 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 161 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614367 Today 13 Topics 127560 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nevermind chaos theory for a moment(which, technically, isn't even a theory) because my main point through all this (whatever it is we're discussing/arguing) doesn't require it. i don't know if there is evidence of telekinesis and i wasn't trying to argue that there is. if reality is taken to be explained by physics alone or even and there were nothing else, holes in logic arise like "why can't i exert my will to make a chair levitate like i can make my hand form a fist?" physics has nothing to say about this. there can be observed a correlation between neurological phenomenon and emotional experience, but the science does nothing to explain the experience of emotion. there is an infinitely large gap between brain and mind and brain and emotion and it will always exist no matter how complex and deep we take our science. science is incredible, amazing, wonderful, so much so that we forget and take for granted the basic unknown, the Great Mystery of life and existence in general that will never be explained by science. existence when examined with logic alone becomes, at a certain depth of analysis, paradoxical, unexplainable or mystical. i believe that the belief in god takes root, whether one is conscious of this or not, in confrontation of this mystery. so for you to just say that the concept of god is absurd is bit hypocritical, because it is equally or more absurd to choose ignorance of the Great Mystery. if you don't acknowledge and discuss this mystery you have no authority on the exitence of god and your atheism is laughable. there is not only science and there is not only god. both sicence and god are misunderstood. explaining away the miracle that is life or existence in general with simplistic logic that ultimately fails at certain depth makes me ill. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that said, i don't much respect blind faith in the HeManGod either. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Mysteries are only mysteries until they're solved, and we find out Jehovah was just Old Man McGillicuddy in a scary get up. "And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you DARN KIDS" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
on the one hand, i understand that the subject is not something most people can or should take seriously unless they're drawn to it personally... on the other, i'm a little discouraged that in being called a hypocrite you neither deny it and defend yourself nor ponder the possiblity that it's true. not the first time my comments have been ignored in these "serious" topics. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I hope you realize that throughout this entire thread I have been typing responses without touching the keyboard. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
pfff, i knew that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I had beans for dinner so my chair should be levitating shortly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
these jokes are almost as bad as the pete townshend one |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Mysteries are only mysteries until they're solved..." that's impossible, because everythings a mystery, there is NO such thing as fact. Think about it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fleetmouse is not being serious, he's completely opted out of the discussion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in favor of ignorance? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Although science cant answer these questions right now, who's to say that 1,000,000 years from now, science CAN answer those questions. Ghosts? Just so happens the reason is this. ESP? Here's how it works. Why do we have emotions? Because the universe does this... etc. Its not that science CANT answer these quesitons, its just that (human) science is still in its infant years, and the real journey has only just begun. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but then there are also aren't mysteries. they're all definitions. if this discussion goes into that direction it will get boring pretty quick. anyway, on jupitah's notes.. science doesn not have all the answers but in theory CAN have all the answers, if there is enough time/resources/people. and to say science does nothing to explain emotion is just plain wrong - there are whole fields of psychological study devoted to finding out more about that. "the Great Mystery of life and existence in general that will never be explained by science" nowhere in your initial post do you give a concrete reason why you think this. you assume, but do not reason. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i couldn't agree more, but i'm not sure that was the best place, being such a long conversation. a matter of opinion i guess. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I get so fed up of these debates that end up like Bill Clinton answering questions in court, haggling over the meaning of obvious words. I also get the feeling you won't be happy until I'm floating serenely in a full lotus position over a sea of milk. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
HE didnt, doesnt and will never exist (imho) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
emotional is fundamental to our experience and emotion cannot be truly understood outside the experience of the emotion. all logic is based on a fundamental axiom or else it is circular. like asche said, there is NO such thing as fact. this is because there is not ultimate flawless logic. science is based upon logic. you can complexify science into eternity and you will only be complexifying the fundamental question of what is stuff or what is experience or what is existence or blah blah... it never ends with a final understanding. core understanding will always be elusive. the all knowing science is a wet dream. science is a tool to be used alongside other forms of knowing. logic is to be used alongside intution. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"emotional is fundamental to our experience and emotion cannot be truly understood outside the experience of the emotion." there you go again! you make a statement like that but take no time to tell us WHY you think this is so. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'd be happy if we'd get off the wet dream that we're going to know everything some day. i was hardly living until the humble realization that not all questions can be answered. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
because it's emotion! it can't be logiked away! that's my effing point! not only will we not have all the answers but it is not even possible! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what of the school of thought that says emotions and even human selfawareness are byproducts of the brains proceses? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science is a tool, but as soon as it becomes your religion you all suffer intellectual masterbation. you all need a big bowl of humble! it's warm and delicious :p |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to me you seem to be the one who thinks he knows it all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Excuse me, o Keeper of Great Mysteries, but you might want to taste that soup yourself before you start ladling it out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, could you explain to me at what magic number of frontal lobe cells emotion and self awareness clicked? i don't tend to believe in magic clicks, because science shows that reality is stock full of continuums and not clear boundaries. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
point taken. i still think the ones who claim science can answer everything are the hungry ones. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
qter, basically i think that school of thought is more arrogant human intellectual masterbation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"If anyone thinks that nothing can be known, he does not know whether even this can be known, since he admits that he knows nothing." Lucretius |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nice acid, jupitah. hope to get to know you better }{ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't think nothing can be known, i think that everything cannot be known, that the in answering questions of reality other questions are spawned. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
All I know is next time I have an infected cut I'm going to the doctor for antibiotics, not to the motherfucking palm reader to have my fucking chakras lubed and rotated. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why? again, just a statement. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
look.. I didn't study this, so I cannot give those answers. but there are theories on just this. look them up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think this because of the reply previous to that statement, and because it's obviously anthrocentric. it's not well thought out and full of logic holes, yet it's believed by so many. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but do you see what i mean about the magic number statement? it doesn't work, the byproduct theory. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but these theories do not speak of "magic clicks" - I think it was Daniel Dennett who proposed that human consciousness is made up out of a whole construct of processes, which all go hand in hand, with not one part being the most important. the construct itself being the most important. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fleetmouse, of you think i am antiscience or anti-western medicine i can only conclude that you don't understand my point at all. o don't condone taking your ills to the local new age center. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but if consciousness is attributed to one being and not another, you must follow the evolutionary path back to the common ancestor and say at this point the being became conscious. i've read various explanations for byproduct consiousness and they are all desperate in the face of evolution. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't know enough about this to follow this discussion through. I'd have to read up on Dennett. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"at this point" not being the common ancestor, but at some point in the path, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Consciousness comes in degrees. Many animals show signs of consciousness and awareness. An experiment with chimpanzees showed that they could recocgnize when they had knowl;edge that another chimpanzee did not. Why does it have to be like a light switch? It's more like a slow dawning that took hundreds of millions of years. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree... like a said over and over again, continuums. but by this logic there is always a degree of conscious, or form of consciousness and never something that is not consious. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't claim an understanding of how it all works, but i imagine that rather than us being "more" consoius than animals or even more than plants, we might be more 'self-consious' or condensed conscsiouenss. for example, maybe some animals don't recognize a distinction between themself and their environment, just following the flow of instinct. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What about bacteria? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
got get off the pop's line, it was nice chatting, g'night. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
