Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Wed May 31, 2017 10:23 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: Give me something that does not contradict and I will have no choice but to take you word for it.
I have done that now six times. I have linked you to numerous scientific hypotheses stating "Out of body experiences" are mere psychological phenomena, that have gone through rigorous positive repeatable experimentation, over decades. You ignored them.


Hello. Your education seems to be an hinderance to you. The mind itself is a psychological phenomena, it is itself unreal to the core. This is the reason why I say you contradict yourself. You use the same mechanism to negate phenomena as you do validate.


You can't even set out a description of your claim of paranormal OBEs and therefore can't even make a clear statement. The prime reason is that you are merely spamming wishy washy conflicting religious propaganda.


The prime reason is because it is beyond your intellect, you need intelligent understand not educational intellect which seems to be the limit of your understanding.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Wed May 31, 2017 10:26 pm

Gord wrote:
Confidencia wrote:Nothing perceivable is true

How did you come to perceive such a thing?


The fact of perceiving is absolute, not what is percieved, that is all relative and therefore both true and false.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Wed May 31, 2017 10:32 pm

Poodle wrote:The cry of the terminally stupid.

Down with books! (Yay!)
Down with books! (Oh, man - YEAH!!!)
Books are bad (Yeah!)
How do we know (How?)
Errmmm ...


Please poodle, you are obviously not the brightest of the bunch that much is for sure.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 31, 2017 11:32 pm

Confidencia wrote: Give me something that does not contradict and I will have no choice but to take you word for it.
Matthew Ellard wrote: I have done that now six times. I have linked you to numerous scientific hypotheses stating "Out of body experiences" are mere psychological phenomena, that have gone through rigorous positive repeatable experimentation, over decades. You ignored them.
Confidencia wrote: Your education seems to be an hinderance to you. The mind itself is a psychological phenomena.......
Sooooo..... you are unable to find one problem with the real science papers that I have already posted. Instead you say education is a hindrance and yet simultaneously claim "quantum mechanics" from educated scientists supports your hilarious religious claims?

Are you always this confused when spreading your religious propaganda?
:lol:



Matthew Ellard wrote: You can't even set out a description of your claim of paranormal OBEs and therefore can't even make a clear statement. The prime reason is that you are merely spamming wishy washy conflicting religious propaganda.
Confidencia wrote: The prime reason is because it is beyond your intellect, you need intelligent understand not educational intellect which seems to be the limit of your understanding.
I see.... it is now magically my fault, that you are unable to set out any coherent description or hypothesis for your own claim about paranormal OBEs. :lol:

Has it occurred to you that you may just be stupid, uneducated and religious? It has certainly occurred to all of us, about you. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 31, 2017 11:46 pm

Confidencia wrote: Please poodle, you are obviously not the brightest of the bunch that much is for sure.


An Example of a 100% religious idiot : Confidencia in action
Confidencia wrote: This is the problem with education, it destroys your sense of intelligence.
(Science is bad and don't read books, says Confidencia)
Confidencia wrote:Haven't you read about quantum mechanics?
(Science is good and read books, says Confidencia)
Confidencia wrote: There are no advantages or benefits to knowing the real fact of the matter.
(Science doesn't matter and we should just believe Confidencia without questioning anything Confidencia, says...)

This is comedy gold! :lol:

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: Give me something that does not contradict and I will have no choice but to take you word for it.
Matthew Ellard wrote: I have done that now six times. I have linked you to numerous scientific hypotheses stating "Out of body experiences" are mere psychological phenomena, that have gone through rigorous positive repeatable experimentation, over decades. You ignored them.
Confidencia wrote: Your education seems to be an hinderance to you. The mind itself is a psychological phenomena.......
Sooooo..... you are unable to find one problem with the real science papers that I have already posted. Instead you say education is a hindrance and yet simultaneously claim "quantum mechanics" from educated scientists supports your hilarious religious claims?



That claim was for your benefit not mine. You are talking about particles and wave forms. But then you forget about the uncertainty principle. Quantum mechanics simply highlight that fact. But I need not have go along with science and their relative formulas. I already know out of my own experience as a scientist you are aimlessly floating around on the surface. Science says one thing then they have to go back on themselves because their model does not fit further down the line. I suggest you up date your science books, they seem to be dumbing you down and you are completely unaware of it.

Are you always this confused when spreading your religious propaganda? :lol:


Not as confused as you are when you bring your stacks of books to a forum debate on consciousness.



Matthew Ellard wrote: You can't even set out a description of your claim of paranormal OBEs and therefore can't even make a clear statement. The prime reason is that you are merely spamming wishy washy conflicting religious propaganda.
Confidencia wrote: The prime reason is because it is beyond your intellect, you need intelligent understand not educational intellect which seems to be the limit of your understanding.
I see.... it is now magically my fault, that you are unable to set out any coherent description or hypothesis for your own claim about paranormal OBEs. :lol:


I never said it was your fault. Your inability to think for yourself is a result of your education. Get rid of your books and start from scratch it is that simple.

