Not likely, with crap like this:Terrapin Station wrote:Some violation of your personal posting etiquette or something?Walker wrote:You have asked three questions before our thread-host Bill could bestow honor upon my humble contribution by asking one. You must have a very busy mind tempered by impatience."Terrapin Station is a belief-averse atheist." <----WRONG.If it should be other than questions, your philosophy obviously requires belief,"Terrapin Station thinks that consciousness is some sort of 'fog' (for all)." <----WRONG.and so you seek comprehension in what you imagine must exist as a fog upon consciousness for all,"People can get 'beyond' belief (and still be alive and mentally active)." <---WRONG.since you project through questions that like you, everyone else must be limited by belief.Delusion is an idea you invoked, not me. That would like me bringing up what I call my ontological perspectivalism or "reference-point relativism," you asking me a clarifying question, and then I ask you a conceptual question about it instead in return.Grasshopper, does non-delusional comprehension require belief, or simply uncorrupted observation?
What about if we tried to have a good-faith, back-and-forth conversation instead of a bunch of attitude?
"Terrapin Station thinks that consciousness is some sort of 'fog' (for all)." <----WRONG.