Possible world wide revolution?

Uzima Moto wrote: Debunked where? From what I'm looking at the point still stands that they had their own interests in mind.. any of those proposals put civilian lives at possible risk in order to start a war. It's the same type of deception as Iraq or 9/11..

The reason you see things the way you do is because you operate from a place of fear while I operate from a place of vigilance. Fear breeds biased distrust, vigilance breeds proper judgement.

Uzima Moto wrote: If you truly understood the Supernatural understanding of The Force. You would know that it isn't exclusively external.. "The kingdom is within and without" as the teaching goes...

Are you using bible references now to prove your points? The circular reasoning in strong with you young Moto.

Uzima Moto wrote: You would know that Supernatural isn't opposed to science or the natural world. It defines a reality that is beyond our material perception.

These two statements are in direct opposition with one another.

Uzima Moto wrote: That the energy that forms atoms and molecules comes from a much deeper and more subtle source..

And if you actually had any proof of this assertion you would have the Nobel prize. Wishful thinking and assertion do not science make.

Uzima Moto wrote: You assert definitively that there is NO POWER BEYOND THE NATURAL. Yet there is no proof or truth to that reasoning..

Did you forget to read my last post where I actually explained that this is not my position? I suggest you actually go back and do your due diligence. I have made no claims here, I have only rejected your extraordinary claims because you provide an utter lack of evidence to support them. The burden of proof is on the claimant not the rejecter of the claim.

Uzima Moto wrote: to think that an entity can attach itself to your energy and drain you without you ever being aware is horrifying to a degree...

Can you define “entity”? Can you define the term “energy”? Can define the process of draining? Can you even show evidence that any of this exists?

Uzima Moto wrote: Kyrin, your attempts at killing anyone's ideas here have been half-cocked at best. You haven't provided ANYTHING AT ALL to back your accusations. You claim these ideas to be completely false? Well, the burden of proof is on you. SO PROVE IT.. if not, get off this thread..

The logical fallacy is also strong with you I see. You are trying to shift the burden of proof here and that will not fly. You are the claimant, it is your responsibility to provide the proof of your claims. I have no standing in that regard. I have never asserted that the things you claim cant be true I have only rejected your claims that they are true due to your complete lack of evidence. You are not really very good at this debate thing are you.

Uzima Moto wrote: better yet, go back to your so called "jedaii" order.. the fact that you based your order on a crappy comic is telling. Itself based on a misinterpretation of the ideas being conveyed by George Lucus.. The Force as the idea was originally pulled from history is defined as Light/Life. The Dark was the willful perversion of The Force.. balance was the elimination of the perversion. Not an equilibrium between "light and shadow". Again, that comes from a long held and common misconception to equate the "feminine" aspects of reality, The Force, as dark..

It isn't my place to kick you out entirely.. but you have constantly shown yourself as opposed to Jedi ideals and the very foundations of our knowledge. You're also attempting to supplement them with your own ideals. If you were allowed to train Jedi here. The stench of your values would undoubtedly begin to reek throughout this temple. It could even lead to a schism, or at least a breaking away.. your presence here, as far as I've seen, hasn't been beneficial to the Temple..

Well it’s a good thing your opinion is irrelevant to my presence here. You don’t get to make that call do you. And the fact that you now feel the need to personally attack my path in retaliation for my sound beating of your arguments is quite telling. But even in your evaluation of my path you clearly show your ignorance and lack of ability to do any sort of research into the subject your claiming to have so much knowledge of. Your character as a Jedi is in question here moto, I suggest you step back and reevaluate. You have been soundly defeated, the only honorable course of action for you now is to gracefully walk away. But I have no doubt you will fail to see the truth in this as well.

Reminder

R - take Responsibility for what you say and feel without blaming others
E - use Empathetic listening
S - be Sensitive to differences in communication styles
P - Ponder what you read and feel before you speak
E - Examine your own assumptions and perceptions
C - be Civil in your interactions with others
T - Trust ambiguity, because it can be difficult to communicate meaning

(Adapted from "The Bush Was Blazing But Not Consumed," by Eric H. F. Law)

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Debunked where? From what I'm looking at the point still stands that they had their own interests in mind.. any of those proposals put civilian lives at possible risk in order to start a war. It's the same type of deception as Iraq or 9/11..

The reason you see things the way you do is because you operate from a place of fear while I operate from a place of vigilance. Fear breeds biased distrust, vigilance breeds proper judgement.

Uzima Moto wrote: If you truly understood the Supernatural understanding of The Force. You would know that it isn't exclusively external.. "The kingdom is within and without" as the teaching goes...

Are you using bible references now to prove your points? The circular reasoning in strong with you young Moto.

Uzima Moto wrote: You would know that Supernatural isn't opposed to science or the natural world. It defines a reality that is beyond our material perception.

