become Vice President of a small IT company as appointed at similar positions at some other jobs) feel I achieved what I wanted. Now, I seek answers to many unanswered questions. As I feel life is not about making money as there are still many unanswered questions. I don't wish to spend some more years becoming RICH Gates and move away from the right goals.

The world around is just there to fool around and loot. Well it is for fools who try to waste there time running behind unreal, eventually everyone will realize things were luring substances to keep everyone busy. Now, goal in life is to seek unending happiness? Isn't it happiness that we all are after in the end? What else is money and knowledge meant for?

Don't know where it is, but I know moving towards it the answers would be found.

Again, that's a very broad question you have asked. If you know the precise response kindly answer the same.

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 1, 2013 9:05:11 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:24:35 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23:45 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip crap inserted by yet another noob poster who uses gaggle grups>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > What if remaining Untraceable to senses they effect lives?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > Suppose they induce unnecessary ideas about you in your bosses brains?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> How would the ideas have gotten in there if they couldn't be perceived?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Q.1. We get problems, but how do the answers appear inside the brain?
>>
>>
>>
>> Current research indicates through naturalistic processes in the brain.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Summary: "For some problems the probability of getting the answers from infinite possibilities get diminished but brain surprisingly sorts out the answer??
>>
>>
>>
>> That's because the brain is turning out to be a lot more deterministicc that we
>>
>> thought it was. Instead of smoking da ganja and going
>
> I am a teetotaler, a half fruitarian, don't touch alcohol and don't smoke. Don't the possibility you are quoting does not fit right for me.

I don't care what you are. I care what you post here in alt.atheism. What
you're posting lacks any indication of critical thinking skills. You're either
smoking pot, or credulous. The first is entirely up to you. The second you
should stop.

>> "Like, wow, man! Where
>>
>> do thoughts, like, COME from?! So trippy...", why not read a book on
>>
>> neuroscience?
>>
>
> That's a big science, if you know the answer please refer the exact research instead.

See, that's the thing, and it's always the stumbling block for theists, and
other people who babble woo like you are. You're looking for a pat answer. A
soundbite. You think that because you can express your question in a few words
("Where do thoughts come from?") that the answer can ALSO be expressed in a few
words. It can't.

You're right, Neuroscience IS a big topic. But here's the thing; if you're
SERIOUS about "attaining enlightenment", you'll actually READ and slog through
what the human research process called "Science" has actually discovered on
these things. The painful detail that's been documented. The hypotheses that
have been tried, and discarded, and the ones that are actually leading to some
interesting discoveries and new insights, WITHOUT the need to resorting to
supernatural explainations to things.

If you're *serious* about attaining enlightenment, you'll read Science.
Compare and contrast what science has discovered, through dilligent research,
versus what religion asserts without proof. If you're serious. Otherwise,
you're just a dilletante picking and choosing from the buffet what seems tasty
to you.

>>
>> > Many a times it looks like someone else prompts the answer? B'se isn't getting answers from infinite possibilities very tough? Rationally one should not get answers at all, but then one still gets them within?"
>>
>>
>>
>> "Well, I went into the deli today. The lady at the counter asked me what I
>>
>> wanted. I could have chosen a rocketship to mars, to be the king of the world,
>>
>> or to grow an extra set of arms! Instead, from the infinite possibilities, I
>>
>> chose a pastrami on rye with hot mustard. How did I *do* that?!"
>>
>>
>
> Why did you chose "pastrami on rye with hot mustard"?

Because I happen to like pastrami on rye with hot mustard. Because the
particular idiosynchrasies of my neurochemistry, which are built up on millions
of years of evolution, plus the sum total of my personal experiences as a
sentient being beginning at my birth, find a pastrami on rye with hot mustard
pleasing to the palate. And since I was having a bit of a rough day, and
didn't feel adventurous enough to try something new, that's what I picked.
Also, I was constrained in my choices. A deli only serves sandwitches. I
couldn't have chosen a whole roast turkey, or anything with pork, as the deli
is kosher. As well, a deli doesn't sell rocketships, or grant kingships, or
does genetic engineering. So, really, when I walked into the deli, because I
was hungry, and because it was lunchtime, and because the deli is close to
work, the infinite possibilities narrowed down quite significantly; basically,
to what's on the menu at the deli. I picked the pastrami on rye with hot
mustard.

What's your explaination? How does the existence of non-perceptible domains
help me in figuring out what to have for lunch?

>> > Here if someone else is prompting are we able to sense that someone else?
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you read any science books?
>>
>>
>
> I did complete my B.Sc physics and walked out a running of M.Sc classroom to do business in those days as I was pretty clear about my goals. I am that straight.

So, you should know better.

> Now, after seeing the sky I wanted (become Vice President of a small IT company as appointed at similar positions at some other jobs) feel I achieved what I wanted. Now, I seek answers to many unanswered questions. As I feel life is not about making money as there are still many unanswered questions. I don't wish to spend some more years becoming RICH Gates and move away from the right goals.

Your life is meaningless. By that, I mean there is no overall, externally
defined meaning attached to your life. Your existance is happenstance, decided
by the vagaraties of what your mother and father found attractive, and which
particular sperm swam the fastest. Because your life has no meaning, no
purpose, you are free to make of your life whatever YOU decide. YOU inject the
meaning into your life. Your purpose is whatever YOU decide you want it to be.

Might I suggest that believing in things that can't be demonstrated to exist,
such as non-perceptable domains, is an utter waste of the fixed amount of time
you have on this planet?

By the way, you STILL haven't answered my main question: how do we distinguish
between non-perceptable domains, and things that simply don't exist? I know
why you're not answering this question.

> The world around is just there to fool around and loot. Well it is for fools who try to waste there time running behind unreal, eventually everyone will realize things were luring substances to keep everyone busy. Now, goal in life is to seek unending happiness? Isn't it happiness that we all are after in the end? What else is money and knowledge meant for?

All existing evidence leads to the conclusion that happiness ends at death.
Better get your happiness in now, while you can. But here's the thing; are you
really happy believing in something, like non-perceptable domains, that you
can't legitimately tell *actually* exists? Or, put more simply, and in more
blunt language: Why does believing in a lie make you happy?

