Zietgeist the movie

[washuguy]

I just watched this movie and i thought i should share it... I think its EXTREMLY important that every man and woman see this, all nonesense to the side. its very eye opening. When you're done watching, please feel free to post your thoughts and feelings

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Leviathan]

I just read the Wikipedia article on it.

Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy. Although the original movement for it sounded a lot better.


The Zeitgeist Movement generally concludes that concepts of nationalism, government, race, religion, creed and class are false, outdated distinctions. Such concepts seek to divide people; they are not positive factors contributing towards human growth and development. Even though all life is natural, The Zeitgeist Movement recognizes that social structures, which are human constructs, can become obsolete and irrelevant structures, and thus becomes instruments of paralysis to human progress.

There are some things I agree with but some of them are just odd. [Like in a bad way.]

Also IIRC the terror attacks were known about since the 90's. Not sure if this is real or not.

[Shattered_weasel]

The people who fall for this shit and for other shit like Scientology are exactly the same in my book.

[Gibdozer]

I just watched this movie and i thought i should share it... I think its EXTREMLY important that every man and woman see this, all nonesense to the side. its very eye opening. When you're done watching, please feel free to post your thoughts and feelings

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Yeah Zeitgeist was great, if you like it you should watch "Addendum"(same site). I also really liked "What the Bleep Do We Know" and "Down the Rabbit Hole"


The people who fall for this shit and for other shit like Scientology are exactly the same in my book.

Accept that Zeitgeist is based on facts while Scientology is based on the ideas of science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.

Pro tip- If your unfamiliar with a topic do some research before posting or just ignore it altogether!

[Squirrel3D]

Yeah well, I'm not interested so count me out and there's nothing you can do about it.

[washuguy]

Yeah Zeitgeist was great, if you like it you should watch "Addendum"(same site). I also really liked "What the Bleep Do We Know" and "Down the Rabbit Hole"



Accept that Zeitgeist is based on facts while Scientology is based on the ideas of science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.

Pro tip- If your unfamiliar with a topic do some research before posting or just ignore it altogether!

I'm gonna watch addendum today, it was 2:00 A.M. when i finished the fist one... It made me so angry i was almost to the point of tears. It was one hell of a movie... And yes people, this movie is based on pure facts. When your ready to face reality, watch this movie...

[Shattered_weasel]

Accept that Zeitgeist is based on facts while Scientology is based on the ideas of science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.


This is a joke right. People can't be falling for this. There is no difference between falling for the "facts" of L. Ron Hubbard and the "facts" of Peter Joseph. When a magazine called Skeptic gives it this review you know something is up.

"Some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally—and sloppily—mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. […] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids"

Not to mention the amount of just plan wrong things they say. Such as Isis being a virgin or hell Horus being born Dec. 25. This makes no sense on two counts because Horus was more than likely born around Oct. and even if he was born right smack dab on Dec. 25 it wouldn't matter seeing as how Jesus' birthday is never specified in the bible.

Then we get to the part about 9/11 which I shouldn't even have to touch thanks to people like Popular Mechanics to Penn and Teller. Unfortunately I wasn't even able to make it to the third part to comment on it because of the insane amount of pseudoscience involved in this.

[Sinue_v2]

Eh, it's not so much that Zeitgeist is pure fiction - but rather that it was horribly researched and slapped together with cherry picked data and stretches of truth so tenuous that it's just about worthless. I wouldn't agree with Shattered_weasel's Scientology correlation... but it's definitely on par with Ben Stein's "Expelled" in terms of bullshit.

The whole point of the first part is to get you broken down by questioning your religious affiliations so that you start questioning other aspects of society around you. Then they start shoveling on the conspiracy theory crap, expecting you buy it hook, line, & sinker. The real problem I have with the first part is that if they're going to try to debunk Christianity - then, first; be fucking honest about it. Secondly, they don't tear out the foundations of religious belief which many people still cling to long after wards. This often leaves it's viewers left with a spiritual vacuum they then fill with whatever pseudo-science and new-age mysticism shit they happen to fancy.

