 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)Roger Wilco ...and 296 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Is nihilism the conclusion? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Every atheist has to be a nihilist, pretty much. At least, I don't know how you could not derive nihilism from atheism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"You'll notice I'm not just making vague assertions and linking to articles" Really? Vague asertation 1. "What you're describing is a caricature of a scientist just before his robot monster destroys him and his island fortress explodes." Ha ha! You humorless cunt. :D Neo-Darwinism fails as a mechanism of evolution when you consider the amount of time available and amount of information it needs to generate. See, you're putting Descartes before de horse. The neodarwinian synthesis is not a mechanism of evolution, it's a description of it. This is a telling point - you can't help but see evolutionary theory as a driving force rather than a description because that's an analogy to your belief in a creative entity. Yes, the chance of beneficial mutations occurring is greater than zero. So is the chance of me phasing through my chair. Or the chance of winning on a roulette wheel a thousand times in a row. Conceivability and probability are far apart. But you've never been seen to phase through your chair. Beneficial mutations have been observed many times. I notice you're still not addressing the examples I posted. '"Consciousness" is not a thing even though it's a noun in the English language. It's a name for a process that occurs in some living things.' Actually I find this to be an interesting idea. Could you explain it further? No, not really. It's just a personal observation. I've been meaning to read some Stephen Pinker and Daniel Dennett and that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not necessarily - ive known some that dont believe in a god but do believe in a super human spirit - i would call these people athleists - nihilism is when you take non believe in a world outside of human invention to its extreme. mappa - do you mean a catch all? i am sure you could reduce any argument down to nothing however - its not that simple to just say, i believe in nothing - its how you define nothing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wouldn't call those people atheists. I think the 'greater good'(which is absent in nihilism) is probably dependent on a greater being(which is absent in atheism). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well to think that a greater being is present in anything is certainly not nihilism - but can be atheism major difference |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you might be thinking of an agnostic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
All matter is merely energy condensed into vibration. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
an atheist jus doesn't believe in a god. he can believe in a soul, he can believe in lots of stuff. a nihilist doesn't believe in anything. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a nihilist believes that nothing exists outside of the scope of human comprehension. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the word nihilist means "one who believes in nothing." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
When Christians understand why they themselves don't believe in Athena, they'll understand why atheists don't believe in Yahweh. Christians are atheists too when it comes to other people's gods, spirits and demons. Atheists are just Christians who believe in one less god. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know what a nihilist is, I just don't know how you could logically come to the conclusion that there is a soul if there is no higher power. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
About the Meyer paper: he makes the same mistake about the cambrian "explosion" that Stephen Jay Gould did (for which he was by Richard Dawkins). I'll have more to say about this later - the paper is an interesting read, and so is review of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I consider myself to be a nihilist. But saying that I have a 'belief in nothing' is a little misleading. I'd say it stems from the realization that meaning does not exist, there is no reason to value truth over falsity (other than biological reasons, which are not value judgements in themselves). I would neither accept all of existence or reject all of existence. Because if I denied everything, I would be making an assertion. And no assertion is possible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
atheist is just we don't believe in religion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the soul isn't connected to any higher power.. it is not simply the part of "you" that goes to heaven or hell... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
add a necessarily before "connected" there... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The notion of the soul is all that remains of the concept of the . There is no little you-essence inside your mind in a driver's seat. Your mind is you. Otherwise the little-you would need another little-you inside it, etc., leading to infinite regress. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The notion of the soul is all that remains of the concept of the homunculus. well.. no. The notion of the soul has been around for ages, and definately since before anyone thought of the homonuculus. Do some more background checking. Your mind is you. if you by mind mean brain, then I thorougly disagree.. the brain may be the nerve centre of the body, but I refuse to believe that a blob with electricity is creating all my thoughts, feelings, desires, and so-on. I'm inclined to believe Descartes more on this point, where the soul only communicates with the body through the brain (however, I don't believe it to be as specific as the glandula pinealis, nor does the soul necessarily have to exist on its own, or be one single entity, if you will.. I don't really think I can put what I think my soul is into words.. the correct words don't exist (and don't even think of holding that against me.. words that are missing from a language hinder people from thinking about things in the way the words that are missing are, and for instance, as with the japanese who had no words specific to colors, it didn't mean they saw everything in black and white (even though some people say that.. erh.. one of them isn't a even a color.. can't remember which), and if it did, they would see nothing at all, as those two are colors (or not, but that wouldn't matter)). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
