Karl
-
Content count
6,656 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Everything posted by Karl
-
It doesn't increase productivity by any such amount. Printing money causes consumption to rise initially and with it production. Once the markets reach equilibrium, the money becomes a zero in effect as everything rises in price. This is very old economic knowledge. Production is making stuff. If you could get production by not making stuff I.e printing money, then we could solve the worlds problems over night. No need to grow food, produce houses, just set the printing presses going. As is quickly discovered, fiat currency isn't very nutritious. Why don't you download Henry Hazletts 'economics in one lesson'. It's a great, fast and easy read and will help you understand the basics and not get drawn into the Government/ banks illusionary games. What should have occurred in the last crash, is that the creditors should have been wiped out and the assets liquidated. Instead they bailed out the creditors and effectively moved production from the lower paid to the 'on paper' wealthiest. Now they realise that was a mistake and are resorting to what amounts to 'helicopter money' now that the poor have been so depleted they cannot buy or borrow. They did that it in Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic. It's the end game of monetary irresponsibility. Final shot of heroin before the addict dies. If you are sensible you should be buying precious metals and stocking up your larder with long life food about now, because the day of reckoning is coming.
-
Except we only have 3 physical dimensions, the other dimensions are the product of theoretical physics and maths, but has no basis in fact. It is actually the minds of physicists that have been able to theorise multi dimensional universes even if they cannot conceive them in fact. We cannot discover the origin of the universe because it had no origin. We can only explore the stuff of the universe.
-
Now you sound like an objectivist-there is hope. ;-)
-
Yes, until they strike another object and then the conservation of energy kicks in. The larger accelerated mass has proportionally more kinetic energy to shed. On a planet you must first raise the two objects to the same height and so the energy needed to lift them varies. The larger mass takes more effort than the smaller. When they are released they continue to fall at the same rate, but their impacts are proportionality different. That's why, at rest, the masses are actually accelerating which gives them weight, in free fall they are both weightless. It's the same as the lift shaft experiment. You can't jump up at the last moment to avoid the falling lift car. Both car and passenger weigh differently, but fall at the same rate. The impact of the lift has differing forces to the passenger on impact.
-
Takes more force the move a larger mass. An object at rest on the earths surface is already experiencing acceleration due to gravity. A body in motion is in equilibrium, it is effectively weightless as it is in free fall.
-
No, anything I don't experience-I don't experience. I find lots of things I don't understand and also experience. I label them 'things I don't understand'. I might then attempt to understand them. I don't experience anything that someone else experiences as a direct perception-but that's because I'm not anyone else, I'm me :-) I experience a sensation of pressure, movement, heat, light or whatever. I relate it to things I'm already aware of in reality. I'm not aware of X Ray's directly because my body doesn't have the requisite sense apparatus, but I'm aware of X Ray's because I've learned about them and I can relate them to experienced reality. I can go through various stages of knowing. From possible, through probable, to certainty. I can integrate the concepts. Similarly, if someone tells me that a man in a wheel chair will shortly run a 3 minute mile whilst giving birth to twin elephants, then I see that no such integration is possible. I know a man doesn't give birth, a man is not an elephant, the sizes aren't comparative, the biology is wrong, a man in a wheel chair is unlikely to walk far, never mind run a 3 minute mile whilst giving birth to elephants. Give me something that is possible and I will say it's possible. Tell me that there are such a thing as X Ray's and relate them to heat, light and energy, then I'm going to say it's probable. Tell me that you have X ray vision and I will give you a funny look and head off to find saner folk.
-
LOL so do I. Kill your history, kill reality and everything floats in an abstract way. That's exactly how civilisations die. They return to throwing people in volcanoes and drug induced psychosis. There is a point where people just give up.
-
What stops where ? Reality is what I experience directly Brian. I don't need to see items in order to put my wine glass on the table. I don't need to understand wavelength and frequency to determine a lemon is yellow and the sky is blue. I don't need a tape measure to reveal that a postage stamp is smaller than an envelope.
-
I can point to their effects Brian. The fact you know and can name such concepts is proof that this is true for you also. Electricity and gravity didn't magically appear in your consciousness-aren't you aware that you had to integrate increasingly complex concepts to understand these things ? You didn't know what Gravity was as a child, but you saw its effects. Things fell down, they didn't fall up, sideways or at some random angle.