I've run into far too many "Zeitgeist Atheists" who are still every bit as shackled to blind faith and mysticism than their religious counterparts. Worse, they've often taken the second & third video as "cues" to build a new worldview based on the skeletal frame of their old faith. I.E. Often it's the case wherein they still believe in a loose interpretation of the Judeo-Christian faith... but angels & demons have been replaced by Aliens. God replaced by nature. The Devil replaced by the Government. Etc. Whether such a side effect was intentional or unintended, I'm not sure. In either case, I'd caution anybody from taking Zeitgeist as anything more than springboard by which to launch their own study ancient cultures and their religions.

Skeptic Magazine: The Greatest Story ever Garbled (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25#feature)

Note: To add to Weasel's criticism, another thing to watch out for in the film is the tendency to correlate the modern phonetics & spelling of words to their two millennium old counterparts in foreign languages. For instance, Zeitgeist makes the Sun/Son connection. However in Latin, Son is a variant of fili - with /us/um/os.. etc.. to dictate use. So Filius would be how it's said when Son is the subject - while Filium is how it's used as an object in the sentience. Sol is the term for the Sun in the sky. In Greek, Helios is the word for the Sun - while (I think) Huios is the word for Son. A common Greek word associated with Jesus was "Ichthus" - hence the fish symbol. It was a sort of mneumonic phrasing where each letter of the word corresponded to the first letter in the words: Iēsous Christos Theou huios sōtēr -- "Jesus Christ" "God's son" "Savior". Or something along those lines.


I also really liked "What the Bleep Do We Know" and "Down the Rabbit Hole" ~ Gibdozer

Bleh. Fucking Quantum Mysticism Pseudoscience. There's plenty of places out there to get a good primer on actual Quantum Physics if you're interested. What the Bleep is not one of them.

Btw: Deepak Chopra (the "guru" behind "Wt#DWK") won the 1998 Ig Nobel Prize in Physics for his "unique" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. L. Ron Hubbard (of Scientology) won the 1994 Ig Nobel prize in Literature for Diabet... er, Dianetics.

List of Prize "Winners". (http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html)

[Shattered_weasel]

I loved "Expelled"! The Nazi's used Evolution to kill the Jews thus Evolution is wrong. This bull reminds me of people who watched "The Secret" and thought they had found it all.

[Gibdozer]

I'm gonna watch addendum today, it was 2:00 A.M. when i finished the fist one... It made me so angry i was almost to the point of tears. It was one hell of a movie... And yes people, this movie is based on pure facts. When your ready to face reality, watch this movie...

By now you've surely watched Addendum and are truly out-raged! Unless you read a magazine that told you not to be?

I'm always amazed by how quickly someone comes out to declaim these 2 films. It's both humorous and sad to see people so concerned with what you enjoy, and so dedicated to making you feel inferior for it.

Their either missing the point or just like being contrary. Exposure to new ideas is never negative, but limiting our acceptance of unpleasant realities is a step towards blind conformity.

[Randomness]

By now you've surely watched Addendum and are truly out-raged! Unless you read a magazine that told you not to be?

I'm always amazed by how quickly someone comes out to declaim these 2 films. It's both humorous and sad to see people so concerned with what you enjoy, and so dedicated to making you feel inferior for it.

Their either missing the point or just like being contrary. Exposure to new ideas is never negative, but limiting our acceptance of unpleasant realities is a step towards blind conformity.

Wow. Nice way to contradict yourself. Your last sentence denounced the exact attitude you show in your first two paragraphs.

(For the record, I've only even heard of Expelled among the movies mentioned in this thread)

Your first sentence is a blatant attempt to redirect attention away from the actual point being discussed. It's extremely close to ad hominem. Actually, that's about all you are doing, is accusing others of being biased idiots while you are a wise, open-minded person. That isn't almost ad hominem, it IS ad hominem. If you want to debate things, bring in numbers, experts, sources, etc. (That goes for everyone) I detest people resorting to inflammatory remarks instead of intelligent discussion. I see enough of that in the news. (Especially when its about anything related to politics, local or national.)

[Shattered_weasel]

I'm always amazed by how quickly someone comes out to declaim these 2 films. It's both humorous and sad to see people so concerned with what you enjoy, and so dedicated to making you feel inferior for it.