> Don't know where it is, but I know moving towards it the answers would be found.
>
> Again, that's a very broad question you have asked. If you know the precise response kindly answer the same.

Here's my precise response:

"You'll be much happier dealing in the universe that actually can be
demonstrated to exist, rather than believing fantasy and lies."

How's that?

--
(` |) | If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that
_) |) | simple statement is the key to science.
a.a #2171 | -- Richard Feynmann

[sbalneav]

Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 5:13 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sd7ha/
>
> If Herr Pontiff is plugged, isn't it by god's plan? By
> whose right does he DARE interfere with god's will?

Precisely.

> If he REALLY believed what he spewed, he'd ride around
> with his butt hanging out the window, with a huge target
> painted on it.

"Your God is fake; the bullets are real."

--
(` |) | There are many causes I am prepared to die for,
_) |) | but no causes I am prepared to kill for.
a.a #2171 | -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Well, there cannot be a death. Physical death is a temporary thing, but then it does not seem anything can be created from a ZERO, because that is impossible. Also, if you infinitely break down 1, you will never reach a ZERO.

So, is with life, rationally life never can be created. Show me something that has appeared from ZERO... there is nothing?

Everything around is just changing forms and so should be a fact with life as well?

> Better get your happiness in now, while you can. But here's the thing; are you
>

Exactly I am training myself into identifying sources of permanent happiness and try living with them. Where is that? it is realized by identifying where it is not?

If I train myself into realizing pleasure into enjoying happiness that's derived out of giving pain to others eventually the other might become stronger and give me pain? So, realizing happiness only from the right ways is the right thing to do. So what are the right ways? Every soul some or the other time hits the wrong track develops a habit of going ahead with the same and gets oneself into pain. Eventually realizes the path chosen was not appropriate and would try something else. These iterations would persistently happen and we all eventually keep becoming wiser whether we like it or not. Every soul will realize this golden principle some time or the other.

> really happy believing in something,
>
> like non-perceptable domains, that you
>
> can't legitimately tell *actually* exists?

So, we merry go round again. Are non-perceptable domains to be ignored?

[sbalneav]

The graveyards stand in mute testimony to the innacuracy of this statement.

> Physical death is a temporary thing,

Really? You've seen a lot of dead people up and walking about have you? Has
the Zombie Apocalypse started without me?!

> but then
> it does not seem anything can be created from a ZERO, because that is
> impossible.

What has that to do with anything? If you're referring to the beginning of the
universe, perhaps you might like to tell me where the time factor is in the
equations E = MC^2? What, exactly, does this mean for the beginning of the
universe?

> Also, if you infinitely break down 1, you will never reach a
> ZERO.

Word salad. What does that have to do with death?

> So, is with life, rationally life never can be created.

So, where did you come from?

> Show me something
> that has appeared from ZERO... there is nothing?

Sure. Quantum particles in a vacuum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

> Everything around is just changing forms and so should be a fact with life as well?

When I die, the carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in me will return to the
environment. They'll more than likely be used in other living things.

That doesn't still make me alive, any more than the fact that the atoms that
currently comrise you make you a supernova, which is where those atoms come
from.

>
>> Better get your happiness in now, while you can. But here's the thing; are you
>>
>
> Exactly I am training myself into identifying sources of permanent happiness
> and try living with them. Where is that? it is realized by identifying where
> it is not?

Define "permanent". Does this permanence go on after you die?

> If I train myself into realizing pleasure into enjoying happiness that's
> derived out of giving pain to others eventually the other might become
> stronger and give me pain? So, realizing happiness only from the right ways
> is the right thing to do.

Yeah, well that, and there tends to be laws stopping you from inflicting pain
upon others.

> So what are the right ways?

There are none. Tell me, if *fantasizing* about inflicting pain upon others
gives you happiness, is this harmful? To who? Is it "right"? Why? Why Not?

> Every soul

Better to use the word "person", since you haven't as yet established that
souls exist.

> some or the
> other time hits the wrong track develops a habit of going ahead with the same
> and gets oneself into pain. Eventually realizes the path chosen was not
> appropriate and would try something else. These iterations would persistently
> happen and we all eventually keep becoming wiser whether we like it or not.
> Every soul will realize this golden principle some time or the other.

What, that if we make mistakes they sometimes hurt us? Wooooooooooo..... deep
man. I learned that the first time I tried touching a hot stove... when I was
two.

>> really happy believing in something,
>>
>> like non-perceptable domains, that you
>>
>> can't legitimately tell *actually* exists?
>
> So, we merry go round again. Are non-perceptable domains to be ignored?

You keep not answering my question. How do you distinguish between
non-perceptable domains, and something that just doesn't exist? Why do you
keep snipping that question? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?
It's the most important question.

--
(` |) | Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
_) |) | Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
a.a #2171 | -- Groucho Marx

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 04:29:46 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> but then
>> it does not seem anything can be created from a ZERO, because that is
>> impossible.
>
>What has that to do with anything? If you're referring to the beginning of the
>universe, perhaps you might like to tell me where the time factor is in the
>equations E = MC^2? What, exactly, does this mean for the beginning of the
>universe?

He's wrong anyway - Quantum Mechanics knows of particles appearing
spontaneously in a hard vacuum.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Obviously, it does not seem possible,

Q.1. But then existing non-perceptable domains and the ones that don't exist are the same?

Q.2. But then anything that exist will show its presence?
People all of the world cite presence of unseen, unnoticed forces. Are they to be ignored?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

A probability that's getting ignored
"We forget?"

What would happen if we forgot our past?

What did you do yesterday? Do you remember? "A little of it?"
What did you do the day before yesterday? Do you remember? "A little lesser then what you remember yesterday?"

You were alive in your mother's womb? Do you remember all of that?

[Yap]

On Feb 26, 11:35 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Where in brain?

Let us open up yours, and we shall tell you where........
Deal?

[Yap]

On Feb 27, 2:03 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Where in brain?
>

> > In the whole thing.  All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ourselves".
>

> In the whole thing where is the feeling of "consciousness" existing?

Well, you are so clever that you can say god existed........tell us
where does this consciousness exist.

