Harry Krishna total intellectual fraud

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

- defines choosing in terms of it being in the mind

- then has no solution to relate choosing to physically acting in the real world, because the choices always stay in the mind

- allows no terminology about what is subjective, does not allow to talk about it

- denies choosing makes one of alternative possible futures the present, eventhoug that is the logic used in common discourse in relation to the word choose.

It is shown in physics that alternative possible futures are a reality. A quantumcomputer experiment searches a database without running the search algorithm, merely by exploiting the possiblity that the search algorithm could have run.

So common discourse shows it, physics shows it, there is no denying what the logic of choosing is.

There is just the psychology to conflate thinking about what is best before making a decision, with the barebone logic of choosing. A logical error.

And there is no doubt at all that what does the job of choosing, is subjective, meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Common discourse is quite clear on this, that a decision may be made out of love, and the love is identified with a chosen opinion.

So where physics says decisions are made, then it is a matter of chosen opinion what it is that makes these decisions turn out the way they do.

It would be impossible to get any information about what it is that chooses, because choosing creates new information, the new information which way the decision turned out.

Which leaves us with the creationist conceptual scheme, which is an accurate description of the logic that we take for granted in common discourse.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

[Harry Krishna]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 12:11:29 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>- defines choosing in terms of it being in the mind

Where do you think it takes place? In the kneecap? In Queen
Elizabeth's purse with the marmalade sandwiches? You're too silly for
words.

>- then has no solution to relate choosing to physically acting in the real world, because the choices always stay in the mind

It's truly astounding that you apparently can't understand that making
a decision does nothing to affect the physical world until and unless
you actually act on it, rather than just thinking about it.

>- allows no terminology about what is subjective, does not allow to talk about it

I'm fine with discussing subjectivity. What I object to is you using
your own definitions for words in discussing it. (You also do that
with every other subject, it should be noted.)

>- denies choosing makes one of alternative possible futures the present, eventhoug that is the logic used in common discourse in relation to the word choose.

No, it is not. You are the only person who defines it that way.

>It is shown in physics that alternative possible futures are a reality. A quantumcomputer experiment searches a database without running the search algorithm, merely by exploiting the possiblity that the search algorithm could have run.

We went over this a few months ago, and your grasp of physics is as
poor as your grasp of English.

>So common discourse shows it,

It does no such thing. Again, you are the only person who defines it
that way.

>physics shows it, there is no denying what the logic of choosing is.

Where do you think that choices occur in physics, and whom or what is
making them?

>There is just the psychology to conflate thinking about what is best before making a decision, with the barebone logic of choosing. A logical error.

For what has to be the dozenth time, I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED ANY SUCH
THING. You're attacking a position I do not hold. Again.

>And there is no doubt at all that what does the job of choosing, is subjective,

Who or what is doing "the job of choosing", and in what way is it
subjective?

>meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

That doesn't follow, and opinions are not normally chosen.

>Common discourse is quite clear on this, that a decision may be made out of love,

Yes. However, not made BY love. There is a huge difference that you
don't understand the language well enough to grasp, apparently.

>and the love is identified with a chosen opinion.

By you and literally no one else, so stop with the "common discourse"
bullshit already.

>So where physics says decisions are made

Physics does no such thing.

>then it is a matter of chosen opinion what it is that makes these decisions turn out the way they do.

That doesn't follow, and again, opinions are not normally chosen.

>It would be impossible to get any information about what it is that chooses, because choosing creates new information, the new information which way the decision turned out.

Another non sequitur.

>Which leaves us with the creationist conceptual scheme, which is an accurate description of the logic that we take for granted in common discourse.

You mean the "logic" that you and no one else takes for granted.

>1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
>2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

This is a collection of words that doesn't communicate anything. What
are you actually trying to say?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Total fucking asshole, that you insist that decisions are in the mind only, it can only mean that you define choosing in terms of what is best. The weather can turn out one of several different ways, this you say is not a decision, because the weather does not consider what option is best.

You are just a liar, as also shown by that you insist that to define choosing in terms of making one of alternative futures the present, is wrong, because of that definition not being popular. The number 1 definiition of choosing in the dictionary, is to define it in terms of what is best. So then if popularity is an indication for what is right, then choosing defined in terms of what is best must be right.

Then against your idea that what is most popular is right, you pick the second definition in the dictionary, which definition is really just an extension of the first definition, trying (but failiing) to relate deciding to physically acting. Deciding on a course of action. Which is obviously an error of circular reasoning, in defining choosing with deciding.

Asshole, when you define choosing as being in the mind only, then you can never relate choosing to acting physically. Then you are stuck with acting in the mind, acting in fantasy.

A photon comes to a split, where it can go either route A or B. Then routes A and B converge at a second split, where it can go route C and D.

If routes A and B are open, then the photon will always go route D at the second split. If either route A or B is blocked, and the photon goes the unblocked route, then the photon goes either route C or D at the second split.

A database with a searchalgorithm is placed at route B. The search algorithm is activated, by a non interactive way detector, if a photon passes the detector. If the element is found in the database, then a mechanism immediately closes route B, preventing the photon from reaching the second split.

So then if the photon turns up at route C, then it is known that the search algorithm would have found the element in the database, if it had run.

Proving that possiblities, and the decisions on them, are real things of physics. And not as you make believe, a cultural fantasy about what is best.

There is no evidence whatsoever for what is making the decision on the route that the photon takes. Nor could there possibly be any evidence of it, because it is entirely subjective. Meaning it is identified with a chosen opinion.

One can feel what it was that made the decision turn out the way it did, and then choose an opinion on it, by spontaneous expression of those feelings with free will.

That is how it works. And that you assert that personal character can be established as fact forced by the evidence of it, is what makes you a nazi. That is the essence of nazi ideology. It provides for horrific emotionless judgment, asserted as hard scientific fact, which is the evil of nazism.

And it is obvious that the current epidemic of mental illness, and bad political opinions, is due to the education system turning people into fact obsessed morons who are clueless about how subjectivity works. Because the education system throws out subjectivity, in throwing out creationism, and pretends all in reality is objective. The entire subjective part of reality is discarded.

Every day in the news there is some professor with a nutty opinion. And all the fascism against free speech, the socialism, it is centered around the universities, academics.

It makes perfect sense, be clueless about how subjectivity works, consequently systematically produce bad subjective opinions.

So you are at fault for royally fucking up society with your retarded atheism that is based on being stupid about how subjectivity works.

To argue that popularity is what makes a definition right, is intellectual fraudulence. A definition is right when it works without error, and when it also does not produce error in relation to other words. When it all fits together. And the terminology of the creationist conceptual scheme, the definitions all fit together perfectly.

To not have any proper name to denote all what is identified with subjectivity, is also intellectual fraudulence. It is a 1984 fascist trick, to make an issue go away, by not having any words to talk about it. The word spiritual is a good word for it. And the association of the word spiritual to, woo-woo, that is actually just appropiate. Because woo-woo indicates it is not an objective issue, which is correct.

You're total shitbag of lies, fraud, willful ignorance. And there is no doubt about it that this will reflect in real life that you are a criminal. To intellectually mangle the concept of the human spirit, it must mean that you will also commit crimes against the human spirit in real life.


Op dinsdag 7 juni 2022 om 15:21:30 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Total fucking asshole, that you insist that decisions are in the mind only, it can only mean that you define choosing in terms of what is best.

That doesn't follow at all. You're just babbling now.

>The weather can turn out one of several different ways, this you say is not a decision, because the weather does not consider what option is best.

No, I say that how weather turns out is not a decision because WEATHER
IS NOT SENTIENT. IT IS NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING A DECISION.

>You are just a liar, as also shown by that you insist that to define choosing in terms of making one of alternative futures the present, is wrong, because of that definition not being popular

No, I say your definition is wrong because decisions don't make one of
alternative futures the present.

>The number 1 definiition of choosing in the dictionary, is to define it in terms of what is best.

You appear to be missing the point here rather badly. A prudent person
will of course consider the likely outcomes of a decision, but doing
so is not essential to the definition of choosing. One is, of course,
always free to make extremely poor decisions if one
wants to. But why would one want to?

> So then if popularity is an indication for what is right

Which it isn't. Do I really have to explain THAT to you?

>then choosing defined in terms of what is best must be right.

GIGO.

>Then against your idea that what is most popular is right,

That is NOT my idea. I have never suggested or implied any such thing,
because it's not true. It's downright bizarre that you insist on
making up positions for me that I don't hold in any way.

>you pick the second definition in the dictionary, which definition is really just an extension of the first definition, trying (but failiing) to relate deciding to physically acting. Deciding on a course of action. Which is obviously an error of circular reasoning, in defining choosing with deciding.

Can you rephrase that coherently, please?

>Asshole, when you define choosing as being in the mind only,

Again, where else do you think it occurs?

> then you can never relate choosing to acting physically

That does not follow.

>. Then you are stuck with acting in the mind, acting in fantasy.

No, making a decision without ever acting on it would consign that
decision to the realm of a fantasy. You are as confused as it is
possible to be.

>A photon comes to a split, where it can go either route A or B. Then routes A and B converge at a second split, where it can go route C and D.
>
>If routes A and B are open, then the photon will always go route D at the second split. If either route A or B is blocked, and the photon goes the unblocked route, then the photon goes either route C or D at the second split.
>
>A database with a searchalgorithm is placed at route B. The search algorithm is activated, by a non interactive way detector, if a photon passes the detector. If the element is found in the database, then a mechanism immediately closes route B, preventing the photon from reaching the second split.
>
>So then if the photon turns up at route C, then it is known that the search algorithm would have found the element in the database, if it had run.
>
>Proving that possiblities, and the decisions on them, are real things of physics.

Or that you don't have any idea what the experiment actually involves
or what it means, both of which were well-demonstrated the last time
you brought it up in this group.

> And not as you make believe, a cultural fantasy about what is best.
>
>There is no evidence whatsoever for what is making the decision on the route that the photon takes.

There is no decision involved. Inanimate objects cannot make
decisions.

> Nor could there possibly be any evidence of it, because it is entirely subjective.

It is entirely imaginary. Inanimate objects cannot make decisions.

> Meaning it is identified with a chosen opinion.

That does not follow, as usual, and opinions are not normally chosen.

>One can feel what it was that made the decision turn out the way it did,

There wasn't a decision involved, and feelings are irrelevant to
particle physics.

> and then choose an opinion on it, by spontaneous expression of those feelings with free will.

You realize that's self-contradictory, right...?

>That is how it works.

That's not how anything works.

> And that you assert that personal character can be established as fact forced by the evidence of it

An individual's character can be discerned by observing their actions
over time, sure. Do you dispute that?

> is what makes you a nazi.

That's NOT the defining characteristic of a Nazi by any stretch of the
imagination. The Nazis attributed a specific character to entire
groups of people based on pseudoscientific nonsense about race.
Neither I nor anyone else here has argued for anything remotely like
that.

>That is the essence of nazi ideology

That is you being badly confused, as usual.

>It provides for horrific emotionless judgment, asserted as hard scientific fact, which is the evil of nazism.

No one is arguing for judging people based on race or other form of
group membership. You're nuts.

>And it is obvious that the current epidemic of mental illness, and bad political opinions, is due to the education system turning people into fact obsessed morons who are clueless about how subjectivity works.

No one is confused on the topic. As I have noted dozens of times,
you're fighting madly against a problem that doesn't exist, Don
Quixote.

> Because the education system throws out subjectivity, in throwing out creationism, and pretends all in reality is objective. The entire subjective part of reality is discarded.
>
>Every day in the news there is some professor with a nutty opinion.

I see that your sense of irony is as deficient as your proficiency in
English.

>And all the fascism against free speech, the socialism,

Fascism or socialism: pick one and only one.

> it is centered around the universities, academics.
>
>It makes perfect sense, be clueless about how subjectivity works, consequently systematically produce bad subjective opinions.

How does one judge whether something subjective is good or bad? That
would require some objective standard by which to do so.

>So you are at fault for royally fucking up society with your retarded atheism that is based on being stupid about how subjectivity works.

My atheism is based on the fact that there's no good reason to think
that any deities exist, and many good reasons to think that they're
human inventions.

>To argue that popularity is what makes a definition right, is intellectual fraudulence.

Indeed. It's a basic logical fallacy. BUT I HAVE NBVER CLAIMED ANY
SUCH THING, so why the hell do you imagine that I think such a thing?

> A definition is right when it works without error, and when it also does not produce error in relation to other words.

That rules out yours.

>When it all fits together. And the terminology of the creationist conceptual scheme, the definitions all fit together perfectly.

That doesn't mean a thing if they don't actually correspond to
reality. That a framework is coherent does not mean that it is also
correct. (That your ideas aren't coherent for the most part either is
another problem entirely.)

>To not have any proper name to denote all what is identified with subjectivity

There is one, Einstein: SUBJECTIVE.

>is also intellectual fraudulence. It is a 1984 fascist trick, to make an issue go away, by not having any words to talk about it.

There are already. There is no need for you to try to shoehorn another
one into the discussion.

>The word spiritual is a good word for it

It's a terrible word for it if you want other people to understand
what you're trying to say.

>And the association of the word spiritual to, woo-woo, that is actually just appropiate. Because woo-woo indicates it is not an objective issue, which is correct.

"Woo-woo" indicates that something is risible nonsense, Einstein, so
yes, it does apply well to your ideas.

>You're total shitbag of lies, fraud, willful ignorance. And there is no doubt about it that this will reflect in real life that you are a criminal. To intellectually mangle the concept of the human spirit, it must mean that you will also commit crimes against the human spirit in real life.

Says the guy who leaves the English language battered and gasping for
breath in every post he makes.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Dishonest piece of shit, you repeatedly make a point of it that I am the only one who defines choosing in terms of making one of alternative possible futures the present. It is arguing that my definition is wrong, because it is not popular.

And there is a difference between the issues of what people say that the logic of choosing is if you ask them, and what analysis shows what logic is used in common discourse with the word choosing.

Goddamned fucking piece of total fucking shit. Total fucking intellectual fraud, who has never uttered an honest word in his life.

And very certainly you must be a criminal, because you cannot get through life while ignoring the human spirit, and not commit crimes against the human spirit. Not possible.

The word sentience, it means something about knowing the possiblities. Indeed the weather does not have a mind where it has sentience, knowledge, of the possiblities. The weather just has the alternative possible futures available, and it is decided. And there is nothing that can be pointed to, neither in the weather, nor in the human brain, that did the job of making any particular decision turn out the way it did. Because only what is subjective can do the job of deciding.

And asshole, when I asked you what it is that the subjective does, then you said it was gibberish. So you lie that you accept the phrase the subjective, to denote everything that is identified with subjectivity. Sure you allow the name the subjective, as long as the word is not used. Again, goddamned fucking fraud who never uttered an honest word in his life.

What is so bad about having a group identity? What is inherently evil about groups? There is nothing bad about it at all. Only what is bad is to make emotionless pseudoscientific judgments about personal character.

You can look at actions all day long, it does not force to a conclusion about someone's personal character, because personal character is not an objective material thing, it is a subjective spiritual thing. The personal character can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

A group is unified by deciding together, not by similarity. Unfortunately nobody understand that anymore, because of everyone being clueless about the spirit choosing.

As we are watching the spectacle on the news of mentally ill people who have lost the tool of the concept of subjectivity, to deal with their emotions. Who have enormous identity problems, leading to personal catastrophy.

You are the one who is guilty for it, you cause that. Evolution scientists cause it.

Oh but there is no problem at all, the problem does not exist. While the world is being torn apart. While the Chinese have a genocidal policy in effect against the Ugyur and Tibetans, which is the holocaust all over again, by the same sort of perpetrators, the evolution scientists.

And obviously you have no fucking clue about physics either, being a total fucking ideologist who refuses to acknowledge decisions as being a reality of physics. Decisions are not a reality of physics, but how then does the bankrobber physically enter the bank, upon choosing to rob the bank? There weren't the physical possiblities of robbing the bank, or not robbing it, there were only the options of it in the mind. Yet the bankrobber is physically in the bank, it's a miracle.

You've got absolutely nothing. No fuctional logic of choosing, or subjectivity. No functional logic of objectivity either. But that should be considered a good thing that you have no logic of objectivity, because having no logic for it means an oppurtunity for your emotions to play any kind of role in your life.

Op dinsdag 7 juni 2022 om 19:16:31 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Abner]

Harry Krishna wrote:
> Says the guy who leaves the English language battered and gasping for
> breath in every post he makes.

Harry, a serious question: Why do you bother with Nando? He isn't ever going to learn anything from you, you're not ever going to learn anything from him, and interactions with him are thoroughly unpleasant. The only reason I can think of to bother with him is to keep him busy so he doesn't bother anyone else with his nonsense. Is that it, or do you have some other reason I haven't thought of?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Op dinsdag 7 juni 2022 om 20:46:31 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

You're a lowlife who doesn't enjoy to have intellectual concepts that work. Another piece of shit without an argument.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You could hopefully have your self-constructed personal narrative or
cerebral self-talk that overrides impulses from amygdala and other areas.
Or maybe you don’t…yeah you lack those capacities. Pure id, pure impulse,
posing as superego. Inflated sense of self. Inability to see interlocutor
as human. Makes me miss Pagano and his odd issues.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You know such pronouncements from you are a badge of honor in these parts
right?

[*Hemidactylus*]

I sometimes bother with Nando, perhaps out of boredom. Harry Krishna seems
a specialist with a particular set of skills. Back in the days of Ray
Martinez (peace be upon him???) someone named Dana Tweedy took one for the
team.

Ray, Karl Crawford, Pags, so many others…then Nando. Different sort of
person.

Did Pags officially become center of the(ir) universe.

[Abner]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> I sometimes bother with Nando, perhaps out of boredom. Harry Krishna seems
> a specialist with a particular set of skills. Back in the days of Ray
> Martinez (peace be upon him???) someone named Dana Tweedy took one for the
> team.

It's hard for me to imagine being that bored, I must admit! The problem with Nando as a cure for boredom is all you get is the same repeated claims and the same abuse. Once you've seen about five Nando posts, you've seen them all. But you do you, of course.

We've had a number of ... special ... posters here over the years, but Nando is the first one I am truly surprised isn't being taken down by the moderators for language and/or behavior.

[jillery]

FWIW and to the best of my recollection, DIG has never blocked anybody
for language, although that might have been an aggravating factor. DIG
has blocked people for specific behaviors, including off-topic
posting, multi-froup posting, and nymshifting.

