@Elganned sir, you are hand-waving.

Well howdy! Please define "woo".

@Metahuman as clearly and specifically defined in the original post. why do i have to redefine it?

g

@genessa it was not clearly and specifically defined in the original post. There were examples given that seemed appropriate to the original poster but no definition.

@Metahuman "... some other kind of Woo: Gaia worship, or mysticism, or paganism, or just some vague "spirituality" consisting of connecting with the Essential Whatness of the Universe, or something." i think that makes woo clear enough. i don't feel it needs further definition.

g

@genessa i don't think so. So is lucid dreaming woo?

@Metahuman i am not sure what lucid dreaming is, but if it's what i THINK it is, i've DONE it, so i guess not. if i'm wrong about what it is, then i can't say one way or the other. are you going to give me a litany of things that you want to know the wooness of, one by one? that certainly would be tedious.

g

@genessa or you could just define it,

@Metahuman or you could just look it up. or you could drop it.

g

those folks also think bald is a hair color and asleep is a sexual position.

g

@Elganned hush now. i'm sleeping.

g

@Elganned youre basing your argument on the old "we'll eventually figure it out and so im right" ploy, eh?

@Elganned speaking of logical fallacies, youre trying to shoehorn the word spirit into a straw man easier to deal with, i think.

@genessa granted. Language is a problem. Language is symbolic abstract thinking, and thus is logic and the rest of reasoning. However, every living sentient being, I think, has a direct immediate apprehension of reality, that is far beyond language in terms of being able to express. One of my favorite examples, no matter how long I speak, I will never be able to convey to you the taste of chocolate. Language has its limitations, thus do logic and the rest. This is the whole point of Zen, for example.

Wei wu wei, lol

@Elganned Sounds like you think your opinion on the subject outranks those of Eugene Weigner, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Edwin Schrodinger, Arthur Eddington, Werner Karl Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck, John Wheeler, and many other geniuses of physics.

It’s not about the supernatural. It’s about the staggering implications of nature herself.

@WilliamFleming amen! Lol

@Elganned i notice you keep evading the point.

@WilliamFleming why should any of us worry about how our opinion RANKS? if i should worry about how my opinions rank next to the known geniuses, assuming (incorrectly, by mere numbers) that i am not also a genius (albeit an unknown one), then i should have to give up having any opinions at all (and you also not being any of the people you mentioned, would also have to give up having any opinions at all -- including opinions about the people you mentioned and about those of us who respond here!) by the way, nature hasn't got implications. we may infer things from nature but nature isn't doing any implying. it also has no gender.

g

Who would you rather remove your appendix?

A. a guy that went to medical school, graduated, got his licence, and had 5 or ten years of practice behind him.

B. anybody else.

All opinions are not created equal. They don't get equal rights.

@genessa i mean, come on, science is the fulcrum here. Right?

@Metahuman i neither said nor implied that all opinions on all topics are equal. i did imply that saying NOBODY's opinions count at all except the people that one poster chooses as his experts is ridiculous. there is a difference.

g

@genessa ok. I don't think thats what he was saying, though.

@genessa The implications are that there is something majorly overwhelming and inexplicable about our existence, about reality, about conscious awareness. The Implications are enormous. And if you don’t see that, if all you see is just a humdrum mechanistic nature, all explained by science through a materialistic philosophy. Then it is because you are wearing a blindfold.

@WilliamFleming sure, go ahead, make stuff up about me. i never said nor implied humdrum, and if you think i did, you're the one with the blindfold -- and if you DON'T think i did you're deliberately lying. is that too personal? yeah, that is how i respond when people get personal for no good reason. you don't know me and i don't want to know you. i'm through with you, not because we don't agree on an issue but because you have decided that i said what i never said, and you have decided that your delusion means something about me personally. there is no reason in this great, big, not-humdrum, inexplicable but woo-free universe that i should ever have to deal with you again.

g

@Metahuman i think he said it very clearly, but maybe that's just me (i don't think so but... i'm not an expert, right? or AM i?)

g

@genessa I don't know. But you certainly do have a lot of angst, don't you?

@Elganned No I only sell magic crystals, scissors you have to get from the lesbians.

How can a robot enjoy anything?

@Elganned how do you build an "experience feelings" module?

Great post sir! Thanks!

@Elganned lol. Nice sidestep. Would you care to engage philosophically with me on this?

there is a lot of whatness. i am awed but not in the sense of wanting to worship anything, or in the sense of thinking there is something or someone in control. the sheer vastness of the universe is awesome, but i don't need to go all woowoo over it. i like learning about it. i don't like speculating about silly things like whether aliens seeded us or maybe we're swimming in some god's teardrop. why isn't the big ol' awesome universe awesome ENOUGH? why do we have to add extra whatness?

g

@genessa that's perfect! Thank you for illustrating the problem that I have here. Who said anything about worship, or someone being in control? Who said anything about aliens seating us or swimming in God's teardrop tear duct teardrop or whatever metaphor you want, why isn't enough? Well what's Evolution doing if not multiplying complexity? That's your why it isn't enough.

@genessa sorry for the grammatical. Been drinking. Bear with.

@Metahuman yes that is evident, and not just grammatically, for which i forgive you. you think my examples don't count because no one said them, exactly? i just said them, and that counts. sorry, your literal-mindedness doesn't work for me.

g

@genessa are you really telling me what i think? What makes you think you know what i think? And... my literal mindedness? Explain that, please. I don't know what you mean by that.

@Metahuman no, i am not telling you what you think, but i can tell you how well you read (not as well as could be) and i can tell you no more. i am tired of explaining and i have stopped caring whether you understand, especially if you can't bother to be sober while you presumably attempt to understand. you have no obligation to remain sober on my account, but i also have no obligation to try to explain things to people who are drunk. so that's it for me. think what you will. i do not care.

g

@genessa ok.

nonsense. everyone knows that buying dislocated bridges is the ultimate cure for, well, name it and that cures it, and i have a bridge in arizona i'd like to sell everyone, over and over again (you wanna join forces? it might sell better encrusted with crystals!)

g

@genessa a bridge of crystal healing. Think of the toll we could charge.

@Xuande think of the troll we could hire to live under it!

g

@genessa Genius. Your sign must be crossing over Saturn right now, you are on form.

@Xuande i owe it all to phrenology.

g

Connect with us fellow-nonbelievers instead.