But, before you continue, define what is a god.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
>
> >  __ _  | It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures,
>
> > (_ |_) | but the foolish to be a slave to them.
>
> > __)|_) |   -- Epictetus

[Yap]

On Feb 27, 3:05 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:00:52 -0800 (PST), "Ganesh J. Acharya"

>
> <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed.
> >Science could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to
> >broaden the scope?
>

> And if pigs had wings they might fly.
>
> Do you have a point?

Do you think delusional people have a point?

They are putting all human characters into a god when all happenings
in this world simply rejected it.

[Yap]

On Feb 27, 10:56 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:18:29 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25:14 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> > >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> > >> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> > >> >>news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:

>
> > >> >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>

> > >> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > >> >> >> > Where in brain?
>
> > >> >> >> In the whole thing.  All the neurons in the brain contribute to
>
> > >> >> >> "ourselves".
>

> > >> >> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>
> > >> >> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>

> > >> > The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
>
> > >> > could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>

> > >> > domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?
>
> > >> Do some critical thinking.
>

> > > Doing the same. "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist"?
>

> > Do you have any evidence that there ARE any domains beyond what the senses

But, can you define what is domains?

>
> > could perceive?  How would you know?
>

> Do we have any evidence that there AREN'T domains beyond what the senses could perceive?

>
> > If they did exist, how could you
>
> > *reliably* find out any information about them, since they're imperceptible, by
>
> > definition?  How would you distinguish an imperceptible domain from simple
>
> > non-existance?
>
> Undetectable/Untraceable to senses and non-existence are the same?

Before proceeding, definition of domains must be existed first....

[Yap]

On Feb 27, 11:02 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:24:41 PM UTC+5:30, Father Haskell wrote:

> > On Feb 26, 10:20 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25:14 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> > > > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:57:29 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> > > > >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> > > > >>news:9fd07f2c-3289-4f06...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > >> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > Where in brain?
>
> > > > >> >> In the whole thing.  All the neurons in the brain contribute to
>
> > > > >> >> "ourselves".
>
> > > > >> > What about extracorporeal consciousness? Which brain is present there?
>
> > > > >> The one that escaped your skull, apparently.
>
> > > > > The problem with being too materialistic is the domain gets fixed. Science
>
> > > > > could be beyond the domain as well. Does one not need to broaden the scope?
>
> > > > > domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist?
>
> > > > Do some critical thinking.
>
> > > Doing the same. "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could exist"?
>

> > If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?
>
> A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be sensed, is it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?

If there is the case, one would die.....
It is OK to say "why should any one care?" because that is beyond any
one's ability to care at that moment.

Just the same as all move on after Kennedy's assassination.

[Yap]

On Feb 27, 11:13 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:38:41 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
> > "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in
>

> >news:091891bf-eba5-4c4a...@googlegroups.com:

>
> > >> > "Domains beyond what the senses can perceive could
>
> > >> > exist"?
>
> > >> If they can't be sensed, why should anyone care?
>
> > > A bullet heading towards a person 1/2 mile away will not be sensed, is
>
> > > it "ok" to say "why should anyone care?" even then?
>

> > Bullets can be shown to exist.
>
> If human with unhealthy ideas learn how to remain Undetectable/Untraceable even then?

You think it is OK for us to play with your bloody game?

[Yap]

On Mar 1, 11:05 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, March 1, 2013 9:05:11 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:

> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:24:35 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>

> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23:45 PM UTC+5:30, Uncle Vic wrote:
>

> >> >> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in

I will bet this idiot is not interested in your attempted education,
but rather he has his agenda.

[Jason]

In article <0h03j8dkg4u233k5j...@4ax.com>, Christopher A.

Thanks for making a post that is much easier to read than the other posts
in this thread.

God created life on this planet. One of the most famous atheist said these
things:

Dawkins mentioned seeding of life on earth by an advanced civilization as
a possibility. Dawkins says the aliens that seeded life on earth came
about through abiogenesis and evolution.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?vDBoncJBrrdQ8>

<http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/transcript-of-intervi
ew-of-richard.html>

<http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/dawkins.php>

In this same New York Times interview, Dawkins confesses to be intrigued
by the notion, advocated by physicist Freeman Dyson and numerous others,
that humans might co-evolve with our silicon compatriots into
super-powerful, intelligent and moral entities. When asked, "Doesn't that
sound an awful like God?," Dawkins replied, "It's highly plausible that in
the universe there are God-like creatures," although he cautions (lest
anyone think of him as waxing too religious), that "these Gods came into
being by an explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution."
Could they be immortal? Dawkins shrugged, but added, "I wouldn't want to
be too dogmatic about that."

<http://science.niuz.biz/dawkins-t509816.html?s=6301c95148ca8aa4227c97a9e932ee63&amp;>

[Jason]

In article
<e5b8bde8-ed72-4ab2...@rq16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Yap
<hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 27, 2:03=A0am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> > > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Where in brain?
> >

> > > In the whole thing. =A0All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ours=

> elves".
> >
> > In the whole thing where is the feeling of "consciousness" existing?
>
> Well, you are so clever that you can say god existed........tell us
> where does this consciousness exist.
>
> But, before you continue, define what is a god.

I was a fan of Star Trek. They had a a fictional character on that show
named Q. I believe God the father (named Yahweh and Jehovah) is a lot like
Q. God's actual name is YHVH. Since it's impossble to say, it's usually
spelled Yahweh.

Q could do lots of things that humans could never do such as traveling
millions of miles just by thinking about it. It like you saying that you
would like to be in Hawaii and five seconds later, you are in Hawaii.


>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --
> >
> > > =A0__ _ =A0| It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures,

> >
> > > (_ |_) | but the foolish to be a slave to them.
> >

> > > __)|_) | =A0 -- Epictetus

[Jason]

In article
<8e190b5a-f094-4650...@la7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Yap
<hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:

And if pigs were in an airplane, they could fly.

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:40:03 -0800 (PST), "Ganesh J. Acharya"
<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

You quoted over four hundred lines and responded with eight lines
without word wrap.

Do you really think anyone is going to read four hundred lines just
to catch up?