I wonder why people will give their opinions when


When you're done watching, please feel free to post your thoughts and feelings

Is posted.



Their either missing the point or just like being contrary.

Please great and wise sage. Show us the light. What mystical point is there to seek.


Exposure to new ideas is never negative, but limiting our acceptance of unpleasant realities is a step towards blind conformity.

Blind conformity? Like you're doing? We presented parts of the film that were plain wrong. Oh well, as long as you stop acting like this film is something new and refreshing, John G Jackson did this YEARS before. Loose Change did it sooner too.

[Gibdozer]

Not to mention the amount of just plan wrong things they say. Such as Isis being a virgin or hell Horus being born Dec. 25. This makes no sense on two counts because Horus was more than likely born around Oct. and even if he was born right smack dab on Dec. 25 it wouldn't matter seeing as how Jesus' birthday is never specified in the bible.



Your so far off point with this, I could never explain it to you.


If you want to debate things, bring in numbers, experts, sources, etc. (That goes for everyone) I detest people resorting to inflammatory remarks instead of intelligent discussion. I see enough of that in the news. (Especially when its about anything related to politics, local or national.)

Sorry I must have missed all your numbers, experts, and sources. Mine are easy to find they are in the film we are discussing. Since you don't seem to have an opinion on the movie(just on my post) I'm going to assume you haven't seen it and call you troll.

Wow, I just reread your post and realized you admit to never having seen the movies I'm talking about! So just to clarify you have no idea what we're discussing, but you sure don't like what I'm saying!

[Randomness]

Sorry I must have missed all your numbers, expert, and sources. Mine are easy to find they are in the film we are discussing. Since you don't seem to have an opinion on the movie(just on my post) I'm going to assume you haven't seen it and call you troll.

Did you even read my whole post? Pretty sure it functions as a rebuttal to this whole comment.

[Sinue_v2]

Exposure to new ideas is never negative, but limiting our acceptance of unpleasant realities is a step towards blind conformity.

There is nothing tautologically wrong with this statement. It's wisdom to live by, it's application has been instrumental in delivering us the technologically advanced society and standard of living we currently enjoy.

Now I would suggest that you follow your own advise by accepting or rejecting new ideas based on their validity - not by how comfortable they are. And just because an idea isn't intrinsically comfortable, doesn't mean it can't evoke pleasant sensation. The concept of most people being punished in an eternal hell for eternity is not a pleasant thought, yet it can be soothing and ego-boosting to those who are convinced that they are one of the few who will escape it because of their (arbitrary version of) piety.

So Gib, I have to wonder who exactly is the one who is accepting or rejecting unpleasant realities here when you, just above, are endorsing films like "What the Bleep Do We Know" and "Down the Rabbit Hole". Films that attempt to twist science and reason to re-establish a geocentric worldview and reclaim humanities place at the center of (or at least something special in) the universe.

Have you yet stood on the edge of the warm comfort of human perception and peered into the howling void of reality as we have pieced it together based on evidence? Have you yet tried to step out of your humanity and consider the implications of that knowledge? If not, I really hope you find the motivation to do so sometime. I don't know how you'd react, and it may just scare the hell out of you. It has to me on several occasions... but once you do, you'll know why films like "What the Bleep do We Know" and "Zeitgeist" are silly, and how childish they are in their claims.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyjNXdEGjO4

If you want to learn about Quantum Mechanics and the implications of which, don't turn to a spiritualist. I would suggest starting at some place like Stanford University (http://www.youtube.com/user/StanfordUniversity#p/c/84C10A9CB1D13841/0/JzhlfbWBuQ8).

Also:


Sorry I must have missed all your numbers, experts, and sources. Mine are easy to find they are in the film we are discussing. Since you don't seem to have an opinion on the movie(just on my post) I'm going to assume you haven't seen it and call you troll.

