More of Leonid's lies

NickOtani's picture
Submitted by NickOtani on Tue, 2007-12-25 07:21

(Leonid)The simple meaning of this statement is that Nick rejects principles.Not just wrong or irrational principles but principles as such.He exibits extreme case of relativism.

Leonid seems to have forgotten that I wrote a post called The Bigot at the Bar, which contains a logical refutation of relativism. In many of my other posts, to include the Alice series, I endorse natural rights and the negative golden rule, metaphysical and ethical principles.

(Leonid)For him to be independent means to be independent from reality.His reality has no identity, and no knowledge is possible to him,only probabilities.

“Do you think reality is logical?” Dr. K asked.

“The pragmatist is probably more committed to that proposition than the Objectivist.” said the Mad Hatter. “For Rand, the assertion that reality is logical is not a conclusion from experience but, rather, a self-evident precondition for experience itself. For the pragmatist, on the other hand, man has no certain awareness that the world is logical until the world inexorably impresses this fact upon him through behavior. In this sense, the pragmatist sees man’s commitment to logic as the outgrowth of actual encounters with a world which is objectively logical. For Rand, man is logical by edict, as a condition for encountering the world in the first place.”

(Leonid)So reason and logic become equal to religion ( see his thread "Is logic new God"),Roosvelt is equal to Hitler since both,according to Nick, used excessive force during WW2,Iranian islamofascists are reasonable guys and can be persuaded but objectivists are dogmatic fanatic blood-thirsty ayatollas.(see his thread on Islam).

Yes, please see these threads. No place do I say Roosevelt is equal to Hitler. No place do I say Islamofascists are reasonable guys. I do distinguish between Islamofascists and anybody who happens to be Muslim. Not all Muslims are terrorists. No place do I say objectivists are dogmatic fanatic blood-thirsty aytollas. See for yourself how Leonid lies.

Bis bald,

Nick


( categories: )

Maybe you could answer the

Lance's picture

Maybe you could answer the question below for me, as the objectivists [Lance] seem to shy away from it.

Do Objectivists believe man originated from MUD??

Puzzled

Huh?

NickOtani's picture

I presume you'll paste these into the perverse humour section Nick?

The dog's still running in circles but what a nice pairing you two make.

I'm not sure how to take your post, gregster. Are you insulting me? Why are Kevin and I a nice pairing? Am I still running in cicles? I guess I don't see the humour.

bis bald,

Nick

Man from Primordial Ooz

NickOtani's picture

I don't know how life origionally came to be. I assume certain elements came together at just the right time under just the right conditions, and then evolution started happening. I know there are lots of holes in this theory, but it seems more plausible to me than the supernatural explanations I get from religions.

I have no problem thinking that my great, great, great, and continue several times grandfather was an ape, which evolved from some other life form over several millions of years. I expect some mutations happened at some point and these apes became able to volitionally manipulate symbols in structured forms. This facilitated communication among them and allowed them to communicate with themselves, think conceptually. The conceptual frames into which symbols could be substituted allowed for origional thoughts, which allowed for creativity and free-will. This made these animals different in kind, not just degree, from other life forms.

It's amazing that human consciousness can be explained so easily, in just a paragraph, not a long boring essay with lots of big words.

bis bald,

Nick

Fucking Hell

gregster's picture

I presume you'll paste these into the perverse humour section Nick?

The dog's still running in circles but what a nice pairing you two make.

Man From Mud

KevinOwen's picture

Hi Nick,

Maybe you could answer the question below for me, as the objectivists [Lance] seem to shy away from it.

Do Objectivists believe man originated from MUD??

MAN FROM MUD
http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.n...
But about this "Man from Mud" theory, where did it come from? What great Einstein of biology burped it up?

Why, no great Einstein of biology or psychology or psychiatry ever had any part in the origin of the "Man from Mud theory.

Far from having come from "science" the "Man from Mud" theory was taken by these scientists from a body of religious demonology and foisted off on man as "modern thought," what you'd expect from fakes.

What religious demonology? Why the Egyptian, of course. In the Larousse

Encyclopaedia of Mythology, the standard work, we find in column 4 page 11

under "Divinities attached to the ennead of Heliopolis and the family of Osiris" the following paragraph:

"Nun (or Nu) is chaos, the primordial ocean in which before the creation lay the germs of all things and all beings."