OTOH one poster was banned for "disruptive behavior", among other
things. It's possible DIG might regard Nando's behavior similarly,
although that would be a hard-sell IMO. Also, Nando has been banned
before, and DIG tends to put prior offenders on a short leash.

OTGH my impression is DIG waits to be notified about someone before he
blocks them. From a practical standpoint, this is a Good Thing(c), as
Beagle's filters have become complicated, and modifying them often
causes undesireable side-effects, like a read-only T.O. So please, be
careful what you ask for.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 11:19:07 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dishonest piece of shit, you repeatedly make a point of it that I am the only one who defines choosing in terms of making one of alternative possible futures the present. It is arguing that my definition is wrong, because it is not popular.

No, I repeatedly make a point of it that you can't claim that ideas
and word definitions that only you hold are a part of "common
discourse". They aren't. That has literally nothing to do with whether
they are right or wrong. (They are, in fact, wrong, but that is
another issue entirely.)

>And there is a difference between the issues of what people say that the logic of choosing is if you ask them, and what analysis shows what logic is used in common discourse with the word choosing.

And there you are, right on cue, with the "common discourse" nonsense
again. Neither your ideas nor your definitions fit that description in
any way, shape, or form. Again, this has nothing to do with whether
they are right or wrong, and again, I have never claimed that it does.
You drew that conclusion on your own, thanks to your inability to read
anything for comprehension.

[Abner]

jillery wrote:
> FWIW and to the best of my recollection, DIG has never blocked anybody
> for language, although that might have been an aggravating factor. DIG
> has blocked people for specific behaviors, including off-topic
> posting, multi-froup posting, and nymshifting.

Ah, that explains it ... Nando has learned where those fairly broad limits are and is sticking within them; bad language isn't a violation.

> OTGH my impression is DIG waits to be notified about someone before he
> blocks them. From a practical standpoint, this is a Good Thing(c), as
> Beagle's filters have become complicated, and modifying them often
> causes undesireable side-effects, like a read-only T.O. So please, be
> careful what you ask for.

Oh, I'm not asking for a banning ... The occasional Nando is the price we pay for freedom of speech. It would be nice if the moderator gave him a warning that he needed to express himself using better language, but if that isn't a violation, so be it. Hopefully we won't run into the 'too many Nandos' problem! A group can generally survive one Nando, much like a regular town hall meeting can survive one person who everyone else groans about when they demand their fair time to explain that the town officials are all reptilioids from Arcturus who want to rape our children and eat everyone else's brains with a straw. That one Nando doesn't drive the entire meeting and productive stuff can still get done if people desire it. But if you have too many Nandos, each taking over from each other, all the reasonable people tend to leave the town meeting or spend all their time trying to deal with the Nandos. Anyone wanting to know what the result looks like can just look at alt.atheism, which drowned years ago and now only lurches along as a sodden corpse.

The talk.origins moderator must be doing a decent job all in all, as this group doesn't look anything like the disastrous alt.atheism!

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You're a total piece of shit, you make no argumentation whatsoever, and then you said you're going to enjoy your life.

Which means, you have no joy in intellectual matters, which means you're a lowlife.

Jill, with here insistence that choosing is defined as not choosing, is obviously totally fucking insane.

You're all fucking nazis, who make it so that personal character is considered to be objective.

It is demonstrable that every single one of you denies that personal character is identified with a chosen opinion. Which leaves only evidence forcing to a concluion as the way to identify personal character. Psudoscience that establishes personal character, and emotions, and no role for subjectivity.

Nor could you ever admit any real role for subjectivity, because acknowledging something inherently subjective is real, would totally break down your ideology. You try to contain all what is subjective in the brain, and then mangle the understanding of it there.

In truth one entire fundamental part of reality is subjective. And you throw out the entire subjective part of reality. Which makes you a total monster.

I explain to people that personal character, like courage, laziness, is an attribute of someone as being a decisionmaker.

1. Creator / chooses / subjective / spiritual / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / objective / material / fact

Explain that it belongs in category 1 of the creationist conceptual scheme. And that therefore it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

It's great explanation.

Only the persistent idea, that choosing means to figure out what is best, stands in my way. There is enormous psychological force behind that idea, and also it is advertised by academics that this is correct. But people know somewhere that something like laziness is not actually a factual issue, they know somehwere that it is an error to regard it as objective. But they lack the motivation to figure it out, and the confidence to judge that generally all of academics is wrong.

But you are all very obviously fucking intellectual frauds, who don't give a shit about anything anymore. Total fucking fascists, nazis, at universities, that can be seen on the news all the time.




Op donderdag 9 juni 2022 om 16:11:07 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Asshole, show me any reference to any common discourse where the word choosing is not used in relation to making one of alternative possible futures the present.

You cannot do it.

The choice referred to in elections, there are the alternative possible futures available of candidate 1 being elected, and candidate 2 being elected.

Always, for any of the trillions of mentions of the word choosing in recorded common discourse, it is always about making one of alternative possible futures the present.

But you're a fucking lying piece of shit, so the truth doesn't matter to you.

Op donderdag 9 juni 2022 om 15:16:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 04:39:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com>:

>*Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> I sometimes bother with Nando, perhaps out of boredom. Harry Krishna seems
>> a specialist with a particular set of skills. Back in the days of Ray
>> Martinez (peace be upon him???) someone named Dana Tweedy took one for the
>> team.
>
>It's hard for me to imagine being that bored, I must admit! The problem with Nando as a cure for boredom is all you get is the same repeated claims and the same abuse.
>

To some extent abuse implies acceptance of the
qualifications and authority of the "abuser". Nando seems to
score zero on both.

>
>Once you've seen about five Nando posts, you've seen them all. But you do you, of course.
>
>We've had a number of ... special ... posters here over the years, but Nando is the first one I am truly surprised isn't being taken down by the moderators for language and/or behavior.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Abner]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> To some extent abuse implies acceptance of the
> qualifications and authority of the "abuser". Nando seems to
> score zero on both.

Agreed! Nando has earned his way so far down my respect scale that his opinions are worthless to me; his abuse is just as worthless as everything else he says.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I don’t recall him being as abusive in the late 90s. He talked about free
will a lot. At some point it seemed he thought inanimate objects make
decisions. I always had to make the distinction that Pagano was the
geocentric guy, not the one who ruminates on decisionmaking rocks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 22:07:37 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

He does seem to have gone far downhill. Luckily for me, I
don't have to care.

[jillery]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The occasional Nando is the price we pay for freedom of speech.

Correct, and a fact many posters to T.O. conveniently forget from time
to time. This fact doesn't imply that individuals and individual
venues don't have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to specify what
they regard as disruptive and/or abusive.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Your subjective opinions are the subjective opinions of someone who is utterly clueless about subjective opinions. What is it that you do not respect? You don't believe in the subjective human spirit making choices. So your opinions do not hit the mark. It doesn't meany anything anymore.

The question is how to treat someone who throws out, or otherwise mangles the concept of subjectivity, someone who generally disregards all what is subjective, in a systematic and intentional way.

That person should be treated in a judgmental way, that what they are doing is bad. Nobody else in the entire world is arguing for subjectivity, as far as I know. I don't really have anyone to compare myself to. But it's unimaginable to me, to argue about this in a non-judgmental way. To systematically disregard people's emotions, is horrific. It is historically horrific, more horrific than any horrors of what went before in the entire history of man, because the denial of the entire spiritual domain is much more systematic with evolution scientists / scientists.

It is simply good for someone to accept the judgment that they are evil, in throwing out subjectivity. That judgment is probably neccessary for them to start to accept the validity of subjectivity.

The sole reason that Harry Krishna is on the internet debating at all, is to glorify objectivity, and mangle subjectivity. There are thousands or millions of these types of people on the internet, obsessed with science, fact, objectivity, who all go out of their way to mangle the concept of subjectivity, disregard all what is subjective.

That is simply the truth. I mean the evidence of it is easily available, they are everywhere on any debating group. And creationism is generally discarded in academics, which if it is true that subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, means subjectivity is thrown out with it.

Harry Krishna is a hardcore ideologist same as a nazi. He adjusts his position to whatever is the most that he can get away with at the time. So that before he conceded, well nazis objectifying personal character is wrong, personal character is subjective, and now he says that it is irrellevant. That there is no rejection of subjectivity at all, that it is all just a big fantasy of mine, that rejection of subjectivity does not occur.

Harry Krishna is a total slime. There is just no personal character there at all, he is never honest. And generally all of you are just as bad. Matt Silberstein I remember was also a baldfaced liar. Mark Isaak is another total liar with his book on creationist claims. Really total fucking crooks, intellectual frauds, who will just do anything to advance their cause of destroying the belief in all what is subjective.

Ofcourse there is the psychological force of the feelings associated to defining choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, which all of you are slaves to. So that should be considered in dealing with nazis, that they have this psychological difficulty, but still the best way to deal with nazis is in a judgmental way.




Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 04:06:08 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[Nando Ronteltap]

Except ofcourse, everyone cheering when I was banned before, and, the talk.origins charter lying that people are not banned for their views on talk.origins .

Every evolutionist is dishonest, every evolutionist is a fascist. The idea that evolutionists support free speech is a nonsense.

Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 09:36:08 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 14:59:17 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Asshole, show me any reference to any common discourse where the word choosing is not used in relation to making one of alternative possible futures the present.

The burden of proof is on you. You're the one proclaiming that your
own personal definitions represent "common discourse", so let's see an
example of someone besides you using any of them.

>The choice referred to in elections, there are the alternative possible futures available of candidate 1 being elected, and candidate 2 being elected.

Neither of which meet your definition.

>Always, for any of the trillions of mentions of the word choosing in recorded common discourse, it is always about making one of alternative possible futures the present

Then it should be trivial for you to provide hundreds of examples of
anyone besides you using that definition of choosing. Go right ahead.

[Abner]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> I don’t recall him being as abusive in the late 90s. He talked about free
> will a lot.

And defining god into existence by calling him a necessary being. But he wasn't as abusive - just as silly in his claims, but he wasn't going around claiming that everyone who disagreed with him was a lying Nazi fascist commie mutant whatever. It was actually possible to have a conversation with him rather than a tirade on how evil you are for disagreeing with him. He also didn't spend as much time misrepresenting the views of others. I'm not sure what happened to him to cause him to go so far downhill, but I doubt he's coming back even to where he was back then. Back then he was somewhat amusing; now he's just pitiful.

> At some point it seemed he thought inanimate objects make decisions

That's still part of his schtick. The necessary being thing seems to have gone by the wayside, though. Pity, it was such a classic example of a logical fallacy that it was almost beautiful. :)

[Abner]

jillery wrote:
> This fact doesn't imply that individuals and individual
> venues don't have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to specify what
> they regard as disruptive and/or abusive.

Agreed! IMO if an abusive poster sticks to their own threads, it's generally ignorable. If an abusive poster starts showing up in every thread and disrupting other discussions, that's when they cross the line. It's tolerable to be obsessed with your own views and talk about them in your own threads; it's not tolerable to try to swamp out anyone else / everyone else discussing their own views.

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Except ofcourse, everyone cheering when I was banned before, and, the talk.origins charter lying that people are not banned for their views on talk.origins .
>
>Every evolutionist is dishonest, every evolutionist is a fascist. The idea that evolutionists support free speech is a nonsense.

Your posts, along with those of other pseudoskeptics, along with the
lies of the former president and his supporters documented in current
Congressional hearings, are what give free speech a bad name.

I wonder if any posters will support my marginally off-topic comment.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-10 13:07:45 +0000, jillery said:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>
>> Except ofcourse, everyone cheering when I was banned before, and, the
>> talk.origins charter lying that people are not banned for their views
>> on talk.origins .>
>> Every evolutionist is dishonest, every evolutionist is a fascist. The
>> idea that evolutionists support free speech is a nonsense.
>
> Your posts, along with those of other pseudoskeptics, along with the
> lies of the former president and his supporters documented in current
> Congressional hearings, are what give free speech a bad name.
>
> I wonder if any posters will support my marginally off-topic comment.

Well I do. Your signature motto says it all: "You're entitled to your
own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts." Free speech allows you to
express any opinion you like, no matter how crazy (Donald Trump was
chosen by God to be President), but not to make up lies about matters
of fact.

>
>
>> Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 09:36:08 UTC+2 schreef jillery:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), Abner>> <abneri...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:>>>> >The occasional Nando is the price we pay for freedom of
>>> speech.
>>> Correct, and a fact many posters to T.O. conveniently forget from
>>> time>> to time. This fact doesn't imply that individuals and
>>> individual>> venues don't have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to
>>> specify what>> they regard as disruptive and/or abusive.
>>> --
>>> You're entitled to your own opinions.>> You're not entitled to your own facts.


--

Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

See, Harry Krishna is a total slime who has never uttered an honest word in his life.

Now he is again shifting between what people say the definition of choosing is, and the actual logic they are using in common discourse with the word choosing.

A total fucking piece of shit, total fucking intellectual fraud. This kind of dishonesty, that everyone let's pass, because Harry Krishna is on your side. Everything is allowed for the cause of destroying subjectivity. Reminds of Democrats presently.

I never do such things, have I ever? Have I ever been dishonest in debate?

I have limited effort, that I know is true. But that should be passable.

Generally every use of the word choosing in common discours certainly does meet my definition. Everyone can see there are always at least 2 alternative possible futures mentioned, or implied, in any choice. And that the choice is referred to as what made a particular possible future the present. The judge says, you chose to rob the bank. That is how it happened that he was in the bank, by choosing it. That is how the origins of what occurred are evaluated, by looking at the decisions that people made.

Everyone can see it is so, yet, lying, intellectual fraud, corruption.



Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 14:55:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You are the one who is down hill, again, my intellectual life is great.

What with the creationist conceptual scheme, and the zero based universe theory (that I got from a scientist, but still greater in my conception of it), and my long running argumentation that selection should be interpreted in real numbers that was validated by dr. Kleinman.

You were only ever arguing as a promise, and now you are still arguing like a promise, but now we know there never is anything actually delivered.

You've got nothing. Oh yeah, you've got not swearing, but being very meanspirited and dishonest in debate without swearing.

Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 14:55:04 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

lol, you're totally insane. That is literally a show trial. What about what the fbi was doing there heh? And what about Trump suggesting bringing more security, and then it was denied? What about all the evidence of voterfraud?

The US government, all the evidence indicates, caused the covid pandemic. Through the fda and eco health alliance, they manufactured the covid disease in China. That is presently the most likely scenario. But they won't investigate, same as they won't investigate voter fraud, same as they won't investigate what the fbi was doing at the captiol.

So really, the corruption of the Democrats, affects the world, including my little self.



Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 15:10:04 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 05:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Agreed!


A sign of superior reasoning!

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:11:58 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What about all the evidence of voterfraud?

Since you asked, and to paraphrase Rep. Ted Lieu commenting about what
Jesus said about homosexuality, the following is all the evidence of
voter fraud documented by Trump and his toadies:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You're welcome.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Are you watching cnn? So you know about all of that, and it's nothing. Just normal, thousands of people going round all the dropboxes in a city. That's normal. No it's not normal. You have big problems there.



Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 23:15:05 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 15:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Are you watching cnn? So you know about all of that, and it's nothing. Just normal, thousands of people going round all the dropboxes in a city. That's normal. No it's not normal. You have big problems there.

You repeat above willfully stupid lies. If in fact there was that
kind of fraud to that degree, then why did Trump's stupid lawyers
present no evidence for it in any of his 60+ court challenges? And
why did no election commission present any evidence for it? And why
did Trump himself threaten and bully the Georgia Secretary of State to
**poof** out of thin air the exact number of votes Trump needed to win
that state?

[Mark Isaak]

Now, that's not quite true. There is evidence that Republicans engaged
in voter fraud. Especially if you include voter suppression as fraud,
which sane people must at least include as parts of the same problem.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[jillery]

In the spirit of your pedantic point, please note that I was very
careful to specify "fraud documented by Trump and his toadies". The
fraud to which you allude above was *not* documented by them, or *any*
fraud, for that matter.

I acknowledge the likelihood that some voter fraud almost always
happens. However, the relevant point is whether the fraud is large
enough to overturn elections. That's why there are automatic recounts
when the margins are very small, typically less than 1%.

I acknowledge there is evidence that some Republicans voted by mail in
a state different from their residence. Given their Party's
continuing expressed position on voter fraud, those Republicans should
be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

The ultimate irony here is, Trump and his toadies participated in, and
the Republican Party continues to excuse, a felonious conspiracy to
commit voter fraud and overturn the election, one that makes
individual transgressions comparable to farts in a hurricane. And yet
Trump and his toadies continue to have tremendous influence in the
Republican Party, an example of white privilege run amok.

[Mark Isaak]

I fully agree. What I find most curious is that most Republicans expect
fraud from the other guys, and not from the party that makes dishonesty
its highest value.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Yeah, that particular evidence was not developed yet.

Obviously the usa is going down the toilet, It's inevitable now, because of the academic people being insane.

Op zaterdag 11 juni 2022 om 14:05:05 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Fucking idiot. The Democrats were shown to lie about the Russia collusion hoax, for years, 24/7.

That is very obviously the party that are total liars. The party that has the support of academics, is the party of total liars, because academics is where the dishonesty is coming from.

Op zaterdag 11 juni 2022 om 18:50:05 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Your ideas about election fraud, are the same as your ideas about covid. It is not discerning of the truth, it is just prejudicial total crap.



Op zaterdag 11 juni 2022 om 17:30:05 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Your ideas about election fraud, are the same as your ideas about covid. It is not discerning of the truth, it is just prejudicial total crap.

Based on what you posted only minutes a few minutes previous, you're
so besotted by pseudoskeptic lies that you don't have enough working
brain cells to remember your own words:

**********************************
Subject: Re: Harry Krishna total intellectual fraud
Message-ID: <83d9940d-08f2-4f13...@googlegroups.com>

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:04:51 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yeah, that particular evidence was not developed yet.

**********************************

IOW "that particular evidence" doesn't exist, and never did exist.
Next time you nymshift, "Ivanka" would be appropriate.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You've got nothing, you understand nothing, you have no honesty.

To choose is not to choose. That is where your intellectual development halted, your brain tied in knots over that, producing nothing of value.

Op zondag 12 juni 2022 om 12:45:06 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You've got nothing, you understand nothing, you have no honesty.

Yeah, I get that a lot from those who choose to be willfully stupid
trolls.

>To choose is not to choose. That is where your intellectual development halted, your brain tied in knots over that, producing nothing of value.
>
>Op zondag 12 juni 2022 om 12:45:06 UTC+2 schreef jillery:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Your ideas about election fraud, are the same as your ideas about covid. It is not discerning of the truth, it is just prejudicial total crap.