Has it occurred to you that you may just be stupid, uneducated and religious? It has certainly occurred to all of us, about you. :lol:


On the contrary the occurrence of your inability to read and understand might be more nearer the point. But then again you are educated. But that's not to knock all educated people, there are some intelligent educated ones who are not so easily dumbed down by their education. Education is merely a means to an end, vocational, a way of earning a living. Perhaps you should have read between the lines on the black board.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: Please poodle, you are obviously not the brightest of the bunch that much is for sure.


An Example of a 100% religious idiot : Confidencia in action
Confidencia wrote: This is the problem with education, it destroys your sense of intelligence.
(Science is bad and don't read books, says Confidencia)
Confidencia wrote:Haven't you read about quantum mechanics?
(Science is good and read books, says Confidencia)
Confidencia wrote: There are no advantages or benefits to knowing the real fact of the matter.
(Science doesn't matter and we should just believe Confidencia without questioning anything Confidencia, says...)

This is comedy gold! :lol:


Science matters in regards to the material. But what has it got to do with the reality? The real is immaterial, unless it appears before you how are you going to measure it? Think about it! Actually don't. Your indentured servitude is grating.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:57 am

Confidencia wrote: That claim was for your benefit not mine.
What claim? You have simply been posting conflicting statements because you are a uneducated religious idiot.

Confidencia wrote: But then you forget about the uncertainty principle.
Nice try son. How exactly does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle have anything to do with your hilarious paranormal OBE claim? Show me the mathematics.

Confidencia wrote: Quantum mechanics simply highlight that fact.
Compete bull-shit. What exact quantum mechanical phenomena are you invoking? You haven't got a clue do you? You are now making this up as you go along.

Confidencia wrote: I already know out of my own experience as a scientist
Stop lying. you are not a scientist. What exact phenomena from quantum mechanics are your pretending to invoke? You don't even know what quantum mechanics is!!!!

Evidence Confidentia is a 100% idiot
Confidencia wrote:On the contrary the occurrence of your inability to read and understand might be more nearer the point. But then again you are educated.
So I can't read but I am educated?

Are you mentally retarded or something like that? :lol:

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Postby Confidencia » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote:On the contrary the occurrence of your inability to read and understand might be more nearer the point. But then again you are educated.
So I can't read but I am educated?

Are you mentally retarded or something like that? :lol:


I must be. I cant understand why I continue to converse with somebody who is obviously low in intelligence. You may be able to read but so can a gifted infant. It does not necessarily mean that you understand what you read, that requires intelligent understanding, something that you lack a great deal of. Education is not intelligence, as a matter of fact it is the opposite. That's why the system starts early so that it is easier to mould the subject. If left any later they would have problems imposing their nonsense.

You are taught what to think and how to think, it's just as well you ain't thinking for yourself, you would probably be a very, very dangerous man indeed.

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: He Who Usually Means Well
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:11 pm

Confidencia wrote:You might want to examine your own beliefs before you start projecting them onto others. I simply see things as they are. Tell me something Upton, are you conscious 24/7?


I admit I'm having a bit of trouble working out what you mean. "Projecting my beliefs on others"???? You mean I'm ascribing my own world-view to other people? That doesn't make any sense.

As I've said, you are probably a very nice person I would be pleased to know in person, but that doesn't change the fact that you are immensely credulous. I'm going to make a wild guess here and assume you are using a computer connected to the Internet to make these posts. Am I right? Or are you just imprinting them here with your mind?

You might consider that the computer and the Internet are the result of the kind of scientific, logical thinking that recognizes that the world isn't just whatever we want it to be. The engineers who created it relied on scientific theories to guide their work and every step of the way, they had to confront reality. They couldn't just imagine a silicon chip with printed circuits on it. They had to create it through grubby, messy, hard chemistry and physics and metallurgy. The rest of us are parasitic on this labor and creativity, and it's ironic that so many people use it to deny the reality of the physical world and subsume it in moony wishful thinking. (The worst offenders, however, are not paranormalists like yourself, but the sleazy televangelists, especially those who use technology to prey on poor sick people who think prayer will cure their illness.)
"A general conversion among the boys was once effected by the late excellent Mr. Fletcher: one poor boy only excepted, who unfortunately resisted the influence of the Holy Spirit, for which he was severely flogged; which did not fail of the desired effect, and impressed proper notions of religion on his mind."