It's poor form to claim argument from authority on someone when you yourself are making the same logical fallacy. In fact, that's what he was initially calling you on. He wanted you to know if you have actually done any research of your own on the claims made, or if you just heard it on the video from a supposed expert - because it doesn't mean the claim actually has any validity. That's up to YOU to find out by researching all sides of the issue and following the evidence towards the path of most concordance. If you have done so, then you should be able to show an example of which... and that is what he is asking for. You can't just point to the video and say they did the work for you... YOU have to do the work yourself. You know... kind of like I did when arguing the phonetic error. I didn't look it up on a "Zeitgeist debunk" website... I actually looked up the Latin and Greek words for Son/Sun from at least four different sources. Sorry if I didn't link them, but if you want to counter my criticism, then you will similarly stumble upon independent source which will confirm my claim. If you find counter-evidence, then we might actually have something worthwhile to discuss.

If it's important, you'll put the effort into it - and that effort will be rewarded, because you'll either have your assertion validated - or you'll be forced to change your position to a more accurate statement. Either way, you benefit. But it's not worth the time and effort refuting seriously and thoroughly if you're just going to point your finger and say "LoL, Vidya Experts say yer wrong", because you can just pile on the bullshit faster than your opponent can clean up. Then, when they are reluctant to seriously put that effort into it - you want to sit back and claim they are mindless media sheep?

If that's the way it's going to be, then yeah, fuck you - and you deserve your ignorance. If not, then put a serious effort into showing us why you think that the credibility of those films is upheld.

[Shattered_weasel]

Your so far off point with this, I could never explain it to you.

You keep saying this and I keep asking for an explanation. So what if it goes over our head. Everything that we are talking about seems to be going over yours.

[Gibdozer]

Have you yet stood on the edge of the warm comfort of human perception and peered into the howling void of reality I don't know how you'd react, and it may just scare the hell out of you.

If that's the way it's going to be, then yeah, fuck you - and you deserve your ignorance. If not, then put a serious effort into showing us why you think that the credibility of those films is upheld.

I actually laughed when I read this sanctimonious bullshit, thank you.

Zeitgeist doesn't need me to come to its rescue, people can watch the film and decide for themselves if it's relevant.

[Gibdozer]

Did you even read my whole post? Pretty sure it functions as a rebuttal to this whole comment.

Don't come to the book club before you read the book! Its pretty simple you can't intelligently discuss something you know nothing about and refuse to educate yourself on. How can you question the validity of claims made, when you don't even know what they are. Why not do the smart thing and watch the movie before you publicly attack its supporters?

[Randomness]

Don't come to the book club before you read the book! Its pretty simple you can't intelligently discuss something you know nothing about and refuse to educate yourself on. How can you question the validity of claims made, when you don't even know what they are. Why not do the smart thing and watch the movie before you publicly attack its supporters?

Oh, that first sentence makes plenty of sense, but its not actually true. And it does nothing to my argument. I haven't said a thing about that book/movie/whatever. I've been discussing the logical flaws in your arguments. You're attacking things I've never even said to begin with. You're overgeneralizing all opposition to your argument, and you're clearly not paying attention to what I've been saying.

I don't need to know anything about a subject to refute an argument if said argument is logically invalid or fallacious. If a scientist starts talking quantum mechanics, and then denies the antecedent, I can safely assume his argument is invalid without knowing anything about quantum mechanics. (if A>B, and !A, it does not follow !B)

You persist in attacking me rather than my arguments. Furthermore, you're attacking statements I haven't made. Both of these actions are logical fallacies. That's the only thing I've been saying this whole time.

1-Arguments that contain fallacies are not sound arguments.
2-Your argument contains fallacies.
3-Therefore, your argument is not a sound argument.

[Sinue_v2]

I actually laughed when I read this sanctimonious bullshit, thank you.

Zeitgeist doesn't need me to come to its rescue, people can watch the film and decide for themselves if it's relevant.

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine: The Crisis.

Deos enim religuos accepimus, Caesares dedimus. Enjoy your new religion.

[SpikeOtacon]

Don't come to the book club before you read the book! Its pretty simple you can't intelligently discuss something you know nothing about and refuse to educate yourself on. How can you question the validity of claims made, when you don't even know what they are. Why not do the smart thing and watch the movie before you publicly attack its supporters?

If you threw in a few "What are you afraid of?"s into that, I'd almost be sure you're a Scientologist.

[Gibdozer]

(For the record, I've only even heard of Expelled among the movies mentioned in this thread)



For the record Expelled is the one movie I never mentioned or endorsed.