At what point in brain development does the soul then 'jump in and take control'? How does the soul receive messages from the brain without the intereactions being detected? And how are you supposed to believe in something you can't even explain? How am I even supposed to know what you're talking about? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
At what point in brain development does the soul then 'jump in and take control'? well, it would be there all the time, so the answer is never. also, there wouldn't necessarily have to be a 1:1 ratio, nor would there have to be one large singe soul... How does the soul receive messages from the brain without the intereactions being detected? well, first off.. they could already be detecting it.. it's called brain activity. secondly, if that is not the communication, there wouldn't have to be something measurable in the communication, and the soul wouldn't have to exist somewhere specific. and third: we may not have the technology. And how are you supposed to believe in something you can't even explain? well, that's a silly question isn't it? both you and I believe in things we can't explain. I can't explain gravity, but I definately believe in it... How am I even supposed to know what you're talking about? I don't know. the best I can do is answer your questions... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so does it come attatched to the sperm or the egg? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
neither. as I said it wouldn't have to be special for each person, nor a single entity of its own. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. no. The notion of the soul has been around for ages, and definately since before anyone thought of the homonuculus. Do some more background checking. I'm not saying the idea of the soul originated from the idea of the homunculus. if you by mind mean brain, then I thorougly disagree.. the brain may be the nerve centre of the body, but I refuse to believe that a blob with electricity is creating all my thoughts, feelings, desires, and so-on. Like I said earlier, consciousness is to brain as falling is to rain. "Falling" doesn't hustle off to another appointment after the last raindrop hits the ground. Similarly, your mind doesn't go anywhere after your brain dies. It's an activity that isn't happening any more. Or so it seems to me. I'm inclined to believe Descartes more on this point, where the soul only communicates with the body through the brain How could we test that idea, do you think? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not saying the idea of the soul originated from the idea of the homunculus. how could the notion of the soul be a remnant of it then? How could we test that idea, do you think? as I said: measuring brain activity. it's as likely that brain activity is a result of communication between the brain and the soul that it is a generation of thoughts, feelings and stuff like that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not saying the idea of the soul originated from the idea of the homunculus. how could the notion of the soul be a remnant of it then? Poor choice of words on my part! I meant it's the only remaining similar idea. How could we test that idea, do you think? as I said: measuring brain activity. it's as likely that brain activity is a result of communication between the brain and the soul that it is a generation of thoughts, feelings and stuff like that. Are you saying that there's no way to determine whether the brain activity is caused by a soul or if it's the result of natural processes? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are you saying that there's no way to determine whether the brain activity is caused by a soul or if it's the result of natural processes? (except for the fact that "natural processes" would include processes created by the soul, but I get what you mean) you're spot on! except for electrical discharges due to direct nerve stimuli (prick yourself with a needle and a part of the brain "lights up"), no-one knows why the other parts of the brain have activity... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(except for the fact that "natural processes" would include processes created by the soul, but I get what you mean) you're spot on! If there's no way to determine whether brain activity is caused by the soul or not, why postulate a soul at all? Is this like your wing-demons that operate in parallel with aerodynamics? except for electrical discharges due to direct nerve stimuli (prick yourself with a needle and a part of the brain "lights up"), no-one knows why the other parts of the brain have activity... In many people they don't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So what happens when all brain activity is accounted for? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there lie problems in the act of compartmentalizing the contents of the mind, or reality for that matter. take for example the concept of an unconscious. its not unlike a big unlit room which we blindly poke around in for something that is lost. we say to ourselves, 'i dont know where this thing is, but because i cant find it, it must be in this room!' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If there's no way to determine whether brain activity is caused by the soul or not, why postulate a soul at all? Is this like your wing-demons that operate in parallel with aerodynamics? well.. the easiest answer would be "why not," but that answer sucks, so... why postulate a soul at all? I find it more believeable that my thoughts don't come from electricity in the central nerve system. In many people they don't. ? I thought we were past the insults? mappatazee: it is.. they just don't know why some of it happens, and that's where the soul would come in. for some reason, I can't stop myself from writing sould whenever I try to write soul.. there's something compelling me to add that d.. been doing it with all the posts up until now, and I always have to go back and delete all the ds.. weird |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. the easiest answer would be "why not," but that answer sucks, so... why postulate a soul at all? I find it more believeable that my thoughts don't come from electricity in the central nerve system. Faith is not fact and belief is not evidence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. on the matter of why we think and feel, there are no facts (yet), so guesses and belief are all we got. I'm betting on the horse I think will win... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we do have the ability to become aware of all the whys and hows of our consciousness. but to become so aware requires total dedication. almost all of us will never make it because we are tied down to our lives as we know them. we would like things to be explained easily and in a concise manner, but anything we will ever be taught is only a guide. all of the hard work is up to us as individuals. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