James Lackington, Memoirs of the First Forty-five Years of the Life of James Lackington, the Present Bookseller

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:00 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Are you mentally retarded or something like that? :lol:
Confidencia wrote:I must be.
You are also a very bad liar.

Confidencia wrote: "I already know out of my own experience as a scientist..."
Yet you don't know what the scientific method is and are unable to form any coherent hypothesis for your own ridiculous religious claim. Simultaneously, you say all science books are bad and yet claim "quantum mechanics" from science, magically explains your religious claim, that you can't even write down. :lol:

Just admit to it. You are a very religious non-dualist follower, a victim of bronze age bull-shit and you stupidly tried to tell the world about your personal religion on a science based forum. You then became very very upset and started lying.

It's time for you to go away. This is not a forum for posting incoherent religious propaganda, nor is it for liars.


For normal Skeptics
Our forum receives regular waves of propaganda posts from "dualist" and "non-dualist" religious followers. We currently have Steve Klinko claiming quantum mechanic religious bull-shit causes us to see "red" in our minds. Previously we had Placid saying Hitler's extermination of the Jews was an act of love because of quantum mechanics and magical observers.

Most of these people are sock puppets of the one person. For example Azania, Shaka, Placid and Clarifyit4me are all the same person. He simply makes all his claims, gets destroyed by skeptics, starts calling skeptics idiots, then opens another account and starts all over again. It is probable that Confidencia is just another sockpuppet of Azania.


Azania in action.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27660&hilit=azania&start=40#p554672

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:45 am

Upton wrote:
Confidencia wrote:You might want to examine your own beliefs before you start projecting them onto others. I simply see things as they are. Tell me something Upton, are you conscious 24/7?

I admit I'm having a bit of trouble working out what you mean. "Projecting my beliefs on others"???? You mean I'm ascribing my own world-view to other people? That doesn't make any sense.


You are trying to convey an impression which comes across as arrogant. So no, it does not make any sense.

Upton wrote: As I've said, you are probably a very nice person I would be pleased to know in person, but that doesn't change the fact that you are immensely credulous.


You seem like a nice guy too but to say I'm immensely credulous without understanding the nature of the mechanism that makes you say what you say is just as bad. This idea of an individual with its own autonomic existence, along with its petty little ideas about life and the consciousness of it is insane. Besides I'm not staking any claim in regards to anything I perceive only that I exist. It cannot be denied, the fact of perception proves it! But not as an object, subject or anything that can be identified with the mind. Further to the point I do not equate existence with reality.

Upton wrote: I'm going to make a wild guess here and assume you are using a computer connected to the Internet to make these posts. Am I right? Or are you just imprinting them here with your mind?


Both! An impression is imprinted on the mind and it is reflected in the here and now. But this is irrelevant. How it appears in your mind is not how it is in reality. Your world view is merely a mental formation. My body, your body and everybody else along with the world you are so intimately involved with appears in your own consciousness. Prove to me or even to yourself that there is something, anything outside of your own consciousness and you have a point. Incidentally you made and interesting one in a previous post "walking through one world while mentally beholding another," from where I stand the concept "walking through" and the concept of a "world" are both mental. They are conceived. They are mental states under observation. You are observing your minds content all the time, this is what you are conscious of - your thoughts and feelings. You are not aware that you are conscious. These thoughts and feelings invariably make up your world view and you believe it simply because it has mass and solidity and can be tested empirical. The idea of testing, measuring and evaluating are also concepts that the mind has invented merely to substantiate its beliefs of a separate existence.

Upton wrote: You might consider that the computer and the Internet are the result of the kind of scientific, logical thinking that recognizes that the world isn't just whatever we want it to be.



Logic thinking and your own experience also contradicts that view. You create a world of your own making. It
is in your inadvertent state of waking that you create the things you do not necessarily want. Incidentally if you eliminate these periods of inadvertence during your waking state you will gradually reduce the long periods of absent mindedness which you call sleep, you will become aware that you are asleep and have the proof that you are beyond the body even the consciousness.
You are only dreaming of this individual self conscious person, it does not exist in reality. What could possibly come out of a state of dream? The world that you see is not what you think. Your thinking can only be based on a modality that has been imposed upon you from an early age. This is your conviction, not your truth. Consciousness is only a recorder the mind registers the information the consciousness records it and you identify and file this information to your personal account or your identity.

Upton wrote: The engineers who created it relied on scientific theories to guide their work and every step of the way, they had to confront reality.


You are simply giving me a narrative to your dream world. What is real cannot be in the picture it is apart from existence or what appears so. What you call reality is nothing but a bunch of electrical signals that whizz around your head. Of course it appears concrete - a little whorl arises in your mind and the creative process starts to flow. You give it some thought and the imagination comes into play. You conceive of an idea, you conceptualise it on paper and you finalise it in the actual, then it disappears or you disappear which ever comes first, it makes no difference as it is all in dreaming in any case. There is no objective world, just a mental formation easily dispelled on investigation. And even if they were you are never in it, your mind is elsewhere dreaming about the next scenario.