These two statements are in direct opposition with one another.

Uzima Moto wrote: That the energy that forms atoms and molecules comes from a much deeper and more subtle source..

And if you actually had any proof of this assertion you would have the Nobel prize. Wishful thinking and assertion do not science make.

Uzima Moto wrote: You assert definitively that there is NO POWER BEYOND THE NATURAL. Yet there is no proof or truth to that reasoning..

Did you forget to read my last post where I actually explained that this is not my position? I suggest you actually go back and do your due diligence. I have made no claims here, I have only rejected your extraordinary claims because you provide an utter lack of evidence to support them. The burden of proof is on the claimant not the rejecter of the claim.

Uzima Moto wrote: to think that an entity can attach itself to your energy and drain you without you ever being aware is horrifying to a degree...

Can you define “entity”? Can you define the term “energy”? Can define the process of draining? Can you even show evidence that any of this exists?

Uzima Moto wrote: Kyrin, your attempts at killing anyone's ideas here have been half-cocked at best. You haven't provided ANYTHING AT ALL to back your accusations. You claim these ideas to be completely false? Well, the burden of proof is on you. SO PROVE IT.. if not, get off this thread..

The logical fallacy is also strong with you I see. You are trying to shift the burden of proof here and that will not fly. You are the claimant, it is your responsibility to provide the proof of your claims. I have no standing in that regard. I have never asserted that the things you claim cant be true I have only rejected your claims that they are true due to your complete lack of evidence. You are not really very good at this debate thing are you.

Uzima Moto wrote: better yet, go back to your so called "jedaii" order.. the fact that you based your order on a crappy comic is telling. Itself based on a misinterpretation of the ideas being conveyed by George Lucus.. The Force as the idea was originally pulled from history is defined as Light/Life. The Dark was the willful perversion of The Force.. balance was the elimination of the perversion. Not an equilibrium between "light and shadow". Again, that comes from a long held and common misconception to equate the "feminine" aspects of reality, The Force, as dark..

It isn't my place to kick you out entirely.. but you have constantly shown yourself as opposed to Jedi ideals and the very foundations of our knowledge. You're also attempting to supplement them with your own ideals. If you were allowed to train Jedi here. The stench of your values would undoubtedly begin to reek throughout this temple. It could even lead to a schism, or at least a breaking away.. your presence here, as far as I've seen, hasn't been beneficial to the Temple..

Well it’s a good thing your opinion is irrelevant to my presence here. You don’t get to make that call do you. And the fact that you now feel the need to personally attack my path in retaliation for my sound beating of your arguments is quite telling. But even in your evaluation of my path you clearly show your ignorance and lack of ability to do any sort of research into the subject your claiming to have so much knowledge of. Your character as a Jedi is in question here moto, I suggest you step back and reevaluate. You have been soundly defeated, the only honorable course of action for you now is to gracefully walk away. But I have no doubt you will fail to see the truth in this as well.

You have made the accusation plenty of times in this "CONSPIRACY" thread that ideas of "conspiracy theories" are false by definition. If you have proof to back these accusations that's fine. Though, from what you've provided so far, you're position lacks merit.. if you call this winning I'd hate to lose in your shoes.. You are basically calling the premise of this entire thread false and demand that people provide a defense against your attacks.. you flipped the script first. I'm correcting that mistake..

And your decision to basically construct your own order in the way you did revealed a lot. Almost like you created a personal echo-chamber..

I've done plenty enough research to UNDERSTAND what I'm dealing with.. and your attempts to rebuke me only revealed how little of my point you actually understood..

My words are only contradictory from YOUR vantage point. Not in their actual meaning. You, however, play as if you are a true objective observer, but you constantly reveal your bias against "woo". Even tried to use it as moral highground, and almost suggested that there is an excuse for suppression. THAT is not being objective. You have, very ungracefully, battled and bullied on the very edge of accepted policy here.. but still have yet to have a real victory against the premise of this thread.. you have attack the character of these ideas. Bringing people's character to question in the process.. but that's because, as you say, you have no real proof to refute the point.. and nobody on this "CONSPIRACY" thread has the obligation to defend against your accusations..

The only defeat here is yours, if any. This isn't a competition for me. I'm only trying to spread truth and knowledge to others who are willing.. if you're such a researcher. Why don't you fact-check the videos I provided, kyrin?

Uzima Moto wrote: You have made the accusation plenty of times in this "CONSPIRACY" thread that ideas of "conspiracy theories" are false by definition.

DEFINITION OF A CONSPIACY THEORY: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors. These theories are without credible evidence. They consist of a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof." Unfalsifiable claims are a logical fallacy, therefore the conspiracy theory claims are false by definition.

