Humans are machines

Cruxx wrote:You don't have to use the actual word to be a materialist, elchapetas. Duh.
It is entirely self-evident, obvious even.

Going ballistic with indignation says something ... about your lack of discipline,
about your failure to comprehend a differing perspective,
and confirms my original thought about how careless you are
in your choice of language and imagery.

Nasty little rant, not worth a specific reply.
Agreed that it would be futile to discuss anything with you.

It happens that overly embelishing pseudo-intellectualism is something that plenty of discussion websites overflow with, and you plain gloat with your percieved intellectual ego, its abhorrent.

Your argument is... not good, i dont think you even got past the first paragraph before beginning your rant. I mean, your attention is so heavily focused on a part that's trivial and only intended to get the argument going.

Ballistic? yeah sure, so what? I think you're an idiot who's proud of his pseudo-intellectualism. And will surely employ a holier than thou tactic of ridicule or dismissal by calling on my, "lack" of refinement.

Lack of discipline? oh no, I have seen what kind of argumentative "rules" you stick by (is used to do as well), and so give you your pedestal, and ive come to the conclusion that is just repugnant self aggrandaisement.

i dont think we are machines at all...we are like..i don't know. souls or something. i can't explain it.

and so give you your pedestal, and ive come to the conclusion that is just repugnant self aggrandaisement.

This is typical of one who has failed to understand what is offered.

Observe that NoWhere in these flurries of outraged indignation
is there a disputing of what was said by the Cruxx.

Not one single element of logic, no display of reasoning.
Here we see only insult piled upon aggression.
How dare I refute their favourite Folly.! unHinged.

Wrong question : the real issue is :
Why did the Cruxx do the work of deBunking a nonsense Ontology ?

Riccola is mostly correct.
Being civil is the best way to deal with others.
So being civil should be a Priority when making our way in the world.

Except that there are things to be learned when someone is engulfed by Resentment.
And it benefits nobody when the reconciliation and the insights required,
are swept under the carpet, like it is dirty, unworthy of our attention.

Somebody created a hate-flavoured personal attack on me.
Something to sweep under the carpet ?

I am telling you, There Is No Carpet,
and my speck of the universe does not agree to being swept anywhere.

Instead, We have here an interesting Case for Study.
A demonstration of several key points in my investigation of reality.

Starting with how I work through being attacked
for having refused to agree with nonsense.

A method well worth knowing,
for anyone with the courage to be a freeThinker.

Looking out for my own kind is something deeply felt.
so be warned - Do No Harm to my kindred spirits,
or you may be having a memorable encounter,
with an angry Cruxx.

A Cruxx who is competent in reading meaning,
and who knows how to bruise the vanity of a passive-aggresive article-hole.

The original post in this thread likens the readers to a Robotic sense of identity.
That concept is a toxic nonsense, and requires deBunking.
Which I did, while offering a broader horizon for the reader.

Especially important to debunk, because this forum is a context in which the Readers
may be vulnerable to ontological nonsense,
because they are looking for ways to understand themselves.

Presenting so limiting and inAccurate a model of the self,
[with the totality-of-the-Self degraded to a mere machine]
poses a real danger of misleading individuals
into a stultifying and wasteful reality map, a materialist desert.

Such ontological poison I refuse to tolerate.
And the reaction to being disAgreed-With is very significant.

Self-Revealed, here stands a petty tyrant, whose self-importance rules the Roost.
revealed by Trying to be as hurtful and interpersonally destructive as possible.

So, what can we learn of self-importance in this case. ?

And to begin with, I never rejected the notion of freedom of awareness, you're just defining that: something is a machine, therefore, it cant have freedom of awareness... there another blunder shiningly brought into perspective.

There is no allegation of rejecting the concept of freedom of awareness.
the subject had not been raised, so cannot be rejected . . .
this is a form of bait and switch deception.
An argument that is somehow predicated on machines having a capacity for freedom of awareness.

“Somehow” #'s misrepresentation of my alternative ontology is supposed-to
have turned Cruxx's Critique of the materialist machine allegory into a "blunder".
Not So.

