GrahamH wrote:How quaint that the OneGod GroundOfAllBeing, the biggest of all big cheeses (won ny default since it's the only Cheese) would try to communicate with itself by addressing an assortment of its own puppet characters through an internet forum. Is that a cosmi verios of leaveing a note to yourself on a post-it on your fridge, forgetting you did that and thinking some mysterious intruder is trying to communicate?

Not joking? Oh yes you are/I am.

To use one of jamet's twee phrases, here's a message from Onegod to OneGod: "have a word with yourself"
Here's another: "Don't listen to that jamest muppet, he's just me messing with my head.

You see NO purpose in what is proposed here?

Think again. Ask yourself what ONE individual can know of itself, relative to nothing.

The purpose of creating a relative experience (for God) is so fucking obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it except to kids. Even a sole human placed upon the planet Mars at birth and somehow provided with the means to survive, would have no means to identify who/what 'it' was, regardless of the environment. For God, there was not even an environment. Therefore, not even a survivalist purpose.

Place yourself on Mars, Sir. Now, deprived of all social interaction try imagining being deprived of any backdrop, too.

... What would you do about it, if you could?


God's purpose is/was so fucking obvious, but yet we're chewing the fat in the 21st century and only jamest is making the right jaw movements. And still you doubt the concept of truth mills?!


God's purpose is so fucking obvious to reason that ONLY 'truth mills' can explain its obscurity until this point in time. And only truth mills can conspire to deny it henceforth. For, let us not beat about the bush: all truth mills are the essence of smog.

GrahamH wrote:How quaint that the OneGod GroundOfAllBeing, the biggest of all big cheeses (won ny default since it's the only Cheese) would try to communicate with itself by addressing an assortment of its own puppet characters through an internet forum. Is that a cosmi verios of leaveing a note to yourself on a post-it on your fridge, forgetting you did that and thinking some mysterious intruder is trying to communicate?

Not joking? Oh yes you are/I am.

To use one of jamet's twee phrases, here's a message from Onegod to OneGod: "have a word with yourself"
Here's another: "Don't listen to that jamest muppet, he's just me messing with my head.

The thing is this: when you're a character upon a stage, yet dunno that you're a character placed upon a stage, that the actors and stage around you seem real.

THIS explains why 'we' communicate. I mean, here we have the actor named Graham with the backdrop of Earth. He thinks jamest is a tosser and wants to belittle/undermine/ban that actor. He's been trying to do so for about a decade.

In the past, jamest took offence and opened his freezer.

... Not any more, since the actor formally known as jamest has now departed the stage and hence discarded that costume.

'He' now cordially invites you to his dressing-room.

jamest wrote:'He' now cordially invites you to his dressing-room.

Don't tell me God's going to have trouble tying up his bathrobe.

Maybe God's puppet isn't jamest, but Harvey Weinstein. It would explain a lot.

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:Read my recent thread about truth mills, first. Nobody can convince anybody of anything until they know how devastating truth mills are to the truth.

That's an interesting premise. Earlier this week, I did not believe that 11 people had been murdered in an antisemitic attack on a synagogue in the USA. Then I read this:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2659570

Now I am convinced that 11 people were murdered in an antisemitic attack on a synagogue in the USA. This seems incongruous with my rejection of "truth mills" and the above premise.

I am also convinced that on 9/11 a small group of resourceful Muslims were responsible for the events thereof. The evidence speaks for itself, just as a relatively-small bunch of Nazis were ultimately responsible for WW2.

You're missing the fucking point.

No, I think you're wrong, and I think that you keep asserting things that are obviously wrong. On top of that where you are asserting things which aren't obviously wrong you aren't justifying your assertions.

Take this example. You said that it is not possible to be convinced of anything if you don't agree with your assertions about truth mills. Given an example of one of the many ways in which this is wrong you declare no true Scotsman. For some reason you find yourself incapable of admitting error, which prevents you correcting it. So you proceed from a premise that is obviously wrong, and has been shown to be wrong*.

Clearly there are many things which one can be convinced of without agreeing with your fiat declarations about what you call truth mills. The synagogue attack and 9/11 are examples, but there are many, many more. 9/11 in particular is an interesting example because an awful lot of people don't accept those facts. They process evidence and reach different (generally wildy stupid, but different) conclusions.

jamest wrote:... A 'truth mill' is not necessarily a rejection of fact(s) (though could be, as a means to forward one's agenda), but instead amounts to the thought processes which lead to a particular interpretation and judgement thereof.

I didn't say it was or wasn't.

The problem with the things you've said about truth mills (and you should have at least attempted to solve these by mature discussion in the thread you alleged was made for that purpose, rather than swearing, flouncing and proceeding as if something had been firmly established when it had not) is that you use the term inconsistently and provide no basis for determining when and where someone's reasoning processes are correct, or where they are wrong.