This is your first logical fallacy

Uzima Moto wrote: If you have proof to back these accusations that's fine. Though, from what you've provided so far, you're position lacks merit.. if you call this winning I'd hate to lose in your shoes.. You are basically calling the premise of this entire thread false and demand that people provide a defense against your attacks.. you flipped the script first. I'm correcting that mistake.

DEFINITION OF BURDEN OF PROOF: The burden of proof is the obligation of the party making the conspiracy claim to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made. When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

This is your second logical fallacy

Uzima Moto wrote: And your decision to basically construct your own order in the way you did revealed a lot. Almost like you created a personal echo-chamber..

DEFINITION OF AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK: Ad hominem attack is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself

This is your third logical fallacy.

Uzima Moto wrote: I've done plenty enough research to UNDERSTAND what I'm dealing with.. and your attempts to rebuke me only revealed how little of my point you actually understood..

My words are only contradictory from YOUR vantage point. Not in their actual meaning. You, however, play as if you are a true objective observer, but you constantly reveal your bias against "woo". Even tried to use it as moral highground, and almost suggested that there is an excuse for suppression. THAT is not being objective.

DEFINITION OF ARGUMENT FROM ASSERTION: proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Its repetition is be cited as evidence of its truth. this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted and can also be used as a form of brainwashing.

DEFINITION OF ARGUMENT AD NAUSEUM: Ad nauseam is an argument or other assertion that is being made that has continued 'to the point of nausea'. It is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough. An ad nauseam argument that can be easily shown to be false leads to the "point refuted a thousand times".

These are your fourth and fifth logical fallacies

Need I go on?

You see, the issue with debating conspiracy theories and conjecture about such with someone who wants to believe in them is that they will find proof, even if its not real proof, for their position.

Same reason for many faiths, or lack thereof. One trying to prove them wrong simply is viewed as ignorant or unwilling, or even worse, part of a greater cover-up conspiracy.

Best save your breath, either way. There is always better things to be doing than beating one's own forehead into a brick wall trying to convince it that it of anything.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: DEFINITION OF A CONSPIACY THEORY: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors. These theories are without credible evidence. They consist of a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof." Unfalsifiable claims are a logical fallacy, therefore the conspiracy theory claims are false by definition.

This is your first logical fallacy

No, Kyrin, this one is actually yours. A conspiracy theory is not by definition without credible evidence. Much like other theories, they are descriptions. Most are baseless, but some describe real events that do or did occur, and for a subset of those we actually have full documentation of the actual conspiracy asserted by the theory. Some conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable and as such warrant neither investigation nor consideration. Formal fallacies are errors in the logical structures of argument, leaving a gap between the premises and the conclusion. Informal fallacies are unproductive debate tactics like shifting the goal post, or the burden of proof. Unfalsifiability is not a logical fallacy of either kind. And if it was, that would be irrelevant, because an argument being fallacious does not make its conclusion false. To make that inference is actually itself a formal fallacy called argumentum ad logicam.

Uzima Moto wrote: If you have proof to back these accusations that's fine. Though, from what you've provided so far, you're position lacks merit.. if you call this winning I'd hate to lose in your shoes.. You are basically calling the premise of this entire thread false and demand that people provide a defense against your attacks.. you flipped the script first. I'm correcting that mistake..

No, you aren't. You are what is called shifting the burden of proof. The observation that no credible evidence has been provided to establish a claim asserted is not an attack, nor is it itself a position.

I've done plenty enough research to UNDERSTAND what I'm dealing with.. and your attempts to rebuke me only revealed how little of my point you actually understood..

So then why are you constantly evading queries for evidence, shifting the goal post by just changing your claims to trivial ones when ever any sort of challenge comes up? If you know so much about this, why does none of that show in anything you actually put out? And if your interlocutors know so little, then how can they with such ease and so little effort build such a devastating case, that you cannot take it head on but weasel around it instead?

You, however, play as if you are a true objective observer, but you constantly reveal your bias against "woo". Even tried to use it as moral highground, and almost suggested that there is an excuse for suppression. THAT is not being objective.

If a bias towards evidence amounts to a bias against woo, that says more of the woo than of the objectivity of the bias. And no, I think that we can have a moral argument against things that actively do measurable harm to people in direct or subtle ways, and if you find that the well-being of people is a standard too subjective to agree with for the purposes of the moral discussion, then there is no discussion of that sort to be had any further, frankly. No, that's not objective, but by a standard like that, pretty much nothing is.

You have, very ungracefully, battled and bullied on the very edge of accepted policy here.. but still have yet to have a real victory against the premise of this thread.. you have attack the character of these ideas. Bringing people's character to question in the process.. but that's because, as you say, you have no real proof to refute the point.. and nobody on this "CONSPIRACY" thread has the obligation to defend against your accusations..

