Quote:
Originally Posted by impaul99  LOL. This whole thread is rediculous. I like the article, but why do things on this board always come back to the same argument? |
Perhaps because the posts are frequently about the same topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by impaul99 Here's how I look at all of Steve's written word. If you believe in the Subjective Reality model Steve wrote about where nothing outside of our minds exists, then read his articles.
If you don't, don't bother because they won't make sense and you'll just end up argueing the first point of whether SR actually exists. |
Whether or not time is wasted depends on why one is arguing. I do it because it helps me learn. That's what I'm here for. If others don't wish to waste their time they're free to not respond, or respond saying they don't want to continue.
And the same perspective applies to whether or not one embraces SR. Time and time again the focal point of SR is on experience. Not understanding or knowledge, but pure experience (and note that I said 'focal point'; I'm not denying that understanding and knowledge are part of the SR perspective). There's nothing wrong with that, but ultimately it's a lesser part of what I want out of life, so the SR perspective is a lesser part of my overall perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina |
True, dreams can be persistent, but generally that's not the case (before now I hadn't heard of any case of any dream (or series or dreams) being so consistent (at least none outside of stories)).
What would be even more interesting is if someone else turned up in Naptown and met Erin there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina Proof is an objective construct. I'm requesting an experience.  |
The experience of a demonstration of the validity of a claim. Sounds like asking for proof to me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela Ha! He wiggled right out of your trap, Mark! 
This is a fun thread. |
Just means I gotta build a better trap, innit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uplift Yeh its pretty funny. Hilarious. Lets see Mark wiggle and wriggle out of the Danny Dennert, we are nothing but robots, debacle and its endless connotations. Ahh yes...robots. |
No wriggling required. Dan is a philosopher. Abstract concepts are their forte, and analogy is an effective means of communicating those abstract concepts. There's no reason to believe that what he said was anything but an analogy. Dan is clearly not naive enough to believe that our bodies are
truly made up of microscopic mechanical constructs.
But I don't need to defend Dan. Without a statement from him neither of us can truthfully say what he meant, so he's no support for either of our arguments, how about we agree to disagree?