Yeah. I'm and old man and I get irritated over lazy common sense
idiots.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-01031...@67-150-120-224.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article
> <e5b8bde8-ed72-4ab2...@rq16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Yap
> <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 2:03=A0am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> > > > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Where in brain?
> > >
> > > > In the whole thing. =A0All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ours=
> > elves".
> > >
> > > In the whole thing where is the feeling of "consciousness" existing?
> >
> > Well, you are so clever that you can say god existed........tell us
> > where does this consciousness exist.
> >
> > But, before you continue, define what is a god.
>
>
> I was a fan of Star Trek. They had a a fictional character on that show
> named Q. I believe God the father (named Yahweh and Jehovah) is a lot like
> Q. God's actual name is YHVH. Since it's impossble to say, it's usually
> spelled Yahweh.
>
> Q could do lots of things that humans could never do such as traveling
> millions of miles just by thinking about it. It like you saying that you
> would like to be in Hawaii and five seconds later, you are in Hawaii.

Wow. The heresy never ends.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-01031...@67-150-120-224.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

You're lying. Again.

Why do you continue to lie about what Dawkins said?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Saturday, March 2, 2013 10:50:06 AM UTC+5:30, Yap wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2:03 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> > > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Where in brain?
>
> >
>
> > > In the whole thing.  All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ourselves".
>
> >
>
> > In the whole thing where is the feeling of "consciousness" existing?
>
>
> Well, you are so clever that you can say god existed........tell us
>
> where does this consciousness exist.
>

To be honest "I don't know" all I know is I am "conscious"

>
> But, before you continue, define what is a god.
>
>

To be honest it is a difficult question to answer

If I ask myself

Do I know GOD, I get the answer "Looks like"

If I ask myself

Is GOD not there, I get the answer "GOD seems to be there... when I was badly in trouble who spoke to me that day? Just those little words that day and everything changed exactly opposite? Who spoke to me?"

Can brain think of ideas when a person is feeling 100% lost? Can person surrounded in turmoils from all sides think? and that too so precise that pain disappears? Yes, just moments ago I felt bad about GOD from within for bringing me into that bad situation. Then just a "thought" come, and it changed my life... I felt ashamed at what I was doing. Tears followed. Who could it be who's voice I heard?

If you asked me are you sure it was GOD... my honest answer "don't know".

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:59:46 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 1, 2013 8:35:01 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip to the core>

>> > So, we merry go round again. Are non-perceptable domains to be ignored?
>>
>> You keep not answering my question. How do you distinguish between
>> non-perceptable domains, and something that just doesn't exist?
>
> Obviously, it does not seem possible,

Thank you for finally being truthful. OK, so if I can't tell the difference
between non-perceptable domains, and simple non-existence, why should I assume
the non-perceptable domain is THERE, as opposed to it simply not existing?

> Q.1. But then existing non-perceptable domains and the ones that don't exist are the same?

By your own admission, yes, since it's impossible to distinguish the two.

> Q.2. But then anything that exist will show its presence?

Please demonstrate something that DOES exist, but that DOESN'T show it's
presence somehow. Give ONE example. Just one.

> People all of the world cite presence of unseen, unnoticed forces. Are they to be ignored?

People all over the world hallucinate, or have mental problems. People take
drugs and have visions. People drink too much and see things. People can have
physical anomilies in their brains, and see things. Yes. They are to be ignored.

--
(` |) | The universe seems neither benign nor hostile,
_) |) | merely indifferent.
a.a #2171 | -- Carl Sagan

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:59:46 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> > So, is with life, rationally life never can be created.
>>
>> So, where did you come from?
>
> A probability that's getting ignored
> "We forget?"

You forgot where you came from?

Listen dude, you seem a little old, but I guess I can give you the "Birds and
Bees" talk.

See, when a man loves a woman...

> What would happen if we forgot our past?

I dunno, continue on? I know next to nothing about my ancestors from 4 or 5
generations ago, yet I still seem to be able get up in the morning and make
coffee and bacon and eggs. Oh, and that's my *adopted* ancestors. Since I
*am* adopted, I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about my birth parents. Yet, somehow,
I get along fine.

> What did you do yesterday? Do you remember? "A little of it?"
> What did you do the day before yesterday? Do you remember? "A little lesser then what you remember yesterday?"

Go ask people suffering with dimentia what it's like. What POINT DO YOU HAVE?

> You were alive in your mother's womb? Do you remember all of that?

No. So what? What does that have to do with life being created? You've
already ceded I was in the womb. Isn't that creation of life?

You're like the Indian version of Insane Clown Posse. Fuckin' Magnets, how do
they work?

--
(` |) | The imagination is man's power over nature.
_) |) | -- Wallace Stevens
a.a #2171 |

[sbalneav]

Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Before proceeding, definition of domains must be existed first....

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter WHAT the definition is, since
they're IMPERCEPTABLE. He could be defining domains as "A herd of purple and
pink elephants dancing the limbo". Since they're imperceptable, WHO CARES? :)

He just *finally* got around to answering my key question: how do you tell the
difference between imperceptible domains, and NON-EXISTANCE. His answer? "No
way to tell... BUT BUT THEY MAY STILL EXIST!!!". Yeah, yeah.

These loons seem to think that just because THEY want to believe in crap they
got no proof for, that EVERYONE should.

--
(` |) | All this worldly wisdom was once the unamiable heresy of
_) |) | some wise man.
a.a #2171 | -- Henry David Thoreau

[sbalneav]

Jason <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article
> <e5b8bde8-ed72-4ab2...@rq16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Yap
> <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 27, 2:03=A0am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:55:31 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> > > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Where in brain?
>> >
>> > > In the whole thing. =A0All the neurons in the brain contribute to "ours=
>> elves".
>> >
>> > In the whole thing where is the feeling of "consciousness" existing?
>>
>> Well, you are so clever that you can say god existed........tell us
>> where does this consciousness exist.
>>
>> But, before you continue, define what is a god.
>
>
> I was a fan of Star Trek. They had a a fictional character on that show
> named Q. I believe God the father (named Yahweh and Jehovah) is a lot like
> Q. God's actual name is YHVH. Since it's impossble to say, it's usually
> spelled Yahweh.