These "scientific" pots who are calling everyone fakes, might have done a bit better than to try to foist off on the world mere religious superstition as the scientific basis on which all their whole "science" is laid. Man from mud?

It would need to defy all known laws of physics"

KevinOwen's picture

Permission Granted. Cheers.

This was it.

NickOtani's picture

May I have your permission to copy and paste this debate on my own message board?

Nick

Thanks for your comments

KevinOwen's picture

The answers to most questions about soul, mind etc, lie in the mind, but one must have the technology or science of the mind to be able to access it.

Thanks for putting forward your ideas and those [scientists etc] that you think have credibility in your realm but as they only give thoughts and theories and not a technology on how to fix the mind they have very limited workability.

As I practice Psychosomatic Healing, I need more than ideas of what might be to help people. I need an exact science that works every single time I apply it to a specific condition etc. Cheers

Psychotherapy, not knowing about pain storage and its effects discovered long ago that one could rid a patient of one illness only to have another pop up -and psychotherapy became a defeatist school because it could do nothing permanent for the abberrated or the ill even when it could do a little something to relieve it. Hence, all efforts to make men vital and well became suspect because the reason they were inefficient and ill had not been discovered and proven.
With Dianetics it became possible to eradicate aberration and illness because it became possible to nullify or eradicate the pain from the pain-storage banks of the body without applying further pain as in surgery
http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.n...

My answers and final rebuttal

NickOtani's picture

I’m not sure what would hold my awareness on course."
Which course is that? Where do you think you go?

I am thinking of thinking as a process, like a river flowing, and a river flows through banks like thoughts flow though mechanisms in the brain. When a person dies, those mechanisms deteriorate just as the banks of a river break down. I cease to exist just as a river loses its form, just as an electrical device, a light bulb or television or computer, loses its ability to function when the circuits melt down.

"My brain and the mechanisms in it are like the banks of a river through which my sensations and thoughts flow."
Do they flow through to the Mind or do they stop in the brain?

They flow through my brain and manifest themselves as sentences and paragraphs coming from me.

"Yes, I can imagine being a ghost like those we see on television and in movies, but when I think about it, I realize how much I depend on my body for the awareness I have. Without the senses of my body, I’m not sure how I can be aware."
When the body dies you can't depend on that body, what you going to do then or is that the end for you?

Yes, that is the end of me. I exist then only in the minds of others who think of me and in the products I leave behind, hopefully books which perpetuate my thoughts and keep improving the world.

"And, out of body experiences, although reported by patients, have not been confirmed in a laboratory."
Does that suggest the problem or knowledge of it lies outside of the physical scientist? Are there things he can't understand based on current day physics?

Yes, there are things we do not yet know. This does not mean the answer is somewhere other than in areas which can someday be confirmed by scientific method.

"No credible researcher, in any credible journal, has ever reported such a experiment being successful and repeatable."
Do you mean credible physical scientist?

I mean any scientist who uses scientific method. No credible researcher, in any credible journal, has ever reported such an experiment being successful and repeatable.

"I said that if the self goes on forever, there can be no good or evil."
The body does die which ends that existence. If one returns does he block out [amenesia] the earlier existense and start the learning process over again?

You are assuming something I don’t, that one returns.

I am not required here to prove that the spirit is not immortal, only that your case for the immortality of the spirit is not proved. That is my contention. However, I do think Occam’s razor sides with me, that it is much more plausible that we do die than that we are spirits which go on forever after the body dies. And, I think this is good. It means we have a certain period of time to make our mark. We have that which promotes and protects our flourishing survival and that which threatens and destroys it, that which is good and that which is evil. If we go on forever, we lose this basis for morality and for any immediacy about making our lives matter.

This has been my response to your questions and my final rebuttal. I await your final rebuttal, and that will be the end of this rather formal debate. We can allow our readers to take from us what they wish.

Bis bald,

Nick

"I’m not sure what would hold my awareness on course."

KevinOwen's picture

"I’m not sure what would hold my awareness on course."

Which course is that? Where do you think you go?

"My brain and the mechanisms in it are like the banks of a river through which my sensations and thoughts flow."