I haven't said a thing about that book/movie/whatever. I've been discussing the logical flaws in your arguments. I don't need to know anything about a subject to refute an argument if said argument is logically invalid or fallacious. You persist in attacking me rather than my arguments.

I simply endorsed a film, I did not formulate an argument. My only assertion was that movie is based on factual data, that the body of evidence supports the claims made within it. That position has not changed.

You said, "I don't need to know anything about a subject to refute an argument" I don't believe this to be true, but even if it were it wouldn't hurt to know what the hell your talking about.

The only thing I have attacked are your perpetual attempts to turn your ignorance into an asset. You cannot possibly formulate an intelligent opinion on the subject of this post (Zeitgeist) without viewing the film. Furthermore you are clearly being antagonistic, this is most apparent by your refusal to take part in the basic purpose of the OPs post, to watch the movie.

[Shattered_weasel]

For the record Expelled is the one movie I never mentioned or endorsed.



I simply endorsed a film, I did not formulate an argument. My only assertion was that movie is based on factual data, that the body of evidence supports the claims made within it. That position has not changed.

You said, "I don't need to know anything about a subject to refute an argument" I don't believe this to be true, but even if it were it wouldn't hurt to know what the hell your talking about.

The only thing I have attacked are your perpetual attempts to turn your ignorance into an asset. You cannot possibly formulate an intelligent opinion on the subject of this post (Zeitgeist) without viewing the film. Furthermore you are clearly being antagonistic, this is most apparent by your refusal to take part in the basic purpose of the OPs post, to watch the movie.

What...

[Gibdozer]

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine: The Crisis.

Deos enim religuos accepimus, Caesares dedimus. Enjoy your new religion.

"When you rise to see that the law of gravity is not merely physical, but spiritual also; that the laws that regulate mechanism and chemistry are spiritual as well as physical and mathematical, then you have attained to some perception of Wisdom."
- Andrew Jackson Davis: The Great Harmonia.

[SpikeOtacon]

"When you rise to see that the law of gravity is not merely physical, but spiritual also; that the laws that regulate mechanism and chemistry are spiritual as well as physical and mathematical, then you have attained to some illusion of Wisdom."
- Andrew Jackson Davis: The Great Harmonia.

Fixed.

[Sinue_v2]

"When you rise to see that the law of gravity is not merely physical, but spiritual also; that the laws that regulate mechanism and chemistry are spiritual as well as physical and mathematical, then you have attained to some perception of Wisdom."
- Andrew Jackson Davis: The Great Harmonia.

Andrew Davis? Couldn't find a good quote from Edgar Casey or Rasputin?

"The radical novelty of modern science lies precisely in the rejection of the belief, which is at the heart of all popular religion, that the forces which move the stars and atoms are contingent upon the preferences of the human heart." ~ Walter Lippmann

Check that against the progress modern science has made in contrast to the advancements in spirituality and metaphysics. Who makes technology, and who Apologetics? Especially in the last 60 years since the advent of the computer.

Further;

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus.

According to David Albert, one of the experts appearing on "What the Bleep do We Know";


I don't think it's quite right to say I was 'tricked' into appearing, but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.

I certainly do not subscribe to the 'Ramtha School on Enlightenment,' whatever that is!

"The great tragedy of Science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." ~ Thomas H. Huxley.


Again, I contend that What the Bleep do We Know is little more than religion wrapped in a disguise of Science more interested in selling a comfortable geocentric delusion of an anthropocentric universe than informing the viewer on the incredible weirdness of Quantum Physics. A view closer to the truth of the matter is found in Steve Grand's; Creation: Life and how to make it.


Think of something from your childhood. Something you remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all, you really were there at the time, weren’t you? How else would you remember it? But here is the bombshell: You weren’t there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place. Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Whatever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made. If that doesn’t make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, read it again until it does, because it is important.