The primary problem with theists: they think fantasy and reality are somehow
connected.

> Q could do lots of things that humans could never do such as traveling
> millions of miles just by thinking about it. It like you saying that you
> would like to be in Hawaii and five seconds later, you are in Hawaii.

You realize that Star Trek isn't real, right? Just like God?

--
(` |) | Research means that you don't know,
_) |) | but are willing to find out.
a.a #2171 | -- Charles F. Kettering

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To be honest it is a difficult question to answer
>
> If I ask myself
>
> Do I know GOD, I get the answer "Looks like"
>
> If I ask myself
>
> Is GOD not there, I get the answer "GOD seems to be there... when I was badly
> in trouble who spoke to me that day? Just those little words that day and
> everything changed exactly opposite? Who spoke to me?"
>
> Can brain think of ideas when a person is feeling 100% lost? Can person
> surrounded in turmoils from all sides think? and that too so precise that
> pain disappears? Yes, just moments ago I felt bad about GOD from within for
> bringing me into that bad situation. Then just a "thought" come, and it
> changed my life... I felt ashamed at what I was doing. Tears followed. Who
> could it be who's voice I heard?
>
> If you asked me are you sure it was GOD... my honest answer "don't know".

My advice to you is to seek professional psyhiatric counselling.

--
(` |) | When I look upon men of science and philosophers, man is
_) |) | the wisest of all beings; when I look upon priests and
a.a #2171 | prophets nothing is as contemptible as man. -- Diogenes

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:50:50 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > To be honest it is a difficult question to answer
>
> >
>
> > If I ask myself
>
> >
>
> > Do I know GOD, I get the answer "Looks like"
>
> >
>
> > If I ask myself
>
> >
>
> > Is GOD not there, I get the answer "GOD seems to be there... when I was badly
>
> > in trouble who spoke to me that day? Just those little words that day and
>
> > everything changed exactly opposite? Who spoke to me?"
>
> >
>
> > Can brain think of ideas when a person is feeling 100% lost? Can person
>
> > surrounded in turmoils from all sides think? and that too so precise that
>
> > pain disappears? Yes, just moments ago I felt bad about GOD from within for
>
> > bringing me into that bad situation. Then just a "thought" come, and it
>
> > changed my life... I felt ashamed at what I was doing. Tears followed. Who
>
> > could it be who's voice I heard?
>
> >
>
> > If you asked me are you sure it was GOD... my honest answer "don't know".
>
>
>
> My advice to you is to seek professional psyhiatric counselling.
>

I was asked to define GOD, I shared my experience. "GOD can be felt".

If you find a deviation kindly point that out.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

No, life is never created. Souls always exist as it is. Souls forget its past eventually, just wears new bodies after every death and continue to live. It was never born and it will never die.

[sbalneav]

Bald assertion with no substantiating evidence.

> Souls always exist as it is. Souls forget its past
> eventually, just wears new bodies after every death and continue to live. It
> was never born and it will never die.

You've provided no evidence for "souls" whatsoever.

Define "soul". What is it? How can we detect them? How do we know they
exist?

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Until you can provide some indication that these "souls" of yours exist, we're
back to ground zero.

--
(` |) | Politicians should read science fiction,
_) |) | not westerns and detective stories.
a.a #2171 | -- Arthur C. Clarke

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 17:58:47 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> No. So what? What does that have to do with life being created? You've
>>> already ceded I was in the womb. Isn't that creation of life?
>>>
>>
>> No, life is never created.
>
>Bald assertion with no substantiating evidence.
>
>> Souls always exist as it is. Souls forget its past
>> eventually, just wears new bodies after every death and continue to live. It
>> was never born and it will never die.
>
>You've provided no evidence for "souls" whatsoever.
>
>Define "soul". What is it? How can we detect them? How do we know they
>exist?
>
>That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
>Until you can provide some indication that these "souls" of yours exist, we're
>back to ground zero.

These morons can't grasp that they take things from their religion for
granted, that people outside it don't.

[sbalneav]

Sure. How do I know you're feeling something real, and not just batshit
insane? How is you "feeling God" any different from the person in the lunatic
asylum who thinks his TV is sending him secret messages to kill people?

And, of course, you're contradicting yourself. Before you were talking about
imperceptible domains. NOW you're saying you can "feel" God. Isn't that a
"perception"? Make up your mind; is God perceptible, or isn't he?

See, you have a problem here; if you assert he's perceptible, then he should be
perceptible *by anyone*, believer or non-believer alike. If it can be
perceived, it can be measured. If it can be measured, it can be demonstrated
empirically. If you could show that, you'd be the first in 5000 years of
recorded Religious history.

On the otherhand, if you want to try to maintain that he's IMPERCEPTIBLE,
either to everybody, or to "non-believers" then that saves you from having to
prove he exists, but then the question becomes; if he's imperceptible, or only
perceptible to a select few, how do you know he's there at all? How do you
know you're not just deluding yourself; projecting wishful thinking that you'll
somehow escape the ultimate end that awaits us all?

So what's it gonna be, Ganesh? He's either perceptible, in which case you need
to present some evidence that he exists, or he's imperceptible, in which case
I'm going to ask how do you know you're not deluded/hallucinating/fooling
yourself.


--
(` |) | The book you don't read won't help.
_) |) | -- Jim Rohn
a.a #2171 |

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 18:11:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I was asked to define GOD, I shared my experience. "GOD can be felt".
>>
>> If you find a deviation kindly point that out.
>
>Sure. How do I know you're feeling something real, and not just batshit
>insane? How is you "feeling God" any different from the person in the lunatic
>asylum who thinks his TV is sending him secret messages to kill people?
>
>And, of course, you're contradicting yourself. Before you were talking about
>imperceptible domains. NOW you're saying you can "feel" God. Isn't that a
>"perception"? Make up your mind; is God perceptible, or isn't he?

In any case, how was that meant to be a definition of it?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

At what point is life formed in a human life cycle can you identify the same?
1. When a SPERM?
2. When the SPERM fuses the egg (Ovum)?
3. When the Ovum forms?
4. Or is life only taking a new shape? Is it being only provided Data to carry on with the new life?