Upton wrote: They couldn't just imagine a silicon chip with printed circuits on it.


On the contrary, if you look from the highest point you will realise that it is all imagined, man is not the doer he is the dreamer. The silicon chip, the theories and the physicists who bring those concepts into actualisation are all part of an elaborate dream, it is all a mental fabrication. It is out of the consciousness that this creative process ensues. And the collective mind is its driving force. That being said if something is willed and imagined for long enough it eventually comes into existence.

Upton wrote: They had to create it through grubby, messy, hard chemistry and physics and metallurgy.


This is the power and mystery of the imagination. Through imagination we are creating all sorts of wonderful objects to fulfil our deepest desires. From the highest point of understanding it is all happening by itself and in the confines of your own consciousness. From the lowest point, this puny little body image takes all the credit. In reality you do nothing but dream scenarios and relate them to convention as the one you so eloquently portray here.

Upton wrote: The rest of us are parasitic on this labor and creativity, and it's ironic that so many people use it to deny the reality of the physical world and subsume it in moony wishful thinking.


I do not deny the appearance of a physical world I merely deny its reality. The world is there yet it is not. There is no reality to the physical world, it appears then it disappears. But that which makes it appear and disappear is its foundation and cannot be denied. It is only because it cannot be tested, measured or accounted for in any way that it is denied - it is there as sure as you are here. Do some proper investigation and you will find that you are left with nothing but your own existence. Where is this world of yours when you are deep in sleep?

Upton wrote: (The worst offenders, however, are not paranormalists like yourself, but the sleazy televangelists, especially those who use technology to prey on poor sick people who think prayer will cure their illness.)


Well the truth is an offence, it cannot be helped. Not the sleazy televangelist but that which you cannot understand.
Unless you know what you are in reality you are at a loss. Naming and blaming is a hobby the mind takes very seriously. It is only out of your habit of trying to squeezed reality into a verbal definition that gives you the impetus to invent names, create shapes and imagine form in the first place. Whether you care to understand or not all that you know came out of a metaphysical cauldron. The explosion had already happened then you invented the Big Bang theory and your dream world spun into existence. What is real cannot be imagine since it is not a product of the mind.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Poodle » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:07 am

I realise, Confidencia, that I'm a mere dullard with the intelligence of a pea, but you appear to be suffering from extreme paranoia coupled with an immense ego and a remarkable ability to ignore the truth. You are as much a scientist as I am a vicar. You are confused and, therefore, confusing; you claim knowledge where no knowledge can be gained; you dismiss all argument whilst insisting upon your own special insight. I could go on.
Please look up the symptoms you are displaying and then go to see a doctor. Seriously.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:10 pm

Poodle wrote:I realise, Confidencia, that I'm a mere dullard with the intelligence of a pea, but you appear to be suffering from extreme paranoia coupled with an immense ego and a remarkable ability to ignore the truth. You are as much a scientist as I am a vicar. You are confused and, therefore, confusing; you claim knowledge where no knowledge can be gained; you dismiss all argument whilst insisting upon your own special insight. I could go on.
Please look up the symptoms you are displaying and then go to see a doctor. Seriously.



I would hardly describe denying all that exists including my own body as egotistical, I would have thought it to the contrary. I do not see myself as separate from yourself or more important than yourself, we are one of the same. Where you see difference I do not. Naturally what I say seems confusing since it does not equate with the logical process which you have become accustomed to over the years. I merely pointing out the obvious, the mind which is fundamental the basis for all your arguments does not have the capacity to comprehend the whole picture. It sees what it want to see, that being the fragments and the snippets of conventional wisdom passed down through modern scientific research. I do not disapprove of the scientific method of research and analysis since in its right place it is note worthy, only in it's inability to probe beyond its limitations. Trying to search for truth within the scope of the mind is like try to reach the horizon, it is an impossible task. Beyond the mind there is a void which the mind itself cannot cross. And since there is no logical process with which the mind can adhere to, it is dismissed by the mind as mysterious or paranormal.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Gord » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:29 pm

Confidencia wrote:I would hardly describe denying all that exists including my own body as egotistical, I would have thought it to the contrary.

Most egotistical people do have trouble seeing their own egotism.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Poodle » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:08 pm

Confidencia wrote:... the mind which is fundamental the basis for all your arguments does not have the capacity to comprehend the whole picture. It sees what it want to see, that being the fragments and the snippets of conventional wisdom passed down through modern scientific research. I do not disapprove of the scientific method of research and analysis since in its right place it is note worthy, only in it's inability to probe beyond its limitations. Trying to search for truth within the scope of the mind is like try to reach the horizon, it is an impossible task. Beyond the mind there is a void which the mind itself cannot cross. And since there is no logical process with which the mind can adhere to, it is dismissed by the mind as mysterious or paranormal.