>> Based on what you posted only a few minutes previous, you're

>> so besotted by pseudoskeptic lies that you don't have enough working
>> brain cells to remember your own words:
>>
>> **********************************
>> Subject: Re: Harry Krishna total intellectual fraud
>> Message-ID: <83d9940d-08f2-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:04:51 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yeah, that particular evidence was not developed yet.
>> **********************************
>>
>> IOW "that particular evidence" doesn't exist, and never did exist.

Tattoo a mirror-image of the above on your forehead, so you can read
it every morning.

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:51:44 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>See, Harry Krishna is a total slime who has never uttered an honest word in his life.
>
>Now he is again shifting between what people say the definition of choosing is, and the actual logic they are using in common discourse with the word choosing.

No one uses your "actual logic" in choosing either.

>A total fucking piece of shit, total fucking intellectual fraud. This kind of dishonesty, that everyone let's pass, because Harry Krishna is on your side. Everything is allowed for the cause of destroying subjectivity. Reminds of Democrats presently.

As I have noted before, literally no one is confused on the idea of
subjectivity, and the idea of somehow destroying a concept is as crazy
as a three-wheeled orange.

>I never do such things, have I ever? Have I ever been dishonest in debate?

Claiming that your ideas or definitions represent "common discourse"
is untrue, but a lie requires knowing that what one is saying is
untrue, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say
that you're honest, but wrong, rather than that you're lying.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The thousands of people going round all the droboxes, and to the democrat ngo. It is election fraud.




Op maandag 13 juni 2022 om 09:10:07 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

1+1=2 right?, then saying 1+1=3 fucks it up. e=mc2 then say m=ec2 fucks it up.

Nazis saying they can measure personal character, it fucks up the concept of subjectivity.

You fuck up the concept of subjectivity. And the concept of choosing, and objectivity.

So you demonstrably lie that nobody is confused on the idea of subjectivity.

It's not dishonest for me to say that the logic used with the word choosing, in common discourse, is to make one of alternative futures the present.

For generally any mention of the word choosing I can point to the alternative possible futures being referred to, and the decision being referred to as what did the job of making one of those alternative possible futures the present.

It's right there in common dicourse, always when choosing is mentioned. You are a fucking liar for denying it. And defining choosing as deciding a course of action, which is an obvious error of circular logic between choosing and deciding.

You're a totally dishonest piece of shit. Never uttered an honest word, in his life.

What's neccessary here is for an evolutionist to admonish Harry Krishna, for being a lying piece of shit. Put on the moral pressure, from all sides.

But the thing is, all evolutionists are totally dishonest pieces of shit, and Harry Krishna knows that.

Meanwhile, the concept of subjectivity is fucked up. For example, these mentally ill trans whatever, they are clueless about subjectivity, on a deeper level. Some are just playing an intellectual game with concepts, while just using the common discourse logic in real life without a problem. Others in real life have a dysfunctional understanding of subjectivity on a deeper level.

There is no straightforward acknowledgement of the entire subjective part of reality, no acknowledgement of any of what is subjective, in academics. It's already turning out catastrophic, and this catastrophy is only ever going to get worse.

At least, I have a sense of it, that the emotions are getting lost, with the new generation, doesn't everybody? The mental illness, the identity issues. And all kinds of other things. They are being mangled by the establishment of (evolution) scientists, academics, throwing out the idea that anything subjective is real. Throwing out the concept of subjectivity, together with throwing out creationism.




Op maandag 13 juni 2022 om 15:05:08 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[jillery]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:49:53 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The thousands of people going round all the droboxes, and to the democrat ngo. It is election fraud.

Incorrect. In fact, it is willfully stupid noise.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

What about the video of the mule actually stuffing the ballotbox with a pair of gloves, and then taking of the gloves?

Op dinsdag 14 juni 2022 om 08:25:08 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

[jillery]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 15:59:47 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What about the video of the mule actually stuffing the ballotbox with a pair of gloves, and then taking of the gloves?

What video? You cited none, as usual.

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 15:59:47 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about the video of the mule actually stuffing the ballotbox with a
>> pair of gloves, and then taking of the gloves?
>
>
> What video? You cited none, as usual.
>

2000 Mules?

[Harry Krishna]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:46:52 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>1+1=2 right?, then saying 1+1=3 fucks it up. e=mc2 then say m=ec2 fucks it up.

It does no damage to mathematics for someone to give a wrong answer.
If it did, mathematics would be destroyed within a single semester of
high school students learning algebra. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense.

>Nazis saying they can measure personal character, it fucks up the concept of subjectivity.

How would one "measure" character? What metric does one use? Or are
you just using your own personal definition of "measure"?

>You fuck up the concept of subjectivity. And the concept of choosing, and objectivity.

What a bizarre non sequitur.

>So you demonstrably lie that nobody is confused on the idea of subjectivity.

No, really, no one is. Besides you.

>It's not dishonest for me to say that the logic used with the word choosing, in common discourse, is to make one of alternative futures the present.

Yes, I agreed that it's not dishonest for you to say something that
you actually believe. Did you even bother to read what you're replying
to? You're not lying, you're just wrong.

>For generally any mention of the word choosing I can point to the alternative possible futures being referred to,

If you're saying that decisions involve choosing between alternatives,
yes, thanks, Captain Obvious. Everyone already knows that. But no one
would call it "to make one of alternative futures the present" besides
you.

> and the decision being referred to as what did the job of making one of those alternative possible futures the present.

Word salad. Try again.

>It's right there in common dicourse, always when choosing is mentioned.

By you, and no one else.

>You are a fucking liar for denying it.

Perhaps if you learned to write coherently in English, I might be more
accepting of whatever it is you think the word salad I pointed out
above is supposed to mean.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Well they, like Darwin, used phrenology, skull measuring, and physiognomy, face measuring, to establish facts of personal character. And now you see Tallis complaining about neuromania, and Darwinitis, which is mostly fMRI brain measuring, to establish personal character. Or evolutionary psychologists asserting that alike software programs in the brain, programmed patterns of behavior, constitute personal character.

So despite your lying, lots of people say 1+1=3, in regards to personal character, you being one of them.

Because very obviously, untill one actually accepts a logic for subjectivity, which is distinct from the logic for objectivity, is personal character really subjective. To say personal character is subjective, but then still using the logic of objectivity with it, is just making what is subjective into a subcategory of what is objective, namely objective facts about brainstates and things.

You demonstrably totally mangle the concept of subjectivity, by throwing out choice from it, and very importantly, starve the most basic terminology for the concept, by not providing a general name for all what is subjective. Then twice saying oh, it's called the subjective, but then also saying it is gibberish to talk about what the subjective does. So you provide a name, and then say it is gibberish.

Total fucking lying that nobody is confused about the concept of subjectivity, while demonstrably people like Tallis write a book about how it is wrong to objectify consciousness, and that it is all a mystery to him.

You fuck up the concepts of choosing, subjectivity, objectivity, that they have no rules in them whatsoever. Which only leaves intuitive understanding of the concepts associated to the words.

Lying assfucker, the alternatives in a choice are referred to as being in the future. That is not a small point their situation in time. You try to fudge the distinction between descriptions of alternative possible futures, which may be sorted in the mind in the present, and actual possiblities inhabiting the actual future.

Always, for any choice, there are 2 alternative possible futures referred to.

Certainly professor Dubois emphasized the distinction between strong anticipation, anticipation as a matter of basic physics, and weak anticipation, anticipation as a matter of the mind making predictions of what happens. A difficult distinction to grasp, but everyone understands eh? The one who has no rule based definitions for anything, who just resorts to a common dictionary containg an error of circular logic. Choosing is deciding a course of action, and deciding is choosing a course of action. Which means choosing is choosing to infintity to a course of action to infinity.

You will be more accepting of what I say, once you accept the judgment that you are evil. Once you take yourself to taks morally, over things like not having any name for all what is subjective. By accepting that the reason why you have no rule based definitions for anything, is your own evil spirit wanting it so. The evil spirit that is in the feelings associated to doing your best, which parasites on your real emotions.


Op woensdag 15 juni 2022 om 15:15:09 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 16:20:12 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well they, like Darwin, used phrenology, skull measuring, and physiognomy, face measuring, to establish facts of personal character.

IOW, pseudo-scientific nonsense, that was not used for what you think
it was in any case.

> And now you see Tallis complaining about neuromania, and Darwinitis, which is mostly fMRI brain measuring, to establish personal character.

Um, what?

> Or evolutionary psychologists asserting that alike software programs in the brain, programmed patterns of behavior, constitute personal character.

I think that you're conflating Behaviorism with EvoPsych, and
misunderstanding both.

>So despite your lying, lots of people say 1+1=3, in regards to personal character, you being one of them.

Nice Non Sequitur.

>Because very obviously, untill one actually accepts a logic for subjectivity, which is distinct from the logic for objectivity, is personal character really subjective.

I don't know whether that's supposed to be a question or a statement.
Do you?

> To say personal character is subjective, but then still using the logic of objectivity with it, is just making what is subjective into a subcategory of what is objective, namely objective facts about brainstates and things.

So if we're excluding facts, on what basis are you judging someone's
character?

>You demonstrably totally mangle the concept of subjectivity, by throwing out choice from it,

I have done no such thing.

> and very importantly, starve the most basic terminology for the concept, by not providing a general name for all what is subjective. Then twice saying oh, it's called the subjective, but then also saying it is gibberish to talk about what the subjective does.

Subjectivity doesn't "do" anything. It's a concept.

>So you provide a name, and then say it is gibberish.

No, I said that we already have a general word for the subjective:
subjective, so there's no need for you to hijack another word and
redefine it. It's your writing that's gibberish.

>Total fucking lying that nobody is confused about the concept of subjectivity, while demonstrably people like Tallis write a book about how it is wrong to objectify consciousness, and that it is all a mystery to him.

I have never read the work that you're referring to, but consciousness
and subjectivity are not synonyms in any way, shape, or form, so it's
completely baffling as to what point you think you're trying to make.

>You fuck up the concepts of choosing, subjectivity, objectivity, that they have no rules in them whatsoever.
>Which only leaves intuitive understanding of the concepts associated to the words.

You seem obsessed with making up rules and insisting that everyone
adhere to them. Just like you make up your own definitions for words,
and insist that everyone adhere to them.

>Lying assfucker, the alternatives in a choice are referred to as being in the future. That is not a small point their situation in time.

Obviously one's choices can't affect the past, Einstein, so what's
your point?

> You try to fudge the distinction between descriptions of alternative possible futures, which may be sorted in the mind in the present, and actual possiblities inhabiting the actual future.

Um, what? I can't make heads or tails of that. If you're saying
there's a distinction between making a choice and carrying it out,
that's exactly what I've been telling you. If you aren't, then what
the heck *are* you trying to say?

>Always, for any choice, there are 2 alternative possible futures referred to.

So choices are always binary? Is that really what you're saying?

>Certainly professor Dubois emphasized the distinction between strong anticipation, anticipation as a matter of basic physics, and weak anticipation, anticipation as a matter of the mind making predictions of what happens. A difficult distinction to grasp, but everyone understands eh?

I don't even grasp what the heck you think "anticipation as a matter
of basic physics" is supposed to mean. Can you elaborate?

> The one who has no rule based definitions for anything,

What's a "rule-based definition"?

>who just resorts to a common dictionary containg an error of circular logic

Using a reference book is not "circular logic". It's a way of making
sure you're using words in a way that other people will understand.
You might want to try it.

>. Choosing is deciding a course of action, and deciding is choosing a course of action. Which means choosing is choosing to infintity to a course of action to infinity.

Your ability to jump from point A to point Bonkers in your reasoning
is truly impressive.

>You will be more accepting of what I say, once you accept the judgment that you are evil.

That doesn't follow. And I told you what might make me (or anyone,
really) more accepting of what you have to say: LEARN TO WRITE IN
COMPREHENSIBLE ENGLISH. Your syntax typically ranges from odd to
outright bizarre, and your insistence on using your own definitions of
words turns most of it into gibberish to anyone who isn't you. There
are several examples above, which I pointed out, of sentences that are
either ambiguous as to your intended meaning, or that don't
communicate anything at all as written.

>Once you take yourself to taks morally, over things like not having any name for all what is subjective. By accepting that the reason why you have no rule based definitions for anything, is your own evil spirit wanting it so. The evil spirit that is in the feelings associated to doing your best, which parasites on your real emotions.

Well, that's certainly a unique take on things.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Again you're back to juvenile delinquent mode of conduct, being an obnoxious twerp, begging people for them to hit you in the head with a baseball batt.

Assfucker, what does the spiritual do? What does personal character, like courage, and laziness, do? What does love do, what does hate do, what does fear do?

All what is spiritual is on the side of what makes a decision. It all does the job of choosing, of making either alternative possible future A, or alternative possible future B, the present. And what is spiritual can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Science shows there is freedom in the universe. Science shows there are several different ways things can turn out, and it is decided. And this kind of physics that deals with freedom in the universe in general, is the exactsame physics that is also involved in human free will, in the brain. It is only that the decisionmaking processes are organized in a more sophisticated way, in the human being.

Asswipe, you say choice is not a neccessary part of subjectivity. Very many times you have repeated that subjective opinions are mostly not chosen. That means that you throw choice out from the definition of subjectivity. Only essential parts are in the definition.

Then you piece of shit, repeat the nonsense argument that it is a good idea to use the dictionary definition, while you yourself reject the number 1 definition in the dictionary as wrong. You reject the first definition in the dictionary, and then you do not accept that there is an error in the definition you use, because, it is in the dictionary, and you have to use the dicitionary definition, in order to communicate.

You reject the number 1 dictionary definition, because it defines choosing in terms of what is best. And you argue, the best is not an essential part of choosing. That is certainly correct argument that non-essential things, should not be in the definition. But you do not apply the same argument to the definition of subjectivity. While you say choice is not essential for subjectivity, you still deny that you have thrown out choice from the definition of subjectivity, because of that subjectivity involves choice sometimes.

You are obviously totally corrupt, through and through. You just say whatever to keep on going with your total evil. There is no logic, no reasoning, to your argumentation.

Also you're obviously a liar. The only reason you say that something like the physics of an electron going either route A or B is not a decision, is because of the electron not considering the possiblities of either A or B in their mind, because electrons don't have a mind. Which consideration is really just another way of saying that decisions are made in terms of what is best. You define choosing in terms of what is best, and you are just lying saying that you do not.

Some electron going route A or B in the brain, or some electron in an experiment on a table setup going either route A or B, the physics is essentially the same. There are alternative possible futures available, and one of them is made the present.

That is what constitutes a decision, and none of your total circular nonsense that to choose is to decide a course of action.







Op donderdag 16 juni 2022 om 16:40:10 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:44:06 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Again you're back to juvenile delinquent mode of conduct, being an obnoxious twerp, begging people for them to hit you in the head with a baseball batt.

I see that you're back to psychotic rage. You really might want to get
competent help in the area of anger management.

>Assfucker, what does the spiritual do?

Who knows? What does "the spiritual" mean? It's not a synonym for
"subjective", no matter how fervently you want it to be.

>What does personal character, like courage, and laziness, do? What does love do, what does hate do, what does fear do?

They influence people. What they DON'T do is MAKE DECISIONS.

>All what is spiritual is on the side of what makes a decision.

What does "on the side of what makes a decision" mean?

>It all does the job of choosing, of making either alternative possible future A, or alternative possible future B, the present.

According to you and literally no one else.

> And what is spiritual can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

I have no idea what "identified with" means in this context, nor why
you still insist that opinions are chosen.

>Science shows there is freedom in the universe.
>Science shows there are several different ways things can turn out, and it is decided.

Decided by what, or by whom?

> And this kind of physics that deals with freedom in the universe in general,

What "kind of physics" is that?

> is the exactsame physics that is also involved in human free will, in the brain.

Again, what kind of physics? How does it operate?

> It is only that the decisionmaking processes are organized in a more sophisticated way, in the human being.

In a more sophisticated way than what? Other sentient animals? Rocks?
Subatomic particles? The voices in your head?

>Asswipe, you say choice is not a neccessary part of subjectivity.

I haven't said that, but it's a true statement, so I don't object to
you attributing it to me.

>Very many times you have repeated that subjective opinions are mostly not chosen. That means that you throw choice out from the definition of subjectivity. Only essential parts are in the definition

You mean in YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION THAT NO ONE ELSE USES.

>Then you piece of shit, repeat the nonsense argument that it is a good idea to use the dictionary definition,

Yes, it is, IF YOU WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND YOU.

>while you yourself reject the number 1 definition in the dictionary as wrong. You reject the first definition in the dictionary, and then you do not accept that there is an error in the definition you use, because, it is in the dictionary, and you have to use the dicitionary definition, in order to communicate.

Can you rephrase that coherently?

>You reject the number 1 dictionary definition, because it defines choosing in terms of what is best.

Good grief, but you're dense. Again, that is not an essential part of
the definition, it's just what a normal - die: neither crazy nor as
dumb as a rock - person will do in making a decision. That the example
YOU PROVIDED then goes into other definitions that don't include the
phrase you object to illustrates that neatly.

> And you argue, the best is not an essential part of choosing. That is certainly correct argument that non-essential things, should not be in the definition. But you do not apply the same argument to the definition of subjectivity. While you say choice is not essential for subjectivity, you still deny that you have thrown out choice from the definition of subjectivity, because of that subjectivity involves choice sometimes.

What is YOUR definition of "subjectivity", exactly? And WHY DO YOU
THINK THAT OPINIONS ARE CHOSEN? Also, your use of the phrase that
"subjectivity involves choice SOMETIMES" is an admission that you
acknowledge that "sometimes" it doesn't. How do you discern which is
which?

>You are obviously totally corrupt, through and through. You just say whatever to keep on going with your total evil. There is no logic, no reasoning, to your argumentation

That you are completely incapable of recognizing logic or reasoning is
your problem, not mine.

[Nando Ronteltap]

You go out of your way to not acknowledge people's emotions, because they aren't objective. You throw out all what is subjective. That is what makes you a total piece of shit. Same as all the thousands and millions of fact obsessed atheists on facebook, who always go on and on about science, facts, evidence, who are all totally clueless about subjectivity. The zombie army of perfectly meanspirited atheists.

I use the word spiritual, you use the phrase, the subjective, to denote all what is identified with a subjective opinion. So you already know what I mean with the word spiritual.

"The subjective", that's a correct literal technical term, which nobody uses except you. Or I might also use it on occasion. You said personal character is subjective. I assume you accept emotions are subjective as well. So then "the subjective" means emotions and personal character. Or is there anything else besides emotions and personal character that you consider to be subjective?