We have more in common with a whirlpool, or the shifting dunes of the desert, than we do with all the angels in heaven. It's the patterns and activity from which we're created - not a spiritual force. We are little more than a continuation of a 3.5 billion year old chemical chain reaction, and when we die - the "I" that we cling to as our consciousness will evaporate as if it never existed. An emergent trend which collapses and dissipates as the bottom-up interactions from which it's constructed flickers and dies. And beyond that, I only exist in a present which flows into the past so quickly that I can never perceive it. It is here and gone before my senses can even pick up the stimuli, and long before my brain processes it. "I", therefore, am an echo of the immediate past. What we perceive as the present is little more than a roughly 3 minute span of vague memory. And even beyond that, "I" by and large am a compilation of mental processes operating in complete unconsciousness. Most of my "conscious" decisions were made 1 to 6 seconds before I was even aware I was making them. Therefore, my perception of "Free Will" is little more than an illusion, a useful mental construct for inferring predictions for proper social interaction and navigating the world I'm living in.

Free Will is about as real a phenomena to the universe as the color blue is.

That's an uncomfortable truth supported by evidence, to be accepted because of evidence, and only rejected in light of new evidence.

[Sinue_v2]

Oh, and Gib, you might find this interesting. The trio of directors for "What the Bleep do We Know" (Arntz, Vicente, and Chasse) are students of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. (http://www.ramtha.com/) A school on "Consciousness and Energy" which dabbles in (among other things) Quantum Mysticism to promote their religion. According to Wikipedia, JZ Knight supposedly channels the spirit of Ramtha to receive their teachings.


According to Ramtha, he was a Lemurian warrior who fought the Atlanteans over 35,000 years ago.[12] Ramtha speaks of leading an army over 2.5 million strong (more than twice the estimated world population at about 30,000 BC) for 63 years, and conquering three fourths of the known world (which was going through cataclysmic geological changes). According to Ramtha, he led the army for ten years until he was betrayed and almost killed.[13]

Ramtha says he spent the next seven years in isolation recovering and observing nature, the seasons, his army making homes and families, and many other things. He later mastered many skills, including foresight and out-of-body experiences, until he led his army to the Indus River while in his late fifties. Ramtha taught his soldiers everything he knew for 120 days, he bid them farewell, rose into the air and in a bright flash of light he ascended before them. He made a promise to his army that he would come back to teach them everything he had learnt.

Quantum Cafe Online Store @ Ramtha.com for J. Z. Knight (http://store.ramtha.com/Store/JZKNIGHT)

[Randomness]

Free Will is about as real a phenomena to the universe as the color blue is.


This... is going to horribly, horribly confuse people. On one hand, the color blue, defined as electromagnetic radiation of a specific range of wavelengths or a property of materials such that they reflect primarily these wavelengths of the total visible spectrum is absolutely real. The perception of blue, as our brain interprets this wavelength of light, that is something of reality and illusion. (Reality in that we perceive it, that it registers in the brain, illusion in that nothing in particular says we should correlate the perception of that wavelength with the concept of blue, besides that the correlation already occurs)

Off-topic:[spoiler-box]
My opinion of free will is that it's existence is neither provable nor disprovable. The latter is because disproving it would require knowledge of the future. Without knowing the state that will come to be as a result of the present, it's impossible to show it to be inevitable. For the same reason, you can't prove free will, because conclusive proof would involve a person acting in a manner contrary to the current future. It is conceivable that some observer may exist who could prove or disprove the existence of free will, but it would not be a human. (This of course, says nothing on the existence or non-existence of free will, only that it is, as far as I can tell, not something that can be determined empirically.)
Personally, I'm inclined to believe in free will, because the alternative seems illogical. At the same time, I'm at a lack for a scientific explanation of a mechanism by which free will would exist. As for its absence seeming illogical, I mostly mean that if free will does not exist, then it follows that I am myself an illusion, that my consciousness is a construct. Quoting Descartes, "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." I am convinced that I (my consciousness) exist in some form, because it is impossible (for me) to believe otherwise. (Ironically, this could be a lack of free will.)
Given that some conscious "I" exists... nope, not sure how to continue arguing this. Mostly, my reasoning is that I have no evidence that I do not have free will, and my experience suggests that I do. Not sure the best way to argue this though. [/spoiler-box]

[Sinue_v2]

illusion in that nothing in particular says we should correlate the perception of that wavelength with the concept of blue, besides that the correlation already occurs

I didn't mean to suggest that it didn't correlate to a very real phenomena. Only that the stimuli is represented mentally by the perception of color which isn't really there, though it is a representation of something which is. Color is in a lot of ways like the click of a geiger counter. Though it's more or less arbitrary though, and conditions such as synesthesia caused either by cognitive disorder or narcotics can change the perception of stimuli by automatically associating it with other sensory perceptions.

