Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

"DRS" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote in message

DRS writes:
Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the
mind loses contact with reality.

Not the same thing. Psychosis blocks contact with reality; cosmic
consciousness (or whatever you prefer to call it) enhances contact
with reality.

If you seriously believe that a brain fart enhances your contact with
reality then we have nothing to say to each other.

You have nothing to say, that is coherent, at all!

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
DRS writes:

Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the
mind loses contact with reality.

Not the same thing. Psychosis blocks contact with reality; cosmic
consciousness (or whatever you prefer to call it) enhances contact with
reality.

Well - that position presupposes a knowledge of what "reality" is - the
point I was trying to get the un-scientific DRS to understand (to no avail).

What those experiencing an "enlightened" SOC do show, however, is that the
study of consciousness within science (e.g., Tuscon XX colloquia) must
include those phenomena in the explanation the science offers, not merely to
label it "psychosis", thence relegating such to being defined away.

That is the height of an unscientific stance vis the study of
mind/brain/consciousness.


--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Hey Mr. Reality (DRS) - put up or shut up - what is reality?


"DRS" wrote in message
...
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message

DRS wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
message
rosie read and post wrote:

[...]

i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians
are so unlike your christ.
.............................................gandh i

Ghandhi's dead.

Christ lives.

Prove it.

Why should I?

Because you claimed it to be so. Put up or shut up.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

OmegaZero2003 wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message


[...]

You calimed to have the answers to reality - Mr. Reality.

No, I didn't.

Did too! Attend:

I said: "You cannot define mind, psychosis or reality..."

You replied: "We can define those things, we have defined those
things,..."

You left out the rest so as to show me in a bad light. That's dishonest.

[...]

idiocy), that a certain SOC is in fact a psychotic SOC.

The one you focussed on is exactly that.

Nope.

It most certainly is. Scientists said so.

Nope.

They did.

And I'm done with you.

You're not only an idot, but you're dishonest as well.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message


[...]

You calimed to have the answers to reality - Mr. Reality.

No, I didn't.

Did too! Attend:

I said: "You cannot define mind, psychosis or reality..."

You replied: "We can define those things, we have defined those
things,..."

You left out the rest so as to show me in a bad light. That's dishonest.

Wrong - the statment you made stands on its own; the other parts of the
paragraph were of no consequence to your statement about reality.



[...]

idiocy), that a certain SOC is in fact a psychotic SOC.

The one you focussed on is exactly that.

Nope.

It most certainly is. Scientists said so.

Nope.

They did.

"They" are always a reputable source of information right Mr. Reality!?.


And I'm done with you.

Goody!
You never startede; you cannot hold your own when someone challenges you on
your preposterous ramblings.


You're not only an idot, but you're dishonest as well.

Think what you will - it is not reality - as you do not know what reality
is. I took what you said right out of your owbn paragrah. It was in context
and the remainder of your paragraph does not alter or modify your statement
about reality to wit:

I said: "You cannot define mind, psychosis or reality..."

You replied: "We can define those things, we have defined those
things,..."

You are dishonest in saying that that is not the words that were said. That
it depicts you in a bad light is your own doing; stop being an idiot and
learn something before you spout asinine bull****.

To quote David Longley:
"If you
choose some alternative "conceptual scheme" you're likely to find me
saying you don't understand what *I* have written or said. To believe
otherwise is perverse. If you don't know the subject area, you're bound
to find it hard going, just as you'd find any foreign language
difficult." (David Longley)



It sounds to me that you don't know how science works or how to talk about
evidence and theory.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:52:27 GMT, wrote:


I doubt it. If Chung is really an MD/PhD..

What part of this are yo having trouble comprehending?

http://www.heartmdphd.com/ac_cv1.asp

Where is your proof Chung has failed to meet the standards?

he realizes that there is
absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God.

Neither Chung nor I need scientific proof. Faith is not resolved
logically and your insistence on God meeting your defining terms is
what the definition of Pride is all about.

He is just
talking out of his ass. Perhaps he is really a proctologist:-))

No, Chung is a cardiologist. The fellow that sticks his fingers up
your butt is a proctologist. Well, not the one who lives with you, He
doesn't count, medically speaking.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

Full Mu_n wrote in message

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:52:27 GMT, wrote:

[...]

he realizes that there is
absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God.

Neither Chung nor I need scientific proof. Faith is not resolved
logically and your insistence on God meeting your defining terms is
what the definition of Pride is all about.

No, it's the definition of sanity. Chung made a claim of empirical fact
despite the fact that he has exactly zero evidence to support his claim.
We'd be fools to take him seriously.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message
s.com...

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message


[...]

It is a state of consciousness that has been reached by these
people; one that has been called: God Consciousness, Christ
Consciosness, enlightenment, Nirvana/Paranirvana, Consciousness
Without and Object/Subject etc. etc.

It is emminently reachable although most always ineffable to normal
waking consciousness.

Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the mind loses
contact with reality.

You cannot define mind, psychosis or reality so for you to use all
three words in a sentence is evidence your reality is not in your
mind but in a psychotic state (like New York).

Stop right there. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking
about.
We can define those things, we have defined those things, we continue to
refine our understanding of them and simple-minded New Age twaddle like
yours benefits nobody.

PS - If you can read and understand what you read, you will notice that I
said nothing about the relative sunstantiality of the reality which our
sciences have so-far described. I take it you cannot keep up with subtle
arguments.


We do know there is an external reality because

External to what?

solipsism has been disproved (it's logically incoherent, see

Strawman.

See Rene Descartes

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm for a synopsis). That
our
understanding isn't absolute in no way invalidates what we do know, and
we
know enough that its fundamental coherence is established, so you're on
a


I have more years in the scientific disciplines than you will ever have
son - so do not lecture me about what can be deemed fundementally coherent
or not. I did not argue the what we know should be invalidated (there's
that
understanding thing again - of which you are sorely deficient), but
augmented appropriately when evidence so dictates.

hiding to nothing when you post nonsense like that.



A: Arrogant pretend scientist
Q: What someone with the email address is

Julianne wrote in message
wdChb.30771$k74.15690@lakeread05

[...]

See Rene Descartes

About what?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS wrote:
Full Mu_n wrote in message
he realizes that there is
absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God.

Neither Chung nor I need scientific proof. Faith is not resolved
logically and your insistence on God meeting your defining terms is
what the definition of Pride is all about.

No, it's the definition of sanity. Chung made a claim of empirical fact
despite the fact that he has exactly zero evidence to support his claim.
We'd be fools to take him seriously.

Faith IS about sanity and consistency (I'm not a believer, which just
makes everything more complicated). There are smart and well adjusted
people who do genetics using evolutionary models and believe in
Creation of species at the same time. Depends on which hat you're
wearing at a time. This is neither contradictory nor dishonest.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department