I want you to read back to yourself what you have posted, Confidencia, and then ask yourself a very simple and obvious question. How would you know? Don't jump to an answer - consider your own statements and then respond honestly.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Gord » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:20 pm

Poodle wrote:...and then respond honestly.

You ask too much of him!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Poodle » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:53 pm

Gord wrote:
Poodle wrote:...and then respond honestly.

You ask too much of him!

What? 'Respond' or 'honestly' or both?

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:48 am

Gord wrote:
Confidencia wrote:I would hardly describe denying all that exists including my own body as egotistical, I would have thought it to the contrary.

Most egotistical people do have trouble seeing their own egotism.


Certainly so. But surely if what I do deeply effects all others isn't austerity the only true remedy for all pain and suffering both mine and that of the others? What ends suffering must be right what creates it is obviously wrong. .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:59 am

Confidencia wrote: But surely if what I do deeply effects all others isn't austerity the only true remedy for all pain and suffering both mine and that of the others? What ends suffering must be right what creates it is obviously wrong. .

1. Define deeply
2. affects
3. "ALL" others? Like what??
4. Whats wrong with false remedies that have a strong placebo effect?
5. Whats wrong with partial pain and suffering relief? or one but not the other?
6. You admit there are others now?
7. What if suffering is part of the deal/existence/game/givens/reality? One religion is based on it but it is not considered "wrong" as much as a faulty state of awareness. "Faulty state of awareness"...... that could be read a few times over.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:00 pm

Poodle wrote:
Confidencia wrote:... the mind which is fundamental the basis for all your arguments does not have the capacity to comprehend the whole picture. It sees what it want to see, that being the fragments and the snippets of conventional wisdom passed down through modern scientific research. I do not disapprove of the scientific method of research and analysis since in its right place it is note worthy, only in it's inability to probe beyond its limitations. Trying to search for truth within the scope of the mind is like try to reach the horizon, it is an impossible task. Beyond the mind there is a void which the mind itself cannot cross. And since there is no logical process with which the mind can adhere to, it is dismissed by the mind as mysterious or paranormal.


I want you to read back to yourself what you have posted, Confidencia, and then ask yourself a very simple and obvious question. How would you know? Don't jump to an answer - consider your own statements and then respond honestly.


How would you know what?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:23 pm

Whoooooops. Looks like you jumped.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Poodle » Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:08 pm

Deary me! Look at what you wrote, Confidencia (well, I assume you wrote it - you did write it, didn't you?) and then tell me how you can draw any claim of knowledge from such a short passage describing the inadequacies of the mind. You appear to assume that your own declaration doesn't apply to you. Are you special?

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Cadmusteeth » Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:41 pm

The part of the puzzle he's not getting.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:07 pm

Poodle wrote:Deary me! Look at what you wrote, Confidencia (well, I assume you wrote it - you did write it, didn't you?) and then tell me how you can draw any claim of knowledge from such a short passage describing the inadequacies of the mind. You appear to assume that your own declaration doesn't apply to you. Are you special?


It all applies to me and yet it does not. It depends on how you look at it. If the mind looks then it is auto suggested. If the observer looks with the mind then it is clarity. I do not claim any speciality, I am what you are. In the appearance the difference is only small, in reality it is none existent. I use the mind whereas for you it is the other way round. There is the reality then there is the minds idea of what the reality is.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:12 pm

Constant stream of gibberish.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Poodle » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:20 pm

Confidencia wrote:
Poodle wrote:Deary me! Look at what you wrote, Confidencia (well, I assume you wrote it - you did write it, didn't you?) and then tell me how you can draw any claim of knowledge from such a short passage describing the inadequacies of the mind. You appear to assume that your own declaration doesn't apply to you. Are you special?


It all applies to me and yet it does not. It depends on how you look at it. If the mind looks then it is auto suggested. If the observer looks with the mind then it is clarity. I do not claim any speciality, I am what you are. In the appearance the difference is only small, in reality it is none existent. I use the mind whereas for you it is the other way round. There is the reality then there is the minds idea of what the reality is.


What a pathetic excuse for an explanation!
And it's "I yam what I yam".

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

More lies from Confidencia

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:28 pm

Gord wrote:Most egotistical people do have trouble seeing their own egotism.
Confidencia wrote:Certainly so. But surely if what I do deeply effects all others .......