A clear case of wishful thinking, combined with hatred [the coward’s revenge]
and a spectacular disregard of the facts,
which are faithfully preserved in this written account.

Self-Importance = unhinged reason + emotional violence + vicious deceit.

This is stark evidence that my warnings to beware self-importance are True.

So what about my other warning : the one about a manipulative species of mind parasite. ?
Is # in cahoots with a MudShadow ?

Can we tease out the invisible hand that benefits from attacking the Cruxx ?
From an unAmbiguous intent to discredit my posts with dishonest allegations
that my perspective is “repugnant self aggrandaisement”, whatever that is . . .

The thrust of the barb is that my perspective should be disregarded as . . . what ?
as a narcissistic confabulation ? a reality map with neither accuracy nor workmanship ?

That is not dis-agreement.
disAgreement is merely to not-update on the basis of new information.

This is a hate-filled attack on my character and my Life’s-Work.
Which just happens to be focussed on Forbidden Knowledge.

Who benefits from the shouting-down that # has attempted ?
Not #. He has made a foolish and ugly spectacle of himself,
a social blunder that will sting for a long time because it is so public.

Certainly, there are things that can be learned from this unHinging,
but the aversion to insight is very strong in #.

NO. The answer to who-benefits must lie elsewhere,
. . . outside of #’s self-interest.

With Riccola as the only other party to this discussion,
it is safe to assume there is no malice from this direction.

And the attack on my dignity and knowledge did not come from myself, that is certain.

Which brings us back to Sherlock Holmes’ famous reasoning :
Having eliminated the impossible, the remaining candidate, standing alone, is the culprit.

The culprit who wants to be unNoticed, the mind parasite,
an “invisible” fourth hand in the situation.

See ? They are not really invisible, because they can be detected by their effects, their agenda.
And when our awareness is sufficiently attuned to the 2nd-Attention,
they can be “seen” as heavy dark ovals that can leap and fly,
that lean onto their intended victims
{except they stopped doing that to the Cruxx, after he killed one with his aetheric body . . .
. . . by ripping open its Seat of Sorrow. Since then [5years ago], they keep their distance}

So. Here is evidence provided by #, and transparently interpreted by the Cruxx
evidence of pivotal Value, appraising all of mankind of the Forbidden Knowledge,
that should not be hidden away, despite its element of interpersonal ugliness.

This is information of the gravest importance to the future of ManKind.

It looks like elchapito's latest post has been deleted.
This is regrettable, because it undermines the points I made about what is really going on.

We are not so weak and dainty that we must be shielded from barefaced hostility.
Allow us the truth - that is what we Need - far more than papering over petty nastiness.

Squeamishness will betray those who consent to its fake Comfort.
Hiding evidence is counter-productive.
the Cruxx does not need to be defended from what is quoted below.

It happens that overly embelishing pseudo-intellectualism is something that plenty of discussion websites overflow with, and you plain gloat with your percieved intellectual ego, its abhorrent.
Your argument is... not good, i dont think you even got past the first paragraph before beginning your rant. I mean, your attention is so heavily focused on a part that's trivial and only intended to get the argument going.
Ballistic? yeah sure, so what? I think you're an idiot who's proud of his pseudo-intellectualism. And will surely employ a holier than thou tactic of ridicule or dismissal by calling on my, "lack" of refinement.
Lack of discipline? oh no, I have seen what kind of argumentative "rules" you stick by (is used to do as well), and so give you your pedestal, and ive come to the conclusion that is just repugnant self aggrandaisement. . . . posted by elchapetas

My disclosures stand in their own integrity.
It should be easy to see which approach to reality is trustworthy,
and what is smoke and mirrors.

In regards to the where this thread is heading I believe its best to close it.

Additionally, all members are expected to treat other members with courtesy and respect. Profanity, insults, personal attacks on other members, or harassment of other members in any form is unacceptable... The Golden Rule - Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You - is a good general basis for forum decorum.

My apologies to future posters.