Do they flow through to the Mind or do they stop in the brain?

"Yes, I can imagine being a ghost like those we see on television and in movies, but when I think about it, I realize how much I depend on my body for the awareness I have. Without the senses of my body, I’m not sure how I can be aware."

When the body dies you can't depend on that body, what you going to do then or is that the end for you?

"And, out of body experiences, although reported by patients, have not been confirmed in a laboratory."

Does that suggest the problem or knowledge of it lies outside of the physical scientist? Are there things he can't understand based on current day physics?

"No credible researcher, in any credible journal, has ever reported such a experiment being successful and repeatable."

Do you mean credible physical scientist?

"I said that if the self goes on forever, there can be no good or evil."

The body does die which ends that existence. If one returns does he block out [amenesia] the earlier existense and start the learning process over again

Thanks for looking at my answers from your point of veiw and you make some good points. I've put some questions forward without puting any further answers. Cheers

My statement

NickOtani's picture

You say, Kevin, that I am aware of my position and would also be aware of it if I were to move outside my body, but I’m not sure what would hold my awareness on course. My brain and the mechanisms in it are like the banks of a river through which my sensations and thoughts flow. Without those banks, the river ceases to have any form. Yes, I can imagine being a ghost like those we see on television and in movies, but when I think about it, I realize how much I depend on my body for the awareness I have. Without the senses of my body, I’m not sure how I can be aware. And, out of body experiences, although reported by patients, have not been confirmed in a laboratory. Carl Sagan once spoke of a simple test which might confirm this phenomena. Simply write something on a piece of paper and place the paper on top of a cabinet somewhere where the patient would not be able to read it without having an out of body experience. No credible researcher, in any credible journal, has ever reported such a experiment being successful and repeatable.

You speak of spirit and soul being present time thought, or that which thinks, and mind being past thought, or memory. I think of conceptual thought as sentences in our conceptual language. Our brains and bodies allow us to make symbols which represent objects and ideas, and we have and ability which other animals don’t have, an ability to volitionally manipulate those symbols in a structured form. We interchange these symbols in substitution frames of subject and predicate which expand the reference capacity of our symbols, our words and morphemes, and also allow us the ability to create meaningful thoughts never before experienced. This is Chomsky’s creativity principle, and I think it is the key to human freedom, free-will. Yes, we can make pictures in our heads of things not immediately in our environment, but we do this with language, by communicating with ourselves.

You say that the physical scientist measures activity in the brain but not what causes it. This assumes infinite regress of the causal chain or a mystical answer to it. However, if humans have an ability to create thoughts never before experienced, as with Chomsky’s creativity principle, then humans can be first causes, cause something without being caused to cause it. There is no need for a mystical explanation.

You say, in answer to my question about morality, that the soul is basically good but can be warped the individual’s mind or an aberration in it. I don’t think this gets to the point of my question. I said that if the self goes on forever, there can be no good or evil. An indestructible robot is amoral, as Rand said in her "Objectivist Ethics." Nothing can be for it or against it. Nothing, from a consequentialist point of view, can be good or bad for it. Good and evil seems to require an alternative like life and death.

This has been my statement on the answers you provided to my questions. I now submit myself to questions from you and then we can enter into the rebuttal or final summary phase.

Bis bald,

Nick

"It would need to defy all known laws of physics"

KevinOwen's picture

1. Yet, occupying a location is a property of physical things. We don't think of intangible things, like love or democracy, as occupying a physical space. They have no substance. Are you saying the soul has substance? Can it also be measured? Does it have dimensions? Can it be held in a hand? How can one tell when the soul has left the body? Has the body been shown to weigh less immediatly after the point of death? Can you cite the study which shows this?

Kevin Wrote
Lets say it is a thing but not describale in current physical terms. I'm sure you are aware of your position at the moment. If you were to move outside the body as many do, you would also be aware of your position.

2. Hegel treats mind, spirit, and soul as the same thing, but you are treating the soul and mind as two different things. Can you elaborate? How is the soul different from the mind? You identify soul as personality, but is it the soul which interacts with the body or the mind? Which one is the spirit?