As far as a truth mill refers to reasoning processes in general, then they are unavoidable - humans have to reason, so the real question is only how humans can reason with the least susceptibility to error, and you have said nothing, whether intelligent or otherwise, on the subject. Although admittedly you have implied that by agreeing with your conclusions you would judge them to be less susceptible - a point on which I profoundly disagree, because I often find and point out definite flaws (as here) in your reasoning that leads to these conclusions.

In reality, I suspect the situation is much worse than the rather naive idea that your filter for truth works and other people's are faulty. Human reasoning is subject to heuristics and is generally about probabilistic conclusions based on incomplete information. It's very likely that everyone's reasoning is flawed to some degree and that the heuristics we apply, and that work as well as possible in some situations are not optimised in others. I.e. There's probably no right answer to find, as to the best reasoning in general.

As far as this conversation goes what is plain is that you think your own reasoning processes are somehow superior to those of everyone else and that's really all that's been said. You haven't said how they are better, or even what they are. Ironically, given your insistence it's about process and not conclusion the only thing you've given anyone to go on are your own conclusions.

*Nobody can convince anybody of anything until they know how devastating truth mills are to the truth.

ETA: And I do want to highlight that this very post contains the same self-contradiction yet again:
"Nobody can convince anybody of anything until they know how devastating truth mills are to the truth."
"A 'truth mill' ... amounts to the thought processes which lead to a particular interpretation and judgement thereof."

(And that second sentence is appalling by the way.)

james wrote:
A truth mill is not necessarily a rejection of facts ( though could be as a means to forward ones agenda )
but instead amounts to the thought processes which lead to a particular interpretation and judgement thereof

The conception of a truth mill has consistently referred to the processing and subsequent judgement not least the reaction towards incoming experience. The aforementioned concept does not deny that there is no incoming. Instead what it focuses upon is how that experience is dealt with. For instance one group dealt with the incoming sufficient to try to destroy another group subject to the same incoming. In other words truth mills are inherent and evidently sufficient to cause divide even when we speak of universal experiential / observational order / evidence as does science as would I

By this reasoning everyone is employing a truth mill when determining a conclusion from evidence where
said conclusion is a subjective interpretation [ this also includes you just in case you thought otherwise ]

Indeed subjective interpretation cannot really be avoided by compos mentis functioning ground apes

jamest wrote:...
I am also convinced that on 9/11 a small group of resourceful Muslims were responsible for the events thereof. The evidence speaks for itself, just as a relatively-small bunch of Nazis were ultimately responsible for WW2.

You're missing the fucking point.

... A 'truth mill' is not necessarily a rejection of fact(s) (though could be, as a means to forward one's agenda), but instead amounts to the thought processes which lead to a particular interpretation and judgement thereof.

The conception of a truth mill has consistently referred to the processing and subsequent judgement (not least the reaction) towards incoming experience. The aforementioned concept does not deny that there is no 'incoming'. Instead, what it focusses upon is how that experience is dealt with. For instance, one group dealt with the incoming sufficient to try to destroy another group subject to the same incoming. In other words, truth mills are inherent and evidently sufficient to cause divide even when we speak of universal experiential/observational order/evidence, as does science, as would I.

Who is "I" here? Is it jamest or someone else posting to that account?

How is anything in this post connected to an explanation for this shit that was going to be provided?

newolder wrote:

jamest wrote:...
I am also convinced that on 9/11 a small group of resourceful Muslims were responsible for the events thereof. The evidence speaks for itself, just as a relatively-small bunch of Nazis were ultimately responsible for WW2.

You're missing the fucking point.

... A 'truth mill' is not necessarily a rejection of fact(s) (though could be, as a means to forward one's agenda), but instead amounts to the thought processes which lead to a particular interpretation and judgement thereof.

The conception of a truth mill has consistently referred to the processing and subsequent judgement (not least the reaction) towards incoming experience. The aforementioned concept does not deny that there is no 'incoming'. Instead, what it focusses upon is how that experience is dealt with. For instance, one group dealt with the incoming sufficient to try to destroy another group subject to the same incoming. In other words, truth mills are inherent and evidently sufficient to cause divide even when we speak of universal experiential/observational order/evidence, as does science, as would I.

Who is "I" here? Is it jamest or someone else posting to that account?

How is anything in this post connected to an explanation for this shit that was going to be provided?

What's more, it's not showing a path for dispensing with truth mills, whoever is making the claim. I'd hazard a guess that the remarks are making some implication about the consequences of truth mills being bad, or something, but we know how the argument to the consequences usually goes around here. I think we can pretty much sum up jamest's argument as being about the consequences of not accepting jamest.