When you ask why, do you mean in the sense of teleology or in the sense of physiology? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said physiology - I should have said function. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just...why do you even argue when you admit that you have no reason for your assertions? Besides "I can't accept that...", "I refuse to believe...", "I find it more believable...". Since when did what you 'think' (or feel) correspond to what really is? There's no proof of telepathy or anything like it. There's no proof of anything other than what's physically inside your skull. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think he believes that no one knows anything more about the mind and the brain than he does. Therefore the mind works because of magic fairy homo beans. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Therefore the mind works because of magic fairy homo beans. i've heard this is true. i believe this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it doesn't matter.. no-one knows yet why the brain can act spontaneously, and why.. well.. this one is a bit hard to explain.. when you think of something, the brain activity in the corresponding part of your brain lights up at the same time, so the question 'where did the "command" to think about that come from?' (when thiking about abstract stuff, for instance or stuff you have no current sensory perception of that could trigger any memory) arises, and there is no physical explanation for it.. the soul, however, gives a perfectly reasonable explanation, imo. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have as many reasons and as much security for my belief as you have for your belief in this; neither science nor "the belief" have any definite answers in this, but belief has more believeable theories. Granted; I may accept different evidence than you (have you ever seen your own brain? is it even there? (not an attempt at an insult, and it would suck if it was)). now, part of the problem here is that I have to use the word belief to describe what I think while you can use science.. while, imo, neither of them are "strong" enough to achieve the power of being called science, as it is an evaluative-descriptive expression which kind of justifies the facts by calling them science, things called belief is often passed off as being not true just due to the "value" of the word... I should really have a better word for my part of this, as both sides seem almost equally strong, and I do agree with you on certain points, and see why you can't accept my side ("realism"), but excluding the soul, and even excluding it as a possibility is out of the question for me. regardless this discussion is making me think of things I haven thought about before, and that is great! Since when did what you 'think' (or feel) correspond to what really is? as I see it: we all interpret the world subjectively. while the objects have a separate existence and wouldn't go away if we all died, they just wouldn't have any meaning if no-one interpreted them... a fork is just a piece of metal (yeah, I wrote spoon there, and then it would seem like I've just seen the matrix lots of times, but that movie is below average on everything but action and imagery). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oops.. forgot to close an < i > |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahaha! well, there are probably people who know more than me about the physical aspect of the brain, but on the beforementioned why, we're all equally knowledgeable. I'd feel like posting that pic of childrentalking talking to promo on watmm soon.. hahaha! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and there is no physical explanation for it.. I'm sorry, but you don't have a doctorate in neurology so far as I know, so you have no place making that kind of sweeping statement about the limits of our knowledge. If you can find some references that support your claim that aren't from a journal of pyramidology, I'd like to see them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, you can just pick any of the articles you can find and read them.. they can prove how a part of the brain is active when speaking or performing motoric operations or recieving input, but as I've said so many times alread: they still have NO idea why the brain acts.. why we can decide to move our arms without any input that would suggest we should move our arm.. the way the brain is wired, it's all about stimuli-reaction, but how can we decide to do something spontaneously? Short: they know how not why, and I'm getting tired of saying that over and over... As you'll see in these articles, none of them have any answers as to why the brain does something, they just know that if you prick your finger, it reacts, and which parts are connected to what... (check some of the internal links in this article for a few interesting theories on why the brain operates) ... unrelated in a way: (this was some of the subject in the animé serial experiments lain too, and I don't really know about this theory, but it keeps up the comparison between the brain and a computer, and as you know a computer needs someone to tell it what to do) feel free to link any articles you can find discussing why we act spontaneously... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah man, we do it to get food to live//// and waterr |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so I'm having this discussion so that I can have food and water? yeah, ok.. makes sense |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, you can just pick any of the articles you can find and read them.. I'm not doing your work for you. You made a statement, now support it. Find a recent peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal or a recent textbook at an advanced level that says there's no physical explanation for spontaneous brain activity. Asking me to refute a statement you haven't provided any support for is called shifting the burden of proof. "You commit this if you make a claim that needs justification, then demand that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
