 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)dariusgriffin big ...and 207 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614119 Today 2 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah... hehe... it's been years since I read that important book. Don't remember much from it. Seems like a lot of people on this board likes it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mappa- ok, i will indulge you. you have lobotomized or killed plaidzebra. you will have damaged my physical receiver and its interface, and i will no longer be able to process interactions with my physical environment, and possibly i will no longer be able to control the functions of my body and organ systems will fail and die. i will, however, still be conscious, and if i am completely unable to use the interface again then i will take my thread elsewhere. i may, depending, be able to contact and communicate with some individuals who are still focused on a physical interface. those who are resolute in their belief that i am gone forever will not likely hear my voice. you are convinced that the function of the brain is the sum of consciousness. you think that you are being open minded and rational, but you are bringing with you crippling assumptions to the discussion. if you don't understand the need for parable in some instances, then you need to become better acquainted with your ignorance. we are, all of us, profoundly ignorant. i'm not saying that we should feel guilty about this, or conclude that we are worthless or useless. but in fact, in the buddhist not nihilist sense, we know nothing. if you ask, then why talk about anything, consider again the parable. consider that we are not statically locked in to one time or place. we are changing and growing, and although reality is far more intricate and subtle than we can easily perceive, part of our purpose is our investigation and inquiry. to know ourselves, and to know god. why are some xltronic users here reading this, and some are running screaming? : ) every life is unique, every death is unique, every thread is unique. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Could i please have a christian opinion on the dinosaurs ? i beleve man has lost the great power of the mind and its powerfull control of the body. i beleve the cure for cancer is within our selfs but life as it is has clouded the mind with bullshit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah you got that right! The cancer-industry is greedy as fuck, and all methods that doesn't involve getting more FUNDS (they get HUGE funds for resarch n stuff) are ignored. Many people miss the fact that the human body can heal itself, if taken care of correctly. I won't start again here, but just as all other animals we are meant to eat RAW FOODs only. Raw foodism is not just a diet... it'll improve your life in every possible way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
life never clouds anything... society does though. young people adapt and believe. Question everything. Especially the things you take for granted. Most people don't know how important that is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there was a program on tv about a boy who got cancer at an early age and all he ever new was the inside of a hospital . Every day he had this fight with cancer in his mind he visualised the cancer in his head and used his brain to take on the enemy he would think of his white blood cells as a fleet of ships and send them to attack. the doctors gave him no chance to live but he cured himself and is still alive today and no doctor can explain it! THE MIND IS MORE POWERFULL THAN YOU THINK. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
young people = children ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
THE MIND IS MORE POWERFULL THAN YOU THINK. you got that right. Nobody can realize how powerful really... that boy, quite a story. Sounds weird, but interesting. you got any other info on it, like a URL or something? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No sorry key secret i have no links :( but i am sure there must be related stuff on the web. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hm... you care to look for it, for me? I don't even have the boys name... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have tried to relate this idea to what i see in everyday life. A woman in my street had a dissabled baby he has the mind of a 6 year old and he is now 28 all her life was devoted to him 24/7 she was a pure christian who never smoked or drinked she has not long died of cancer ,and i beleve that she had lost the will to live and because her mind was weakend by this she was a sitting duck for cancer she didnt put up a fight in her mind she wanted to go i think............:( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well... atelast I can relate it to the power of will. Feeling a willing to certain things is important. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
damn... that's not what I meant. but the having a will to do things is important, if you have will - you feel happy... if you loose it - well... you don't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes the "will" to live is important. My mums side of the family has nearly all died of cancer apart from my great gran who smoked all her life and died at 86 of natural causes! the intresting thing is most of the others that died had mental health problems manic depression etc . my grandad died of cancer of the bowl it took him over 5 years to die and when he did my nan died 2 years later of cancer of the bowl exactly the same . then my mums brother died of cancer of the spine at 46 he was also treated for manic depression. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is the first time i have really talked about this to anyone hope you dont mind me unloading this on you . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my mother has looked after all the people i have mentioned and her mental health has taken a beating she also had to care for my brother who has an inoprable brain tumor since he was 7 . he has had the full amount of radio therepy that any body can have in a life time ,he is ok now , but if it ever starts to grow again ........well....... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have seen a life time of shit and want to try and make sence of it . and all signs point to the mind . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