-
The one you simultaneously deny and respond to. It's not as if I'm being cryptic is it ? I'm not offering up anything other than what I can see, hear, touch, taste and smell. I can point, in a child like way, to objects I see without resorting to complex philosophical wanderings, or spiritual reverence. I point generally at that which surrounds me and that is reality. Don't you experience reality like that ?
-
Has that ever been your direct experience in accord with reality as it is ?
-
Absolutely. If you ate it, wrote it, kicked it, wether it was stolen from you, or given in a will, it is absolute. As is the solar system, life, death, Gravity and the need to consume food to survive.
-
So you are saying that there are absolutely no absolutes ? Or are you saying that you can't know anything and therefore are ruling yourself out of saying anything meaningful what so ever ?
-
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
Chortle chortle. :-) not to the kind that thinks existence is created by consciousness Michael. That's called dreaming. Denying reality is the realm of Walter Mitty. -
Not anti-bodies, just the use of reason to re-evaluate concepts and definitions. It's necessary to apply effort in the way of hard thinking to deconstruct the concepts back to the precepts. That is of course in the case of one not damaged by torture or other severe mental constraint.
-
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
Gawd. Man run by will, to power. The demoniacal individualist. What a great contribution-not. I can see why you might like his philosophy. -
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
Strangely ironic ;-) -
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
Universe has always existed. There was never a time 'before' or 'after'. Things within the universe are subject to cause and effect, but the universe itself 'the entirety of finite existence' has no cause. Science can only answer certain things pertaining to what's in the universe. Everything is in motion. -
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
Who else's opinion could it possibly be ? I wrote it, so it's obviously my opinion. -
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
That you think there is validity in both views cancels out determinism. You had to 'choose' to think that way. You are standing on stolen ground if you could but see it. Retrace your thoughts back to reality from the higher concepts. Anchor everything to existence. Im guessing here, but I suspect the issue is in your belief of the primacy of consciousness. Now, if that's where you are, then what you are really talking about by 'determinism' is possibly the primacy of existence. Is it your contention that mans consciousness partly/fully creates his reality ? -
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
Yes, unintelligible gibberish, quite so. -
We aren't yet on one datum here by the looks of things. My contention is that ALL emotions are the result of concepts, be they conscious or sub conscious. They are predetermined value-judgements based on precepts. In effect they are a warning buzzer connected to a very complex and contextual set of conceptions. They aren't any kind of cognition, in and of themselves. In the case of my client I did a simple bait and switch. Salesman use this technique all the time. Say the man felt that his highest value was family, followed by charity then at the bottom/or missing is money. It's pretty easy to show how having money could provide better support for the family and charities by putting it higher in the ranking. This, to some extent, does tie the concept of money with reality (the man has an existent family, money is an existent and so are the charities he gives to). The guilt of having money no longer bothers him. It works very well and I did this many times-on two occasions created millionaires from struggling businessmen. The problem is that I don't know what else was changed. Maybe nothing. Maybe I just got him to see that money wasn't a floating concept attached to guilt, he could function with it as a force for good. So, thinking about it, perhaps it was a safe and effective way of re-jigging a long conceptual chain by shorting it to perceptual reality ?
-
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
Only because you aren't able to follow the line of reasoning and I haven't been kind enough to show it to you. I hoped you could take that trip yourself with your new found care to examine the red pill contraindications. As you can't. Here's the double bind created by determinists. "I am free to be objective, free to conclude-that I am not free" Determinism is self refuting. Just as one must accept existence or consciousness in order to deny it, so one must accept volition in order to deny it. Brian knows that one 'only the true messiah would deny he was the messiah' You are going to have to come off this agnostic fence at some point Michael. Naturally I can't determine that, but, because you have free will, then you certainly can :-) -
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
It's that like there is a seeming contradiction that an elephant is a cat, or a square is a circle. Stop it with the bloody double slit experiment, it has nothing at all to do with it. This is what you get when you fuck about with philosophy and turn science into mysticism. You give up reason and head off into rainbow land, with lucky black schrodinger cats, quantum crystal balls and the wicked witch of the North......and relax...rant over ;-) Yes, you should read the patient information leaflet first. That's the most reasoned thing you have said so far. :-) -
Individual will, reality creation and miracles
Karl replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
There is no problem of free will vs determinism. We have free will otherwise we couldn't have this conversation.
