But it's not a theory. It's their hypothesis. Or postulation. Or opinion. They have to prove that they actually aquire some knowledge from reading tea leaves, and are not just making stuff up, for it to be a theory. Unless you mean colloquial "theory," which if that is the case, then we should switch to saying "the substantiated fact of collecting knowledge through science" vs "the theory of reading tea leaves." Personally I'd rather use scientific "theory" to be coonsistent.


It's weird, because learning through science is an action, not a phenomenon. One that has immediate results. Results that have been done and confirmed over and over millions of times. And most importantly, because "the scientific method is the theory of knowledge" to me sounds like saying "a painting a sheet of paper red is the theory of applying red paint to paper." It's not so much a theory as it's just what it actually is.

And how can you make a statement such as that people always dream?  Doesn't sound very scientific.

Comas do not prove we are unconscious robot beings.

When computers learn to have a sense of humor amongst other feelings, that's when I'll believe consciousness is a phenomenon caused by neural networks, not the other way around.

And is that the only stage of sleep?  No?  Oh, maybe dank does know something.

I'm not even arguing against the concept of people dreaming all the time.  I'm just pointing out that Rassah debases first hand experience as evidence when he makes a statement that could only be proven by empirical data.

I had enough childish insults for a night.  I know everything and that's why I know you're a shill.  So goodbye.

You are a paid internet shill or a very hateful person.  I don't think anybody actually hates dank that much to attack him consistently like you do.  Even the people that were going to stick a bullet in my head were doing so for fear of being killed or money.  And so I predict you are in a similar situation where you lack any real life skills so you work for the government as an internet shill.

And we will all find the truth when we die.

Goodnight vod, you are dead to me.  You'll get my love when you show me you have some in you.

and WHOOPS!  You said you loved me unconditionally.  I guess that was another lie?

So I guess I'm not dead to you?  Why would you lie about that?  What perverse pleasure does it give you?

If I am dead to you, why do you keep replying to my posts?   

So then you should say "Vod, you need some light".  Don't say "Vod, you are dead to me" because that makes you a liar.

So when you are addressing someone, you are only addressing a part of them?

The other parts are OK to you, and should ignore your rants?  Or are you attacking all parts at once?

Are you purposely trying to be confusing, like a person lying would be?