There is No Me, No You, No Person, No Self ???

[Atla]

Again you fail to see that by building consesnsus with stupid, insane, manic idiots, of which there are many,

Weasel words ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word ).

Can you put an exact number on 'many'? Can you contrast that number to the number of sane, non-manic, non-idiots with which we can build consensus. With which we HAVE built consensus (you know - this thing called SOCIETY).

Because as far as I have done the math and as far as I have encountered and interacted with humans (and having been a police officer for 15 years I have met the scum of society)- there are far more good people to build consensus with than your cynicism lets you believe.

Do you think all these social institutions (hospitals, universities, governments, police, fire brigades, schools etc.) could ever exist without consensus and co-operation?

we won't save humanity and beat Entropy the Antichrist; we would probably just be catapulted back to the Middle Ages and you might end up executed for your atheistic herecy even before the inevitable nuclear holocaust.

And yet SOCIETY keeps getting better and better for everyone. https://ourworldindata.org

Pretty much everything you write shows such a lack of understanding about humans, that is only characterisic to some personality disorders. But there are many idiots on this forum who will be impressed.

Is that true, or is it a projection? You sound excessively pessimistic in the face of contradictory evidence. Perhaps you think all humans are like YOU?

Maybe you do have a personality disorder. How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressiv ... y_disorder

People with depressive personality disorder have a generally gloomy outlook on life, themselves, the past and the future. They are plagued by issues developing and maintaining relationships. In addition, studies have found that people with depressive personality disorder are more likely to seek psychotherapy than people with Axis I depression spectra diagnoses.

* Usual mood is dominated by dejection, gloominess, cheerlessness, joylessness and unhappines. CHECK
* Is pessimistic CHECK
* Is negativistic, critical and judgmental toward others CHECK

Or maybe this one: http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html you tick many boxes there too. That may explain your distrust in other humans, presumably because you think you are the paragon of human intellect?

I understand humans just fine That's why I carry a smile, a polite attitude, willingness to listen and empathise, willingness to teach and learn, and willingness to build consensus in the name of progress.
I also carry a gun for the assholes who don't. I've only had to use my gun twice in 20 years. You are good at statistics. Do the math.

What I do understand about you is that you distrust humans.

Idiots make up about 60-70% of the population. Societies typically aren't built on consensus but are governed by those who can control/manipulate the idiot population the best, without going too far. And like 80-90% of the world population is theistic.

Also, I don't believe a word you say about yourself. Sometimes 30 sometimes 35 years old, sometimes a policeman for 15-20 years, sometimes a programmer for 30 years, but always a saviour of humanity.

[TimeSeeker]

Idiots make up about 60-70% of the population.

That's an interesting claim. Is that an opinion based on evidence or cynicism? What is your objective metric, and ranking function for "idiocy"?
What is your objective metric, and ranking function for "non-idiociy" ?

Can I try a stab at a hypothesis? Everybody who doesn't think like you is an idiots?

Societies typically aren't built on consensus but are governed by those who can control/manipulate the idiot population the best, without going too far.

Really? You try and govern an angry mob. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... rebellions

You don't think we have consensus on "no harm"? Is that why people in uniforms come and throw you in jail when you harm another human?
Is that why we disbar lawyers?
Is that why doctors lose their licenses to practice when they violate codes of ethics?

And like 80-90% of the world population is theistic.

Yeah and? I am a theist (lets see what you read into that...)

Personally, I find cynicism far more harmful than theism.

Also, I don't believe a word you say about yourself. Sometimes 30 sometimes 35 years old, sometimes a policeman for 15-20 years, sometimes a programmer for 30 years, but always a saviour of humanity.

So now you are calling me a liar? Great! You really are paranoid, and you jump to conclusions.

I am 35.
I have been programming (for my own curiosity) since I was 5. 35 - 5 is ?...
I have been earning a living by doing software/systems engineering since the age of 15. 35 - 15 is ?
I have been a volunteer police officer since the age of 20. 35 - 20 is ?

You are good at Maths. Do it Just stop projecting your cynical stereotypes onto me.

[Atla]

That's an interesting claim. Is that an opinion based on evidence or cynicism? What is your objective metric, and ranking function for "idiocy"?

Well for timeseeking purposes, for example: not being able to consider the future/greater good for humanity.

Really? You try and govern an angry mob. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... rebellions

You don't think we have consensus on "no harm"? Is that why people in uniforms come and throw you in jail when you harm another human?
Is that why we disbar lawyers?
Is that why doctors lose their licenses to practice when they violate codes of ethics?