Reviewing Confidencia's lies and hypocrisy so far....
Confidencia hypocritically claims skeptics are burdened by their education......and immediately tries to educate skeptics with his own fuzzy religious nonsense about dualism.

Confidencia lies and claims he is a scientist and simultaneously refuses set out his own fuzzy religious claim as a scientific hypothesis or produce an iota of evidence for that claim, as Confidencia knows nothing about basic science.

Confidencia is informed by skeptics that there were no dualist "observers" in the early universe, populated only by photons and quarks and this clearly falsifies "dualism" as the universe definitely existed. Confidencia simply runs away from clear evidence he is 100% wrong.

Confidencia hypocritically states that OBEs cannot be described or defined as a phenomena as the experience is subjective. Simultaneously Confidencia ignores and refuses to read numerous scientific papers, that not only define OBEs, but also test working hypotheses as to why people feel they have OBEs and then produces experiments successfully proving those hypotheses.

Confidencia hypocritically claims skeptics are wrong for reading science books, yet when asked how his claim works immediately claims it is "quantum mechanics" from normal science books...and then runs away.

Confidencia hypocritically, cannot state one benefit from following the dualism religion, yet states science is a disadvantage, while simultaneously posting on a forum using a computer that was created and invented by normal science.

It's a very long list......

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

More lies by Confidencia

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:41 pm

Poodle wrote: You are as much a scientist as I am a vicar.
I am fairly sure Confidencia is just another sock-puppet of Shaka A.K.A. Clarfyit4me. In Shaka's first post here, he claimed to be an high school teacher and yet could not spell basic words in that same opening paragraph.

I suggest Confidencia has extremely low self esteem and has to pretend to be a scientist or a teacher. He comes here to display his wisdom and gets laughed at, so he starts another sock-puppet account and repeats the exact same process. His own peer group of dualists on religious dualist forums can't stand his stupidity and lies either, or he would be posting with them, not skeptics. Confidencia will never break out of this loop.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: More lies by Confidencia

Postby Poodle » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I am fairly sure Confidencia is just another sock-puppet of Shaka A.K.A. Clarfyit4me.

Yeppers - exactly the conclusion I'd reached too. It will be confirmed when Confidencia begins to lose his cool in about, oh, four post's time.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:04 am

Poodle wrote:
Confidencia wrote:
Poodle wrote:Deary me! Look at what you wrote, Confidencia (well, I assume you wrote it - you did write it, didn't you?) and then tell me how you can draw any claim of knowledge from such a short passage describing the inadequacies of the mind. You appear to assume that your own declaration doesn't apply to you. Are you special?


It all applies to me and yet it does not. It depends on how you look at it. If the mind looks then it is auto suggested. If the observer looks with the mind then it is clarity. I do not claim any speciality, I am what you are. In the appearance the difference is only small, in reality it is none existent. I use the mind whereas for you it is the other way round. There is the reality then there is the minds idea of what the reality is.


What a pathetic excuse for an explanation!
And it's "I yam what I yam".



I know. With a mind so inadequate and ill equipped what more can I say.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: More lies by Confidencia

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:53 am

Poodle wrote: It will be confirmed when Confidencia begins to lose his cool in about, oh, four post's time.

I present for everyone's enjoyment. The historic list of religious dualist insults at skeptics on this forum, as posted by Shaka, Placid, Clarifyit4me, Anazia and so on... :D

" you have rendered the phrase beyond the completion of an idiot to an understatement"

"I shall have to find another insult"

"None can be more trivial than the trivia of where, who and what was."

" in order to know a complete idiot you must be beyond one yourself, hence the phrase beyond the completion of an idiot."

" you are going to give me some horse {!#%@} about coming out of your mothers womb lol lol! This sort of nonsense is fit for an infant. Are you an infant?"

"You have been told from your infancy your name is Mathew Ellard! Lol! The name is the information you plank! I like how you refer to a few planks as everyone

"Only a docile, unintelligent, educated person would think that a budgie knows what a mirror is"

"It is like trying to give an infant a new dummy to suck after he's been sucking his old one for so long - there's not much hope really"

"You are an idiot yourself and a very unintelligent one at that."

"You are like a little clock that has been wound up, soon that energy will run out will it consult you when it does? "

"You couldn't correctly diagnose a wart on the end of your finger. Actually, if you stuck it up your bum, you might see it better"

"This one has your name printed on it. Ell-ard-re-tard-ell-ard."

"If brains were dynamite, you lot would not have enough to blow your nose"

"I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass."

"The four of you couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery never mind a laugh"

"You don't know anything first hand, actually I'll take that back. Obviously you know how dark it is up your rear end"

"I investigated myself, and I decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge me with anything.My ex gf says I'm no account"

"Scramble gigs, until you investigate yourself as your are what do you know?"