What you see is not what you get, especially if you don't get it.

From jamest's (or maybe God's) perspective. the ideal consequence of dispensing with truth mills is that nobody would be telling God He's rong on teh intertubez. When you're omnipresent, being rong on teh intertubez is a flaw in the ointment.

That means, of course, that none of this was ever really happening. Sounds like a Sheryl Crow song from the 90s.

jamest wrote:

GrahamH wrote:How quaint that the OneGod GroundOfAllBeing, the biggest of all big cheeses (won ny default since it's the only Cheese) would try to communicate with itself by addressing an assortment of its own puppet characters through an internet forum. Is that a cosmi verios of leaveing a note to yourself on a post-it on your fridge, forgetting you did that and thinking some mysterious intruder is trying to communicate?

Not joking? Oh yes you are/I am.

To use one of jamet's twee phrases, here's a message from Onegod to OneGod: "have a word with yourself"
Here's another: "Don't listen to that jamest muppet, he's just me messing with my head.

The thing is this: when you're a character upon a stage, yet dunno that you're a character placed upon a stage, that the actors and stage around you seem real.

THIS explains why 'we' communicate. I mean, here we have the actor named Graham with the backdrop of Earth. He thinks jamest is a tosser and wants to belittle/undermine/ban that actor. He's been trying to do so for about a decade.


In the past, jamest took offence and opened his freezer.

... Not any more, since the actor formally known as jamest has now departed the stage and hence discarded that costume.

'He' now cordially invites you to his dressing-room.

You have me wrong jamest, I don't want to belittle you, I simply point out the absurdity of the philosophy posted under that identity.

According that philosophy there are no real people, or planets, no alone and no communication. A human alone on Mars is just a story. If OneGod is real and the sole subjective mind taking on various characters in a play of it's own devising then it really is absurd for it to imagine this discourse between two puppet characters via an imaginary internet forum. It really is "having a word with yourself(s)" in a most unnecessary and convoluted setting when the script has one puppet saying to another that it is now speaking the words of the puppeteer (to the puppeteer, as the only one that could 'hear' them).

If OneGod wan't 'come out' to it's puppet people they can all just know the truth of it directly. There are no mediators, no channels, no transmission in your fantasy. These are all mere props.

jamest wrote:

GrahamH wrote:How quaint that the OneGod GroundOfAllBeing, the biggest of all big cheeses (won ny default since it's the only Cheese) would try to communicate with itself by addressing an assortment of its own puppet characters through an internet forum. Is that a cosmi verios of leaveing a note to yourself on a post-it on your fridge, forgetting you did that and thinking some mysterious intruder is trying to communicate?

Not joking? Oh yes you are/I am.

To use one of jamet's twee phrases, here's a message from Onegod to OneGod: "have a word with yourself"
Here's another: "Don't listen to that jamest muppet, he's just me messing with my head.

You see NO purpose in what is proposed here?

Think again. Ask yourself what ONE individual can know of itself, relative to nothing.

Relative to everything, jamest. The ONE IS the total perspective vortex. WTF can a little sketch about a nobody posting grandiose fantasies on an imagined internet forum to make believe 'other people' do for the god that has the knowledge and power to make this all (ALL THIS) happen?


You might as well say that you need to imagine conversations between yeast cells in bread dough to better understand the human condition.

Forgetting one's self and getting lost in fantasy of empty imagined little people is the opposite of god getting
to know itself.

I've probably been far too verbose before. The main point of my previous post can be summed up:

Effectively jamest is saying nothing more than "You can't see the truth because your preconceptions prevent you from doing so". Well, the only sensible response to that is to ask (i) What preconceptions? (ii) What is the reasoned argument that they prevent us from following? and (iii) How do those preconceptions interfere with the argument?

When all is said and done, the upshot is apparently clear to all those "cats, coolers and choruses" that we MAY have our caeks and eat soup.

See, I can post any old shit to a chat room too. Now what?

jamest wrote:

GrahamH wrote:How quaint that the OneGod GroundOfAllBeing, the biggest of all big cheeses (won ny default since it's the only Cheese) would try to communicate with itself by addressing an assortment of its own puppet characters through an internet forum. Is that a cosmi verios of leaveing a note to yourself on a post-it on your fridge, forgetting you did that and thinking some mysterious intruder is trying to communicate?

Not joking? Oh yes you are/I am.

To use one of jamet's twee phrases, here's a message from Onegod to OneGod: "have a word with yourself"
Here's another: "Don't listen to that jamest muppet, he's just me messing with my head.

The thing is this: when you're a character upon a stage, yet dunno that you're a character placed upon a stage, that the actors and stage around you seem real.