As I said: govern without going too far.

We have a consensus on no harm within the society but not necessarily towards other societies or other religions. And those who run societies typically don't play by such rules anyway.

Yeah and? I am a theist (lets see what you read into that...)

Personally, I find cynicism far more harmful than theism.

Blind/malignant/selfish optimism is far worse than rational cynicism.

Also I'm not sure you understand what theism means.

So now you are calling me a liar? Great! You really are paranoid, and you jump to conclusions.

I am 35.
I have been programming (for my own curiosity) since I was 5. 35 - 5 is ?...
I have been earning a living by doing software/systems engineering since the age of 15. 35 - 15 is ?
I have been a volunteer police officer since the age of 20. 35 - 20 is ?

You are good at Maths. Do it Just stop projecting your cynical stereotypes onto me.

Yeah now the numbers add up a little better. Not that I care, just saying.

[TimeSeeker]

Well for timeseeking purposes, for example: not being able to consider the future/greater good for humanity.

Manslow's pyramid gives you a good answer as to why that may be. The environment in which you exist plays a large part into the long-term thinking one is able to exercise.

Anxiety, ADD, stress, problems - all things in our immediate peripheral successfully rob us of big picture/long-term thinking.
That is why psychological safety is so important. That is why stable societies thrive. People feel safe and don't have to worry about short-term stuff.

We are wired for survival. And so we always over-react to risk/uncertainty.
Not because the noise in the bush means danger, but because 1 in 100 times it means danger.

We have a consensus on no harm within the society but not necessarily towards other societies or other religions. And those who run societies typically don't play by such rules anyway.

You are missing the forest for the trees. We have institutions that punish war crimes. Yes - things slip through the cracks, but observe the general trend.

Blind/malignant/selfish optimism is far worse than rational cynicism.

That's two false dichotomies in one go. If you want to be an optimist - you need to have good risk-management skills, otherwise you keep over-compensating for extremely-rare-but-costly scenarios e.g you become cynical instead of cautious.

I am cautious (I carry a gun), but I am not cynical. Most humans are awesome.

Also I'm not sure you understand what theism means.

Oh. I am quite sure you think you do

That's why nobody can empirically determine my super-positional (a)theism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

[Atla]

Manslow's pyramid gives you a good answer as to why that may be. The environment in which you exist plays a large part into the long-term thinking one is able to exercise.

Anxiety, ADD, stress, problems - all things in our immediate peripheral successfully rob us of big picture/long-term thinking.
That is why psychological safety is so important.

We are wired for survival. And so we always over-react to risk/uncertainty.
Not because the noise in the bush means danger, but because 1 in 100 times it means danger.

The main problem is too low average IQ/EQ/morality.

You are missing the forest for the trees. We have institutions that punish war crimes. Yes - things slip through the cracks, but observe the general trend.

The general trend in the world nowadays is that war crimes aren't punished.

That's two false dichotomies in one go. If you want to be an optimist - you need to have good risk-management skills, otherwise you keep over-compensating for extremely-rare-but-costly scenarios e.g you become cynical instead of cautious.

I am cautious (I carry a gun), but I am not cynical. Most humans are awesome.

Optimists are optimists, most of them don't care about risk-management skills.

Most humans are all right, just incapable of doing the right thing for the greater good of humanity. Which is why your idea of worldwide consensus building would almost certainly end in tragedy.

Not that it would happen of course, since the powers that be would never just give their power to the masses so they can build consensuses.

Oh. I am quite sure you think you do

That's why nobody can empirically determine my super-positional (a)theism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

Well it isn't "superpositional" for 80-90% of people in the world.
So if we build global consensus, then you will probably end up with having to believe in a supenatural god (probably the Christian god) or face the consequences.

[TimeSeeker]

The main problem is too low average IQ/EQ/morality.

That is a misunderstanding of what IQ measures. The median IQ is always 100. Because that's how a standard distribution works and that is what median means.
And yet - we are getting smarter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2009 found that British children's average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008.[2] Similar gains have been observed in many other countries in which IQ testing has long been widely used, including other Western European countries, Japan, and South Korea.[1]

Morality (as best as we can measure it in terms of crime, eduction, poverty social well-being etc.) is improving.
We don't know how to measure EQ and so we can't tell if it is improving or not. I would venture a guess that since the inclusion of women in all fields that were previously over-crowded with men (who are qualitatively far less emotionally intelligent than women), EQ is bound to improve whether we like it or not. EQ rubs off.

The general trend in the world nowadays is that war crimes aren't punished.

The general trend is that society is getting better despite war crimes (punished or unpunished).

Optimists are optimists, most of them don't care about risk-management skills.

Most humans are all right, just incapable of doing the right thing for the greater good of humanity. Which is why your idea of worldwide consensus building would almost certainly end in tragedy.

Not that it would happen of course, since the powers that be would never just give their power to the masses so they can build consensuses.

Have you ever asked the question of whether the "powers that be" are already doing the thing I expect you to consent to? Ethical principles are embedded all over our institutions systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

You are playing your part (a cog in the wheel) one way or another. By doing no-worse than Evolution selected you for. The only difference is whether you want to play the "survival" game consciously by making society better.

Well it isn't "superpositional" for 80-90% of people in the world.

Oh really? And what have you measured in those 80-90%? I am curious how you measure 'belief'- because as soon as you tell me how you test/measure FOR belief then you will also tell me what your conception OF belief is

So if we build global consensus, then you will probably end up with having to believe in a supenatural god (probably the Christian god) or face the consequences.

I already believe in the Christian god. Or maybe I don't. How would YOU tell which is which ?

[Atla]

That is a misunderstanding of what IQ measures. The median IQ is always 100. Because that's how a standard distribution works.

Well duh, not what I meant.
The global average intelligence is too low for greater good considerations.

And yet - we are getting smarter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

After the Flynn effect of the 20th century, IQ scores are stagnating or decreasing again.

The general trend is that society is getting better despite war crimes (punished or unpunished).

I think that's obviously not true for the last 10-15 years in North America and debatable in Europe. But true for the last 100 years. Anyway it's clearly not enough by far.

Have you ever asked the question of whether the "powers that be" are already doing the thing I expect you to consent to? Ethical principles are embedded all over our institutions systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

You are playing your part (a cog in the wheel) one way or another. By doing no-worse than Evolution selected you for. The only difference is whether you want to play the "survival" game consciously by making society better.

You have no idea about geopolitics.

Oh really? And what have you measured in those 80-90%? I am curious how you measure 'belief'- because as soon as you tell me how you test/measure FOR belief then you will also tell me what your conception OF belief is

I already believe in the Christian god. Or maybe I don't. How would YOU tell which is which ?

You can play your tricks all day, but that won't change the belief of the vast majority in some very real, supernatural God entity.

[TimeSeeker]

Well duh, not what I meant.
The global average intelligence is too low for greater good considerations.

More weasel words. What should the global IQ be (according to the 2018 IQ scale) for "greater good" to be considered?

After the Flynn effect of the 20th century, IQ scores are stagnating or decreasing again.

They are. And 100 years of improvement is still a nett positive on 20 years of regress.

I think that's obviously not true for the last 10-15 years in North America and debatable in Europe. But true for the last 100 years. Anyway it's clearly not enough by far.

Now look who's guilty of short-term thinking

You have no idea about geopolitics.

Perfectly aware of geopolitics. Politicians are put in power to distract us from where power truly lies

You can play your tricks all day, but that won't change the belief of the vast majority in some very real, supernatural God entity.

It is not a trick. It is me showing that the very notion of "belief" is unscientific! It doesn't stand to the basic scrutiny of pragmatism/consequentialism!

From William James:

I tell this trivial anecdote because it is a peculiarly simple example of what I wish now to speak of as the pragmatic method. The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable. Is the world one or many? – fated or free? – material or spiritual? – here are notions either of which may or may not hold good of the world; and disputes over such notions are unending. The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other’s being right.

It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.

And so what is a belief? What are the CONSEQUENCES of belief? If metaphysical "beliefs" are real then they will have some measurable consequence in behavior.

So. No matter how many times you assert that "people believe in X". until you tell me how you measure belief- you are as crazy as the people you are pointing fingers at.

If beliefs have ANY practical consequences - then you should be able to determine my (a)theism empirically! Science, right? Show me!

[Atla]

More weasel words. What should the global IQ be (according to the 2018 IQ scale) for "greater good" to be considered?

Hard to say but I think a 130 would be enough to reverse things. When accompanied by a similar increase in EQ/morality.

They are. And 100 years of improvement is still a nett positive on 20 years of regress.

Now look who's guilty of short-term thinking

Perfectly aware of geopolitics. Politicians are put in power to distract us from where power truly lies

Then you must be also perfectly aware that further regress is to be expected.

It is not a trick. It is me showing that the very notion of "belief" is unscientific! It doesn't stand to the basic scrutiny of pragmatism/consequentialism!