"I DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING FROM YOU SKEPTICS, only one in ten million will understand what I'm saying"

"The knowledge I am is your only capital, now go and make yourself {!#%@} useful"

"in fact go crawl back up kennyc arsehole, its full of {!#%@}, so there is plenty to talk about"

"I'm having fun with kennyc and his arsehole crew"

"As it happens, it is very hard for me to convey my simply message here on this forum due to the lack of intelligence."

"Haha!! And you really are a moron, a stupid one at that"

"well, if you wasn't so poo-dull, you would realise the brain engages itself"

" the only persons making a fool of them self here is you and of course Mathew and his side kick Sweatpea.

"Mr ellard, its very easy to understand the given, apart from the spelling of course."

"How deluded are you in thinking that you have a choice. Do you choose to go take a dump?"

"I think we've had this conversation before sweetie and I distinctively remember sending you off with a verbal beating."

"Jesus {!#%@} Christ kennyc, keep that {!#%@} ponderous meandering gibberish for your books,"

"I'm still trying to workout why you are such a numbnut Mr Ears-ard. The above post actually goes for you to Mr Ears-ard."

"Come on ellard, let us just be friends. I promise I will never call you a retarded"

"if you washed the incongruent crap out of your mouth piece or is that your arsehole? I'm telling you gord, you would be far better off"

"What's up ellard? Are you really a girl in disguise? Btw, I don't think Pyrrho is as unintelligent as you So quite frankly ellard, it wouldn't surprise me if he told you to shut the {!#%@} up you pussy"

"This thread is like watching a Punch and Judy show. Fascinating. Tell me about your mother. Is she hot?"

"Matt, he knows, he just doesn't care. He will probably stop posting when he gets his first girlfriend."

"Hey gord, maybe you could borrow one of these spanner on this forum, to fix your clunky brain that's why your engine makes such a racket in response and goes nowhere fast . Clunk! Click! Clank ."

"I believe you are right. I know I've been an idiot, I've said some stupid stuff here. Matt was right, I am stupid...you are all right, you kept telling me but I didn't listen, now I will, and I will go away."

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:09 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Confidencia wrote: But surely if what I do deeply effects all others isn't austerity the only true remedy for all pain and suffering both mine and that of the others? What ends suffering must be right what creates it is obviously wrong. .

1. Define deeply

The core. The root.
2. affects

At the core it functions the same as it does in your imaginary world. For instance if you take out an insurance policy and decide to make a dishonest claim and the underwriters notice a trend in this direction, naturally they will make amendments to reflect this by raising the premium which affect everybody else's premiums. The particles in an atom dictates form in other atoms.
3. "ALL" others? Like what??

In appearance those around you. In actual fact those inside of you. Hence the reason you affect them deeply. It is all happening within the scope of your own consciousness. This whole universe is interdependent and interconnected in more ways than you care to imagine.
4. Whats wrong with false remedies that have a strong placebo effect?

Nothing on a short term basis. Obviously the false does not last that's why it is seen as false. It is like white washing a dirty wall, eventually it will get dirty again. What affects somebody deeply must be resolved at the same depth. If it is not it simply manifests itself in some other form, in some way or another .
5. Whats wrong with partial pain and suffering relief? or one but not the other?

Suffering is mental pain is physical and it is all relative. What you see as partial maybe felt quite severely to another, the relief if any may also be inadequate.
6. You admit there are others now?

From the minds point of view there is no denying the others, as you are so shall they be. Through the creative urge of the consciousness we imagine and see the world through our minds.
7. What if suffering is part of the deal/existence/game/givens/reality?

Suffering IS part of the deal. To be born into consciousness is to suffer and die endlessly, until one wakes up. In reality there is no pain or suffering, birth or death. Unfortunately to find this out one must inevitably be born. As I said before it is the same on the surface as it is at the core or root. In this world with the illusion of choice you can try before you buy. In reality it is merely the urge to be that brings about your presence.
One religion is based on it but it is not considered "wrong" as much as a faulty state of awareness. "Faulty state of awareness"...... that could be read a few times over.

Awareness is not a state, it's your true nature. All states belong to the mind. Awareness stands alone, it is in and of itself and does not need the support of the mind. Awareness of the mind is merely a reflection in consciousness it is simply recognition. You cannot recognise the real you can only be real.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Poodle » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:22 pm

Oh - I get it now. Let's see if I've got the rules down pat ...
Language is not language - it's a way of expressing fog. All meanings belong to the utter utterer and do not need the support of reality. You cannot say anything, you can only mean nothing.
I'm getting the hang of this.
You're slipping back into character, Confidencia.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:18 am

Confidencia wrote:This is the problem with education, it destroys your sense of intelligence.