Yes, and noone has the obligation to stay out of the debate if they have nothing to agree with. Nobody has an obligation to shut up and let baseless claims slide. As Khaos pointed out earlier, if anything, there is a case to be made that the Jedi Code would encourage us to combat them. And, of course, nobody is obliged to take them seriously, much less if so little to substantiate them is presented.

The only defeat here is yours, if any. This isn't a competition for me. I'm only trying to spread truth and knowledge to others who are willing.. if you're such a researcher. Why don't you fact-check the videos I provided, kyrin?

Well, aren't you generous and noblet, providing for those who will take even without your giving - that is what you mean by willing, isn't it. They have to be susceptible first, gullible enough to take what you say without challenging it. It's no big secret that there are plenty of conspiracy theorists of varying dedication out there. It is no secret that the powers that be withhold information from us, for benign purposes and for evil ones. It's not difficult to find a video that makes all of your claims backing it up with all of the same evidence. Again this reeks of shifting the burden of proof. If you thought the videos were themselves evidence enough, you wouldn't suggest anyone fact-check them. But if your investigation showed them to be well-sourced and you still don't think they are themselves enough, why are we seeing the videos, rather than the actual sources you verified? Since you are insisting that there is more to them than the same mere assertions, why is it on anyone but you to fact-check?

Arisaig wrote: You see, the issue with debating conspiracy theories and conjecture about such with someone who wants to believe in them is that they will find proof, even if its not real proof, for their position.

Same reason for many faiths, or lack thereof. One trying to prove them wrong simply is viewed as ignorant or unwilling, or even worse, part of a greater cover-up conspiracy.

Best save your breath, either way. There is always better things to be doing than beating one's own forehead into a brick wall trying to convince it that it of anything.

It must have gone under in all of the rest of the thread as well as the myriad others where I have answered this, so here it goes again: Some of us actually care about more than just the spread of our own ideas, or the healthy reasoning and convictions of just the one most vocally disagreeing. Many people get to be voted for, and many, many more get to vote. What they believe matters, and what they put out there for the public to consider does, too. Few are deluding themselves about the chances of reasoning someone out of something they didn't arrive at through reason, but among those who have no strong opinions one way or the other, few, too, will find it in them to question an idea they hear no opposition to. If you care about more than just yourself and your opponent, then to "save your breath" is not best at all, but indeed one of the worst courses of action. This carelessness is why there are developed countries where the historicity of the Noachian Flood is a question some school boards still find debatable.

Gisteron wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: DEFINITION OF A CONSPIACY THEORY: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors. These theories are without credible evidence. They consist of a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof." Unfalsifiable claims are a logical fallacy, therefore the conspiracy theory claims are false by definition.

This is your first logical fallacy

No, Kyrin, this one is actually yours. A conspiracy theory is not by definition without credible evidence. Much like other theories, they are descriptions. Most are baseless, but some describe real events that do or did occur, and for a subset of those we actually have full documentation of the actual conspiracy asserted by the theory. Some conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable and as such warrant neither investigation nor consideration. Formal fallacies are errors in the logical structures of argument, leaving a gap between the premises and the conclusion. Informal fallacies are unproductive debate tactics like shifting the goal post, or the burden of proof. Unfalsifiability is not a logical fallacy of either kind. And if it was, that would be irrelevant, because an argument being fallacious does not make its conclusion false. To make that inference is actually itself a formal fallacy called argumentum ad logicam.

You are partially correct. While it is not listed as a formal fallacy it is an implied fallacy as it is used here. The reason for this is because the conclusion is arrived at first and then evidence is cherry picked and massaged to fit the conclusion to make it seem viable when it actuality it is not.

There is also a difference between actual conspiracy and conspiracy theory. The first may have basis in an actual conspiracy while the second is unfounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/178/Unfalsifiability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Fair enough. I was unaware that the part about "without credible evidence" is commonly understood to be part of the definition in English. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary and the Oxford English dictionary both do not make that qualifier. On Wikipedia, the German and Russian counterparts to the English article do not define it so either. Rather, just as I used the term, the distinction between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is that the latter alleges the former. A conspiracy is when people conspire, and a conspiracy theory is the theory that people conspire.
The second link you post does only once imply that claims can be fallacious. In the exception further down it mentions that not all unfalsifiable claims have to be. You said "Unfalsifiable claims are a logical fallacy,...", so it would seem you would disagree with the article. Speaking of the same article, in the first example it points out that a claim can be true despite being unfalsifiable, so when you coninued the statement requoted above with "..., therefore the conspiracy claims are false by definition." it would appear you disagree with it there also.
Finally, the last Wikipedia article you link, as well as the one on fallacies specifies that fallaciousness is a property of arguments, of reasoning, not of individual, irreducible claims. Scrolling further down, the very second entry in the list is the "Argument from fallacy", the very fallacy I was pointing out you were committing: Saying that something is false in virtue of the reasoning it was arrived at being faulty.
I think it serves your point poorly to cite sources that disagree with it...