The existence of color as a representation of EM frequency within the visual spectrum is one of those things that it seem everybody knows, but often don't consider when they're moved by hue of a sunset, or looking out over the ocean. ... or when evaluating claims of OoBE/NDE wherein the supposed spirit/consciousness is independent of the sensory organs - yet still has full range of use of them. Dawkin's asked an interesting question at TED... "Do bats see in color?" Why not? Considering that blind people use their visual cortex to visualize tactile sensation, should it be surprising if bats use their visual processing to similarly "see" their environment using echo location rather than light waves? And if so... why not in color?

But back to the subject, my argument against free will is just an extension of this. We do make decisions about our interactions with our environments - but they are largely determined unconsciously and are inferred predictions based on memory. The prefrontal cortex is highly involved in forward oriented thinking, predictive modeling, and complex planning. (For example, delay of gratification) Humans have (IIRC) the largest proportion of pre-frontal cortex to frontal lobe, which can help explain why we are so much more talented at developing tools and have more complex social structures than other primates. It's like a super-charger, or co-processor, on our executive functions.

I'm of the persuasion that consciousness and free will is more or less the abstract operation of the executive functions of our mind - and our self awareness a means by which the forward planning/modeling functions and memory can be organized/prioritized to create a sort of feed-back loop of activity. However, this isn't indicative of free will in the traditional sense, because it's operation is still dependent upon lower-level interaction. Even if from nothing else, from at least the level of individual neural interaction. But from our perspective, the process seems like a seamless whole - the self-observing consciousness.

Cognitive Psychology and Neuroscience have pretty much dissected the soul and found that it's not so much a matter of a ghost in the machine, but that the machine and ghost are one in the same. If there's any part of us which survives past death, it seems, it's not a representative of who we are and as integral a part of our consciousness as the bacteria in our digestive tract.

Dan Dennet seems to suggest a similar view of things and has gone so far as to say the "Hard" question isn't unanswerable because of the logical impasse associated with it - but because it's inapplicable based on what we know from answering the Easy questions. And in any case, even if Free Will were substantiated positively - social psychology seems to suggest that our behaviors and perceptions are subject to the serendipity of the situation of the moment. For instance, as shown during the Milgram Experiment or Stanford Prison Experiment.

Heh... Milgram... That's another hard truth we don't like to admit. That no matter how adverse and sickening the thought of genocide is from our current perspective, statistically - in the proper environment - most of us (regardless of gender, creed, or race) would do our part in further perpetuating the horrors, rather than stand up against it. Free Will, even on social levels, is flimsy and unreliable.

[Gibdozer]

Again, I contend that What the Bleep do We Know is little more than religion wrapped in a disguise of Science more interested in selling a comfortable geocentric delusion



Well contrary to what you've implied about me, I do not base my spiritual views on a film/group of films. I'm not going to apologize for liking a movie, but I have never endorsed one as being gospel/holy or containing a method by which people should live their lives either.

[Sinue_v2]

Well contrary to what you've implied about me, I do not base my spiritual views on a film/group of films. I'm not going to apologize for liking a movie, but I have never endorsed one as being gospel/holy or containing a method by which people should live their lives either.

I'm not really concerned with your spiritual views. I'm just trying to point out that a slick presentation can infer a credibility which may or may not be deserved - and that argument from authority is pointless unless the authority can be validated by independent means. What the Bleep Do We Know and Zeitgeist are essentially mirror images of each other in that they are attempting to uproot a previously held worldview in favor of a new one - but that rather than honesty and evidence, they use facts as distractions to camouflage their deception. One of them uses subterfuge to recruit for an actual religious movement, while the other recruits for a "religion" in a broader Anthropological sense.