From William James:
I tell this trivial anecdote because it is a peculiarly simple example of what I wish now to speak of as the pragmatic method. The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable. Is the world one or many? – fated or free? – material or spiritual? – here are notions either of which may or may not hold good of the world; and disputes over such notions are unending. The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other’s being right.

It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.
And so what is a belief? What are the CONSEQUENCES of belief? If metaphysical "beliefs" are real then they will have some measurable consequence in behavior.

So. No matter how many times you assert that "people believe in X". until you tell me how you measure belief- you are as crazy as the people you are pointing fingers at.

If beliefs have ANY practical consequences - then you should be able to determine my (a)theism empirically! Science, right? Show me!

You talk like someone far removed from reality; have you not seen the religious behaviour of masses before?
And of course by global consensus, religion > science.

[TimeSeeker]

Hard to say but I think a 130 would be enough to reverse things. When accompanied by a similar increase in EQ/morality.

So given the Flynn's effect increase of 15SD per generation, you are predicting that if we reverse the current regress that in 2 generations human IQ will be sufficient? Cool! That's a prediction.

What do you expect to see happening IF social IQ goes to 130? e.g how do you know if the "world is getting better" now that we are all smarter?

Then you must be also perfectly aware that further regress is to be expected.

Like the polls predicted HIllary will win? If we don't understand the causal factors in the system then the predictions being made are a thumb-suck.
But if we do want to keep humans getting smarter - we ought to figure out what causes IQ to increase/decrease...

You talk like someone far removed from reality; have you not seen the religious behaviour of masses before?
And of course by global consensus, religion > science.

And you talk like somebody avoiding an empirical question and instead choosing to appeal to "common sense".

Switzerland is 42% catholic and 30% protestant. The Swiss are far from religious zealots, don't you think?
65 to 75% of Germans are Christians. The germans are far from religious zealots, don't you think?
65% of the French are Christians. The French are far from religious zealots, don't you think?
78% of Danish people are Christians. Denmark is considered one of the most progressive countries in the world.

And if I am "far off the mark" you are welcome to point me to the society/country which best resembles your ideals.

Most of Europe is some denomination of Christianity or another. So explain to me how Europe has managed to make such social progress despite so much religion? Maybe religion was a red herring all along? An excuse used by those "progressives" who despite all their "science" couldn't figure out HOW to make a difference so they needed something to blame for their failures?

It is generally what happens when you mis-identify the root cause of a problem...

[Atla]

Hard to say but I think a 130 would be enough to reverse things. When accompanied by a similar increase in EQ/morality.

So given the Flynn's effect increase of 15SD per generation, you are predicting that if we reverse the current regress that in 2 generations human IQ will be sufficient? Cool! That's a prediction.

What do you expect to see happening IF social IQ goes to 130? e.g how do you know if the "world is getting better" now that we are all smarter?

Then you must be also perfectly aware that further regress is to be expected.

Like the polls predicted HIllary will win? If we don't understand the causal factors in the system then the predictions being made are a thumb-suck.
But if we do want to keep humans getting smarter - we ought to figure out what causes IQ to increase/decrease...

You talk like someone far removed from reality; have you not seen the religious behaviour of masses before?
And of course by global consensus, religion > science.

And you talk like somebody avoiding an empirical question and instead choosing to appeal to "common sense".

Switzerland is 42% catholic and 30% protestant. The Swiss are far from religious zealots, don't you think?
65 to 75% of Germans are Christians. The germans are far from religious zealots, don't you think?
65% of the French are Christians. The French are far from religious zealots, don't you think?
78% of Danish people are Christians. Denmark is considered one of the most progressive countries in the world.

And if I am "far off the mark" you are welcome to point me to the society/country which best resembles your ideals.

Most of Europe is some denomination of Christianity or another. So explain to me how Europe has managed to make such social progress despite so much religion? Maybe religion was a red herring all along? An excuse used by those "progressives" who despite all their "science" couldn't figure out HOW to make a difference so they needed something to blame for their failures?

It is generally what happens when you mis-identify the root cause of a problem...

Anyway your intellectual dishonesty is absolute, you're a sick malignant little man looking for attention, not looking for an unbiased discussion. I'm just here for entertainment on this forum too, but this isn't even funny anymore.

[TimeSeeker]

Anyway your intellectual dishonesty is absolute, you're a sick malignant little man looking for attention, not looking for an unbiased discussion. I'm just here for entertainment on this forum too, but this isn't even funny anymore.

My intellectual dishonesty? I have substantiated every one of my arguments, and contradicted every one of your cynical outbursts with empirical fact!