Agreed. I post the articles in the interest of fairness in argument. The fact that some parts may not serve my point is the part where I may be wrong. And I think that is fair to say.

It's interesting that the german versions state different things as well. As for the unfalsifiable claim possibly being true I do agree with that and so my statement that unfalsifiable conspiracy theories are false by definition is an error because the possibility exists that it could be true even though it cant be proven either way. It is the same way faith works. One could use faith to arrive at either a true claim or a false claim and one could not tell the difference. That is why evidence is so important.

In this case what I should have said was conspiracy theories as presented here are a logical fallacy because has been no evidence that can show them to be true other that through the use of logical fallacy.

What prevents people from learning is not the subject, no matter how difficult it is (the human mind has limitless capabilities), but rather certain learning disabilities that tend to fester and grow in our minds as we get older. These include a sense of smugness and superiority whenever we encounter something alien to our ways, as well as rigid ideas about what is real or true, often indoctrinated in us by schooling or family. If we feel like we know something, our minds close off to other possibilities. We see reflections of the truth e have already assumed. Such feelings of superiority are often unconscious and stem from a fear of what is different or unknown. We are rarely aware of this, and often imagine ourselves to be paragons of impartiality.

--Robert Greene, Mastery

Just part of my studies for tonight. Felt it plays deeply into this thread. Guess you can say the Force drew me to post it. Make of it what you will.

Of course the human mind has limits. There has never been shown a mind to exist independant of a brain and the human brain is not limitless. It is regulated by the laws of physics just like everything else. It needs energy in the form of proteins and sugars etc to function correctly. It is a common misnomer that we use only a fraction of our brain potential. Some people even claim that they are able to use more of their brains than others, providing them with psychic powers. None of this has ever been proven true. The fact is that people use all of their brains. Brain imaging research clearly shows that the entire brain is regularly engaged. There are no "unused" or "inaccessible" parts. And it's not learning disabilities that keep the mind from growing as we get older. Its cognitive bias. All it takes to overcome this is the courage to have an open mind and admit that not every gap in knowledge needs to be explained by faith.

The force led me to post that as well...

Kyrin, I know you used the more favorable definition of conspiracy theorist... figures..

As for proof. I provided some for 911 earlier in the thread.. but, as with other things I've said, I'm sure it just went unnoticed. At this point I'm tired of arguing. Especially because of that last point.. also, I searched for proof on my own. I investigated the claims for myself. I don't ask for proof. I go look. So it erks my nerve when someone would dismiss something they don't even seem to have a grasp of.. then demand I prove their misconceived assumptions.. or assert that I'm avoiding when the opposite is true.. they look like preprogrammed tactics.. I provided the videos with the invitation to fact check just so you'll see the vast amount of work that goes into this stuff sometimes.. it isn't all YouTube videos and thirdhand sourcing..

Look, this thread was started under the assumption that these type of claims DO have merit. For someone to come and make accusations of falsity without little to nothing to back them. Then demand proof of claims NOT ALREADY IN QUESTION. That was the first shift of burden.. Don't think that I've come to the worldview I have out of emotion.. or that I have avoided any question that's been presented to me. I'm not at all in this without reasonable suspicions. I speak on these things because the powers behind these happenings constitute a real threat to our liberty and potential. That's what it is for most people who talk about these things. This isn't a game or a joke. We are CANON FODDER to these type of people..

I don't care about who votes when the American Electorate has the constitutional right to sue their government and demand change under threat of rebellion. Voting is a permission slip for the continuation of our (despotic) democracy.. I don't care to make sure they have the "politically correct" thought process preferable to the powers that be. When a government has grown to the point of abuse it is the duty of the person to resist. Not ask for reprieve from the perpetrators.. we will never get it.. The idea of wanting an informed electorate isn't disagreeable at all. What is though, is that definition of "duly informed"..

In truth, the only information needed for selecting representatives is of our natural liberties. In light of that, agendas of control would be easily sniffed out. Then, those who try to explain away our need of these liberties are immediately seen for the misguided, fearful souls they are.. because liberty takes courage. The same place the drive for those ideas comes from.. The Force doesn't give us fear.. it gives power, love, and clear thinking..

