VERY IMPORTANT PETITION. spent a lot of time on it.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Saranagata said:

Yes, you are right. but bodily boundary itself is not a scientific boundary rather a belief. A belief that has come into my mind due to language which itself is a human construct. again appeal to authority/majority. 

I don't see how that is relevant. The act of naming things or drawing distinctions is not scientific. It can be inspired by scientific observations, but the decision to assign a name to something is not scientific. Likewise, naming something life vs. non-life is not scientific.

 

10 hours ago, Saranagata said:

there is absolutely zero causative evidence to say that taste is a result of nerve impulses. there is correlative evidence though to say that. but correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. and here's the part where you are gonna confirm that I am mad.

There is literally zero evidence to say that thoughts are generated in the brain. and I don't think there will ever be any. 

I wasn't talking about causality. I used the word "associated", which is compatible with "correlation". And I don't think you're mad: I actually agree with you. But again, I don't see how that is relevant.

 

10 hours ago, Saranagata said:

"Bodily systems" itself is a construct of language. 

Well, like I said above, "life" is also a construct of language. I don't see how that is relevant.

 

10 hours ago, Saranagata said:

why it couldn't be that I am the universe experiencing itself through senses which is assuming a separation in the universe due to language. No language ---> No separation in any forms within the universe. But language itself is a made up thing. (make believe/unscientific). In this case, I am the only life for me. 

If life is beyond language and all forms in the universe, then why are you drawing firm linguistic distinctions between which forms in the universe count as life and which don't (some animals = life; plants ≠ life)?

 

10 hours ago, Saranagata said:

well, I might be the universe, so could you be. which has forgot it's essential nature and has created boundaries. 

Sure, but how is that relevant to the discussion about naming plants as non-life?

 

10 hours ago, Saranagata said:

You are free to consider me crazy man, a lot of people do anyways.  But found no other platform to discuss such things.

I don't consider you crazy, but I don't think you are particularly good at saying things that are relevant to the discussion, but that is also just my limited experience talking to you.

Edited September 3 by Carl-Richard

[Keryo Koffa]

"These [atoms] speak, and call themselves [my] name."

Leo should make a video about Corals already

They are an overlooked and highly mportant part of the ecosystem

Edited September 3 by Keryo Koffa

[ICURBlessings]

On 9/1/2024 at 10:54 AM, Saranagata said:

..., rather it should be defined on the basis of ability to perceive through senses. which plants clearly lack. 
 

Where in the world did you get such ideas?!? You must be completely out of touch with the natural world...

 

There are probably a hundred studies that proves that plants perceive.

Here is a few of them - linked:

https://humansinnature.org/2021/11/03/plant-behavior-do-plants-have-perceptions-of-their-environment/

https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/66/2/425/2893254

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138523000833

 

Here is a link to an article titled:

Beyond the View of Plants as Mere Machines: on Plant Sensation, Perception, and Awareness 

It clearly explains how plants not only perceive but have a type of memory, and that they communicate (network with each others.

http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Beyond-the-View-of-Plants-as-Mere-Machines.pdf

[Saranagata]

@ICURBlessings Man there is literally zero evidence that humans perceive let alone plants. EXCEPT "MY PERSONAL PERCEPTION". CORRELATION DOESN'T IMPLY CAUSATION. 

[Keryo Koffa]

On 9/5/2024 at 10:02 PM, ICURBlessings said:

Where in the world did you get such ideas?!?

Easy, plants don't move around and animals can't talk, so they're clearly too stupid to be sentient.
Besides, it's the most efficient way to rationalize cutting down ecosystems and eating meat guilt-free.
Look at these measely things, humans are way superior, we can't put ourselves into the same category.
Also gotta redefine consciousness to eliminate the dissonance of losing it when transitioning into a cyborg.
Technological acceleration is gonna be way faster if we demolish all these pesky biological limitations.
Do you know how much suffering humanity caused these things, would be much easier to forget 'em.
And ultimately and most importantly, they're disgusting because of all the projections put onto them.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Saranagata said:

Man there is literally zero evidence that humans perceive let alone plants. EXCEPT "MY PERSONAL PERCEPTION". CORRELATION DOESN'T IMPLY CAUSATION. 