Are emotions chosen things? Can people choose their emotions? Are emotions on the side of what chooses, or are they on the side of what is chosen?

Total piece of shit, you accept the fact that there is freedom in the universe in general, do you not? That there are several different ways things in the universe can turn out. That it could have turned out differently than it did.

So fucking piece of shit, is the physics that deals with this freedom fundamentally the same physics as the freedom that is in the human brain?

Or does physics not apply to the human brain?

And it is certainly true that in this physics about freedom, there is nothing whatsoever identified that is making the decision. Nothing. They never even ask the question. They just note the available possiblities which way the photon or whatever can end up, and then note which way the decision turned out.

According to your total bullshit, this science is wrong. According to you, there can be something found there which is doing the deciding. This is why you ask the question who or what made the decision. You want objective evidence of the decider, while science says, there is no evidence of that at all.

You are the asshole who throws out choice from the concept of subjectivity, I never threw it out. Logic dictates that each and every single last subjective opinion is chosen. I still have the definition of it on the creationwiki page, I already gave you the definition. You throw out choice from the logic of subjectivity, saying it only applies sometimes, so it is no essential part of the definition.

You fucking idiot throw out the number 1 definition in the dictionary as wrong, and then insist on using a dictionary definition. You cannot throw out the number 1 dictionary definition if you insist that dictionary definitions must be used, idiot. Your insistence on using dictionary definitions are vapid. The point is that the word must be defined in the same way that it is used in practical common discourse. And I have already shown that my definition of the word choose is consistent with how the word is used by everyone in common discourse.

You have not demonstrated any difference whatsoever between my use of the word choose, and how the word is used in common discourse. Instead what you do is to continuously shift between the issue of the logic used in practise with the word choose, and the issue of what the definition of the word choose is in the dictionary. Because you have an honesty problem, a morality problem, you continuously shift the issue.

You previously went on a total lying spree, asserting that nobody has any problems with understanding subjectivity. While you said that personal character is subjective, where the nazis said that personal character is objective. How come if everyone understands subjectivity, that they say different things about what is subjective?








Op vrijdag 17 juni 2022 om 16:45:11 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>You go out of your way to not acknowledge people's emotions, because they aren't objective.

I have done no such thing at any time.

>You throw out all what is subjective.

I have done no such thing at any time.

> That is what makes you a total piece of shit. Same as all the thousands and millions of fact obsessed atheists on facebook, who always go on and on about science, facts, evidence,

Imagine that! The nerve of atheists to ask for facts! Call the
subjectivity police to beat their heads in with baseball bats!

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

>who are all totally clueless about subjectivity. The zombie army of perfectly meanspirited atheists.

No one is clueless about subjectivity. You're still fighting against a
problem that doesn't exist, Don Quixote.

>I use the word spiritual,

In a way that no one else does. WHY?

>you use the phrase, the subjective, to denote all what is identified with a subjective opinion.

I still have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

> So you already know what I mean with the word spiritual

No, I really don't, because I don't know what "all what is identified
with a subjective opinion" is supposed to mean. No one besides you
does, and you're not telling.

>
>"The subjective", that's a correct literal technical term, which nobody uses except you.

<facepalm>
And you, you great twit.

>Or I might also use it on occasion.

You use it constantly, in every post.

>You said personal character is subjective. I assume you accept emotions are subjective as well. So then "the subjective" means emotions and personal character. Or is there anything else besides emotions and personal character that you consider to be subjective?

"Good", "evil", "morality"... are you serious?

>Are emotions chosen things? Can people choose their emotions?

If someone tells you that someone you love has just been hit by a bus
and killed, do you have a choice between being happy or being sad?

>Are emotions on the side of what chooses, or are they on the side of what is chosen?

I have no idea, because the question doesn't make any sense as
phrased.

>Total piece of shit, you accept the fact that there is freedom in the universe in general, do you not?

I'd have to know what your definition of freedom is to answer that.

> That there are several different ways things in the universe can turn out. That it could have turned out differently than it did.

For example? It's still not clear what the heck you're asking, Are you
denying causality?

>So fucking piece of shit, is the physics that deals with this freedom fundamentally the same physics as the freedom that is in the human brain?

I have no idea, because I still have no idea what your definition of
freedom is, or what physics you're talking about.

>Or does physics not apply to the human brain?

Of course it does.

>And it is certainly true that in this physics about freedom, there is nothing whatsoever identified that is making the decision. Nothing. They never even ask the question

Because there is no reason to think that inanimate objects are somehow
sentient, and capable of making decisions.

>They just note the available possiblities which way the photon or whatever can end up, and then note which way the decision turned out.

You're assuming your conclusion that there was a decision involved.

>According to your total bullshit, this science is wrong

I remain agnostic on that point because I still don't know what
science you're talking about.

>According to you, there can be something found there which is doing the deciding. This is why you ask the question who or what made the decision

It's a logical response to your insistence that a decision occurred. A
decision on the part of who or what?

>. You want objective evidence of the decider,

No, I want you to tell me who or what you think is making the decision
you say occurred.

> while science says, there is no evidence of that at all.

Science isn't saying that inanimate objects make decisions. That's all
you.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Asshole, when nazis say that personal character is objective, then that means there are people who do not understand subjectivity, because personal character is subjective. There is a real problem with people not comprehending subjectivity, and obviously you are one of those people who doesn't comprehend subjectivity.

Yes it is wrong to ask for evidence, facts, all the time, for instance when the issue is personal character. Because it is a subjective issue. Because of atheists like yourself insisting on facts for everyting, it is coercing people to objectify personal character and emotions.

Lots of atheists on facebook say to me that emotions are objective, that they can be measured with an mri brainscan. Which again means that there is a real problem of people not comprehending subjectivity.

And also God is a subjective issue, because the name God is defined in terms of that He makes decisions, and therefore God can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

But you have no rules for subjectivity, at all. Why is it that you say that personal character is subjective, and what does it mean for personal character to be subjective? You have no answer.

Is photosynthesis subjective? What is it that makes personal character subjective, and photosynthesis objective?

Material things can be chosen. Emotions cannot be chosen. That emotions cannot be chosen, while material things can be chosen, should clue you into the fact that emotions are not material, but spiritual. And that emotions are only on the side of what makes a choice, is why they can never be chosen.

But the words denoting emotions must be chosen. Someone I love is killed, then I guess I am still presented with the possiblity of saying the word happy, I just do not choose that word. I certainly aren't forced to say sad. There are many different words to choose from, and actually there is a lot of intonation to choose from, and always in expression of emotion thery will be lots of variety, because expression of emotion can only operate by free will. So your bullshit example trying to pretend that expression of emotion operates in a forced way, is total nonsense.

You don't have to know what my definitions are, you have your own definitions that you can use. And if your definitions are wrong, it will be shown that they are wrong in the debate. I already explained to you what kind of physics I am talking about. The physics that was demonstrated in the experiment where a quantumcomputer finds the element in a database, without running the search algorithm. Merely exploiting the possibility that the search algorithm could have run, but the search algorithm did not actually run. Which experiment demonstrates that possibilities not chosen, were also real, a reality that can be exploited practically. The experiment demonstrates that the socalled superposition, or wave function, involves freedom, and that the collapse of it to a particulate state is a decision. The wave function collapse to one of several possible particulate states.

So then is the physics of a human being going left or right, the same physics as by which a photon ends up left or right in the collapse of a superposition?

Why if there is freedom and decision in the physics of the universe generally, why would that be fundamentally different from the freedom and decision of human beings?

Exactly how the wavefunction collapses, is still some matter of debate in science. But that is irrelevant for what we are debating. Because there is no doubt that first there is the wavefuction, and then it collapses to a particulate state, regardless of how it occurred. So it means it is scientific fact that if the photon turns up at route A, that it could have turned up at route B. And the words "could have" is the terminology about alternatives, and decision.










Op vrijdag 17 juni 2022 om 19:05:11 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:25:06 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Addendum:

<https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106229988/texas-gops-new-platform-says-biden-didnt-really-win-it-also-calls-for-secession>

<https://tinyurl.com/bt79xxnj>
********************************
"We believe that the 2020 election violated Article 1 and 2 of the US
Constitution," the Texas Republicans said in their new platform. They
accuse several secretaries of state of illegal actions, alleging that
"substantial election fraud in key metropolitan areas" distorted the
results in Biden's favor.

"We reject the certified results of the 2020 presidential election,
and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not
legitimately elected by the people of the United States," the GOP
platform stated.
********************************

The kind of election fraud the Texas Republican Party alleges is
entirely different from the kind of election fraud alleged by Mohammad
aka Nando. Not sure why Trump's lawyers didn't go with that argument
instead. Perhaps because no Constitutional court agrees with it?

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 11:08:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Asshole, when nazis say that personal character is objective,
> then that means there are people who do not understand subjectivity, because personal character is subjective.
> There is a real problem with people not comprehending subjectivity, and obviously you are one of those people who doesn't comprehend subjectivity.

I certainly don't comprehend most of what you have to say about it. No
one else can either, so I'm guessing that the problem is on your end.

>Yes it is wrong to ask for evidence, facts, all the time, for instance when the issue is personal character. Because it is a subjective issue.

How do you tell what a person's character is without using facts? You
still haven't answered that.

>Because of atheists like yourself insisting on facts for everyting, it is coercing people to objectify personal character and emotions.

Your disdain for facts is downright bizarre. Not to mention
self-defeating.

>Lots of atheists on facebook say to me that emotions are objective, that they can be measured with an mri brainscan.

What they are saying is that different emotional states correlate to
heightened activity in certain parts of the brain. Do you dispute
this? If so, on what grounds? And remember, facts aren't welcome in
Nandoland. (Also, "measure" isn't the word you're looking for.)

>Which again means that there is a real problem of people not comprehending subjectivity.

It means nothing of the kind.

>And also God is a subjective issue, because the name God is defined in terms of that He makes decisions,

What you mean to say is that "the name God is defined BY NANDO..."

>and therefore God can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

That doesn't follow. It doesn't even say anything as phrased. Leaving
out your weird obsession that opinions are chosen, the phrase "God (or
anything else, for that matter) can only be identified with a chosen
opinion" is gobbledygook. What on Earth are you trying to say?

>But you have no rules for subjectivity, at all. Why is it that you say that personal character is subjective, and what does it mean for personal character to be subjective? You have no answer.

Because I don't know what the heck you think you mean by it. You may
as well be a random word generator.


>Is photosynthesis subjective?

What a daft question.

>What is it that makes personal character subjective, and photosynthesis objective

Why don't you tell me?

>Material things can be chosen. Emotions cannot be chosen.

Nor can opinions, normally. In any case, the obvious reply is "so
what?".

>That emotions cannot be chosen, while material things can be chosen, should clue you into the fact that emotions are not material, but spiritual.

What a bizarre assertion. As observed in another post, you managed to
leap from Point A to Point Bonkers.

> And that emotions are only on the side of what makes a choice

Again, what the heck is "on the side of what makes a choice" supposed
to mean? If you mean that people have emotions and inanimate objects
don't, well duh! In other news, water is wet, and fire is hot. WHAT'S
YOUR POINT?

>is why they can never be chosen.

So people have emotions, therefore, they can't choose them? Is that
what you're saying? I have literally no idea, please do tell.

>But the words denoting emotions must be chosen. Someone I love is killed, then I guess I am still presented with the possiblity of saying the word happy, I just do not choose that word. I certainly aren't forced to say sad.

Oh for nonexistent Heaven's sake, are you capable of reading anything
at all for comprehension? I did not ask whether you would have a
choice of what word to use, I asked whether you could choose between
FEELING happy and FEELING sad. Because you were implying that you
could. Now you say (as far as I can determine from your gibberish)
that people can't choose their emotions. Which is it?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Actually asshole I have already answered that question how personal character is identified 3 times or more.

You relate your decisionmaking processes to the decisionmaking processes of someone else, then you feel what the personal character of that person is, and then express those feelings spontaneously with free will.

That's another favorite tactic of yours. Asking the same question over and over, and ignore the answers provided. Another example of you being a total piece of shit, a total intellectual fraud.

Asshole, as already mentioned certainly 30 times, there is one whole category for facts in creationism. But you still go on pretending that creationism is against facts.

No asshole, the atheists are saying that emotions are measured in the brain, not correllated to something physical. As are you also saying because, you do not acknowledge anything inherently subjective is real. You do not even allow a general name for what is subjective, the spiritual. Which means that you can only ever end up with emotions being something objective.

Total fucking piece of shit you are lying that nazis comprehended subjectivity. You cannot objectify emotions and personal character, while comprehending subjectivity. If you say 1+1=3 it means you do not comprehend mathematics.

All this sick fucking constant lying that you engage in.

Asshole, as explained for the 10th time, when you say Mengele was a nice man, then that opinion says more about you than it does about Mengele, because you chose that opinion. That's how it works with opinions, they are chosen.

While you pretend, because you reject anything inherently subjective is real, that you can measure personal character, and then state as objective fact what the personal character of the person is.

Why would you have to know what I mean by a word? You have your own understanding of subjectivity. You can tell me with your own understanding what it means for personal character to be subjective.

Ofcourse you basically have no intellectual understanding of anything, and just have a set of intuitions about things, and a, I'll recognize it when I see it approach.

Asswipe, photo synthesis is objective, because it is a chosen thing, a creation, personal character is subjective, because it is doing the choosing, an attribute of a creator. That is my anwer, simple, clear and logical.

Now you answer the question, using your own understanding of subjectivity. What is it that makes photosyntesis to be objective, and what is it that makes personal character to be subjective?

That emotions cannot be chosen, should clue you into the fact that they are fundamentally different from material things, all of which material things can be chosen. So then you require a different category name, for all those things that are not material, which is spiritual. There is no leap in that, that is just efficient naming of categories.

Asshole, I have certainly said more than a 100 times that emotions are on the side of what does the choosing, they are not on the side of what is chosen. There you go again with your continuous lying. An individual who is corrupt through and through.

And you must be a criminal in real life, that is the required judgment. Because criminality is what corrupt people generally do. You deal with people, not acknowledging their emotions and personal character. You can do anything to them then, because then they are basically just machines, objects, and not subjects.


Op dinsdag 21 juni 2022 om 17:55:16 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 22:55:33 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Actually asshole I have already answered that question how personal character is identified 3 times or more.

How does one do so without using facts in any way, other than guessing
randomly? Your position is incoherent.

>You relate your decisionmaking processes to the decisionmaking processes of someone else

How? You have no idea how that person makes decisions.

>then you feel what the personal character of that person is, and then express those feelings spontaneously with free will.

Feelings based, again, on what, exactly? You've excluded facts, so
what *are* you using as a criteria? Or are you just randomly guessing?

>That's another favorite tactic of yours. Asking the same question over and over, and ignore the answers provided

I'm not ignoring your answers at all, you silly twit, I'm pointing out
that they're incoherent (often in a self-contradictory way) nonsense.

>Another example of you being a total piece of shit, a total intellectual fraud.
>Asshole, as already mentioned certainly 30 times, there is one whole category for facts in creationism. But you still go on pretending that creationism is against facts.

No, I go on pointing out that no one but you defines Creationism in
that way: as always, you're insisting that everyone else accept and
use your own personal definitions of words. That's not how a
discussion works, but it is a guarantee that no one else will
understand what you're trying to say.

>No asshole, the atheists are saying that emotions are measured in the brain, not correllated to something physical

Measured by what metric? You do know what "measure" means to people
who aren't you, right...? And as usual, you manage to wrap yourself up
in self-contradiction: if activity occurs in the brain, that activity
is physical by definition.

>As are you also saying because, you do not acknowledge anything inherently subjective is real.
> You do not even allow a general name for what is subjective, the spiritual. Which means that you can only ever end up with emotions being something objective.

No, it means that I utterly reject your attempt to hijack a word that
doesn't mean what you claim it means to anyone who isn't you, and
which is loaded down with nonsense and woo-woo to begin with.

>Total fucking piece of shit you are lying that nazis comprehended subjectivity. You cannot objectify emotions and personal character, while comprehending subjectivity. If you say 1+1=3 it means you do not comprehend mathematics.

Good grief. Has it ever occurred to you that the Nazis were engaging
in anti-Semitic propaganda rather than in anything connected to actual
science? Apparently not.

>All this sick fucking constant lying that you engage in.

You can't point to a single example of that. Nothing I have said is
untrue, at least not deliberately so.

>Asshole, as explained for the 10th time, when you say Mengele was a nice man, then that opinion says more about you than it does about Mengele, because you chose that opinion.
> That's how it works with opinions, they are chosen.

According to you and no one else. And there are several other problems
for you here: 1) I have never made such an absurd claim, nor would I,
so why would you imply that I have? 2) If we accept your ideas about
freely chosen opinions, then the opinion that Mengele was a nice guy
is neither better nor worse than the opinion that he was a monster:
thinking either one is perfectly fine with you, as long as it was
"freely chosen". Is that really what you mean to say? 3) You just
insisted in your last post that humans can't choose their emotions.
Why, then, do you insist that they can choose their opinions?

>While you pretend, because you reject anything inherently subjective is real, that you can measure personal character, and then state as objective fact what the personal character of the person is.
>Why would you have to know what I mean by a word?

BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE ELSE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE WORDS YOU'RE USING. Are
you really so dense that you can't understand that?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You saying people have no problems comprehending subjectivity is a lie, you saying creationism throws out facts is a lie. The evidence is very clear, but it does not suit your position, so you just lie about it.

Objectively all decisions are random, because all decisions can turn out either A or B in the moment. When a decision is based on meaningful feeling, then it's not random in the subjective sense of the word. Ofcourse, whether there is a meaningful feeling is a matter of chosen opinion. So that one can say all the decisionmaking in the entire universe is random bot objectively and subjectively.

It's not the job of creationism, or logic, to provide moral guidance, God the holy spirit provides moral guidance. God says Mengele is evil. If you don't feel that Mengele is evil, then why would you say he is evil? Because of the logic of some calculation? You have to feel things in order to be moral.

And as already mentioned 10 times, creationism is consistent with the logic used in common discourse. Everyone uses creationist logic. But everyone cannot explain accurately what the logic is that they are using in common discourse.

You have no functional intellectual comprehension of how subjectivity works, is why you do not explain what it is that makes personal character to be subjective, and photosynthesis to be objective. That's got nothing to do with that you do not comprehend with what I say, you do not comprehend subjectivity altogether.

Which is because you don't conceive of decisions as being essentially spontaneous. Without any calculation whatsoever in between the alternatives in a decision.