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Of course the human mind has limits. There has never been shown a mind to exist independant of a brain and the human brain is not limitless. It is regulated by the laws of physics just like everything else. It needs energy in the form of proteins and sugars etc to function correctly. It is a common misnomer that we use only a fraction of our brain potential. Some people even claim that they are able to use more of their brains than others, providing them with psychic powers. None of this has ever been proven true. The fact is that people use all of their brains. Brain imaging research clearly shows that the entire brain is regularly engaged. There are no "unused" or "inaccessible" parts. And it's not learning disabilities that keep the mind from growing as we get older. Its cognitive bias. All it takes to overcome this is the courage to have an open mind and admit that not every gap in knowledge needs to be explained by faith.

The force led me to post that as well...

Perhaps brain and mind are not one and the same.

Proof of something not existing rarely stops humans from trying. We still scan the universe for signs of life and turn up nothing, despite the math sayigg there should be at least something out there besides us.

It is at times so telling when we take less than a decade old trivial quotes from modern intellectuals and think of them as somehow new or profound or even succinctly expressing what we thought prior. What follows is a rant, not specifically about either Mr. Greene, or Ari, but of general feelings on this topic.
It is no secret that people are generally stubborn, and on average grow ever more rigid and stubborn with age. We knew about the problem of un-reason for longer than we have writings about it. It is also how long we have been cautioning each other against our biases, because we soon discovered that they make us believe in inaccurate pictures of the world and consequently lead us to make bad choices. (This is not necessarily an accurate historical account, more of an illustration of the way to justify where we are at now)
And so we constructed formal logic: A tool to help us rephrase what we think in a way that renders it easy to understand and compare to other thoughts and test the resulting thought clusters for consistency. The most obvious and simplest errors become immediately apparent that way and can be addressed. We refined that system more with the centuries, culminating in a reformulation of set theory in 1922 and subsequent re-derivation of mathematics from the new system.
In the mean time, at some point we began to realize that consistency alone is insufficient to address concerns about accuracy. It became ever more clear that a flawed picture of the world can result even if every step we treaded to arrive at it was consistent with what we had assumed and how we had treaded before. This was the beginning of a more rigorous quest for evidence than we had until then. But that came with its own problems: Biases. Our personal perspectives made us unconsciously weigh some evidence more greatly than other, confirm pre-conceived conclusions whilst ignoring indications to the contrary. With evidence, everyone could now prove what they believed all along, and whoever challenged the proof could only do so by consciously, openly, deliberately dismissing the supporting evidence. But if reality is this relative, this subjective, then we are back where we started, with internally consistent models that fail to protect us from bad choices.
Enter falsificationism. It is no longer enough to present facts that are positively indicative of a model. Now it is necessary to also present matters of fact that would be exclusively concordant with it, i.e. questions the answers to which could in principle disprove the theory. Now enter peer review also: As a way to combat individual personal biases, as well as promote the spread of good quality models, a model now must undergo the review of fellow experts who, by their sheer diversity, are unlikely to have many of the same biases in common and thus would weed out models that require the same biases to be accepted.
Now give this new framework for studying ourselves and the world around us another half century, arguably one of the most productive half centuries humanity has ever seen. We have seen medical advances so strong that where some diseases are eradicated entirely, others that used to be death sentences are barely a struggle anymore. The efficiency of resource harvesting has expanded so much that the population skyrocketed to a point where the planet's capacity and health itself is beginning to look like the limit. We have technology that allows the cripples to walk, some of the deaf to hear, and we are inching closer to bringing the blind their eyesight back, too. We have weaponry at our avail of the might to destroy almost all life on our homeworld, yet we live in by far some of the most peaceful decades our species has ever seen. We have already set foot on an alien world and we have artificial scouts out visiting yet more. We are effortlessly communicating with people around the globe, and we are designing beings that in such communications would be hardly distinguishable from natural grown people.
Along come people with their personal biases, embracing them as a strength rather than a weakness, proclaiming proudly their dedication to their faiths as if anything about it was worthy of respect or admiration. And they caution the world yet again against biases, pretending like resistence to them is itself one of them, arguably a worse one even, all because the anti-bias mechanisms we have devised in the past two and a half millennia do not treat their bias-driven beliefs with the kindness they desire. Just what do they hope for? That we indeed abandon intellectual rigor and honesty in their favour? That we give their claims a special free pass but treat the rest with the scrutiny designed for all? Un-bias is not a bias, and if an attack against reason itself is what is required to support someone's pet theory, then, much though it may pain them to hear that, their theory is unreasonable and that's all there is to say about it.

If governments are willing to sacrifice millions in wars for their agenda how do you think they would feel sacrificing a few thousand people and destroy a couple buildings. It's collateral damage to them, it scares people and leaves a haunting visage. And when you scare people, they don't think rationally.

If people in the dark ages can get corrupt in a kingdom, how do you think people will act when they have billions upon billions of dollars and own so much more land, provide so much influence, have control over our currency and also hold power over food, water, the things a person needs to live on?

If many governments of the past were willing to betray it's own people, why would america and many other countries be the exception?

If brute force didn't work in the past, why WOULDN'T they do it in the shadows where they remain undetected and slowly brainwash, because after all if you knew that brute force wouldn't work in the long run ( as it often doesn't as when you have martial law and suppress the people. They get angry and revolt eventually.) wouldn't you like to slowly brainwash and poison people into submission? isn't that pretty what you would do if you were clever and you were corrupt and held control over people's food, water, land and money as well as the media?

We have to ask these questions and look at history and put two and two together here.

Yabu, your point is not just that it could happen, but that it did and does. No amount of arguments along the lines of "Why wouldn't it?" can help establish that. History and common sense are not evidence. I'm sorry.

Uzima Moto wrote: Kyrin, I know you used the more favorable definition of conspiracy theorist... figures..

As for proof. I provided some for 911 earlier in the thread.. but, as with other things I've said, I'm sure it just went unnoticed. At this point I'm tired of arguing. Especially because of that last point.. also, I searched for proof on my own. I investigated the claims for myself. I don't ask for proof. I go look. So it erks my nerve when someone would dismiss something they don't even seem to have a grasp of.. then demand I prove their misconceived assumptions.. or assert that I'm avoiding when the opposite is true.. they look like preprogrammed tactics.. I provided the videos with the invitation to fact check just so you'll see the vast amount of work that goes into this stuff sometimes.. it isn't all YouTube videos and thirdhand sourcing..

Look, this thread was started under the assumption that these type of claims DO have merit. For someone to come and make accusations of falsity without little to nothing to back them. Then demand proof of claims NOT ALREADY IN QUESTION. That was the first shift of burden.. Don't think that I've come to the worldview I have out of emotion.. or that I have avoided any question that's been presented to me. I'm not at all in this without reasonable suspicions. I speak on these things because the powers behind these happenings constitute a real threat to our liberty and potential. That's what it is for most people who talk about these things. This isn't a game or a joke. We are CANON FODDER to these type of people..

I don't care about who votes when the American Electorate has the constitutional right to sue their government and demand change under threat of rebellion. Voting is a permission slip for the continuation of our (despotic) democracy.. I don't care to make sure they have the "politically correct" thought process preferable to the powers that be. When a government has grown to the point of abuse it is the duty of the person to resist. Not ask for reprieve from the perpetrators.. we will never get it.. The idea of wanting an informed electorate isn't disagreeable at all. What is though, is that definition of "duly informed"..

In truth, the only information needed for selecting representatives is of our natural liberties. In light of that, agendas of control would be easily sniffed out. Then, those who try to explain away our need of these liberties are immediately seen for the misguided, fearful souls they are.. because liberty takes courage. The same place the drive for those ideas comes from.. The Force doesn't give us fear.. it gives power, love, and clear thinking..

I really think a lot of it has to do with fear, where no one wants to be outed as a nut so they will accept the official story Because our government has never lied before right? How many times did our government lie to us when it came to hemp and the benefits of that. People stupidly accepted it and now people are starting to realize "You know making the most useful plant in the world was a pretty dumb idea" and you know full well the government never does such things unless it is to THEIR advantage. 9/11 never happened the way they said it did. Not once had anyone explained how other steel buildings of the past were engulfed in flames, buildings that were not built nearly as well as the twin towers and they still stand. Yet an airplane takes down one building each? People do know an airplane crashed into the empire state building before right? True the plane was smaller but the building is not built nearly as well as the twin towers, there WAS wreckage and the plane didn't just "melt" into the building. The wings would be sheared off. No one has to study physics extensively to know this doesn't make any sense.

No one wants to be called a nut case. Even if they know deep down the official stories are nonsense. They would rather fit in rather than be called a nut case, never once considering that maybe that is what their government wants. For everyone to believe in their lies and they have used many propagandist tricks to make people think that if you question ANYTHING about the government or their stories you have to be crazy. That is how bad things have gotten. Even before someone presents their own theories, people who even QUESTION anything whatsoever are looked down upon, not realizing that questioning things is what led us to our independence and helps up stave off corruption.So apparently one cannot even ask question on the official story without being called crazy.

We have to understand that no government has betrayed it's own people and never will. Their secret meetings with the Bilderberg group, the people they have dealt with like George Soros dealing with the Nazi's is all inconsequential. It's more comfortable to believe in a delusion than accept what is. Let's all ignore the military personnel who also served the government and leaked outside information about secret meetings, alien insiders, ect. All of them have the exact same agenda are saying this for no particular reason other than they just want to do it for the lulz and gain nothing from it. Let's all ignore the fact that politicians, including Bush was suspicious of anyone tolerating such conspiracy theories and went to war over it to find stuff that was never there and to also limit our freedoms. Let's not put two and two together because that takes effort.

You can imagine the immense fear and panic, if people realized there would be more false flags that will happen, some of which would involve annihilating most the human race, and we have plenty of means to do that i.e. nukes, anthrax, disease, ect. It never makes sense to me when people say "Why would our benevolent government do that?" Why WOULDN'T they? They have nothing to lose from this. They will also have the upper hand no matter what happens to us. A diminished population is easier to manage, you get people scared and confused which means they can't think straight, and you weakened them spiritually physically and mentally. Governments feel just fine sending millions to die in wars that were fabricated, so of course they aren't going to show remorse now. They didn't the last few times, why would they now?

Yabuturtle wrote: No one has to study physics extensively to know this doesn't make any sense.

This pretty much sums up the entire conspiracy theory claim right here. No one has to study physics to know this does not make any sense is a statement that categorically discredits your every argument here. It is a statement based on faith, wishful thinking and God of the Gaps mentality.

"Well it seems like this is mostly likely true, therefore I will declare it as true!"

No evidence, no proof, just an intuitive "feeling" of awe or fear or likely cause. When we began to study the universe, people could not comprehend how this place came to be and they were so afraid of this lack of knowledge they made up Gods to explain it. And here in these cases, people cannot comprehend how such things can happen as they do and so they makeup conspiracies to explain their lack of knowledge. Its more comforting for them to believe they have special knowledge or more knowledge than the very masters of physics, and biology and economics that have studied these things for decades because it alleviates their fear.

I hear the most incredulous claims all the time. All you have to do is look at the trees and the sky to know God exists. All you have to do is look at history and know our govt is corrupt. All you have to do is look at how a plane went into a building on a grainy video and know that it was not a real plane or it was a hologram. All you have to do is watch the tower fall to know it was blown up by the govt. All these claims are based on flawed thinking. They are based on intuition not fact. Intuition, just like faith, is an unreliable means to arrive at truth because it has no rigors, no checks and balances and is not supported by evidence.

You can claim anything using these methods and you will never know if it is true or not. That is why we dismiss your claims and that is why we fight against them so strongly. That is why scientific methods were created. To bring us out of the ages of superstition and faith and flawed thinking. So that we could live in a world of truth not fear. So that we could come into an age of the greatest freedom and peace the world has ever known instead of one of disease and war and magical thinking. Yes it is actually science that has given you the greatest nations and govts and resources ever created to live under today. The alternative to this it is your sort of misguided thinking that will only serve to enslave us once again. It is your sort of fear that men use to enslave, not the freedom to question that science provides and the proof in evidence that gives us truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1te01rfEF0g

Arisaig wrote: So you are saying, beyond reasonable doubt, you have proof against the exsistance of any gods or supernatural beings? That you can say that this world and exsistance is indeed a bunch of mistakes and accidents that led to what we have now and nothing more?

And if so, how does being a Jedi (or jed'daii or however its to be spelled), a purveyor of an unseen Force, and being a witch, play into thay mindset?

Disbelief in such power is pretty comforting even if others don't want to admit it. Because if they knew full well that such things exist it would frighten them because they don't understand it and have no way to defend themselves from it.

I wonder how many would really be frightened if they knew exactly what their government did, what they plan to do and what they will do. Even Bush himself mentioned that that everyone would pretty much revolt if they knew. The low level politicians don't care about him, why would vastly more powerful bankers and philanthropists who operating behind the scenes and buy out the politicians, care about them

Questioning official stories is what helps up stave off corruption. We cannot afford to just buy a story just because it's official. Even incidents like Gulf of Tonkin didn't happen the way they said it did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k

Even Star Wars itself makes constant references to people in power and people like Palpatine. Well, there are LOTS of Palpatines running around, way more than people think and they have people everywhere. When you have a lot of money what do you have? Influence.

Yabuturtle wrote: Disbelief in such power is pretty comforting even if others don't want to admit it. Because if they knew full well that such things exist it would frighten them because they don't understand it and have no way to defend themselves from it.

And you know all this from your extensive study of physics and your detailed scrutiny of a science fiction movie... Got it. You seem to have no original arguments. You just regurgitate others points and flip them on their head and then you make vague generalized comments of some bogey man lurking in the dark for us.

If even a shred of what you say is slightly true why are you here, on a Jedi board, telling us about it? What can we possibly do about it? Why dont you get a lawyer and go after this massive underground corrupt infrastructure that is controlling your life? Why not join a militia and go to war? Why not start a revolution and change the status quo? Why here, sitting comfortably in your house, talking to those that have zero ability to change it? It seems even you do not believe your own fabrications or you are just unwilling to do anything about it. Either way it does not speak highly of your ideas or your mettle. Even a young kid from a backward desert planet took up arms to fight for what was right. Why dont you?