Wait...what? That makes, quite literally, no sense at all. Education provides you with factual knowledge. Intelligence is the skill you use to manipulate and integrate, think critically and theorize about, and form conclusions from the knowledge you've learned. Without education, your innate intelligence, if you have any, has nothing with which to work. Clearly.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:For normal Skeptics
Our forum receives regular waves of propaganda posts from "dualist" and "non-dualist" religious followers. We currently have Steve Klinko claiming quantum mechanic religious bull-shit causes us to see "red" in our minds. Previously we had Placid saying Hitler's extermination of the Jews was an act of love because of quantum mechanics and magical observers.

Most of these people are sock puppets of the one person. For example Azania, Shaka, Placid and Clarifyit4me are all the same person. He simply makes all his claims, gets destroyed by skeptics, starts calling skeptics idiots, then opens another account and starts all over again. It is probable that Confidencia is just another sockpuppet of Azania.


Azania in action.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27660&hilit=azania&start=40#p554672


So, does the "be nice" rule not apply to them, then? Asking purely for purposes of information, and to join in on the fun. Today's my first day, and I'm not sure where the real boundaries are yet. :D
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:17 am

LunaNik wrote:So, does the "be nice" rule not apply to them, then? Asking purely for purposes of information, and to join in on the fun. Today's my first day, and I'm not sure where the real boundaries are yet. :D


The general rules are indeed, "be nice" "supply evidence for claims" "Attack the argument and not the arguer" and "apply the scientific method". The specific forum rules are at the bottom of the main index page, which I have linked here.
viewforum.php?f=1

Pyrrho is the moderator and his is a sensible, knowledgeable and friendly person. Although he checks the forum, you need to notify him by "PM" (private message) if you see anything going haywire, like people threatening suicide or being unusually abusive.

This particular thread
For reasons unknown, we get religious dualists spreading dualist propaganda here. Three of them are actually the same person who has a personality disorder. (Skaka, Clarifyit4me, and Confidentia). He will blatantly lie, get caught, post the same crap again and eventually just throw insults, open a new account name and start again. For this reason you can probably be a little blunter with him, than in other topics.


The Rogue's Gallery
We also keep as a pet, "Gorgeous" a bloke who spams pro-trump propaganda, believes alien lizards and the illuminati run the world and keeps offering advice from "Seth" a fictional alien channelled by a dead alcoholic in the 1970s. He's posts are simply so ridiculous that they are funny.
:D

There are other extreme and nutty people posting here. We have a Christian poet who posts in threads about God, regardless of the topic. We have an extremist anti-Muslim. As there is a Anti-holocaust denial sub forum, we also get the occasional neo-nazi. (Most of the people currently posting in that sub forum are highly educated people who, like me, hate neo-nazis) The best thing is to simply observe and pick up on "who's who". I like the nutty scientists the most. :D

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby Confidencia » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:10 pm

LunaNik wrote:
Confidencia wrote:This is the problem with education, it destroys your sense of intelligence.

Wait...what? That makes, quite literally, no sense at all.

It all depends on how you look at it. The body sense is misleading.
Education provides you with factual knowledge.

Education provide you with conventional wisdom. What you call facts are mere fancies. The minority rule in this case. You like a particular idea and so do many others thus you have an established academic protocol, this you call fact. But you have already been brainwashed with the various modes of thought required to reach a particular conclusion. Your methodology and approach to critical analysis has already been compromised so that it veers towards the status quo. Mind is moulded to the conditions in which it is exposed to, so you are caught before you can know what real intelligence is. You learn by rote so instead of thinking for yourself you have learnt to repeat information. Naturally with such an outlook you will not get the full import of what I said earlier.
Intelligence is the skill you use to manipulate and integrate, think critically and theorize about, and form conclusions from the knowledge you've learned.

There is a contradiction in what you say here, manipulation is disintegration. Intelligence does not displace. You cannot talk of manipulating and integrating in the same vein where intelligence is concerned. Critical thinking based on some modality only serves to disrupt the natural flow of things.
Without education, your innate intelligence, if you have any, has nothing with which to work. Clearly.

On the contrary, there is awareness the cognisance of consciousness with which it can work with. Awareness and intelligent understanding go hand in hand. They clearly foster each other and without any displacement whatsoever.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:07 pm

Do I sense some lack of oxygen?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Postby Poodle » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:38 pm

LunaNik wrote:... So, does the "be nice" rule not apply to them, then? Asking purely for purposes of information, and to join in on the fun. Today's my first day, and I'm not sure where the real boundaries are yet. :D


It's quite simple, LunaNik. You must not tell anyone to piss off (or an even worse fate). You must say "Piss off, PLEASE". I could give other examples. In most cases, you needn't bother with the PLEASE as everyone here understands its implicit presence.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests