Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#44306 - 11/21/10 04:42 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
I am still figuring out how bees are able to build hives, and birds their nests, without having been taught this. When humans build houses they have to learn how to do it.

Nature - my brain cells are constructed in such a way that I am able to pass the tests to join the high intelligence organisation MENSA.

Nurture - babies and small children kept pushing me out of the way for attention during my young life. Now I hate children, and will never have any.

Anamnesis - ancient Greek idea that we have souls, that our present lives have been influenced by knowledge and experiences from previous lives. Examples exist of children who remember a past life, and whose experiences of a past life has a direct impact on their present life, for instance the case of James Leininger.
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#44310 - 11/21/10 06:27 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: mabon2010]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
I am still figuring out how bees are able to build hives, and birds their nests, without having been taught this. When humans build houses they have to learn how to do it.

Ever thought about the fact almost any living animal can copy behavior? It's easy to imagine a bird being born and for the time it stays in the mothers nest watching how the nest has been built. It aplies to almost all animals and insects.

 Quote:
Nature - my brain cells are constructed in such a way that I am able to pass the tests to join the high intelligence organisation MENSA.

At first I held them in high regards, until I noticed it was once again another organisation with the purpose of mental masturbation on "intelligent" level. I prefer to see them as a "know-a-lot, low intelligence organisation". (And yes there is a significant difference between intelligence and knowing much).

 Quote:
Anamnesis - ancient Greek idea that we have souls, that our present lives have been influenced by knowledge and experiences from previous lives. Examples exist of children who remember a past life, and whose experiences of a past life has a direct impact on their present life, for instance the case of James Leininger.

Not really impressed actually, the kid could have flipped trough the book by accident and read that particular passage.
I call it bullshit, unless the kid can come up with very specific details which are not written in any book or has been told by the persons he has met during this "act". Let him accept the OMC of James Randi and see if he manages to get the prize. I'm bloody sure he simply can't.


Edited by Dimitri (11/21/10 06:28 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44319 - 11/21/10 08:40 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

Ever thought about the fact almost any living animal can copy behavior? It's easy to imagine a bird being born and for the time it stays in the mothers nest watching how the nest has been built. It aplies to almost all animals and insects.


I can't see it. The bird leaves the nest with the knowledge of nest building, but if you are aware of any studies showing the parent bird teaching the young nest building whilst in the nest give me the link.

There is a possibility bees may be teaching each other, I am going to sit on the fence on that one.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
At first I held them in high regards, until I noticed it was once again another organisation with the purpose of mental masturbation on "intelligent" level. I prefer to see them as a "know-a-lot, low intelligence organisation". (And yes there is a significant difference between intelligence and knowing much).


Did you make the grade for membership of MENSA?

You make a massive generalisation of high IQ people who join MENSA.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Not really impressed actually, the kid could have flipped trough the book by accident and read that particular passage.
I call it bullshit, unless the kid can come up with very specific details which are not written in any book or has been told by the persons he has met during this "act". Let him accept the OMC of James Randi and see if he manages to get the prize. I'm bloody sure he simply can't.


Must have been a very clever two-year-old to come up with all those names, facts and knowledge that nobody else knew about until it was confirmed. He could just about spell his name, but at two was unable to read.

I dislike it when people dismiss something without first taking time to read about it. I have the book, spoken to the parents, studied every aspect of the James Leininger case. In my mind I am satisfied that the case is authentic.

I am happy to start another thread to debate that case with you, and I will be interested after you have studied the case a bit more for you to show me the flaws.
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#44321 - 11/21/10 09:20 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: mabon2010]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
I can't see it. The bird leaves the nest with the knowledge of nest building, but if you are aware of any studies showing the parent bird teaching the young nest building whilst in the nest give me the link

I didn't say the parents learned the bird how to build nests. I merely said the young bird could see other birds building/rearranging a nest and simply mimic the behavior. There is still a great deal of trial and error involved. No bird can make a decent nest from the first time, which is why you sometimes find nests on the ground, pieces of wood which were used as building materials etc. .

It's a false and quite wrong idea shown by the many decent documentaries and biology books on accident. Almost every documentary skips that part of trial and error in building.
Same thing goes for bee and wasp hives. Every summer I discover loose pieces of such a hive which remained unfinished or "badly" built. Trial and error once again since it most of the time is found in unstable and "wrong" places to start a succesful hive.

 Quote:
Did you make the grade for membership of MENSA?

I did the test 2 years ago. I cancelled a few months afterwards. I wasn't very active and got disgusted with the attitude of most persons I encountered. Some needed a better sense of reality instead of mindless mental masturbation about their IQ's and how proud they were of being part of the organisation.

 Quote:
Must have been a very clever two-year-old to come up with all those names, facts and knowledge that nobody else knew about until it was confirmed. He could just about spell his name, but at two was unable to read.

Names, facts and knowledge nobody knew until confirmed later on? I spot a fallacy, you to?
Now, I would love to see videotapes wherein the kid says these facts and calls people by their names. But I am VERY certain some sort of official said a few names and the kid answered with yes or no as in most reincarnation cases. I am also pretty sure that some of the so-called facts and knowledge are a result of remembering such yes or no -questions and simply repeating the answer.

How critical thinking can be easy isn't it? Also the reason why I am seldom impressed.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44323 - 11/21/10 10:00 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

I didn't say the parents learned the bird how to build nests. I merely said the young bird could see other birds building/rearranging a nest and simply mimic the behavior. There is still a great deal of trial and error involved. No bird can make a decent nest from the first time, which is why you sometimes find nests on the ground, pieces of wood which were used as building materials etc. .

It's a false and quite wrong idea shown by the many decent documentaries and biology books on accident. Almost every documentary skips that part of trial and error in building.
Same thing goes for bee and wasp hives. Every summer I discover loose pieces of such a hive which remained unfinished or "badly" built. Trial and error once again since it most of the time is found in unstable and "wrong" places to start a succesful hive.


Fair enough. Your theory is sound.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
I did the test 2 years ago. I cancelled a few months afterwards. I wasn't very active and got disgusted with the attitude of most persons I encountered. Some needed a better sense of reality instead of mindless mental masturbation about their IQ's and how proud they were of being part of the organisation.


I dropped out because I got bored with them, a waste of money in my opinion. But things have moved on in the world, and I may check out MENSA again.


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Names, facts and knowledge nobody knew until confirmed later on? I spot a fallacy, you to?
Now, I would love to see videotapes wherein the kid says these facts and calls people by their names. But I am VERY certain some sort of official said a few names and the kid answered with yes or no as in most reincarnation cases. I am also pretty sure that some of the so-called facts and knowledge are a result of remembering such yes or no -questions and simply repeating the answer.

How critical thinking can be easy isn't it? Also the reason why I am seldom impressed.


If you are wanting some examples:

1. The kid knew the names of Jack Larson and other fellow pilots from his time as James Huston Jr in World war 2

2. The kid knew about the Corsairs, a type of experimental aircraft, that nobody knew until a photo emerged of James Huston with the Corsair.

3. The kid knew about a painting that only James Huston and his sister knew about.

There are loads of information in the book, it is detailed.

Only three possibilities could be possible from this case:

1. Error
There was too much evidence and matches for there to be error.

2. Fraud
I looked at the family who are people of integrity, down to earth and caring. The father as a Christian refused to believe in reincarnation, and had to be forced to admit against all the evidence that reincarnation was possible.

It would have been an extremely heartless thing to create a fantasy and involve war veterans, James Huston's family and a little boy in an elaborate fraud, for little financial gain. And any such person capable of that is easy to catch out over time.

Fraud is unlikely.

3. The kid had a past life.
On balance of probabilities I opted to 3.

Of course, it is better for people to make their own minds up, rather than take my word for it, so I invite them to look into that case and draw their own conclusions.


Edited by mabon2010 (11/21/10 10:02 AM)
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#44325 - 11/21/10 10:35 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: mabon2010]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
1. The kid knew the names of Jack Larson and other fellow pilots from his time as James Huston Jr in World war 2
2. The kid knew about the Corsairs, a type of experimental aircraft, that nobody knew until a photo emerged of James Huston with the Corsair.
3. The kid knew about a painting that only James Huston and his sister knew about.

There are loads of information in the book, it is detailed.

Details are worthless if the book is biased and already starts from the viewpoint of someone who believes in reincarnation. I am pretty convinced such is the case and combined with the trickery or "mistakes" mentioned ealier the case is as typical as the 40-year old hag claims to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Marlyn Monroe. The only exceptional about it would be the mentioning of being it the reincarnation of a person who is not known to the greater public. More impressive then the claim of being a reincarnation of your very late great-grand father and a bit more unique then being a reincarnated princess.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44330 - 11/21/10 12:33 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
@ Dimitri

I don't want this topic going way off topic into the subject of reincarnation. I am happy to debate with you on reincarnation in another thread for that purpose.

For the record, the father was a skeptic of reincarnation and went to great lengths to prove his son wrong, and failed.

It is an interesting book, and worth a read.


Edited by mabon2010 (11/21/10 12:34 PM)
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#44346 - 11/21/10 08:42 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: dimitri
You life being controlled by yourself is very loosely true. You have the idea of being in control of your own life, in reality you tend to be persuaded to fit into different social cultures, to be compared to different kinds of people, your actions being labeled etc..
You have the choice what you are going to do next, but try to notice that your own decisions and that the idea of your life being only controlled by yourself is also an illusion. Every action you make is a result from persuation under social pressure from friends, relatives, family,.. and is sub-consciously not really your own choice but an advice and idea which seemed good enough in your opinion to be followed for the gratification of your inner needs/emotions.


I completely understand and can agree with most of this. Outwardly, people want to have an acceptable label to those of their communities and friends. Therefore, causing us to maybe make better decisions or worse decisions depending on the situations. The reason I remain to believe that in the end we can and some do choose to make their own choices goes along with much of the things that I have been dealing with in my own life. I have done great things as of late and only after I got these things done did that support or peer "persuasion" actually kick in. Much of what I was doing for myself was not received in a manner that would support my decisions but in the end the choices that I have made I know will land me in a better place.