Op woensdag 22 juni 2022 om 18:10:17 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 20:29:58 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You saying people have no problems comprehending subjectivity is a lie,

What I actually said is that no one besides you is confused on the
topic. Your inability to understand anything that you read is almost
comical.

> you saying creationism throws out facts is a lie.

I have never said that. It's true, but I haven't said such a thing at
any point in our discussion.

>The evidence is very clear,

Evidence of what?

> but it does not suit your position, so you just lie about it.

You're very certain of my positions on a great many things. You are
also wrong about it every single time you attribute a position to me.
Whether this is because you're confusing me for someone else, or
because of your complete inability to read English for comprehension I
neither know nor care.

>Objectively all decisions are random,

Completely and utterly wrong. You're spouting nonsense.

>because all decisions can turn out either A or B in the moment.

As I have previously observed, you seem to be under the impression
that all choices are binary. This is also wrong.

>When a decision is based on meaningful feeling, then it's not random in the subjective sense of the word

What's a "meaningful" feeling? How does it differ from other feelings?
What's the subjective meaning of "random"? Again, you're spouting
nonsense.

>Ofcourse, whether there is a meaningful feeling is a matter of chosen opinion.

Speaking of, you spent most of a recent post insisting that humans
can't choose their emotions. Why, then, do you think they can choose
their opinions?

> So that one can say all the decisionmaking in the entire universe is random bot objectively and subjectively.

One could say that if they were completely daft, but no one who
understood what words actually mean in English would.

>It's not the job of creationism, or logic, to provide moral guidance,

Who ever said it was?

>God the holy spirit provides moral guidance. God says Mengele is evil.

Did God tell you that directly? If so, get professional help.

> If you don't feel that Mengele is evil, then why would you say he is evil?

Because he was evil. Why would I think otherwise?

> Because of the logic of some calculation? You have to feel things in order to be moral.

Why? Can't one follow "God the holy spirit"'s moral guidance without
having feelings about it? You seem to continually miss noticing even
the most obvious implications of your own stated ideas.

>And as already mentioned 10 times, creationism is consistent with the logic used in common discourse.

And as I have rebutted many times, NO IT IS NOT, Literally nothing you
write is. Your syntax ranges from odd and clumsy to outright bizarre,
and your ideas, as presented, are unique to you. To say that they
represent any kind of "common discourse" is as ridiculous as claiming
that the Earth is flat.

[Abner]

Harry Krishna wrote:
> You're very certain of my positions on a great many things. You are
> also wrong about it every single time you attribute a position to me.
> Whether this is because you're confusing me for someone else, or
> because of your complete inability to read English for comprehension I
> neither know nor care.

I strongly suspect a third option is the case here: his devotion to his ideology is so strong that he automatically translates everything everyone else says into what they should have said according to his ideology. I don't think he actually hears what anyone else says, much less thinks about it - he just hears what they 'should' have said according to what he believes. It's a fairly common problem with fanatics, and it makes them utterly immune to counter-arguments.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Asshole, there are at least 2 possibilities in a decision. When discussing the concept of decision, you use the minimal number, for convenience.

That you make of that, that I would argue that there are only 2 possiblities in any decision, is just because you are a total piece of shit who has no argumentation Grasping at straws, being an obnoxious little cunt. Having no feeling whatsoever for intellectual issues.

Asshole, it is a lie that nobody is confused about subjectivity. Why Dennett seems to just throw out subjectivity altogether, and then this Tallis complains about it. As was recently discussed on talk.origins.

How can it be that these people disagree on subjectivity, while you say that nobody is confused about subjectivity?

Fucking, fucking, liar. That's how you operate, by being a fucking liar. It's inconvient for your position that people are confused about subjectivity, so then you just lie to say that they are not. Goddamned fucking piece of shit liar.

And again, that nazis objectified personal character, demonstrates they are clueless about how subjectivity works. They accepted as hard scientific fact the personal character of the various races, including several Germanic races. Because of scumbags such as biologist Haeckel, who asserted he could ascertain the personal character of Jesus, as to what racial stock he belongs to.

Which then made the judgments of the nazis on the personal character of people to be emotionless, and hard, because they were asserted as fact, with scientific certitude. Which hard emotionless judgments provided the attitudes for warmongering and genocides. There is no emotion in statements of fact, because facts are forced by evidence. There is only emotion in opinions, because they are chosen based on emotion.

But, you also deny this is of any significance that the nazis objectified personal character, because, it does not suit your position. And when something doesn't suit you, then you lie about it.

All you've got is your fucking lies.

You have not demonstrated any inconsistency with the creationist conceptual scheme, and the logic used in common discourse. You have only demonstrated an inconsistency between the dictionary definition and the creationist definition. Which was already explained, the dictionary definition is a conflation of the advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing. There is obviously immense psychological pressure and appeal, to doing your best. Perfectly explaining why the definition would be corrupted.

Asshole, opinions are words, people can choose words. So that was another retarded question of yours.

Basically your entire diatribe is in opposition to spontaneity. That it doesn't even exist. Because all choices are only by the mind figuring out a course of action, or as you like to say illogically choosing is to choose a course of action. And choices are not spontaneous because, that is bad english language.

There can be no doubt that you totally suck at spontaneity, given your insistence of defing choosing without it. For the people who accept the validity of subjectivity being spontaneous, they are all sorts of people. But the people who define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, they are all the same, and all total assholes.






Op donderdag 23 juni 2022 om 15:40:17 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You still got nothing. Same as you, Harry Krishna refuses to explain how subjectivity works, in rejecting the creationist concept of it. Refuses to answer the question, how it is that personal character would be subjective, and photosynthesis would be objective.

So your theory about it is exactly nothing.

What weakness, what sickness, what intellectual fraudulence.

It is obvious that you are both captivated by the psychological force to do your best. How completely infantile. No emotional maturity.

Op donderdag 23 juni 2022 om 16:00:18 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[Abner]

Nando wrote:
> Same as you, Harry Krishna refuses to explain how subjectivity works, in rejecting the creationist concept of it

That's actually a perfect example of what I just pointed out about Nando, and many thanks for him for doing so. Over the years I have explained my ideas about how subjectivity works multiple times, the last time less than a year ago ... and Nando didn't listen at the time, didn't seem to understand anything of what I said, and doesn't even remember any of the explanations happening now. It's not that he didn't agree with my explanations; he doesn't even think the explanations happened at all and thinks I refused to do them!

IMO Nando, like most fanatics, is incapable of hearing anything that doesn't fit into his worldview. He either translates it into what he thinks you should have said, or convinces himself you never said anything at all. It's really quite sad, but thankfully not my circus, not my monkies (as the Polish saying goes). There's really no point in explaining anything to him again since he won't actually hear it at the time or remember it later.

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 07:37:47 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Asshole, there are at least 2 possibilities in a decision.

You just said there were only 2. It's clear that you don't read what
other people wrote, but you're starting to sound like you don't even
read what *you* write.

>When discussing the concept of decision, you use the minimal number, for convenience.

Why use it if it's wrong?

>That you make of that, that I would argue that there are only 2 possiblities in any decision, is just because you are a total piece of shit who has no argumentation

No, it's because you did, in fact, just state that outright in your
previous post.

>Grasping at straws, being an obnoxious little cunt. Having no feeling whatsoever for intellectual issues.

I know it must be annoying that I keep pointing out the problems with
what you write. Have you ever considered learning to state your ideas
in comprehensible English, and not to contradict your own positions
from post to post?

>Asshole, it is a lie that nobody is confused about subjectivity.

I agree. You clearly are, so it would be wrong to say that nobody is.

>Why Dennett seems to just throw out subjectivity altogether, and then this Tallis complains about it. As was recently discussed on talk.origins.

Neither of them said what you think they said. I can guarantee that.

>How can it be that these people disagree on subjectivity,

What are their areas of disagreement? Be specific, and cite your
sources.

>while you say that nobody is confused about subjectivity?

No one here is, besides you.

>Fucking, fucking, liar. That's how you operate, by being a fucking liar. It's inconvient for your position that people are confused about subjectivity, so then you just lie to say that they are not. Goddamned fucking piece of shit liar.
>
>And again, that nazis objectified personal character, demonstrates they are clueless about how subjectivity works. They accepted as hard scientific fact the personal character of the various races, including several Germanic races. Because of scumbags such as biologist Haeckel, who asserted he could ascertain the personal character of Jesus, as to what racial stock he belongs to.

How exactly are people confused about subjectivity? Be specific.

>Which then made the judgments of the nazis on the personal character of people to be emotionless, and hard, because they were asserted as fact, with scientific certitude. Which hard emotionless judgments provided the attitudes for warmongering and genocides

Sigh. Again, have you ever considered that the Nazis were simply
spewing anti-Semitic propaganda with no connection to facts or
science?

>There is no emotion in statements of fact, because facts are forced by evidence

My father died five years ago this August. That's a fact. It's also a
fact that saying it causes quite an emotional reaction in me. You're
spouting nonsense again.

>There is only emotion in opinions, because they are chosen based on emotion

Incoherent, self-contradictory nonsense. If emotions can't be chosen,
which you insist, how can opinions be chosen?

>But, you also deny this is of any significance that the nazis objectified personal character, because, it does not suit your position.

I deny that it has any significance because it doesn't. They weren't
making a scientific claim, they were engaging in propaganda for
political reasons. You keep tilting at windmills, because you insist
that they're giants, Don Quixote.

> And when something doesn't suit you, then you lie about it.
>All you've got is your fucking lies.
>You have not demonstrated any inconsistency with the creationist conceptual scheme,

Other than that it's completely incoherent?

> and the logic used in common discourse.

Which has no connection to anything you write.

> You have only demonstrated an inconsistency between the dictionary definition and the creationist definition.

You mean YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITIONS that no one else uses, including
other Creationists.

>Which was already explained, the dictionary definition is a conflation of the advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing. There is obviously immense psychological pressure and appeal, to doing your best. Perfectly explaining why the definition would be corrupted.

Do you seriously believe that a definition in a dictionary puts
psychological stress on people? That's completely batcrap crazy..

>Asshole, opinions are words, people can choose words.

Oh good grief. No, opinions are not words: they can be EXPRESSED in
words. That's a huge difference. Emotions can be expressed in words
too: does that mean that they ARE words? You really are hopelessly
confused.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Yeah, that never happened. Neccessary being, we discussed. Subjectivity, not.

Op donderdag 23 juni 2022 om 17:10:18 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[Abner]

Nando wrote:
> Yeah, that never happened. Neccessary being, we discussed. Subjectivity, not.

Again, a perfect example of what I mentioned. The most recent time was less than a year ago, yet ... *poof*, because Nando doesn't agree with what I said, he has erased it entirely from his memory and now pretends I never said it. Which shows the utter futility of arguing with fanatics, as they just ignore anything they do not understand or agree with.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

"And fanatics just can't do that, which means they cannot learn anything outside their own beliefs. They are uneducable." - Abner Mintz

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Total fucking piece of shit. No I never said there are only ever 2 alternative possiblities in a choice, asshole, I just use 2 for convenience. There is no fucking point to discuss the logic of decision to add more possiblities.

Total fucking piece of shit, total crap for personality. All this total shit is in your brain. It must be so revolting to be you.

Hey Abner, honesty test for you.

Harry Krishna is a fucking liar for saying that generally nobody is confused about subjectivity. He knows it is not true, and lies about it.

What do you say? Is it true that Krishna is a fucking liar?

Ofcourse, I have absolutely never seen an atheist, or an evolutionist, be critical of another atheist, or evolutionist their argument, in defending atheism / evolution theory.

Asshole Krishna, I just explained how people are confused about subjectivity, by how nazis objectify personal character. And then after I already explained it, you ask, how are people confused about subjectity. Because you are a fucking retard. Total piece of shit. Sucks to be you.

Asswipe, it is very clear that the majority of scientists still think that personal character is objective, same as nazis did. Because they never accuse nazis of objectifying personal character, they only ever accuse nazis of getting the facts about personal character wrong, in relation to variation within and between races. For as far as scientists go, they basically argue that the nazis should have gassed individual people from different races, because of the variation spreading between races. That is what they mention as wrong, and they never mention that personal character is subjective. They cannot because, the whole theory of natural selection is built around subjective terminology in relation to reproductive success. And all the biologists at present, assert that personal character is objective in one form or another. As already discussed several times.

I don't believe you have any real emotion, not for your father, or anyone. That said, the emotion isn't in the operation of objectivity, it is only in dealing with the fact. A computer telescope can just perfectly denote the facts of the position of millions of stars in the sky, as people used to do themselves by looking at the sky and noting it down. A computer can generate millions of opinions too, but, alas, they are not real opinions, because of lacking the emotion to choose them.

Obviously asshole, the people writing the dictionaries are also under this spell of doing their best. Yes the dictionary writers would be under psychological pressure, and be appealed by doing their best. Just like everyone else. And if they wrote the correct logical definition of choosing, it would be controversial, which dictionaries generally don't want to do. And actually, generally all the dictionaries never even try to provide strictly logical definitions, for any word. They just provide conversational definitions. It would be very interesting if a dictionary actually tried to be logically consistent.

And again asshole, you yourself said the number 1 definition in the Oxsford dictionary is wrong. Oh you can't deny the dictionary, but you can deny the dictionary, because you are a dishonest sack of shit.

No asshole, opinions express emotions. To say a painting is beautiful, then the word beautiful is the opinion, and it expresses a love for the way the painting looks. Opinons are just words. In the same way one can express emotions with facial expression, but facial expressions aren't proper opinions.

Now you provided a little nugget of your total confusion about subjectivity. That you really operate on an intuitive level, without intellectual understanding of anything.



Op donderdag 23 juni 2022 om 17:45:17 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Never happend. Anyone can see on the google search for the past year. The vaccines are affecting your brain.

Op donderdag 23 juni 2022 om 18:15:17 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[Abner]

Nando wrote:
> Hey Abner, honesty test for you.

> What do you say? Is it true that Krishna is a fucking liar?

While I cannot be absolutely certain whether he is lying or not, I have never caught him in any lies nor do I have any reason to think he is generally dishonest. You, on the other hand, are either a repeated liar or utterly insane ... my bet is on the latter. The insanity defense only partially excuses the untruths you repeatedly state about other people and their positions.

You are assuming that anyone who disagrees with your positions is dishonest - that we all actually agree with you and are lying when we say otherwise. That is not true. I honestly disagree with you on many issues, and have repeatedly explained why over the years, to the point where I have concluded that trying to explain *anything* to you is completely futile (including this post, alas). Harry Krishna apparently also honestly disagrees with you, and has explained his reasons why repeatedly as well. I have no reason to think he is lying when he expresses his disagreement.

As for subjectivity, I don't know how many people are confused about it. I'm not (see my prior explanation of what I think subjectivity is all about), and I have not seen anyone express confusion about it. That you disagree with everyone else about subjectivity does not mean that they are confused about it or that they are lying about disagreeing with you about it.

"Nando does not agree with the reasons given" does not equate to "that person is a liar" or "that person is confused". They're not the same things at all. It just means we think that you are wrong and/or insane.

[Abner]

Nando wrote:
> Never happend. Anyone can see on the google search for the past year.

If anyone actually cares what my opinions are on subjectivity, I invite them to go back and find them. Given how badly off-topic subjectivity is for this newsgroup, I rather doubt anyone cares.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

One thing I do remember what you said is that, subjectivity is about things in the head. That doesn't amount to an explanation.

You failed the honesty test, obviously.

So you don't consider nazis to be confused about subjectivity, in saying personal character is objective. And recently Tallis complaining about Dennett objectifying consciousness as what the brain does. But I guess you only count as confusion the people who are saying they are confused about it. Because you have no honesty.





Op donderdag 23 juni 2022 om 19:30:18 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[Abner]

Nando wrote:
> One thing I do remember what you said is that, subjectivity is about things in the head. That doesn't amount to an explanation.

Ah, so now you *do* recall *one* part of the thing you previously claimed never happened. So you were wrong and/or lying in that claim. Now if you remembered all of the rest of what I wrote, you would realize that I did give an extensive explanation. You don't recall any of the rest of it, nor did you understand any of it, but at least now you have recalled one tiny bit of it.

> So you don't consider nazis to be confused about subjectivity, in saying personal character is objective.

I have never met any Nazis and have not read anything on what they believed on subjectivity, nor do I particularly care what they believed on subjectivity. I have made no claims on that, or on Tallis or Dennett. You are lying or insane (as usual) when you claim to know my opinions on any of those people's views. I certainly am not going to take your word for any of those people's views on anything, given how regularly you have gotten wrong the opinions of myself and others.

Your disagreeing with them does not mean they were confused. They may be/have been just as certain - and just as insane and/or wrong - as you are. Having not read anything they have to say on the subject, I can't say whether they are confused or not. Your pretending to know my views on them is your usual insanity and/or dishonesty, and a very good example of why I don't take your word for anything on what anyone else says.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Yeah, things in the head, it's not an explanation. And I said so at the time, that it was crap. There was no debate, no critical understanding.

And sure, you didn't know that nazis were / are, scientific racists, who objectify personal character as being heritable. Whatever.

I guess the same reason why this other guy posting here cannot see vaccine injuried people, many of them, is why you cannot see people who are confused about subjectivity. Yes there is something seriously wrong with all of you. A general cultural breakdown in academics, because of failing to acknowledge the entire subjective part of reality. And I am certainly not the only one saying that academics in general, and academic people, have turned to shit. Same as CNN has turned to shit, that is the same what is happening in academics. And academics is the source of it, why CNN has turned to shit.

And the vaccines, the prion like aspects of it, affect the brain. So that part of my zombie prediction is coming true.


Op donderdag 23 juni 2022 om 20:45:18 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[Abner]

Nando wrote:
> Yeah, things in the head, it's not an explanation.

*pats Nando on the head comfortingly* Don't worry, Nando, there *was* an explanation, and your inability to remember any of it doesn't really matter. To the best of my knowledge no one takes any of your opinions or beliefs seriously, because they recognize you are a raving loonie within a short time of meeting you. You can rave and rant to your heart's content over the internet; as long as you don't act on your more objectionable beliefs in the real world, everything is fine. Your inability to understand anything you disagree with doesn't actually do any harm to anyone. Just don't actually act on your wish to hurt the people who disagree with you - that's the one rubicon you can't cross in a civilized society.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Asshole, the spirit of my debating is fine. You are meanspirited without swearing, and I am not meanspirited with swearing.