Kevin Wrote
Spirit and soul are the same thing. You could say soul or spirit is present time thought [that which thinks]. Mind is past thought or memory. To explain it in simple terms, if one thinks of the car he owned or owns he will visualize the car and all perceptions associated with it. He/she [soul] can move that picture or recording in the mind around to different parts of the car. Whats looking at and controlling the mind [memory] is the soul [you]. The soul also uses the mind to interact, control and run the body.

The physical scientist measures activity in the brain when thinking occurs. He assumes that this activity [electrical flows] in the brain is thinking but is not aware that thought occured before the activty and was the cause of it.

This is shown when the physical scientist traces the activity [electrical flow] back to the neuron where the electrical flows seem to originate but can't work out how that single nueron produces the electrical flow. Thats where his training ends and we move into the fields of Dianetics [dealing with the mind] and Scientology [dealing with the soul]

3. Descartes viewed the self as a soul or mind which happens to have a body, yet this is what started the big soul/body dichotomy or mind/body dichotomy that philosophers dealt with in the enlightenment period of history. How does L. Ron Hubbard deal with this problem, or does he?

Kevin Wrote
In the early stages of research Hubbard was concentrating only on the mind [memory] and as he learnt more and keep running into past life incidents, he had to ask the question, what was looking at and controling the mind. That was a whole new line research [some 40yrs] which was labeled as Scientology

4. If the spirit does leave the body and has no physical parts, how does it hear, see, taste, touch, smell, and think? What gives value to its existence? What does it think about and with what mechanisms?

Kevin Wrote
The soul leaves the body and takes the mind with them. The mind has different properties [some weight] than the soul and that reduction in weight is what the physical scientist measures when the soul leaves the body.
With the physical body, the soul, using the mind can receive the many percetions you describe. Without the body, you [soul] can't operate in the physical realm. I'll elaborate on the thinking part later as you may still assume that the brain [main part of the nervous system] is what thinks for you?

5. And, if the self goes on forever, is immortal, what determines what is good or bad for it? What promotes and protects it and what threatens and destroys it? Doesn't immortality destroy the basis for morality, unless you tie it into everlasting life in heaven or hell or a reincarnated life in a greater or lesser caste, more unsupportable construction built on the unsupportable construction of immortality?

Kevin Wrote
Lets say man [soul] is basically good but that basic goodness can be warped by the individual's mind or the abberration in it. Without a science of the mind to handle that abberation he stumbles on.

I look forward to answers to these questions and will make a statement on which you can ask me questions.

I appreaciate your willingness to debate with me. Let's show these Objectivists it can be done.

Kevin Wrote
Thats okay. I wouldn't worry to much about showing the objectivists it can be done. If we have a good debate, that would make it worth while. Cheers

My questions

NickOtani's picture

The soul [personality] occupies the body, [location] as to leave the body one must have occupied it. This would suggest that two things can occupy the same same [Soul and Body]. The non physical, [soul] occupying the physical. Many people say you have a soul, which is incorrect, you are a soul with a mind, occupying a physical body.

1. Yet, occupying a location is a property of physical things. We don't think of intangible things, like love or democracy, as occupying a physical space. They have no substance. Are you saying the soul has substance? Can it also be measured? Does it have dimensions? Can it be held in a hand? How can one tell when the soul has left the body? Has the body been shown to weigh less immediatly after the point of death? Can you cite the study which shows this?

2. Hegel treats mind, spirit, and soul as the same thing, but you are treating the soul and mind as two different things. Can you elaborate? How is the soul different from the mind? You identify soul as personality, but is it the soul which interacts with the body or the mind? Which one is the spirit?

3. Descartes viewed the self as a soul or mind which happens to have a body, yet this is what started the big soul/body dichotomy or mind/body dichotomy that philosophers dealt with in the enlightenment period of history. How does L. Ron Hubbard deal with this problem, or does he?

4. If the spirit does leave the body and has no physical parts, how does it hear, see, taste, touch, smell, and think? What gives value to its existence? What does it think about and with what mechanisms?

5. And, if the self goes on forever, is immortal, what determines what is good or bad for it? What promotes and protects it and what threatens and destroys it? Doesn't immortality destroy the basis for morality, unless you tie it into everlasting life in heaven or hell or a reincarnated life in a greater or lesser caste, more unsupportable construction built on the unsupportable construction of immortality?

I look forward to answers to these questions and will make a statement on which you can ask me questions.