some thoughts: those who dismiss the existence of god for merely having been exposed to the christian interpretation of it as a divine being external to and superior than us, as omnipotent, omniscient, etc. have much to ponder over and acquaint themselves with in as far as the nature of god is concerned. even if one assumes the strictly scientific viewpoint that the universe, as well as all it contains, is governed by fundamental physical laws, it is still not a viewpoint which entirely negates god's existence. allow me to explain: god can be perceived not as an entity external to us, but rather as something singular (ie. the universe as a whole) which is comprised of all of the elements contained within it (this includes us). thus, just as nature is devoid of morality and judgement, it can be said that nature is in essence god. and so, god is only a reflection of the sum of its constituent parts. it does not govern us, but rather, we govern it, since we are by no means external to nature in any way. even via the explanation offered to us by science, upon death, our bodies decay and begin to turn into the individual elements which initially came together to form our flesh (atoms, various chemical elements, cells, etc.) - even though we may no longer have consciousness upon death, something of us survives and is eventually reconstituted into another form (even if it's something as basic as our decaying bodies providing nutrition to the plants, trees, etc.) - life is an infite cycle of death and rebirth, even if only seen from a strictly scientific perspective. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
warpphex: i am a depressive myself, and just as much as society clouds the way we come to interpret life, so does depression - but on the other hand, having survived through the worst of it, and having been as near to suicidal as possible without actually attempting it - i must say that it has given me a very valuable perspective on what is to be cherished in life, and what is to be disregarded as hampering our existence. if there is any explanation for suffering, it is that it is meant to allow us for a greater appreciation of the things we have rather than focusing on what we don't or what has been taken away from us. many of those who have not suffered as much as you have (ie. have not seen a lifetime of shit) frequently live in ignorance and a lack of appreciation for the things their life has bestowed upon them. it is easy to claim that ignorance is bliss, but in the end, it is ignorance which proves the most crippling. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Manticore : you have hit the nail on the head . Thankyou! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thus, puzzle-solving has always been one of my greatest hobbies - but not just any old typical puzzle-solving being the greatest challenge - think of russell within a realm of the dionysian mindset - now THAT'S crazy.. ;) Russell with a dionysian mindset ... shit. (what of Russell's negative fact eh?) - him and early Wittgenstein get into a bit of trouble with infinite regress over the correspondence theory of truth no? the nice thing about logic is - it all is derived from 3 or less initial explicit premises. but it is seductive to lose sight of this, in which case it becomes mathematicized version of platonism - which is ok if its used in an applied/limited context. re: the end of Truth, if it is to be achieved within the realm of science - then arguably by the nature/definition of science there will never be one: ie. falsifiability ... logic has the same problem with the platonic untouchable initial premises ... (have you read Rorty's article Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and the reification of language (in Cambridge Companion to Heidegger)? A bit flat, but a thoroughly recommended read. here's some food for thought, (can't remember name of test), but some psychologists have found that humans are systematically irrational (logic proffessors failed in the seemingly simple task also!). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Answering the topic's question... GET THEM BEFORE THEY GET YOU! and TEAR TEH BALLZ OFF!!11 and GET MONEY AND MARRY A WOMAN. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh true, i completely agree with the fact that humans are irrational beings - BUT regardless, we are still able to create little frames of mind for ourselves and for others to enjoy, no? :) yes, falsifiability - good ol' popper. well, im more of a fan of kuhn, but generally, not a big fan of the topics floating around the philosophy of science - snore snore snore. politics, name-calling and more bullshit! wait.. that is philosophy in a nutshell! wait.. that's EVERYTHING in a nutshell! haha... :) i have read one article by rorty - having to do with the problems of freudian psychoanalysis.. he's quite the talker, quite dense reading, but seems to be on the ball. i had a prof once tell me that rorty was an ass in person, but good on paper :) and speaking of absurdity and fantastic elements, i just picked up bulgakov's master and margarita at the store today - which is sitting right beside my predicate logic primer.. haha... life.. it's so crazy :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we are still able to create little frames of mind for ourselves and for others to enjoy, no? :) exactly!!! re: rorty - from what i've read, he's quite a lucid writer .. quite dense in the sense of the apparent ease he covers "loaded" material. which i guess in some way doesn't sit too uncomfortably with him being an ass. :) oh, and i do not like popper one bit .. ok that might be exagerating .. but don't like his authoritative/naive way of reasoning? ... Kuhn is definetly where its at with respect philosophy of science. (~a bit of an anglo version of structuralism/post-structuralism) but yeah .. everything has the tendency to degenerate into name calling, finger pointing - arguing with hammers ? :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey jenf: u at U of T? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey mappatazee, "you alter the physical, the result is an alteration in consciousness. Plain to see." i would not argue that in the least. i would add to that the opposite, that consiousness effects the physical, no less than the physical effects the consiousness. when you meditate, or ride a bike really fast, or have sex etc, you are consciuosly altering the physical in may ways, including your brain electrochemistry. simply put, the forces of physical nature are no more causal than consiousness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just goes to show how arbitrary the physical/conscious distinction really is! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
some thoughts: those who dismiss the existence of god for merely having been exposed to the christian interpretation of it as a divine being external to and superior than us, as omnipotent, omniscient, etc. have much to ponder over and acquaint themselves with in as far as the nature of god is concerned. dunno if that was aimed at me in some way .. but its exactly talking about the "nature of god" in the way you do that bothers me. christianity is just a nice example to use b/c lots of people are reasonably familiar with its content/vocab .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nope.. you? im at york |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nup .. i'm in new zealand :) just been thinking about doing MA overseas - and Toronto is an option, so was just wondering if you had any inside info re: certain lecturers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah... what year are you in right now? im considering on doing MA, but i would also like to go overseas.. more like germany or somewhere around there... but with the tight money situation, and my non-genius grades (as in, not straight A's, because im lazy), i dont know how far i'll get ;) for uoft, im not sure who the profs are specifically.. but depends on what you want to do of course. i assume you want to go for philosophy? - there is an excellent prof at york (sam mallin) who specializes in existentialism, hermeneutics and phenomenology. he wrote a book about merleau-ponty's philosophy... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the prof that met rorty i was talking about.. his name is david jopling - he specializes in existentialism, philosophy of psychology and mind.. google their names.. you can find stuff that they wrote, or where they did lectures at.. at first i had wanted to do something within existentialist circles, but the interest is gradually fading - ive been more interested in the realm of vilem flusser's philosophy (although he is strongly influenced by husserl, so it is somewhat related), digitial philosophy and artificial intelligence... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
err.. digital rather.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cheers for those names, will check them out. last semester undergrad now ... but i think i'll do Hons. here, and then MA overseas - my general areas of interest are post-structuralism, post-modernism, holism - but more and more i'm interested in ethical stuff (in a meta sense), or more apply all the former stuff in some way. i also have been thinking about doing a dissertation on the philosophy of genetics/paradox of inheritance (ie. tie in analytic philosophy with levi-strauss perhaps) ... but will see. Most realistic options so far Toronto, Riverside (California), maybe Basel (Switzerland) .. I'm a bit weary of applying for Chicago b/c its a bit too good - i'd prefer a place where lecturers were a little less famous, and perhaps more down to earth? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not really familiar with vilem flusser ... but Husserl is quite alright :) a lecturer here in Auckland has gotten research funding to build his own "robot", and analyze its existence - hehe .. he's an interesting guy tho, Stefano Frachi (currently lecturing in stanford), well read in 20th century continental philosophy and philosophy of science, as well as being very apt at logic. His main interest though is artificial intelligence, but from a more continental/multi-disciplinary approach. He published a book, which contains a collection of essays by people in different fields: logic, mathematics, philosophy/humanistics, cognitive science, "teckno science" ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wow.. looks very interesting - i should find out if i can get myself a copy... yeah surprisingly enough, vilem flusser isn't heard of in n.american parts (according to my profs) either.. it seems to stay within europe and south america... there is actually a really interesting link i never finished reading (i have a crappy and dying trinitron monitor that is getting blurry but no adjuster can be found in the back and im too cheap to buy a new one - therefore it hurts my eyes to read too long on the comp), but here it is: briefly, it discusses hermeneutics and AI... i prefer gadamer over habermas though.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh .. the book is available online - see link below. Yeah .. only briefly dealt with Gadamer and Habermas -> quite a bit of too-ing and fro-ing. Prefer Marcuse and Horkheimer over Habermas (from what I've read), but a bit cagey about Critical Theory as such. Been meaning to check out Gadamer and Ricouer in more detail. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