You can keep on saying that subjectivity being about things in the head, is an explanation of subjectivity, but it never will be. And there is just no doubt whatsoever, that my explanation of subjectivity is the accurate truth of it. Because 5 year olds can solve the linguistic puzzle to express subjective opinions, it is therefore simple, and therefore there is no doubt about how it works. An opinion is chosen, and it expresses what it is that chooses. There is an entire subjective part of reality, the part that chooses, that you are completely clueless about. You don't even have the first clue about how things work in the universe, without creationism.

And what you get up to, it can never be right.



Op donderdag 23 juni 2022 om 21:35:18 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:29:24 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Asshole, the spirit of my debating is fine. You are meanspirited without swearing, and I am not meanspirited with swearing.

How about your oft-expressed desire to murder your debate opponents
with baseball bats? That strikes me as more than a tad mean-spirited.

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:54:55 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Total fucking piece of shit. No I never said there are only ever 2 alternative possiblities in a choice, asshole

Yes, you did.

>, I just use 2 for convenience. There is no fucking point to discuss the logic of decision to add more possiblities.

Then why not just say "two or more" possibilities, so you won't be
misunderstood? Or is asking you to state things clearly too much of a
stretch? Apparently.

>Total fucking piece of shit, total crap for personality. All this total shit is in your brain. It must be so revolting to be you.
>
>Hey Abner, honesty test for you.
>Harry Krishna is a fucking liar for saying that generally nobody is confused about subjectivity. He knows it is not true, and lies about it.
>What do you say? Is it true that Krishna is a fucking liar?

Please give an example of something untrue that I have said to you,
knowing that it was untrue.

You can't.

>Ofcourse, I have absolutely never seen an atheist, or an evolutionist, be critical of another atheist, or evolutionist their argument, in defending atheism / evolution theory.

There's an awful lot that you don't see, because your reading
comprehension is as poor as your writing.

>Asshole Krishna, I just explained how people are confused about subjectivity, by how nazis objectify personal character.

And I pointed out that you're spouting nonsense. The Nazis were not
confused on the point, they were engaging in political propaganda.

> And then after I already explained it, you ask, how are people confused about subjectity. Because you are a fucking retard

No, because your example doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

>Total piece of shit. Sucks to be you.
>Asswipe, it is very clear that the majority of scientists still think that personal character is objective, same as nazis did.

That is not clear at all.

> Because they never accuse nazis of objectifying personal character

It's not the job of scientists to refute Nazi propaganda from the
1940s: they're busy doing science in 2022.

>, they only ever accuse nazis of getting the facts about personal character wrong, in relation to variation within and between races. For as far as scientists go, they basically argue that the nazis should have gassed individual people from different races, because of the variation spreading between races.

That's quite a claim. Can you give some examples to support any part
of it? Actual, sourced quotes, please. (I won't hold my breath,
because we both know you'll never do that, you'll continue cursing and
sputtering instead.)

>That is what they mention as wrong, and they never mention that personal character is subjective.

Again, quotes please, along with their sources.

> They cannot because, the whole theory of natural selection is built around subjective terminology in relation to reproductive success.

What utter nonsense. What are you trying to say?

> And all the biologists at present, assert that personal character is objective in one form or another. As already discussed several times.

I've yet to hear any biologists opine on that matter, probably because
it has fuck-all to do with biology. Again, quotes please.

>I don't believe you have any real emotion, not for your father, or anyone

You believe a great many thing that have no connection to reality.

> That said, the emotion isn't in the operation of objectivity, it is only in dealing with the fact. A computer telescope can just perfectly denote the facts of the position of millions of stars in the sky, as people used to do themselves by looking at the sky and noting it down. A computer can generate millions of opinions too, but, alas, they are not real opinions, because of lacking the emotion to choose them.

You really don't see the problem there, do you?

If opinions are determined by emotions, as you claim, and people can't
choose their emotions, also as you claim, then it necessarily follows
that people can't choose their opinions either. Your arguments are
self-refuting as phrased, so you might want to consider either
reconsidering them or rephrasing them. I'd recommend the former:
nonsense is nonsense regardless of how you phrase it.

>Obviously asshole, the people writing the dictionaries are also under this spell of doing their best

I'm sure they are. Would you prefer that they weren't trying to do
their best? That's pretty self-defeating for someone who wants people
to actually buy their dictionary

>Yes the dictionary writers would be under psychological pressure, and be appealed by doing their best

Your ideas of how other people think are as unique as your other
notions.

>Just like everyone else. And if they wrote the correct logical definition of choosing,

You mean YOUR definition of choosing, which no one else uses.

> it would be controversial, which dictionaries generally don't want to do.

Yes, that's true: the editors of dictionaries normally don't want to
include some random guy on Usenet's personal ideas of what words in a
language that he neither reads nor writes in competently should mean.
No one could blame them for that, either.

> And actually, generally all the dictionaries never even try to provide strictly logical definitions, for any word. They just provide conversational definitions. It would be very interesting if a dictionary actually tried to be logically consistent.

It would be even more interesting if you ever tried it.

>And again asshole, you yourself said the number 1 definition in the Oxsford dictionary is wrong

No, I didn't. What I said was that the part you're obsessing over
isn't an essential part of the definition, as can be easily observed
by noting the fact that Oxford immediately goes on to give other
definitions that don't include it. This circles right back to what I
noted above: you have MAJOR problems in comprehending almost anything
anyone says to you in English.

>Oh you can't deny the dictionary, but you can deny the dictionary, because you are a dishonest sack of shit.
>No asshole, opinions express emotions. To say a painting is beautiful, then the word beautiful is the opinion, and it expresses a love for the way the painting looks. Opinons are just words.

Again, no they are not, any more than the emotions one experiences are
words. Both can be EXPRESSED with words. Are you seriously unable to
grasp the distinction?

> In the same way one can express emotions with facial expression, but facial expressions aren't proper opinions.

They are EXPRESSIONS of opinions or emotions, you daft twit. Just like
words.

>Now you provided a little nugget of your total confusion about subjectivity.

The only one confused here is you, in pretty much every possible way
that one can be confused.

>That you really operate on an intuitive level, without intellectual understanding of anything

I see your sense of irony is at the same level as your grasp of
English.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Total lying piece of shit. You've got nothing, so then you come up with this diseased nitpicking crap from the shit in your brains.

You numbskull, if they were engaged in propaganda saying personal character is objective, then someone was buying into the propaganda, making them confused about subjectivity.

But this was not propaganda, quite clearly academics coerced people into the belief that personal character is objective. As you also demonstrate by attacking the belief that personal character is subjective, in any meaningful way, for months now already, over dozens of posts.

Very clearly there is a strong contingent in academics that does not want to acknowledge anything which is not objective. And these kinds of people are fascists, such as yourself, who are domineering the academics. Which is why creationism has now been universally discarded in academics.

Idiot, the behaviour of organisms falls under biology, and as part of studying that behaviour, they have the theories on personal character. You cannot be this stupid not knowing that biologists study organisms. But ofcourse, now you do not want it to be true that biologists objectify personal character, so you just lie about it.

Lying asshole, "success" is a subjective word. Certainly originally it was a subjective word. Which words was then re-assingned an objective meaning by the Darwinian biologists. Aren't you the total asshole who insists on authentic meaning of words according to the standard English language? In your idiotic diatribe that choosing has the meaning of figuring out the best result, because that is in the dictionary.

So then what about Darwinists taking the word "success", and putting it in their main theory, re-assigning the word to be objective? That would be totally wrong according to your idea of proper language. But we shall see, rules for thee, but not for me. You have no honesty whatsoever, the worst piece of shit on this group. So you will find some excuse for it, won't you.

You really are a fucking idiot. You are obviously regarding emotions to be material things, which material things then force opinions. Basically what you are saying is, there exists this material thing fear, which forces the opinion to say that you are frightened.

What creationism says is, the opinions are chosen from emotions, and the emotions can only be identified with a chosen opinion. And emotions and personal character are attributes of a decisionmaker, a creator. So that you can choose opinions from your emotions, no problem.

So there never is any material fear to begin with, there is only what some may identify with a chosen opinion as being fear. And that's how it works in my experience, I don't have emotions that come with labels attached what they are. And even such a word as fear, it's just a dumb word, compared to the emotion to which it refers. And the whole point of subjective language is for people to relate directly to the spirit in which the decisions are made, so that they can have an outside feeling to what you are feeling. The word fear is not the point, the actual emotion is the point. You cannot understand fear by the word fear, you actually have to feel it.

No asshole, opinions are just words. It is very obvious in any language, including English, which you are totally clueless about, that emotions such as love, hate, fear, etc. are primary to what is subjective. And opinion is not primary to what is subjective at all. There is no emotion called opinion, opinions are a product of emotions. Again, you cannot be this stupid to not know this.

And again asshole, everyone uses creationist logic in common discourse. Although people make many errors in objectifying what should be subjective.





Op vrijdag 24 juni 2022 om 15:05:19 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 09:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Total lying piece of shit. You've got nothing, so then you come up with this diseased nitpicking crap from the shit in your brains.

Translation: you're pissed off that I pointed out every mistake you
made in your previous post yet again.
..

>You numbskull, if they were engaged in propaganda saying personal character is objective,

If you seriously think that was the point of their propaganda, rather
than trying to make people hate Jews, you're as crazy as a screen door
on a submarine.

> then someone was buying into the propaganda, making them confused about subjectivity.

If you sincerely believe that was the effect of their propaganda,
rather than making people who believed it hate Jews, you're even
crazier.

>But this was not propaganda, quite clearly academics coerced people into the belief that personal character is objective.

No one but you has ever made such a claim. Probably because it's
completely daft.

> As you also demonstrate by attacking the belief that personal character is subjective, in any meaningful way, for months now already, over dozens of posts.

I have never done any such thing.

>Very clearly there is a strong contingent in academics that does not want to acknowledge anything which is not objective.

That would come as a great surprise to academics around the world.

> And these kinds of people are fascists, such as yourself, who are domineering the academics. Which is why creationism has now been universally discarded in academics.

I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Fascists, and
the reason that Creationism is not a part of academia is because its
claims range from unsupported by evidence to actively contradicted by
science and/or history. You really are as confused as it is possible
to be.

>Idiot, the behaviour of organisms falls under biology, and as part of studying that behaviour, they have the theories on personal character.

None of which involve confusion over objectivity or subjectivity.

> You cannot be this stupid not knowing that biologists study organisms

Thanks, Captain Obvious. See, even you can be right if you really,
really try.

>But ofcourse, now you do not want it to be true that biologists objectify personal character, so you just lie about it.

No, I'm attempting to correct your weird misconceptions about what
biologists do.

>Lying asshole, "success" is a subjective word.

That depends on the context. But why am I bothering to mention it? I'm
sure you have your own personal definition for "context" as well...

>What creationism says is, the opinions are chosen from emotions, and the emotions can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Nope. You insist that people can't choose their emotions. You also
claim that opinions are determined by emotions. If both of those
claims are taken as true, then it necessarily follows from them that
PEOPLE CANNOT CHOOSE THEIR OPINIONS. Your entire argument is
self-contradictory. Your premises don't support your conclusion, they
refute it.

> And emotions and personal character are attributes of a decisionmaker, a creator.

Irrelevant.

> So that you can choose opinions from your emotions, no problem.

That does not follow. Again, your premises that (P1) People can't
choose their emotions, and (P2) Opinions are determined by emotion, do
not just fail to support your conclusion. they refute it. So much for
your "logic" of choosing.

>So there never is any material fear to begin with

What is "material fear"? How does it differ from other varieties of
fear?

>, there is only what some may identify with a chosen opinion as being fear.

You mean "there is only what Nando...". What you might mean by "...may
identify with a chosen opinion as being fear" is known only to you.

> And that's how it works in my experience,

How what works? I can't make heads or tales of your previous sentence.

> I don't have emotions that come with labels attached what they are.

Are you saying that you're typically unclear as to what emotion(s)
you're experiencing at a given time? Fascinating.

>And even such a word as fear, it's just a dumb word, compared to the emotion to which it refers.

Why would you compare a word to what it describes? Do you normally
compare apples and oranges, or just with emotions and words?

>And the whole point of subjective language is for people to relate directly to the spirit in which the decisions are made, so that they can have an outside feeling to what you are feeling.

Word salad. What on Earth are you trying to say?

> The word fear is not the point, the actual emotion is the point. You cannot understand fear by the word fear, you actually have to feel it.

One could say the same about sanity, it should be noted. But what's
your point? No one confuses reading the word fire with actually being
burned.

>No asshole, opinions are just words

No, they aren't. Words can EXPRESS opinions, the way they EXPRESS
emotions. But it takes an almost incomprehensible level of confusion
on your part to insist that opinions ARE words immediately after going
to great lengths to insist that emotions aren't words.

>. It is very obvious in any language, including English, which you are totally clueless about, that emotions such as love, hate, fear, etc. are primary to what is subjective.

It is very obvious to everyone but you that you are delusional in
thinking you are in any way competent to judge how well anyone else
understands the English language. Or uses it.

> And opinion is not primary to what is subjective at all. There is no emotion called opinion, opinions are a product of emotions

THEN THEY CAN'T BE CHOSEN. You keep kicking the ball into your own
net.

> Again, you cannot be this stupid to not know this.
>And again asshole, everyone uses creationist logic in common discourse.

Literally no one but you does so anywhere, in common discourse or not.

>Although people make many errors in objectifying what should be subjective.

It would be difficult to make as many errors as you did in just this
one post.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You've got nothing asshole, is why you come up with that bullshit nitpicking. You are totally clueless about emotions, subjectivity, choosing, and basically the entire universe. You understand nothing about anything if you do not understand that there is a subjective part, and an objective part to reality, the creator and the creation.

Asswipe, it was the main thing in nazi ideology. The schoolbook for the Hitler Youth starts out with it. Personal character established as matter of scientific fact of biology. And that is how nazi ideology functions to dehumanize, by objectifying people, cutting out the subjective part. Then they have emotionless judgments on the worth of people, their personal character, asserted as hard scientific fact.

And these assholes who say nazis were about hate, no it wasn't. It was about throwing out all emotions, including hate. The people who say nazism is about hate, are the ones who want to ban hatespeech. As if too much freedom of speech is what caused nazism.

Academics caused nazism, evolution scientists caused nazism, coercing people to believe that personal character is objective.

You're obviously a fucking liar saying you defend the idea that personal character is subjective. You never answer any questions about it, how it comes to be that personal character would be objective, while photosynthesis would be objective. You don't allow even basic terminology about what is subjective. You reject the correct logic of it, and do not replace it with anything else. You support evolution theory, and evolution scientists, who all have theories in which personal character is objective. You are just a fucking liar.

The opposite to nazism is communism. And China shows that when communists move to the right, they become nazis. It is just leftwing and rightwing socialism, communism and nazism, all based on materialism. It's all the same crap of not acknowledging the entire subjective part of reality, the spiritual domain.

Liar, evolution scientists assert personal character is objective. As already explained. Cosmides and Tooby, the originators of evolutionary psychology, pretend that personal character is like software on the hardware. Software is objective. As also Tallis recently complained about Darwinitis, as meaning to objectify consciousness. Eventhough Tallis obviously also does not really accept the validity of subjectivity, he just wants to keep it a mystery.

You are continuously lying about everything. You lie about nazi ideology, you lie about evolution scientists. That's how you make an argument because, you've got nothing real. You have not demonstrated any actual error in creationism. Creationism works perfectly, in common discourse. People do in fact, regard what emotions people have in their heart, as a matter of chosen opinion. And they regard that choices are made out of emotion. It works perfectly.

There are alternative futures available of saying the person is loving or hateful.

The alternative future of saying the person is hateful is made the present, meaning it is chosen.

Which is an opinion.

Then there is the question out of what emotions did he choose to say the person is hateful.

Then there are the alternative futures available that it was said out of hate, or said out love.

The alternative future to say it was out of hate is made the present.

Which is another opinion.

So asshole, as demonstrated, creationism works perfectly, without error. You are just corrupted through and through, that your brain content is total shit. Everything what you say, from beginning to end, there is not a single right remark in it.

No asshole, wrong. Subjective opinions express emotions, by free will, they are chosen. Opinions are therefore objective things, because they are chosen, they are words.

To say the painting is beautiful, the words express a love for the way the painting looks. The words are the opinion.

What you say is total bullshit, because then first there is the emotion love for the painting, then this emotion is expressed to an opinion, then the opinion is expressed in words. Total nonsense, you add a nonsense midstep that doesn't exist.

When someone says a painting is beautiful, that is an opinion. It is not an indication of there being an opinion behind it that is being expressed, the words are an actual defacto opinion itself.

Ofcourse, this is because you are an intuitionist, who has no intellectual life. So then you have this intuitionist midstep where you do all your business, without intellect. Like an animal operating on instinct.

It is very obvious that you do not understand anything about language, including the English language. Neither do you understand the first thing about emotions, meaning you do not understand that emotions are on the side of choosing things.

You've got nothing absolutely nothing.





Op vrijdag 24 juni 2022 om 19:50:19 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 12:18:07 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You've got nothing asshole, is why you come up with that bullshit nitpicking.

It's not nit-picking to point out that you've managed to blow your own
position up into a self-contradictory mess without my help.

>You are totally clueless about emotions, subjectivity, choosing, and basically the entire universe. You understand nothing about anything if you do not understand that there is a subjective part, and an objective part to reality, the creator and the creation.

I have never denied either subjectivity or objectivity. What this has
to do with "the creator and the creation" is your own odd notion that
is shared by no one else AFAICT.

>Asswipe, it was the main thing in nazi ideology. The schoolbook for the Hitler Youth starts out with it. Personal character established as matter of scientific fact of biology.

Since that isn't a matter of scientific fact, are you willing to
consider the possibility that just maybe, the Nazis were more
interested in getting people to hate Jews than getting people to be
confused on the idea of subjectivity? Not everyone shares your weird
obsession on the latter topic. (No one else does, AFAICT).

>that is how nazi ideology functions to dehumanize, by objectifying people, cutting out the subjective part. Then they have emotionless judgments on the worth of people, their personal character, asserted as hard scientific fact.
>And these assholes who say nazis were about hate, no it wasn't. It was about throwing out all emotions, including hate.

Complete and utter nonsense. You're just babbling now.

> The people who say nazism is about hate, are the ones who want to ban hatespeech

Considering what it led to in Nazi Germany, one can understand the
impulse, even if one disagrees with the notion of banning speech.

>As if too much freedom of speech is what caused nazism.

No one thinks such a ridiculous thing,

>Academics caused nazism, evolution scientists caused nazism, coercing people to believe that personal character is objective.