Then why is your petition about plants and not humans? 

Edited September 7 by Carl-Richard

[Keryo Koffa]

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Then why is your petition about plants and not humans? 

Good point. Want to sign my petition to "Reconsider @Saranagata as a Non-Living Entity"? 😁

[Saranagata]

@Carl-Richard I have said this in a subtle way man. yes, I have one such point. actually accept that describing life is beyond the scope of science. that will  leave some gap for philosophy, theology and meaning to life. Materialism/Mechanistic world views ruin meaning and purpose.

 @Keryo Koffa will you sign a petition asking to stop materialist science from defining life. 

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Saranagata said:

@Carl-Richard I have said this in a subtle way man. yes, I have one such point. actually accept that describing life is beyond the scope of science. that will  leave some gap for philosophy, theology and meaning to life. Materialism/Mechanistic world views ruin meaning and purpose.

 @Keryo Koffa will you sign a petition asking to stop materialist science from defining life. 

I do think materialism has quite a few negative side effects, but I see this more having to do with the confusion around consciousness rather than life. What do we gain by redefining life that we don't gain by redefining consciousness?

Edited September 8 by Carl-Richard

[Saranagata]

@Carl-Richard Great question. 

Life and Death -- these words themselves are unscientific . any reference to these words should imply that consciousness is a process that occurs between these.  
why have such unscientific definitions ? 

[ICURBlessings]

On 9/7/2024 at 6:46 AM, Saranagata said:

@ICURBlessings Man there is literally zero evidence that humans perceive let alone plants. EXCEPT "MY PERSONAL PERCEPTION". CORRELATION DOESN'T IMPLY CAUSATION. 

Saranagata, you have managed to bend your logic into a pretzel, for which you obviously experience great adoration for. But maybe one day you will see that you have reduced your consciousness to such a large pseudo-denominator that it has been divided and fragmented into thousands of tiny little pieces of broken concepts ... with respect I must say I think you have no idea how far down a convoluted process of logic you have taken yourself. It is so far removed from any semblance to reason, let alone a sharable understanding - I pray that some angel find his way to you, as you certainly should stop being your own guide.

Edited Thursday at 03:08 PM by ICURBlessings

[ICURBlessings]

On 9/7/2024 at 7:29 AM, Keryo Koffa said:

Easy, plants don't move around and animals can't talk, so they're clearly too stupid to be sentient.
Besides, it's the most efficient way to rationalize cutting down ecosystems and eating meat guilt-free.
Look at these measely things, humans are way superior, we can't put ourselves into the same category.
Also gotta redefine consciousness to eliminate the dissonance of losing it when transitioning into a cyborg.
Technological acceleration is gonna be way faster if we demolish all these pesky biological limitations.
Do you know how much suffering humanity caused these things, would be much easier to forget 'em.
And ultimately and most importantly, they're disgusting because of all the projections put onto them.

Thanks Keryo Koffa for highlighting some of the absurdities of Saranagata argument. I enjoyed your wits!

[ICURBlessings]

On 9/7/2024 at 0:40 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Then why is your petition about plants and not humans? 

...YES very good point!  

[Keryo Koffa]

1 hour ago, ICURBlessings said:

Thanks Keryo Koffa for highlighting some of the absurdities of Saranagata argument. I enjoyed your wits!

np, I always steelman every argument authentically, with the real reasons, no matter their absurdity 😁

Post-Truth = Meta-Intention = Core Reason. So skip the middleman and go straight to the core.

There's a common saying, many go by, that goes like:
"Attack the argument, not the person.", "Debate the issue, not the individual.", "Stay on topic.", "Address the message, not the messenger."

But that's all ignorant of the truth, that oftentimes: "Your arguments aren't the problem, you're the Problem"
Arguments are infinitely rationalizable, datasets ∞ly interpretable, paradigms unquestioned, manipulation ubiquitous.
Intentions are living lifeforms, creating a gravitational field that pulls all confirmations and creates shields too (ego)

Going by the inspiring example of Saranagata: Someone who promotes war should be willing to stand on the front lines.