Is the point at which life forms identified?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

When did the Human attain consciousness?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Ok, in this case I can very well speak to myself within (Everyone can) and GOD spoke to me in the way? If at all it was GOD and not some other wise soul. Even some other wise soul speaking is very much possible.

How to distinguish? Yes, here it could be GOD or some other wise soul or it could be me?

The response was perfect for that situation. Something like a GOD's algorithm to the problem in hand. I tried inquiring about it, and it is a very well generalized thought.

Question here is, if I am surrounded by negative thoughts all the way, no way it could have been me "thinking" as I am feeling lost. So, then who did?

Here if someone else did, as you say, I perceived it through my senses, what physical sense is this? There seems to be part in the brain that receives a different type of sound wave that's not in the same as the regular external sound wave?


(It cannot be denied as we all can hear loud and clear within. Ask someone to speak loud within, the normal ears does not hear this sound. So, obviously there is a second type of sound other then the external sound.

So, then what is this sound? Why is the scientific community "silent" about this? I do find research around this, but the same is not discussed much aloud.

ref:
http://www.academia.edu/1694050/Interior_monologues_as_polyphonic_linguistic_expression_of_personal_dis-identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_monologue)

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalizing

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27162401/#.UTLA7TBmyjt
(Army developing ‘synthetic telepathy’)

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 2, 2013 11:28:47 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> > No, life is never created.

<snip>

>> Bald assertion with no substantiating evidence.
>>
>
> At what point is life formed in a human life cycle can you identify the same?
> 1. When a SPERM?

Sperms are not "alive".

> 2. When the SPERM fuses the egg (Ovum)?

This is a fertilized ovum; has the potential to be life.

> 3. When the Ovum forms?

That happened in step 2. Maybe you're referring to a fetus? I'd say it
doesn't begin to even look like life until getting close to the end of the
first trimester. But, of course, your fallacy is trying to pin down the EXACT
moment when it's "alive". This is, of course, a continuum, starting at
fertililization, and ending at birth. It has NOTHING TO DO with your assertion
that life isn't ever created. You're moving the goalposts of the argument to
try to define where EXACTLY it's created. This is much different from what you
earlier stated.

> 4. Or is life only taking a new shape? Is it being only provided Data to carry on with the new life?

No. Beginning with fertilization, a process is begun which will, if left
uninterrupted, will result in a new life at birth.

> Is the point at which life forms identified?

It's a continuum. If I have a "pile" of sand, and I take away one grain, do I
still have a pile of sand? Yes, obviously. If I do this a million times,
eventually, I am left with one grain of sand, which is hardly a "pile" anymore.
So, at some point, I removed 1 grain of sand, and the "pile" of sand stopped
being a pile. This is, of course, silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

--
(` |) | There's small choice in rotten apples.
_) |) | -- William Shakespeare, "The Taming of the Shrew"
a.a #2171 |

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When did the Human attain consciousness?

At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.

--
(` |) | Book lovers never go to bed alone.
_) |) | -- Unknown
a.a #2171 |

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:08:16 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When did the Human attain consciousness?
>
> At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.
>

"Some point"? guessing?

[sbalneav]

Exactly. How do you distinguish?

> The response was perfect for that situation. Something like a GOD's algorithm
> to the problem in hand. I tried inquiring about it, and it is a very well
> generalized thought.

So you had a problem facing you, and you came up with a good solution. Why did
it have to be God who came up with it? Couldn't YOU have simply come up with
this solution yourself?

> Question here is, if I am surrounded by negative thoughts all the way, no way
> it could have been me "thinking" as I am feeling lost. So, then who did?

Dude, people have flashes of insight ALL THE TIME. I've had several situations
in my life that seemed impossible. Several times I've had to think long and
hard for the solution. Some times the answer just falls in my lap. That
doesn't mean God's doing it; YOU'RE doing it.

> Here if someone else did, as you say, I perceived it through my senses, what
> physical sense is this? There seems to be part in the brain that receives a
> different type of sound wave that's not in the same as the regular external
> sound wave?

So you came up with a good idea, and all of a sudden you're fantasizing that
there's some special part of the brain that recieves "a different type of sound
wave"? What part of the brain? How does it work? Sound waves are compressed
air and detectable. Hell, even your THOUGHTS are detectable, crudely. MRI and
EEG can "see" your thoughts.

> (It cannot be denied as we all can hear loud and clear within.

Yeah, that's called the internal monologue.

> Ask someone to
> speak loud within, the normal ears does not hear this sound. So, obviously
> there is a second type of sound other then the external sound.

No, there's friggin' brain waves. They're electrochemical in nature, not
friggin' sound waves. Dude, you said you studied physics, but dropped out;
when did you drop out, on the FIRST DAY? If I hook someone up to a Functional
MRI, and ask them to "speak loudly within", I can SEE THAT HAPPEN.

> So, then what is this sound? Why is the scientific community "silent" about
> this? I do find research around this, but the same is not discussed much
> aloud.

You're right, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOUND.

I'm becoming less convinced of your sanity as this conversation procedes.

> ref:
> http://www.academia.edu/1694050/Interior_monologues_as_polyphonic_linguistic_expression_of_personal_dis-identity
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_monologue)

--
(` |) | You do ill if you praise, but worse if you censure,
_) |) | what you do not understand.
a.a #2171 | -- Leonardo da Vinci

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:07:27 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, March 2, 2013 11:28:47 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >> > No, life is never created.
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> Bald assertion with no substantiating evidence.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > At what point is life formed in a human life cycle can you identify the same?
>
> > 1. When a SPERM?
>
>
>
> Sperms are not "alive".
>
>

SPERMS die?
Can dead sperms fuse ovum?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

You can see that happen and people who meditate for years don't develop a clarity of sense for the same?

On exercising regularly people improve their eyesight?
On body building people develop good muscles?

and what is this?

"http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27162401/#.UTLA7TBmyjt
(Army developing ‘synthetic telepathy’) "

>

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:08:16 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > When did the Human attain consciousness?
>>
>> At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.
>>
>
> "Some point"? guessing?

Well, we *know*, that sperm and eggs don't have consciousness, and we *know*
that a newborn DOES have consciousness, so... I'd say my answer was pretty
accurate.