No one but you thinks such a ridiculous thing.

>You're obviously a fucking liar saying you defend the idea that personal character is subjective. You never answer any questions about it, how it comes to be that personal character would be objective, while photosynthesis would be objective.

Probably because I don't understand what you're asking.

>You don't allow even basic terminology about what is subjective. You reject the correct logic of it,

You mean I reject your incoherent notions on the topic, because they
are incoherent.

>and do not replace it with anything else. You support evolution theory,

I don't "support" evolution any more than I "support" special
relativity: I simply acknowledge it as an observed fact.

>and evolution scientists, who all have theories in which personal character is objective.

Still waiting for you to back that claim up with properly sourced
quotes.

> You are just a fucking liar.

Yet you can't point to any lying on my part.

>The opposite to nazism is communism. And China shows that when communists move to the right, they become nazis.

They'd have to move to the opposite end of the political spectrum for
that to be true.

> It is just leftwing and rightwing socialism, communism and nazism, all based on materialism.

Communism is indeed based on materialism. Nazism was chock full of
pseudoscience and outright occultism, which is as far from materialism
as one can get.

> It's all the same crap of not acknowledging the entire subjective part of reality, the spiritual domain.

"Subjective" and "spiritual" are not synonyms.

>Liar, evolution scientists assert personal character is objective. As already explained.

You mean "as already asserted by you". Let's see you demonstrate that
claim with some actual quotes.

> Cosmides and Tooby, the originators of evolutionary psychology, pretend that personal character is like software on the hardware. Software is objective.

That's a simile, you blithering twit. Which is subjective.

>As also Tallis recently complained about Darwinitis, as meaning to objectify consciousness. Eventhough Tallis obviously also does not really accept the validity of subjectivity, he just wants to keep it a mystery.

That's an odd take on it. What did he actually have to say, since the
chances that you understood it are about the same as your chances of
sprouting wings and flying to Jupiter?

>You are continuously lying about everything. You lie about nazi ideology, you lie about evolution scientists.

I have done no such things at any time.

>That's how you make an argument because, you've got nothing real. You have not demonstrated any actual error in creationism.

I have pointed out many. You have ignored them.

>Creationism works perfectly, in common discourse.

"Works" in what way?

> People do in fact, regard what emotions people have in their heart, as a matter of chosen opinion.

Literally no one but you does this.

>And they regard that choices are made out of emotion.

Sure, if you're a toddler. Adults wind up in prison if they make all
their choices based on emotion.

> It works perfectly.
>There are alternative futures available of saying the person is loving or hateful.
>The alternative future of saying the person is hateful is made the present, meaning it is chosen.
>Which is an opinion.

That is word salad.

>Then there is the question out of what emotions did he choose to say the person is hateful

Hold on there! What the fucking hell do YOUR emotions have to do with
what motivated someone else's actions? You're not even trying to make
sense.

>Then there are the alternative futures available that it was said out of hate, or said out love.
>The alternative future to say it was out of hate is made the present.
>Which is another opinion.

What is?

>So asshole, as demonstrated, creationism works perfectly, without error.

There are several problems with that statement: 1) What you wrote
above ranges from incoherent to nonsensical, and 2) None of that has
anything to do with Creationism as defined by any Creationist who
isn't you, are the first two that come to mind.

> You are just corrupted through and through, that your brain content is total shit. Everything what you say, from beginning to end, there is not a single right remark in it.
>No asshole, wrong. Subjective opinions express emotions, by free will, they are chosen. Opinions are therefore objective things, because they are chosen, they are words.

So now you're saying that opinions are objective? That's a new one.
You're making this up as you go along, aren't you?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Well that was another total pile of crap from a piece of shit.

You are utterly unaware about the entire subjective part of reality, the spiritual domain. Neither God, emotion, nor personal character, you are oblivious to all. You have no clue whatsoever that only what is subjective, can choose anything. You don't even know what subjective means. It means that it is identified with a chosen opinion.

You dropped all your previous argumentation, obviously because it is total bullshit. So you've got nothing for me to argue.

You did make a very specific assertion of an error in creationism previously. Arguing that opinions can only be chosen, if the emotions out of which the opinion is chosen, would also be chosen. I already showed that to be total bullshit, but I will provide the more lenghty explanation of the logic of opinion from the creationwiki I wrote.


The logic of opinion

People's choices may be made out of emotion. That means emotions are on the side of what makes a choice, and therefore emotions belong in the creator category. Because emotions belong in the creator category, solely the logic of opinion applies to them, and not the logic of fact.

That means an emotion can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

To say someone has love in their heart, (including if that person is yourself), the conclusion can only be formed by choosing it. The conclusion cannot be forced by evidence.

One may use evidence in forming an opinion, but that can only be evidence in the form of supporting opinons. For instance, I saw him giving aid to a stranger, I felt that was very nice.

The chosen opinion it was nice to aid the stranger, is in support of the chosen opinion that the person has love in their heart. It is one chosen opinion, in support of another chosen opinion. It is not evidence forcing to a conclusion.

It is equally logically valid to choose the opinion it was not nice to aid the stranger, but rather it was inappropiate. In which case, it is not evidence that this person has love in their heart.

The logical validity of an opinion merely depends on that it is chosen, and that it identifies what it was that made the choice turn out the way it did.

According to the logic of opinion, it is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful, as to say it is ugly. But to be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion. Because that would violate the rule of logic that dictates that opinions must be chosen.

That an opinion is logically valid, does not mean that the opinion is morally upright. Opinions that are said to be inspired by lust or greed, are still logically valid opinions.

Taking a closer look at the logic of opinion
To help understand the logic of opinion, it serves to make a formal step by step explantion of it.

1. There are alternative futures A and B available

2. As it happens, alternative future B is made the present, meaning B is chosen

3. Then there is the question, “What made the decision turn out B?”

4. Then logic dictates that the answer must be a choice between subjective words P and Q

5. Q is chosen, meaning that the opinion is that Q made the decision turn out B.

We have many words specifically designed to answer questions about what made a decision turn out B instead of A, these are the socalled subjective words. Words denoting the emotions, such as love and hate, or derivative words such as beautiful and ugly. Words denoting personal character such as lazy and nice. And also the words, spirit, soul, and the name God.

All these words are defined in reference to what makes a choice. These sorts of words can be filled in for the variables P and Q in the example.

The logic shows that an opinion always answers a question about what it was that made a decision turn out the way it did. Anger, courage, love, hate, these all have the logical function of making either A or B the present.

It is equally logically valid to choose either answer P or Q. Same as it is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful, or ugly.

In step 4, the subjective words P and Q, are alternative futures, just the same as A and B were also alternative futures. There are the alternative futures available of saying B was chosen out of hate, or saying B was chosen out of love.

So we can begin the steps all over again. Choosing an opinion on what it was that made the decision turn out Q. When we say someone is hateful, then someone might say it is hateful to call that person hateful. An opinion can be expressed on an opinion, on an opinion, ad infinite.

It is also shown in the logic, that nothing is ever definitively established. One might choose the opinion B was chosen out of Q, one might next choose the opinion B was chosen out of P. Neither opinion definitively establishes anything.

Subjective words are expressive, meaning they are only understood by the emotion that is supposed to accompany them. The word anger is only understood by the feeling of anger. Basically it is just as valid to utter "aaaaah", or "ooooooh", as it is to use proper subjective words like anger, or joy.






Op maandag 27 juni 2022 om 15:30:22 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

Shortly after that, LGBT activists were suing a Christian baker who
refused to bake them a wedding cake due to his sincerely held
religious beliefs. On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:12:40 -0700 (PDT),

"mohammad...@gmail.com" <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well that was another total pile of crap from a piece of shit.
>
>You are utterly unaware about the entire subjective part of reality, the spiritual domain

Again, "subjective" and "spiritual" are not synonyms.

>Neither God, emotion, nor personal character, you are oblivious to all.

I am unpersuaded that any sort of deity exists, sure, but I have never
denied the existence of emotions or personal character.

> You have no clue whatsoever that only what is subjective, can choose anything.

I reject that claim entirely because it is demonstrably false. People
objectively exist. People make choices. You're spouting nonsense
again.

>You don't even know what subjective means. It means that it is identified with a chosen opinion.

No one but you thinks it means any such thing. As always, you're
making up your own definitions for words, and insisting that everyone
else use them. Good luck getting that to work, ever.

>You dropped all your previous argumentation,

Such as? Examples, please.

>obviously because it is total bullshit. So you've got nothing for me to argue.

Yet you refuse to stop arguing.

>You did make a very specific assertion of an error in creationism previously. Arguing that opinions can only be chosen, if the emotions out of which the opinion is chosen, would also be chosen.

No, that's not at all what I argued. What I did say is that you can't
argue that (P1) People can't choose their emotions, (P2) Opinions are
determined by emotions (C) Therefore, opinions are chosen, because
it's self-contradictory,

> I already showed that to be total bullshit,

No, you tried to hand-wave it away with an ad hoc appeal to "free
will", which makes no sense in light of your first premise.

> but I will provide the more lenghty explanation of the logic of opinion from the creationwiki I wrote.

Oh, joy, you're going to repeat the same drivel that you've been
saying all along...

>The logic of opinion
>
>People's choices may be made out of emotion.

"May"? You've been arguing that they always are. Which is it?

>That means emotions are on the side of what makes a choice, and therefore emotions belong in the creator category.

That doesn't mean anything as phrased. What is "on the side of what
makes a choice" supposed to mean? If you're saying that people
experience emotions, everyone already knows that. If you're saying
something else, what the hell might that be?

> Because emotions belong in the creator category,

What is "emotions belong in the creator category" supposed to even
mean? If you mean that humans experience emotions, yes, everyone
already knows that, but what does a "creator" have to do with this.
And aren't humans created by God in your scheme? That would mean that
created things experience emotions, which contradicts your ideas as
far as I can understand what the heck you might possibly be trying to
say.

>solely the logic of opinion applies to them, and not the logic of fact.
>That means an emotion can only be identified with a chosen opinion

And we're back to word salad. Nothing in what you're saying follows
any sort of logic (or coherence) whatsoever: as I have previously
noted, you may as well be a random word generator.

>
>To say someone has love in their heart, (including if that person is yourself), the conclusion can only be formed by choosing it.

Choosing it based on what, if you';re discarding evidence?

>The conclusion cannot be forced by evidence.

Then on what basis are you concluding it?

>One may use evidence in forming an opinion, but that can only be evidence in the form of supporting opinons. For instance, I saw him giving aid to a stranger, I felt that was very nice.
>The chosen opinion it was nice to aid the stranger, is in support of the chosen opinion that the person has love in their heart. It is one chosen opinion, in support of another chosen opinion. It is not evidence forcing to a conclusion.

So basically, you're both considering and not considering evidence.
Got it. <eye roll>

>It is equally logically valid to choose the opinion it was not nice to aid the stranger, but rather it was inappropiate. In which case, it is not evidence that this person has love in their heart.

Why would you reach such a conclusion? And what does that have to do
with their motives?

>The logical validity of an opinion merely depends on that it is chosen, and that it identifies what it was that made the choice turn out the way it did.

More word salad.

>According to the logic of opinion, it is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful, as to say it is ugly.

Sure.

> But to be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion.

That isn't an opinion at all, valid or invalid.

> Because that would violate the rule of logic that dictates that opinions must be chosen.

That's not the problem with it. The problem is that it isn't an
opinion to say something under compulsion.

>That an opinion is logically valid, does not mean that the opinion is morally upright. Opinions that are said to be inspired by lust or greed, are still logically valid opinions.

Your point being what?

>Taking a closer look at the logic of opinion
>To help understand the logic of opinion, it serves to make a formal step by step explantion of it

IT DOESN'T NEED AN EXPLANATION. NO ONE IS CONFUSED ON THE TOPIC.
(Other than you).

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Idiot there would only be a contradiction in saying opinions are chosen out of emotion, if emotions were objective material things. Because then what the emotions materially consist of, would force the opinion. If the emotion materially consisted of love, it would force the opinion that the painting is beautiful. So then there is a contradiction between the opinion being forced, and it being chosen.

But creationism avoids that problem by correctly interpreting emotions to be subjective, meaning they can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Then there is no material what any emotion consists of, so there is nothing there to force anything.

And that is ofcourse a general rule, that anything that chooses must also be inherently subjective, because objective things would force things by what it consists of.

You are the one who pretends emotions are these objective things, the product of which objective things, like opinions or behavior, would then obviously be a forced logical function of what these emotions consist of. You are the one with the contradiction between freedom and forcing.

The rest is just demonstrating that you are a total retard.

Asshole, it is not the objective part of human beings that does the choosing. The objective part, the human body, is obviously chosen. There is no doubt about it that the body, and the brain, can turn out one of several different ways. The body can go left or right, the things in the brain can turn out A or B, in the moment. No doubt about it they are chosen things. No doubt about it also that chosen things are objective, one can see the body, measure it.

Very obviously, emotions and personal character are subjective, and they are attributes of a decisionmaker. Only what is subjective can decide anything.

You've got nothing. Except the attitudes of a total piece of shit. Very obviously you are deeply confused about emotions, subjectivity. And that you assert that nazis are not confused about subjectivity, while they objectify personal character, that is just lying on your part. You know that is not true, you just lie about it.


Op maandag 27 juni 2022 om 19:05:22 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:33:47 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Idiot there would only be a contradiction in saying opinions are chosen out of emotion, if emotions were objective material things. Because then what the emotions materially consist of, would force the opinion. If the emotion materially consisted of love, it would force the opinion that the painting is beautiful. So then there is a contradiction between the opinion being forced, and it being chosen.

Based on that confused (and confusing) jumble, you clearly didn't
understand a word I wrote, and I'm not clear that you understand what
you wrote either. Could you rephrase that coherently (he asked,
expecting the answer to be "no"...)?

>But creationism avoids that problem by correctly interpreting emotions to be subjective, meaning they can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

That's not what "subjective" means to anyone who isn't you. Stop using
your own definitions for words: it's why no one knows what the hell
you're trying to say.

>Then there is no material what any emotion consists of,

That's comprehensible, but wrong. Emotions involve multiple physical
systems in the human body. You wouldn't experience them otherwise.

> so there is nothing there to force anything.

Then why did you insist that emotions determine opinions?

>And that is ofcourse a general rule, that anything that chooses must also be inherently subjective,

Human beings objectively exist. Human beings make choices. That makes
your general rule incorrect.

>because objective things would force things by what it consists of.

That's word salad. Try again.

>You are the one who pretends emotions are these objective things

>the product of which objective things, like opinions or behavior,

Behavior is objective. But if an opinion is objective, then by your
logic, so is an emotion. You can't have it both ways.

> would then obviously be a forced logical function of what these emotions consist of. You are the one with the contradiction between freedom and forcing.

I've pointed out your contradictions several times. Please feel free
to point out mine.

>The rest is just demonstrating that you are a total retard.

Or that you can neither read for comprehension, nor write
comprehensibly.

>Asshole, it is not the objective part of human beings that does the choosing. The objective part, the human body, is obviously chosen.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean: "the human body is
obviously chosen" makes literally no sense either in or out of
context.

> There is no doubt about it that the body, and the brain, can turn out one of several different ways.

I don't know what you mean by that, either.

> The body can go left or right, the things in the brain can turn out A or B, in the moment. No doubt about it they are chosen things.

If you're talking about a person making a choice to go right or left,
sure (although what your point might be is unclear, since this is
completely unremarkable).

>No doubt about it also that chosen things are objective, one can see the body, measure it.

Yep. Human beings objectively exist. Human beings also make choices.
Therefore, your notion that only "subjective things" can make choices
is wrong.

>Very obviously, emotions and personal character are subjective, and they are attributes of a decisionmaker. Only what is subjective can decide anything.

You just refuted that notion, since the decision-maker is objective.

>You've got nothing. Except the attitudes of a total piece of shit. Very obviously you are deeply confused about emotions, subjectivity.

One of us is, and I'm thinking it's probably the guy who just refuted
his own argument directly above.

> And that you assert that nazis are not confused about subjectivity, while they objectify personal character, that is just lying on your part. You know that is not true, you just lie about it.

Your inability to see propaganda for what it is, is unsurprising.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Retarded piece of shit, if love would be a material thing, then obviously if you have this material love for the way a painting looks in your head, then this material love would force to produce the opinion that the painting is beautiful.

So then opinions would not be chosen, they would instead be forced, which is what you say is true.

But creationism says love is subjective, meaning that it is identified with a chosen opinion. So in creationism there is no material objective love forcing anything. There are only the facts of decisions made, and then it is a matter of chosen opinion what it was that made the decisions turn out the way they did.

One can choose the opinion it was love, one can choose the opinion it was hate, or fear, or whatever. There is absolutely nothing there which forces to a conclusion of what it was. One just has to actually directly feel what it was, and then express those feelings with free will, choosing an opinion on it.

Ofcourse you yourself also objectify personal character, same as nazis do, is why you say that this is just an unimportant propaganda aspect of nazi ideology. Not the case, the heritable and objective personal character, is the main thing in all nazi ideology. You are obviously yourself a fucking nazi, as also exemplified by your authoritarian style of argumentation.



Op dinsdag 28 juni 2022 om 17:00:23 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:22:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Retarded piece of shit, if love would be a material thing, then obviously if you have this material love for the way a painting looks in your head, then this material love would force to produce the opinion that the painting is beautiful.

Your inability to read anything whatsoever for comprehension is truly
amazing to behold. What I actually said is that emotions involve
multiple physical systems in the human body. That's a simple statement
of fact, whether you agree with it or not, and it's not my problem if
that fact conflicts with your model, it's your problem.

>So then opinions would not be chosen, they would instead be forced, which is what you say is true

By YOUR OWN LOGIC, emotions determine opinions. Don't blame me if you
can't understand your own claims.

>But creationism says love is subjective, meaning that it is identified with a chosen opinion.

No one but you claims anything of the kind regarding Creationism. Or
at all, for that matter

>So in creationism there is no material objective love forcing anything.

This is, again your own personal idea of Creationism, which is shared
by no other Creationist. Your insistence in usung your own definitions
for words is baffling.

>There are only the facts of decisions made, and then it is a matter of chosen opinion what it was that made the decisions turn out the way they did.

Your opinion on why someone else made a given decision is of no
interest to anyone else, and it's not clear why you're obsessed with
it in the first place.

>One can choose the opinion it was love, one can choose the opinion it was hate, or fear, or whatever.

On what basis do you make such a choice, since you reject the notion
of using evidence in making a choice?