I have no problems with them as entertainment pieces, but they should be labeled as such. Instead, they're passed off as factual documentaries and exposes - and when taken as truth can not only hamstring real science and education efforts, but can cause unnecessary mental distress. Washuguy said he was; "so angry i was almost to the point of tears". That's just vile IMO. And when you make insinuations of ignorance to those who take a more critical and dismissive stance towards the films without backing up your position - can you see why it gets under people's skin?

Barring the possibility you're just trolling for responses (conspiracy sites & creationists have borked my Troll detectors), aren't you at least a slight bit angry and sickened that WtBDWK is little more than a new-age cult recruitment tool that is purposefully lying to you? Even if you agree with a few of their statements and have picked some good bits out - that's awfully fucking presumptuous to sell itself to you as a means of revealing the truth, while from the outset being nothing more than a means by which to blindside and indoctrinate you.

And that's why I say: Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus. Errors and mistakes are one thing, but once they get too numerous or are shown to be purposeful for the intent of misdirection - then that throws the credibility of the entire argument into doubt. The shit isn't worth digging through for the few nuggets you can obtain elsewhere.

Or as Alex Jones referred to David Icke's reptilian craziness; "Even if the punch is good, nobody is going to drink it if there's a big turd floating in the middle of the bowl." ... Although AJ is the last one to criticize IMO, as he's well known to leave more than a few floaters himself.

[Gibdozer]

We have more in common with a whirlpool, or the shifting dunes of the desert, than we do with all the angels in heaven. It's the patterns and activity from which we're created - not a spiritual force. We are little more than a continuation of a 3.5 billion year old chemical chain reaction, and when we die - the "I" that we cling to as our consciousness will evaporate as if it never existed. An emergent trend which collapses and dissipates as the bottom-up interactions from which it's constructed flickers and dies. And beyond that, I only exist in a present which flows into the past so quickly that I can never perceive it. It is here and gone before my senses can even pick up the stimuli, and long before my brain processes it. "I", therefore, am an echo of the immediate past. What we perceive as the present is little more than a roughly 3 minute span of vague memory. And even beyond that, "I" by and large am a compilation of mental processes operating in complete unconsciousness. Most of my "conscious" decisions were made 1 to 6 seconds before I was even aware I was making them. Therefore, my perception of "Free Will" is little more than an illusion, a useful mental construct for inferring predictions for proper social interaction and navigating the world I'm living in.



Everything is energy and motion. All that is began and remains a part of the whole, disparity exist only in the finite mind. Energy when condensed to a slow vibration forms all matter in the universe the changes in which constitute the measure that we call time. Time itself is the great misconception, linear progression is an illusion there is only room in the universe for one moment under the infinite observation of consciousness.

When I speak of consciousness I do not mean the self, or the individual identities of men, but the actual pattern of direction and growth that perpetuates itself throughout life as we know it. The scientific examination of this phenomenon called life will inevitably produce incontrovertible proof of Gods existence. There can be no spiritual truth that is incompatible or inconsistent with scientific truth or philosophic discovery, and no great scientific discovery which will not eventually trace back to the prime creator of the universe whoever/whatever that may be.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking to the stars"- Oscar Wilde

[Randomness]

Everything is energy and motion. All that is began and remains a part of the whole, disparity exist only in the finite mind. Energy when condensed to a slow vibration forms all matter in the universe the changes in which constitute the measure that we call time. Time itself is the great misconception, linear progression is an illusion there is only room in the universe for one moment under the infinite observation of consciousness.


Time is not a misconception. Motion cannot exist without it. Force cannot exist without it. CHANGE cannot exist without time.

Further, matter is not "energy condensed to a slow vibration". Energy is vague. You have kinetic energy, which is a measure of motion. Potential energy (generally referring to gravitational potential) is energy stored by moving an object from a center of mass. Heat energy is vibration. Electricity is a flow of particles.

Energy is anything that can do work. And quite a bit of what can do work is 100% matter.

Linear progression... see time.

Your last bit, about room in the universe, is horribly misstated. Its got nothing to do with room. The universe as we understand it is in perpetual change. At any given instant it exists in one (macro) state. That's the same as saying that at any given instant, I am at one particular location on Earth. Its meaningless.