You have a better one? One that you can provide some evidence for? I can
evidence mine.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229799904860


--
(` |) | Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
_) |) | -- Hunter S. Thompson
a.a #2171 |

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:07:27 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, March 2, 2013 11:28:47 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> > No, life is never created.
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Bald assertion with no substantiating evidence.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > At what point is life formed in a human life cycle can you identify the same?
>>
>> > 1. When a SPERM?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sperms are not "alive".
>>
>>
>
> SPERMS die?

Sperms are not alive because they cannot reproduce on their own. They lack the
sufficient number of chromosomes.

> Can dead sperms fuse ovum?

How "dead" is it? If the dna is still intact, one could, conceivably, use some
kind of nano-technique to extract the chromosomes and inject them into the egg.

But why do that when sperm's dead easy to produce?

What does this have to do with your assertion that life is never created?

--
(` |) | Live simply, so others may simply live.
_) |) | -- Gandhi
a.a #2171 |

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27162401/#.UTLA7TBmyjt
> (Army developing ???synthetic telepathy???)

So this "inner voice" is obviously detectable to the point where we can
consider actually reading it, electrically translate it to another human, and
inject it into their brain. That's what the article says, more or less.

So how does this help your case? If God *does* speak to you internally, then
it should be VERY detectable. So what's this nonsense you're spouting out
about imperceptible domains?

You're not helping your case, here.

--
(` |) | The question is not, Can they reason?
_) |) | nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
a.a #2171 | -- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) on animal rights

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> No, there's friggin' brain waves. They're electrochemical in nature, not
>> friggin' sound waves. Dude, you said you studied physics, but dropped out;
>> when did you drop out, on the FIRST DAY? If I hook someone up to a Functional
>> MRI, and ask them to "speak loudly within", I can SEE THAT HAPPEN.
>
> You can see that happen and people who meditate for years don't develop a clarity of sense for the same?

Yes. Because brainwaves are DETECTABLE.

> On exercising regularly people improve their eyesight?
> On body building people develop good muscles?

All of those are DETECTABLE.

> and what is this?
>
> "http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27162401/#.UTLA7TBmyjt

> (Army developing ???synthetic telepathy???) "

Sure, because BRAIN WAVES ARE DETECTABLE. So, how does this point to
IMPERCEPTIBLE DOMAINS?

You really don't have an argument here, do you? You figure if you throw enough
woo my way, I'll just go "You're right, there must be a God"?

You've argued all over the map, and this latest round of arguing is HURTING
YOUR POINT about imperceptible domains. If God "talks" to you in your head,
and you're pointing to articles that talk about the possibility of building
technology that can translate "your inner voice" and send it to other people,
then we should be able to detect this "God" speaking to you, right?

So, according to the stuff YOU are posting, he's not "imperceptible". He's not
only perceptible, but detectable too. So if we look into your head, and we
find the only voice in there is... yours, what then, Ganesh?

--
(` |) | Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake.
_) |) | -- Henry David Thoreau
a.a #2171 |

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:12:47 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:08:16 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > When did the Human attain consciousness?
>
> >>
>
> >> At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > "Some point"? guessing?
>
>
>
> Well, we *know*, that sperm and eggs don't have consciousness,

How?

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:12:47 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:08:16 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > When did the Human attain consciousness?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > "Some point"? guessing?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, we *know*, that sperm and eggs don't have consciousness,
>
> How?

The only consciousness' we're aware of are things with brains. Single cells do
not have brains. Since there's no other evidence indicating that consciousness
exists outside of things with brains...

If you HAVE some evidence, by all means, present it. Note: saying "but you
can't prove single cells DON'T have consciousness" doesn't count.

I can see you're petering out here. Your argument is rapidly degrading to:
"But you can't prove it ISN'T". Ganesh, what that means is that you've got no
actual *reason* to believe what you believe, you're just believing things
because it feels good to you.

Sorry, Ganesh, but you believing you're somehow going to cheat death isn't
going to happen. You have to make your time worthwhile NOW. There's no
evidence that there's a "after".

You end at death.

--
(` |) | Nature uses as little as possible of anything.
_) |) | -- Johannes Keppler
a.a #2171 |

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Sunday, March 3, 2013 8:05:18 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:12:47 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:08:16 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > When did the Human attain consciousness?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > "Some point"? guessing?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Well, we *know*, that sperm and eggs don't have consciousness,
>
> >
>
> > How?
>
>
>
> The only consciousness' we're aware of are things with brains.

You mean during evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?

[casey]

On Mar 4, 1:35 am, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:12:47 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:

> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:08:16 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>

> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > When did the Human attain consciousness?
>
> >> >> At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.
>
> >> > "Some point"? guessing?
>
> >> Well, we *know*, that sperm and eggs don't have consciousness,
>
> > How?
>
> The only consciousness' we're aware of are things with brains.  Single cells do
> not have brains.  Since there's no other evidence indicating that consciousness
> exists outside of things with brains...
>
> If you HAVE some evidence, by all means, present it.  Note: saying "but you
> can't prove single cells DON'T have consciousness" doesn't count.
>
> I can see you're petering out here.  Your argument is rapidly degrading to:
> "But you can't prove it ISN'T".  Ganesh, what that means is that you've got no
> actual *reason* to believe what you believe, you're just believing things
> because it feels good to you.
>
> Sorry, Ganesh, but you believing you're somehow going to cheat death isn't
> going to happen.  You have to make your time worthwhile NOW.  There's no
> evidence that there's a "after".

The thought of everlasting death makes it hard to enjoy the life you
have.
It has a depressing, subduing and inhibiting effect on many lives so
they
have to believe in an afterlife to make this one more tolerable.
It is like a wonderful present that you will have to return.


> You end at death.

But who was the "you" that existed before life?
If you didn't exist before life then you can come from nothing.
If you can come from nothing once why can't you come from nothing
twice?

[casey]

On Mar 4, 4:30 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [...]

> You mean during evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?

A functioning brain does consciousness.

Consciousness might be a continuum that can exist to varying degrees
like light.

It gets turned down to nothing, or almost nothing, in a deep sleep or
coma.

It gets turned up full volume if you are tossed in a lion cage.