>There is absolutely nothing there which forces to a conclusion of what it was. One just has to actually directly feel what it was, and then express those feelings with free will, choosing an opinion on it.

What in sanity's name do whatever emotions YOU may be feeling have to
do with what anyone else's motives might be? You're spouting complete
and utter nonsense.

>Ofcourse you yourself also objectify personal character, same as nazis do, is why you say that this is just an unimportant propaganda aspect of nazi ideology.
> Not the case, the heritable and objective personal character, is the main thing in all nazi ideology.

You are literally the only person who thinks such a thing.

>You are obviously yourself a fucking nazi, as also exemplified by your authoritarian style of argumentation

I'm not the one insisting that everyone else use my personal
definitions of words, so you might want to recall the saying about
glass houses and thowing stones.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Asshole, I present logic and reasoning, you solely refer to random authority. You never explain how subjectivity functions, how it comes to be that personal character would be subjective, while photosynthesis would be objective. You have no reasoning whatsoever, you only profess authority.

Ofcourse it doesn't matter at all for the logic of it, if the material love would be concentrated in one place, or if it would be in several systems as you say. The material love would still force to produce the opinion that the painting is beautiful, in either scenario.

Your idea is obviously wrong and stupid, there exists no material / objective love. Love is subjective, which means when you go look for it, you just find a decision that has been made, and you find absolutely nothing of what did the deciding. As physics demonstrates, absolutely nothing can be shown what it was that made any particular decision turn out the way it did.

Your retarded logic that people choose, and that people are objective, ofcourse when you look at the actual decisions made by people, then you only find something in the body that could turn out A or B in the moment, and then it turned out A. That is what is actually seen by science, and nothing is seen of what it was that made that decision turn out A. But you keep on lying about it that there is something objective there that is choosing, because you are a liar.

In saying a painting is beautiful, the opinion is expressed that there exists a love for the way painting looks in the heart. But absolutely nothing of this love has ever been found by science, nor ever will be. As demonstrated by the logic of opinion, which dictates that love is inherently subjective, meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Generally most all creationists agree that the soul or spirit doing the choosing, cannot be seen. With some exceptions of people who believe they can measure the soul, and that it weighs 21 grams. Ofcourse it is true that there is lots of corruption within creationism, that creationists believe they can establish the existence of God as a matter of scientific fact. But on the whole there is a significant acceptance of the subjective part of reality among creationists. And again, this corruption is all because there is enormous psychological appeal / pressure related to doing your best, which then corrupts the meaning of the word "choose".

You want this corruption to be the authoritarian standard. You provide no reasoning whatsoever, how this all would work in a coherent conceptual scheme. You just assert it by authority, the corrupt definition of the verb choose.









Op dinsdag 28 juni 2022 om 18:50:23 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:18:03 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Asshole, I present logic and reasoning,

No, sir, you do NOT. What you present is a mishmash of random ideas
about how choices are made that you somehow think has a bearing on
Creationism, expressed in a language that you neither read nor write
well, and using your own personal definitions for many of the words.

>you solely refer to random authority

No, I simply point out that using your own personal definitions for
words makes it impossible for you to communicate effectively. Your
results speak for themselves in confirming that observation.

>You never explain how subjectivity functions, how it comes to be that personal character would be subjective, while photosynthesis would be objective.

It's not my job to explain your own ideas to you.

> You have no reasoning whatsoever, you only profess authority.

I profess to be fluent in English, and observe that you decidedly are
not. Nor do you have the slightest grasp of logic.

>Ofcourse it doesn't matter at all for the logic of it, if the material love would be concentrated in one place, or if it would be in several systems as you say.
> The material love would still force to produce the opinion that the painting is beautiful, in either scenario

That's not logic, it's confusion.

>Your idea is obviously wrong and stupid, there exists no material / objective love.

Your inability to comprehend anything you read is truly astonishing.
What I said was that emotions involve various physical systems in the
body, otherwise you wouldn't experience them. That's a simple
statement of fact. You then made your usual a-logical leap from Point
A to Point Bonkers.

Here's another simple statement of fact: if physical reality
contradicts your ideas about how things work, YOUR IDEAS ARE WRONG.

> Love is subjective, which means when you go look for it, you just find a decision that has been made, and you find absolutely nothing of what did the deciding

Don't you "identify what did the deciding with a chosen opinion"? Or
do you not even recall what you've said hundreds of times so far?

>As physics demonstrates, absolutely nothing can be shown what it was that made any particular decision turn out the way it did.

Physics demonstrates no such thing.

>Your retarded logic that people choose,

That is correct.

> and that people are objective,

People objectively exist, yes, which is what I said. What you think
you mean by "people are objective" may mean what I said, or it may
mean that "colorless green ideas sleep furiously": who knows, since
you don't define words the same way as anyone else does?

>ofcourse when you look at the actual decisions made by people, then you only find something in the body that could turn out A or B in the moment, and then it turned out A

"Find something in the body" like what? Once again, you're off on a
bizarre tangent to what I actually said.

>. That is what is actually seen by science,

What is?

>and nothing is seen of what it was that made that decision turn out A. But you keep on lying about it that there is something objective there that is choosing, because you are a liar.

So are you saying that people don't choose now? Again, who knows?
Consistency isn't your strong suit, nor is lucidity.

>In saying a painting is beautiful, the opinion is expressed that there exists a love for the way painting looks in the heart. But absolutely nothing of this love has ever been found by science, nor ever will be. As demonstrated by the logic of opinion, which dictates that love is inherently subjective, meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Round and round we go with you repeating the same nonsense...

>Generally most all creationists agree that the soul or spirit doing the choosing, cannot be seen.

I know of no other person, Creationist or otherwise, who thinks of
choosing in that way, whether or not a "spirit" or "soul" is involved.

> With some exceptions of people who believe they can measure the soul, and that it weighs 21 grams.

That's neither more nor less weird than anything else you have to say.

>Ofcourse it is true that there is lots of corruption within creationism, that creationists believe they can establish the existence of God as a matter of scientific fact

Some Creationists do. Many others reject that position, and accept
that God's existence is a matter of faith not amenable to proof. You
don't speak for anyone else other than yourself, so stop with the
broad claims already.

>But on the whole there is a significant acceptance of the subjective part of reality among creationists

I'd be surprised if anyone else, Creationist or otherwise, accepts
your particular ideas on the matter. Mainly because none of them would
be able to figure out what you mean in the first place any more than
anyone else can.

>And again, this corruption is all because there is enormous psychological appeal / pressure related to doing your best, which then corrupts the meaning of the word "choose".

What a bizarre notion.

>You want this corruption to be the authoritarian standard. You provide no reasoning whatsoever, how this all would work in a coherent conceptual scheme. You just assert it by authority, the corrupt definition of the verb choose.

I'm the one who keeps pointing out that you do, in fact, have the
freedom to make whatever poor choices you wish, and that "doing your
best" is not a requirement for choosing, so why you keep insisting
that I take the opposite position is baffling.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Asswipe, I say decisionmakers are subjective, and that love is an attribute of a decisionmaker, and is therefore also subjective. Subjective meaning it is identified with a chosen opinion, and also meaning there is no objective evidence for it whatsoever.

You on the other hand argue that decisionmakers are objective, people are decisionmakers and people are objective. And then you assert that love is involved with several systems in the body.

It can only mean that you argue that love is a material objective thing involved in several systems in the body. How do you fucking know the love is in a system? By objectively measuring it ofcourse.

How is love identified otherwise asshole, if you cannot objectively measure it, and you also reject identifying it with a chosen opinion?

Asshole, you have your own ideas about subjectivity that need explaining. That is more authoritarianism of you, that you do not explain anything whatsoever. What is it that makes personal character to be subjective, and what is it that makes photosynthesis to be objective? You use the words subjectivity and objectivity, so then explain. Then we can see if your explanation makes logical sense, or if your ideas about subjectivity and objectivity are totally retarded bullshit that you just hang on to by appeals to authority.

As already explained, my idea of choosing is confirmed by the experiment in which a database was searched, without running the search algorithm. Merely exploiting the possiblity that the search algorithm could have run, at which point it would have found the element in the database. Could have, and would have, but did not run. Confirming the creationist idea of a decision, of making one of alternative possible futures the present.

Your idea of choosing failed to apply to that experiment, because your idea of choosing is nonsense circular reasoning that to choose = decide = choose = decide = choose..... But this nonsense definition is in a dictionary, so therefore it has authority, and therefore you can communicate the gibberish. If gibberish is in a dictionary then you can communicate it, because everyone then understands the same gibberish.

Your ideas about choosing, subjectivity and objectivity, are not confirmed by anything. It's a total piece of utter crap, that is only supported by screeching authority, not supported by any evidence.

Why would it be bizarre, asshole, that the definition of a word becomes to be corrupted due to psychological pressure / appeal? Is psychological pressure not real? The reason you say that it is bizarre is because you are a piece of shit who lies all the time when there are fact that don't suit you.

You yourself say that choosing does not essentially involve what is best. Yet the number 1 definition in the dictionary talks about picking the best or most appropiate.

But then you have this other retarded lie argument that nobody is confused about anything, except me. So you cannot say that the people writing the dictionary are confused, because of your nonsense argument that nobody is confused about anything except me. Also you lose your authority by saying the dictionary is wrong.

And were back to your infinite cesspool of lies, evil and gibberish.



Op dinsdag 28 juni 2022 om 20:15:23 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:47:54 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Asswipe, I say decisionmakers are subjective,

And you are wrong.

>and that love is an attribute of a decisionmaker, and is therefore also subjective

That does not follow logically.

>Subjective meaning it is identified with a chosen opinion,

You are the only person who defines it that way.

>and also meaning there is no objective evidence for it whatsoever.

So it's imaginary, then?

>You on the other hand argue that decisionmakers are objective, people are decisionmakers and people are objective.

It's amazing that you managed to completely scramble what I said so
quickly after reading it. What I argued is that (P1) People
objectively exist. (P2) People make decisions. Therefore (C) Your
notion that "what makes a decision is subjective" is falsified.

> And then you assert that love is involved with several systems in the body

That's not what I said either. I said that emotions involve several
physical systems in the body: if they didn't, you wouldn't experience
them. None of that is remotely controversial (other than to you).

>It can only mean that you argue that love is a material objective thing involved in several systems in the body.

No, it does not. It means that experiencing emotions also happens on
the physical level, not just as an abstract notion. Are you seriously
arguing otherwise?

> How do you fucking know the love is in a system? By objectively measuring it ofcourse.

Measuring isn't the word you want here. "Observing" is what you mean.
Are you seriously arguing that you can't observe, say, anger in
someone by noting that their face is reddening, their tone of voice is
becoming harsher, and they're adopting a more aggressive posture? If
that's what you're arguing, it flies in the face of the experience of
pretty much everybody on the planet, including, I suspect, you.

>How is love identified otherwise asshole, if you cannot objectively measure it, and you also reject identifying it with a chosen opinion?

Love can be observed, but there is no metric by which to measure it. I
reject "identifying it with a chosen opinion" because the phrase is
nonsensical.

>Asshole, you have your own ideas about subjectivity that need explaining. That is more authoritarianism of you, that you do not explain anything whatsoever.

I have explained myself in great detail about everything being
discussed. You then proceed to completely ignore it, or completely
misunderstand what I wrote, as in the two examples I pointed out
above.

>What is it that makes personal character to be subjective, and what is it that makes photosynthesis to be objective?

Again, it's not my job to explain your own position to you.

> You use the words subjectivity and objectivity, so then explain.

What is it that you'd like explained? If it's what they mean, then USE
A FRICKING DICTIONARY ALREADY, instead of making up your own
definitions. If it's something else, then what? Be specific.

>Then we can see if your explanation makes logical sense, or if your ideas about subjectivity and objectivity are totally retarded bullshit that you just hang on to by appeals to authority.
>As already explained, my idea of choosing is confirmed by the experiment in which a database was searched, without running the search algorithm. Merely exploiting the possiblity that the search algorithm could have run, at which point it would have found the element in the database. Could have, and would have, but did not run. Confirming the creationist idea of a decision, of making one of alternative possible futures the present.

Your description is incoherent. Try again.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Certainly it follows logically that if a decisionmaker is subjective, that then the attributes that belong to a decisionmaker are also subjective, because every part of the decisionmaker must be subjective.

Everyone uses creationist logic of subjectivity in common discourse.

Reddening in the face whatever, they are expressions of emotion, and not the emotion itself. And things in the brain are also all just expressions, and not the emotion itself.

One actually has to feel things in order to produce subjective opinions, and it is not possible to be forced by evidence to a conclusion that someone is angry. One can feel the emotion of another person, from the outside, by relating to that person. Relating your decisionmaking processes, to the decisionmaking processes of the other person. Connecting the 2 decisionmaking processes. Something like that. Then you can feel the emotions of the other person. Which is not the same as having their emotions, but just a feeling of it. And then express the feelings with free will, choosing an opinion on it.

You have no role whatsoever for emotions, feelings, in producing subjective opinions. You don't even say it is a subjective opinion, to say someone is angry.There is no science of angerology, it's subjective.

Your dumb p1, p2 etc. was already dispatched with the observation that only the subjective part of human beings does the deciding, and the objective part of human beings is chosen. There is no doubt that any objective thing can be chosen to be other than it is now. Every part of the body can be made to be different than it is now. Proving that all objective things are chosen things.

As far as I can tell, I accurately reflected your position. Except that you do not want to take the logical consequence that then obviously love must be measurable, under your criteria.

It's observed, what is observerd exactly?

What is exactly observed is decisionmaking processes, they can turn out A or B in the moment, or some other alternative, and then one of the alternative possible futures is made the present, meaning it has been chosen. That can already be observed with present technology pretty much. And there is absolutely nothing found in any science theory, what does the job of deciding. No proton, or quanta, atom, or whatever is identified as what did the job of making a decision turn out A instead of B. Nor is this a logical possiblity that any objecte material thing can ever be identified as doing the job of deciding.

A thing consists of X (be it an atom, a rock, a human brain, or whatever), therefore the decision turned out A instead of B.

There is no possible logical progression in that statement, from what it consists of, to A being chosen.




Op woensdag 29 juni 2022 om 18:00:24 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Certainly it follows logically that if a decisionmaker is subjective, that then the attributes that belong to a decisionmaker are also subjective, because every part of the decisionmaker must be subjective.

That's actually an illustration of the "Garbage In, Garbage Out"
principle. Your starting premise that "a decisionmaker is subjective"
is wrong, so the rest is irrelevant.

>Everyone uses creationist logic of subjectivity in common discourse.

As I have noted dozens of times, that's also wrong. No one but you
does so.

>Reddening in the face whatever, they are expressions of emotion, and not the emotion itself.

Yes, that's correct. They are also physical, not abstract. The person
who is angry experiences them, and others can observe them.

>And things in the brain are also all just expressions, and not the emotion itself.

I have literally no idea what you mean by that.

>One actually has to feel things in order to produce subjective opinions, and it is not possible to be forced by evidence to a conclusion that someone is angry.

What YOU feel has no bearing on what emotion someone else is
experiencing. And it is quite possible to accurately determine that
someone is angry by observing them. In other words, you are flat-out
wrong. Again.

> One can feel the emotion of another person, from the outside, by relating to that person

But not by observing them? That's idiotic.

>Relating your decisionmaking processes, to the decisionmaking processes of the other person.

How do you know what their decision-making process is? Are you a
mind-reader now?

> Connecting the 2 decisionmaking processes. Something like that.
>Then you can feel the emotions of the other person.

Or you could just figure it out by observing them, which doesn't
involve what sounds like pseudoscientific woo-woo as you describe it.

> Which is not the same as having their emotions, but just a feeling of it. And then express the feelings with free will, choosing an opinion on it.

Or you could just observe them, and figure it out that way, instead of
imagining it.

>You have no role whatsoever for emotions, feelings, in producing subjective opinions.

As I have pointed out, YOUR emotions and feelings have no bearing on
what another person's decision-making process entails.

> You don't even say it is a subjective opinion, to say someone is angry.There is no science of angerology, it's subjective

So if the fellow we're talking about punches you in the nose, it's as
appropriate to decide that they were motivated by admiration for ducks
as it is to decide that they were motivated by anger? That's nuts.

>Your dumb p1, p2 etc. was already dispatched with the observation that only the subjective part of human beings does the deciding,

You mean "assertion", not "observation". And what exactly is "the
subjective part of human beings" supposed to mean in the first place?

> and the objective part of human beings is chosen.

What part is that, and chosen by whom? In what way? You're still
spouting complete nonsense.

>There is no doubt that any objective thing can be chosen to be other than it is now.

If you're a wizard in Harry Potter's world, I'm sure that's true. But
magical thinking doesn't work outside of fiction. You're spouting more
nonsense.

>Every part of the body can be made to be different than it is now. Proving that all objective things are chosen things.

Not for any definition of objective or chosen that is used by people
not named "Nando".

>As far as I can tell, I accurately reflected your position.

As far as I can tell, you have difficulty accurately reflecting your
own positions, much less anyone else's. That has been a consistent
problem for you.

>Except that you do not want to take the logical consequence that then obviously love must be measurable, under your criteria.

Observation and measurement are not synonyms.

>It's observed, what is observerd exactly?

Expressions of the emotion in question. Again, observation and
measurement are not synonyms.

>What is exactly observed is decisionmaking processes, they can turn out A or B in the moment, or some other alternative, and then one of the alternative possible futures is made the present, meaning it has been chosen. That can already be observed with present technology pretty much. And there is absolutely nothing found in any science theory, what does the job of deciding

BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A DECISION BEING MADE.

>No proton, or quanta, atom, or whatever is identified as what did the job of making a decision turn out A instead of B.

BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A DECISION BEING MADE.

> Nor is this a logical possiblity that any objecte material thing can ever be identified as doing the job of deciding.

Humans beings are objectively material things,. Human beings make
decisions,. Your statement is therefore incorrect. Again.

>A thing consists of X (be it an atom, a rock, a human brain, or whatever), therefore the decision turned out A instead of B.
>There is no possible logical progression in that statement, from what it consists of, to A being chosen.

Inanimate objects do not make choices.

[*Hemidactylus*]

First you need to decouple subjective emotional states from objective
survival circuits as does Joe LeDoux. Then you need to decouple
psychologically constructed emotions from phantom underlying fingerprints
(facialexpressions, nonverbals, brainscans) as does Lisa Feldman Barrett.
Gone are the days of simplistic universal basic emotions ( Darwin, Ekman).
Cultures operate in different intersubjective registers. Darwin was wrong
about so many things so why is there still Darwinism?