If that is what you call 'intellectual dishonesty' then I have a better suggestion. Before you point fingers at society for being 'fucked up', maybe look in the mirror? Your own EQ is somewhat absent. To the point you are unable to discern your own misanthropy from fact.

Your ignorance of your own ignorance is not funny to any of us either...

[dxoutkast]

My view is the concept of 'me' you, yours, person or self and objects emerged out of human reason for very necessary and critical "purposes" to facilitate the survival of the individual and the preservation of the human species.

Nah, it has nothing to do with "survival", the 'small self' precedes survival, it is actually what lives AND then survives. There is nothing trying to "preserve human beings", people preserve their lives. And we in the collective help to preserve other lives too, not everyone does tho.

Note, I said 'small self' but don't take me for a fool, that doesn't mean there is a 'higher self' each person possess, however, each person has their own self.

Regards Tony Parsons, Jim Newman and other trolls, they're just there to entertain the whole gnostic religion, it's all rubbish, if what they said was true, they wouldn't need to keep negating over and over the small personal self.


'That the 'me' here in my mind is the one who thinks' is me> is not a concept, it's a recognition of who we are at the core of our being.


Reality is not infinite. Is not "hallucination" and cause effect does break in, despite what the stupid troll says in her posts.

[dxoutkast]

Veritas and Dontaskme, I disagree with you both.

How is that possible? You two are not on any agreement.

This is bothering me. Intellectually, not socially or on a psychological, personal level.

W̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶g̶r̶e̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶V̶e̶r̶i̶t̶a̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶v̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶l̶l̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶.̶
̶
̶W̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶,̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶l̶l̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶e̶l̶f̶-̶e̶v̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶a̶n̶t̶a̶n̶e̶o̶u̶s̶l̶y̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶i̶f̶i̶a̶b̶l̶e̶.̶.̶.̶ ̶N̶o̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶f̶e̶r̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶r̶e̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶
̶
̶M̶y̶ ̶c̶l̶a̶i̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶n̶o̶n̶-̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶i̶f̶i̶a̶b̶l̶e̶.̶
̶B̶u̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶i̶f̶y̶ ̶i̶t̶
̶
̶ ̶I ̶a̶m̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶.̶ (Right)
̶
̶I̶t̶ ̶t̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶a̶s̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶p̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶i̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶l̶l̶.̶I̶t̶ ̶t̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶m̶a̶s̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶p̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶i̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶
̶I̶t̶ ̶t̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶m̶a̶s̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶p̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶i̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶
̶
̶Ica̶u̶s̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶dawn willians ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶,̶ ̶ ̶b̶r̶e̶a̶k̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶n̶.̶ ̶E̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶c̶e̶p̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶
̶

Complete RUBBISH

Tell us all, Dawn Willians, about your internet trolling, how is it going?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My view is the concept of 'me' you, yours, person or self and objects emerged out of human reason for very necessary and critical "purposes" to facilitate the survival of the individual and the preservation of the human species.

Nah, it has nothing to do with "survival", the 'small self' precedes survival, it is actually what lives AND then survives. There is nothing trying to "preserve human beings", people preserve their lives. And we in the collective help to preserve other lives too, not everyone does tho.

Note, I said 'small self' but don't take me for a fool, that doesn't mean there is a 'higher self' each person possess, however, each person has their own self.

Regards Tony Parsons, Jim Newman and other trolls, they're just there to entertain the whole gnostic religion, it's all rubbish, if what they said was true, they wouldn't need to keep negating over and over the small personal self.


'That the 'me' here in my mind is the one who thinks' is me> is not a concept, it's a recognition of who we are at the core of our being.


Reality is not infinite. Is not "hallucination" and cause effect does break in, despite what the stupid troll says in her posts.

If you assert the small self precedes survival, then when does it emerge in the person - the self.
Note the proto-self emerged starting from conception and self-consciousness emerged later after birth.

What drives conception is the survival and preservation of the species. This is so evident with non-humans living things and the human species.

The self-conscious me, you and others emerge basically for the purpose of the human species in the face of greater threats, e.g. from a rogue meteor that could obliterate the Earth into smithereens.
It is because of being self-aware and endowed with knowledge that astronomers are aware of the threat of rogue meteor can appear from nowhere and moving towards Earth.
Scientists are now exploring and discussing how to deflect such a threat from a rogue meteor.
It is not mentioned but the inferred and implied purpose is to ensure survival of the individual, humanity and the human species and other species.

I believe my thesis above is very useful for practical living especially to dissolve the associated terrible evil and violent acts from the compromised time-relative useful theism, in the future.