[sbalneav]

Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 3, 2013 8:05:18 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:12:47 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:08:16 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> > When did the Human attain consciousness?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > "Some point"? guessing?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Well, we *know*, that sperm and eggs don't have consciousness,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > How?
>>
>>
>>
>> The only consciousness' we're aware of are things with brains.
>
>
>
> You mean during evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?

Conciousness seems to be an emergent property of brains, according to current
research. Again, it's a continuum. As brains advanced, became more complex,
consciousness advanced as well. Do ants have consciousness? Probably very
little, if at all. Do humans? Yes.

Dogs and cats? Anyone who's owned pets has observed behaviour that's
consistent with a limited form of consciousness. Is it as developed as Mans?
No. Is a Dog or a Cat merely "stimulus - response" like ants are? No, they're
not.

This is trivial reading for you to find out, Ganesh. Do some research.

--
(` |) | The library is the temple of learning, and learning has
_) |) | liberated more people than all the wars in history.
a.a #2171 | -- Carl T. Rowan

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:37:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 3, 2013 8:05:18 PM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:12:47 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:08:16 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> > When did the Human attain consciousness?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.
>>> >>
>>> >> > "Some point"? guessing?
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, we *know*, that sperm and eggs don't have consciousness,
>>> >
>>> > How?

They don't have brains or anything else capable of it.

>>> The only consciousness' we're aware of are things with brains.
>>
>> You mean during evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?
>
>Conciousness seems to be an emergent property of brains, according to current
>research. Again, it's a continuum. As brains advanced, became more complex,
>consciousness advanced as well. Do ants have consciousness? Probably very
>little, if at all. Do humans? Yes.
>
>Dogs and cats? Anyone who's owned pets has observed behaviour that's
>consistent with a limited form of consciousness. Is it as developed as Mans?
>No. Is a Dog or a Cat merely "stimulus - response" like ants are? No, they're
>not.

They've also got empathy for their humans.

>This is trivial reading for you to find out, Ganesh. Do some research.

Research? Don't hold your breath. He's as deluded as Jesper/Janhu.

[sbalneav]

casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 1:35ï¿œam, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:12:47 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:08:16 AM UTC+5:30, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > When did the Human attain consciousness?
>>
>> >> >> At some point in the womb when the brain became developed enough.
>>
>> >> > "Some point"? guessing?
>>
>> >> Well, we *know*, that sperm and eggs don't have consciousness,
>>
>> > How?
>>

>> The only consciousness' we're aware of are things with brains. ï¿œSingle cells do
>> not have brains. ï¿œSince there's no other evidence indicating that consciousness

>> exists outside of things with brains...
>>

>> If you HAVE some evidence, by all means, present it. ï¿œNote: saying "but you

>> can't prove single cells DON'T have consciousness" doesn't count.
>>

>> I can see you're petering out here. ï¿œYour argument is rapidly degrading to:
>> "But you can't prove it ISN'T". ï¿œGanesh, what that means is that you've got no

>> actual *reason* to believe what you believe, you're just believing things
>> because it feels good to you.
>>
>> Sorry, Ganesh, but you believing you're somehow going to cheat death isn't

>> going to happen. ï¿œYou have to make your time worthwhile NOW. ï¿œThere's no

>> evidence that there's a "after".
>
> The thought of everlasting death makes it hard to enjoy the life you
> have.

Maybe for you. That's YOUR problem. Don't put your burdens on ME, Ganesh.
Just because YOU aren't able to face reality, doesn't mean some of us AREN'T.

I'm going to die. Utterly and completely. Everything I've done, everything
I've accomplished, everyone I've loved, will end the same way; in nothingness.

> It has a depressing, subduing and inhibiting effect on many lives so
> they
> have to believe in an afterlife to make this one more tolerable.
> It is like a wonderful present that you will have to return.

That's because you're greedy. Rather than, like me, revel in this brief, warm
interlude between two eternal darknesses, you want it to go on and on and on.

I don't. I'm happy with this time I've been lucky enough, through evolution
and random chance, to be given. The fact that it will NOT go on forever is
what gives my life colour and meaning. I only HAVE this limited timeframe to
accomplish my goals; to make a difference, and add to the greater good so that
those yet unborn may have an even better life that I did.

You want some philosophy? Here's some. Guy by the name of Epicurus. You'd do
well to look him up.

"Too much is never enough for whom enough is too little".

You can't get more "too much" than eternity. Stop being greedy. Be happy with
what you have.

>> You end at death.
>
> But who was the "you" that existed before life?

There wasn't a me. I didn't exist for 13.7 billion years. It didn't trouble
me not to exist; I wasn't there to be troubled. Then, sometime in late 1967, a
young couple did what comes naturally to humans who feel an attraction for one
another. In June of '68, there I was. They, however, chose the no doubt
difficult decision to not keep me, but rather, put me up for adoption. A
wonderful couple, my Mom and Dad, wanted a child, and gave me a home. I will
live out my time. Assuming a reasonable lifespan of 75 years, sometime in the
early 2040's, I'll draw my last breath, and cease to exist again.

In the intervening time, I've:

1) Had a wonderful childhood, learned much about the world.
2) Found someone to love, and who loves me.
3) Had two wonderful boys who've grown to adulthood now, and are getting
their university education. They, too, are starting their adventures.
4) Helped many people, lots of them disadvantaged, with my Free Software
activities.
5) Travelled to some wonderful places in the world, and met many exciting
people.

I have eaten, drank, sang, caroused, made love, and contributed to humankind.
That it will one day end for me causes me no sadness whatsoever; in fact, since
I lost the nominal faith I had, I feel much better about my eventual end than I
ever did when I thought I was going to go on after.

I followed the evidence where it led, I now accept the universe AS IT IS, and
my place within it, and I am comfortable with it.

> If you didn't exist before life then you can come from nothing.

I didn't exist before fall 1967. Before an egg and a sperm met, I wasn't
there.

> If you can come from nothing once why can't you come from nothing
> twice?

Since my experiences die with me, how would *I* come around twice?

--
(` |) | Be cheerful while you are alive.
_) |) | -- Phathotep, 24th Century B.C.
a.a #2171 |