THIS explains why 'we' communicate. I mean, here we have the actor named Graham with the backdrop of Earth. He thinks jamest is a tosser and wants to belittle/undermine/ban that actor. He's been trying to do so for about a decade.

In the past, jamest took offence and opened his freezer.

... Not any more, since the actor formally known as jamest has now departed the stage and hence discarded that costume.

'He' now cordially invites you to his dressing-room.

Sir, I'll wager that the company here assembled, having assayed with many faculties and means both great and small thine utterances these last several years, and, finding them to contain no more use than a gentleman who, finding himself within one of the more gay and saucy establishments which are to be found this close to the river, notices that fundamental essence of himself rendered to obsolescence via means of lingering too long in his cups, which, by a happy confluence of circumstance, is precisely that which has drawn thee to ejaculate forth sundry trifling piffle in the first instance, have consigned such to the very depths of the midden, where languishes all like ordure. Get the hence, to the nearest dunghill, and therein deposit thine tawdry wares, lest ye bludgeon us all to death with thy blunted wit.

So, I tried to click the "thumbs up" for Fallible's post above and got:

Information

Invalid thank

Return

At this stage, I'm not surprised by anything that happens connected with this topic with the exception that jamest (why does the spell-clocker change jamest to lamest or tamest at its own whim - aaargghhh!) posts something of relevance to the title.

newolder wrote:...something of relevance to the title.

There's the thing, jamest is the would be messiah trying to explain God, and "this shit" is all he can manage. His starting point is a problem since if he is god he doesn't know it or posess the requisite capabilities. This is more about jamest expressing himself for himself to prop up his delusions than anything else. If god wanted GrahamH to know TheOneGod clearly it would not come as if in an internet post from a character known for posting piffle. Just about anything would be better than that.

GrahamH wrote:

newolder wrote:...something of relevance to the title.

There's the thing, jamest is the would be messiah trying to explain God, and "this shit" is all he can manage. His starting point is a problem since if he is god he doesn't know it or posess the requisite capabilities. This is more about jamest expressing himself for himself to prop up his delusions than anything else. If god wanted GrahamH to know TheOneGod clearly it would not come as if in an internet post from a character known for posting piffle. Just about anything would be better than that.

Quite. It is clear that god cannot want GrahamH to know TheOneGod because there is a total evidence void with respect to any god. Attempting to talk/write a god into existence (with an apparent inability to use its own forum account ) is abject failure.

jamest wrote:I created a scenario in which I would view myself as a part/object of that experience. I could do this countless times - numerous experiences within one scenario. Thus, I could experience myself as jamest within scenario Earth, 21st century; or else anyone else seemingly there and then. I could even add to this complexity by experiencing myself at any time and even giving it an apparent ordered origin at the 'big bang', such that the experience of being this object/thing didn't disintegrate upon introspection. This would enable me to experience myself as any thing/creature capable of experiencing sensations along the way and making judgements about that, even simple judgements such as where to quench my thirst/hunger, etc.. Within the experience as a whole, when the 'game' finally allowed for it and I'd acquired enough 'points' to think/feel/etc., I still got to the point that even though I didn't remember myself (since I'm lost within the experience) that I acquired certain capabilites inherent within me. For instance, I become creative and started to think beyond the realms of my experiential/material needs. I guess, once I acquired the experience of being human, I also acquired the capacity to question that experience.

The last several thousand years bear witness to that bollocks. I say 'bollocks' merely because of the infinite number of (relative) ways it is possible to fuck-up one's quest to find 'me' within that experience.

I shall explain it ALL to you soon. There's much to discuss. Except jamest. He's just my microphone now. You can take the piss out of him if you like, as you always have, but I'm not him. The philosophy echoed through him for the last two decades attests to that fact, as that indeed was that philosophy: that only I exist.

So, you've got two choices, which is either to take this thread seriously or merely take the piss out of james. I suppose you could take the piss out of me if you like, but then you won't learn anything. I'm here to teach you things that you do not know. All of you.

I apologize for taking the shit in my OP. I also apologize for responding to my own OP here. Since

only I exist

this is my OP and this is my reply. Apologies for making no sense, as I have no idea what got into my mind when I decided to write this OP. Perhaps I will attempt to explain it all to myself at some later point, but I'm confident that I will fail miserably.
Feel free to ignore all of this and have a nice day, me!

I'm Brian.

Are not.

Yeah, all the people who are telling jamest he's wrong are all OneGod, so perhaps jamest should take the hint that OneGod created the jamest puppet to be "the wrong one" one day when he was bored with omniscience, and wanted to experience wrongness. As a bonus he got to experience frustration, and persuasive impotence. That's broadened OneGod's already unbelievably broad mind. You puny mortals are no match for me him.