Now one might argue that this is again another way that my decisions were affected by peer/family persuasions because the lack of support gave me what was needed to continue on with what I was doing. Almost like it was out of a need or want to prove that this was right for me and that I knew what the right choices were for me. However, I have to argue back the point that I didn't need the support or the persuasion and the lack thereof had no effect on the decisions that executed. I appreciate the support that I am getting now as it is always nice to have someone back you up in large changes in your life but beforehand, I realized that at the the end of the day, I was the one that had to make the choice and I was the only one in control of it.. Not the outsiders.

In the end, those who are there to support me are those I keep in my circle. On the other side, those who do not wish to support my going forward are obviously trying to hold me back in the position of life that I am in. Therefore, regardless, I do not take in consideration what anyone really thinks.. Push comes to shove, it's me in this world and I can only see up from here.

 Originally Posted By: dimitri
It is considered to be a Satanic virtue to know oneself and to see yourself as the highest good within the (your own) universe.
But there is always that sense of realism and honesty to oneself that is lacking greatly.
Might I ask, in all honesty, what your current goal at the moment is?


I have several personal goals. If this, indeed, is what you are asking. I have a layout for my education and where I want to be in the next five years. I just got accepted and enrolled into a high standing school in the area. I will start in Jan and I will graduate by the end of next year. This school has a 90% placement rate, which means that I will be able to obtain a job that is not only rewarding and enjoyable but will pay me more than pennies. This will improve my life greatly as I have been living from pay check to pay check trying to support a four person household and extra bills on the side while trying to get back into school.

After I graduate from this school, I intend on enrolling in a local, also well standing university, in the area to start the road to my masters (in Forensic Sciences) which I wish to obtain from Michigan State University.

During my pathways through my education, I want to eventually buy a house and be able to provide for my family since my mother is having a hard time as of late with her health conditions.

My goals for my journey through Satanism is to continue improving myself and never stop learning about whatever it is that crosses my path. Also, never stop questioning everything even if I am met with oppositions. I will meet everything head to head. Always. I am a fairly open person to just about anything and I am also stubborn which I believe will help me through out everything. I have the will and I have the strength and tools within myself to get everything that I need done. For a long time I didn't have a plan. I have a plan now and I have my reasons for setting these goals for myself.

My first goal was to leave the dead end job that I was working and enroll in a school that would provide me with the skills I needed to be better at something I love and while also being able to take care of my family. What can I say? Check!

 Originally Posted By: fnord

You have your mission statement, you will either realize it or you will fail. Time will tell.


This IS my own path.. my life.. and my mission statement. Like Fnord wrote on my introduction post, I will either sink or swim.. and I like I responded, I am far to stubborn to die in such a uncool way as drowning.

 Originally Posted By: dimitri
Even to the extend that true individualistic thinking is quite utopic.


Surely, I can agree with this as well. We can all be influenced by outside opinions, sideways glances and underhanded advice given by those who may think that they know what is better for us than we do ourselves. However, we make the choice to give them that power if we do indeed follow the path they choose for us instead of making our own pathways through it all.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#44361 - 11/21/10 09:56 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: mabon2010]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
Reincarnation? Don't you mean rebirth? There is a huge difference in the two meanings of the very different words as they connote diverse processes when a person experiences mortal death. I am not apotropaic, but rather potropaic which is the dipolar antipode of the former. With this in Mind, a corporeal death is a transformation that neither encompasses a correspondance to physical life or an afterlife...to me. As I engage the supra-consciousness by seeing and knowing myself, an obverse opine that is an Absolute Truth for my death is beginningless and endless receiving an inverse correspondance to life as we know it. (Nothingness, Emptiness, Void) Let me phrase it in a manner in which you can comprehend: the abyss...the great abyss without supports is what I...am and will...return or transmigrate...which is neither whither or hither or tither. The immanent knowledge of death is a phenomena which is psychologically imponderable, and one fact we all must face.

My esteem lies behind rebirth with a purpose for the select individuals to this life. In Setism, it is called Xeper. Rather I will experience moksa (Sanskrit) which means the futurity of no-birth, but that is another story. The essence of Reality is questioned. Ultimate Reality is implored. As I see it, the life of particulars is an oneiric illusion. The ascension of epistemic perspectives causes heartfelt yearnings of death, but effects are definitively ensuing of death in which focus on the ineffable, Absolute "Zero" that is a vast Emptiness.

It makes me feel strange, as I am faced with askesis for futurely concerns and have gone through kenosis. The austere predicates made me latch on divergent views of Indulgences: 1) Those promoting pessimism, ignorance, laziness, criminal tendancies and doubt. 2) Those promoting sensuality, greed, jealousy, anger and delusion. 3) Those promoting neceesary energy to the body and help achieve balance. In addition, Indulgences and non-Indulgences came to fruition which states for an optimal concrescence the giants discern carnal objects as Indulgences through non-Indulgences. (A bit complicated, at first.) When you aspire to other types of thinking, you realize that non-dialectic thought is rectilinear, partial, fragmentary and one-sided.

You all have obverse opines...further develop them.

666
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.024 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 22 queries. Zlib compression disabled.