On 9/7/2024 at 6:56 PM, Keryo Koffa said:

Want to sign my petition to "Reconsider @Saranagata as a Non-Living Entity"? 😁

Edited Thursday at 04:24 PM by Keryo Koffa

[ICURBlessings]

9 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

np, I always steelman every argument authentically, with the real reasons, no matter their absurdity 😁

Post-Truth = Meta-Intention = Core Reason. So skip the middleman and go straight to the core.

There's a common saying, many go by, that goes like:
"Attack the argument, not the person.", "Debate the issue, not the individual.", "Stay on topic.", "Address the message, not the messenger."

But that's all ignorant of the truth, that oftentimes: "Your arguments aren't the problem, you're the Problem"
Arguments are infinitely rationalizable, datasets ∞ly interpretable, paradigms unquestioned, manipulation ubiquitous.
Intentions are living lifeforms, creating a gravitational field that pulls all confirmations and creates shields too (ego)

Going by the inspiring example of Saranagata: Someone who promotes war should be willing to stand on the front lines.

It is interesting, that is the point you are making. You are presenting a facet, that in most cases, can only be handled indirectly. You are correct since each one of us is the Master of our Mind - and ultimately we are the Mind behind every belief, opinion, argument, that we chose to uphold ... However carelessly attacking someone  because of their position in an argument is a "faux pas" that collapses the delivery of the true message that we have to offer - WHILE on the other hand if we actually demonstrate that it is the position they have freely chosen to take, that produces a problem - then they are shown that their Light can be attained via their freedom to change.

You say "Someone who promotes war should be willing to stand on the front lines.", although very JUST - it is a statement within the sphere of reason that Saranagata seem to have completely removed himself from.

[ICURBlessings]

 

@Keryo Koffa I said

"It is interesting, that is the point you are making. You are presenting a facet, that in most cases, can only be handled indirectly. You are correct since each one of us is the Master of our Mind - and ultimately we are the Mind behind every belief, opinion, argument, that we chose to uphold ... However carelessly attacking someone  because of their position in an argument is a "faux pas" that collapses the delivery of the true message that we have to offer - WHILE on the other hand if we actually demonstrate that it is the position they have freely chosen to take, that produces a problem - then they are shown that their Light can be attained via their freedom to change."

I just wanted to add that I see in your humoristic responses that you are NOT attacking Saranagata personally and carelessly - you are specifically pointing to some of the absurdities of the position he has chosen to stand on.

Even your comedic statement "Want to sign my petition to "Reconsider @Saranagata as a Non-Living Entity"?" which may appear as a personnel attack, since if you were saying this seriously it would be a personal attack - but you are not serious in the literal sense of your statement. It is NOT a true personnal attack since it is ONLY pointing to the absurdity of his petition.

[Keryo Koffa]

@ICURBlessings Thanks, I didn't respond because I hit my posting limit yesterday.

It's a dynamic balance, golden rule, practicality, honesty, momentum, long-term changes.

The worst part is, sometimes you really wanna dismiss someone who you know is no good:
But you know that from a universal perspective, all of existence is 100% perfectly locally justified.
It's of course ignorance & bias running amok, traps, and egos, which oneself is made of also.
But you really don't wanna babysit the entire universe, nor can you, nor would it let you.
Sometimes, it's spite or a bother, sometimes it's repetitive, predictable, not even tragic.
Sometimes it's boring to execute the next thousand steps that you know beforehand.

And yet the universe progresses, and we ascend through the holarchies in a dynamic flux.
And we pass the torch to those below us as we grasp the one of our predecessors above.
And yet, each perspective is unique in infinity, no one steps into the same river twice.

I don't always manage, but when I see the patterns, I embrace and accelerate them.

[Saranagata]

@Keryo Koffa @Carl-Richard @ICURBlessings detailed reply coming soon in audio format.

[Keryo Koffa]

1 minute ago, Saranagata said:

@Keryo Koffa @Carl-Richard @ICURBlessings detailed reply coming soon in audio format.

You're putting real effort into this. I respect that. Especially since you adress us all simultaneously.