I appreaciate your willingness to debate with me. Let's show these Objectivists it can be done.

bis bald,

Nick

I'm not going to be a convert, Kevin.

KevinOwen's picture

Hi Nick, I'm not trying to convert you, but I have knowledge and ideas that may be of interest to you. If they interest you, well good, if they don't well thats good to. I'm like you I like to challenge others ideas, with some decent debate, but most objectivists, the ones I've come across, seem to go off the handle and get into name calling.
You would think someone would pull them up on those psychiatric behaviors. Even the local Psychiatrist [Loenid]seems to have a similar disorder.

I read your post on Life After Death. You seem to have more questions than answers. Your vast knowledge seems to come from studying others material [excluding the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology] and not from any research you've accomplished yourself. The second to last paragraph does show some interest in the subject [lots of questions], but not much understanding about it.

To resolve some of those questions, one would have to be trained in Mathematics, Engineering, and Nuclear Physics, just for starters as L.Ron Hubbard was.

I've posted your second to last chapter below, so we can refer to it. I hope you don't mind? If you ask questions about what you've written in that chapter, I'll try to answer them as best I can. [Nick Wrote: "It would need to defy all known laws of physics"].

Does it have location?
The soul [personality] occupies the body, [location] as to leave the body one must have occupied it. This would suggest that two things can occupy the same same [Soul and Body]. The non physical, [soul] occupying the physical. Many people say you have a soul, which is incorrect, you are a soul with a mind, occupying a physical body.

Keep the questions short and sweet if you can. Thanks. Cheers

What do you Athesists, Brain Worshippers, Flat Earthers Scientology Bashers, think about that? Cheers

Nick Wrote
It would be quite something else, however, to imagine being outside any body. We usually think of the body as a frame of reference. Without any body at all, we could not have any bodily sensations. We could not see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. This would eliminate several things about which we think. Would we still be able to contemplate certain abstract mathematical concepts, or are all concepts abstracted from a reality with which we must have empirical contact? Even if we can have a-priori thoughts, the cognitivists say that all thinking is tied to electrical and chemical processes in the brain. Without a body, what would hold the flow of our thoughts on course? If thinking is an ability of the body, this ability must die when the body dies. It is inconceivable that an ability can exist independent of the thing of which it is an ability. If thinking is something else; if it is a thing, then can it be measured? Does it have location? If it has no substance; if it is like a concept, then how can it interact with the body? It would need to defy all known laws of physics. If there is life after death, then these are some of the many questions which must be answered.

I'm not going to be a convert, Kevin.

NickOtani's picture

Kevin, I am suspicious of religions/philosophies which are tied to authoritative and charismatic leaders. Many of them are cults set up by someone trying to make money off of gullible people. I’ve spent over thirty years learning about Objectivism, and I am here primarily to criticize it. However, I am being treated about the same as I would be treated on a Scientology board, if they allow me there very long at all, and so are you. I hear they are generally very abusive to critics.

If you are an exception to the rule and believe in free speech and civility, even to those who disagree with you, I can debate you on the topic of the existence of an immortal spirit. I don’t believe in this. I think suggestions can be transmitted through hypnosis which will cause someone to believe he or she is recalling a prior life, or even some event earlier in his or her present life, but these are not reliable. Many a parent has been falsely accused of abuse by adult children who claimed memories which were not true. Elaborate scenarios have been described which existed only in people’s minds. So, I think this recollection of prior lives has been debunked.

I have written on life after death in several places on the internet. Here is one:

http://www.geocities.com/theat...

And, in the interest of a balanced view, against your L. Ron Hubbard link, I think this might be an interesting site:

http://www.xenu.net/

bis bald,

Nick

Still, you do have interesting threads,

KevinOwen's picture

"You will get lots of flack on this board for being into Scientology. I'm sure you know that. Still, you do have interesting threads, and you are fairly reasonable. You don't deserve pot shots and to be called names."

Hi Nick. Thanks for the kind words. I am well weathered and able to handle the insane comments of a few Scientology Bashers [Leonid, Landon, Scott, Gregster, and William ] Their prose is all the same as they are birds of a feather.

Old Firemans Saying. "When your on the way to the fire, don't worry about the yapping dogs"

The peice below gives one an idea of the grounding L.Ron Hubbard had when researching the field of the mind, and developing the two philosophies of Dianetics and Scientology. Cheers.

With his return to the United States in 1929, Mr. Hubbard enrolled in George Washington University where he studied engineering, mathematics and nuclear physics—all disciplines that would serve him well through later philosophic inquiry: point of fact, L. Ron Hubbard was the first to rigorously employ Western scientific methods to the study of spiritual matters. Yet beyond a basic methodology, university offered nothing. Indeed, as he later admitted, “It was very obvious that I was dealing with and living in a culture which knew less about the mind than the lowest primitive tribe I had ever come in contact with,” and, “knowing also that people in the East were not able to reach as deeply and predictably into the riddles of the mind, as I had been led to expect, I knew I would have to do a lot of research.”
http://www.lronhubbard.org/pro...

Gee, Leonid is so clever!

NickOtani's picture

"Nick and Kevin-birds of feather fly together"

And, Leonid flys with little minds.

This is such elevated, mature discourse, isn't it?

bis bald,

Nick

Bad case of progressive relativism

Leonid's picture

Leonid

Nick: "WSS recently spoofed something about Scientology by saying L. Ron Hubbard "thought about it really hard." However, if we look at how Ayn Rand came up with some of her ideas, it's not much different."

Nick and Kevin-birds of feather fly together

Hi Kevin!

NickOtani's picture

You will get lots of flack on this board for being into Scientology. I'm sure you know that. Still, you do have interesting threads, and you are fairly reasonable. You don't deserve pot shots and to be called names.

Seems like a lot of people on this board like to make one line witty putdowns. They are after a quick reaction, and then they don't want to deal with it anymore. Consider the guy who told me that debating on the internet is like running in the special olympics; even if you win, you are still retarded. That will get a laugh from those who enjoy irreverent humor. If we think about it, though, not debating on the internet is really dumb. We need to test ideas and find their weaknesses, not accept them unchallenged. This kind of reasonableness, however, is not funny.

WSS recently spoofed something about Scientology by saying L. Ron Hubbard "thought about it really hard." However, if we look at how Ayn Rand came up with some of her ideas, it's not much different. She claims her axiomatic concepts, to include causation, are self-evident and true regardless of any particular context. Yet, she also says knowledge is contextual. And, the contradictions go on and on.

Anyhow, I thank you for empathizing with me. I empathize with you also. Hang in there. We don't need to be controlled by the pixel patterns of little minds.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid and Scotts Lies.

KevinOwen's picture

Hey Nick, good title. It should of been Leonid and Scotts Lies. They seem to work as a team, trying to destroy any logical argument. Maybe they are the same person with a bit of a schizophenia problem? See the comments below, I have to put up with from that Scott character [if thats his real name]. I'm sure the site rules don't allow for that kind of abuse.

Submitted by atlascott on Tue, 2007-12-18 23:02.
"4. People pass it along to others.
5. It grows."

So does herpes, you lunatic.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Not curious anymore

NickOtani's picture

We can understand you best, Scott, by taking the opposite of whatever you say. I am not evasive and dishonest. I may be insulting to those who insult me first, like you. And, Leonid is definitely not logical and honest, neither are you.

Merry Christmas,

Nick

Just Curious

atlascott's picture

Leonid:

Why are you even responding to this guy? He is evasive, insulting and dishonest. You are logical and honest. Where is this getting you?

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I stand by that statement

NickOtani's picture

Murder, by definition, is unjustified killing. If it is committed by Hitler or Roosevelt, it is still unjustified. Roosevelt authorized the dropping of an atomic bomb on innocent people. If they would have been your family members, I doubt you would have thought it justified. This is not, however, relativism. Relativism would be putting Hitler and Gandhi in the same boat because evil is relative. That's not my position.

bis bald,

Nick

Just one example from Islam thread

Leonid's picture

Leonid
You said " This doesn't mean there were not excesses on the other side too" How dare you to compare Hitler's actions with those of Allied forces?
Nick
I dare quite easily. Injustice on one side does not justify injustice on the other, even if the injustices are not equal. If someone murders several innocent people in your family, it doesn't mean you are morally allowed to murder a few innocent people from their family. Wrong is wrong.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.