Do you believe in a soul?

[Revenant]

Science is Philosphy.

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

Science is a means to explain life and that around us.

Through experiments, gathering data, taking into account conflicting data, etc.

Philosophy does it just through thinking about it.  Thinking about it rationally, yes, but it isn't science.

Right, Philosophy isn't science, but science is philosophy.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

science produces results, though. philosophy produces boring literature coursework.

[Idem]

Re:  profit  So which do you find more viable to explain the universe, science or philosophy?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

science, of course. philosophy is too subjective.

[Revenant]

science produces results, though. philosophy produces boring literature coursework.

It is still a result. Not all result are exciting.

Has everyone forgotten that science was born from philosophy?

It has evolved quite a bit since then, but it does not change the foundation.  Science questions the workings of everything and seeks to fine a definable answer.  Where it differs from standard philosophy, is it seeks to show tangible proof of its answers.

[Revenant]

Re:  profit  So which do you find more viable to explain the universe, science or philosophy?

Neither, the universe is too vast to be explained by us.  It is akin to a micro-organism trying to explain humans to each other.

[Kai]

1) I proposed a theory hypothesis, work = applied energy.

2) Biochemistry drives the body, Biology is merely the study of the living. Bio=living, ology=study of.

3)Chemical energy from food which is processed from other commands that also uses energy.  By this method, you are saying we must eat first in order to do anything.  However, a machine must have initial energy to start.  This cannot be food as we begin the living process as single cells absent of a food source.

4)The heart is caused to pump because it does, a heart outside of the body with an applied current will beat.  The chemicals issued by the brain and other functions causes the heart to beat in a certain fashion.

5) The brain is composed of specialized neurons which send electrical signals to each other through a chemical medium.  How these neurons differ exactly from those which feel pain and drive the muscles is unclear at this time.


And last I am not saying that the body get its energy from something more divine, but that energy in and of itself is the divine.

Um....first of all, do you seriously think that the egg has no suppliance of any sort of nutriment during its development, or that the sperm just sort of lives on without any sugar boost. I really don't even know how to put this....SPERMIES SWIM IN SUGAR FLUID. There, I said it. What the egg and sperm don't supply is gained from the mother which is gained from ingestion. In other organisms, there is a yolk, in humans there is very little need for a yolk because the egg soon attaches to the uterus lining. Its called a placenta.

Second, I've got a degree in biology. I know what the word means. I learned what the word means in high school for fucksake.

Third, a heart does not pump because it does. A heart pumps due to specialized neural pacemakers which operate independent of the brain, and the pace is augmented by acetocholine, among other things.

Fouth, The brain is composed largely of unspecialized neurons which provide nutriment for the action potential sending neurons. Even then, action potential neurons are not all that different from each other except in number of dendrites, number of axons, lengths of the two, and the synaptic connections (the most important part) that exist between neurons. Also, its only unclear to you. Neural physiologists can easily explain the difference between sensory neurons, motor neurons, connective neurons, central nervous system neurons, etc, and the differences are for the reasons I already listed above.



D/N/T


Also, fuck this. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain basic biology to a person whom it is wasted upon. I have better things to do with my time.

[Revenant]

Also, fuck this. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain basic biology to a person whom it is wasted upon. I have better things to do with my time.

Spoken like a true fanatic.

[Idem]

Re:  profit  So which do you find more viable to explain the universe, science or philosophy?

Neither, the universe is too vast to be explained by us.  It is akin to a micro-organism trying to explain humans to each other.

The universe being all-inclusive.

The micro-organism's universe includes the micro-organism.

Let's use something simple, something that our own perceptions go through scientific method to figure out.  "Does fire hurt?"

In science, you would supposedly form a hypothesis that it does not hurt, touch it, form a new hypothesis that it hurts, and that would eventually become theory if it was successively proven again and again.  The theory being "Fire does hurt".

In philosophy, you would see the fire and start thinking about why or why not the flames might or might not hurt you.

One is more useless in explaining things than the other.

[Nast]

Also, fuck this. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain basic biology to a person whom it is wasted upon. I have better things to do with my time.

Spoken like a true fanatic.

Fuck off. Just because you can't apply anything credible to your babbling pseudo-scientific musings doesn't give you the right to call Kai a fanatic.

[Revenant]

Re:  profit  So which do you find more viable to explain the universe, science or philosophy?

Neither, the universe is too vast to be explained by us.  It is akin to a micro-organism trying to explain humans to each other.

The universe being all-inclusive.

The micro-organism's universe includes the micro-organism.

Let's use something simple, something that our own perceptions go through scientific method to figure out.  "Does fire hurt?"

See "Does fire hurt?" is not the actual question.  We learn from experience that indeed it does.  What question is then asked, "Why does fire hurt?"  That is more philosophical.

[Idem]

Re:  profit  So which do you find more viable to explain the universe, science or philosophy?

Neither, the universe is too vast to be explained by us.  It is akin to a micro-organism trying to explain humans to each other.

The universe being all-inclusive.

The micro-organism's universe includes the micro-organism.

Let's use something simple, something that our own perceptions go through scientific method to figure out.  "Does fire hurt?"

See "Does fire hurt?" is not the actual question.  We learn from experience that indeed it does.

And that, by definition, is science.

What question is then asked, "Why does fire hurt?"  That is more philosophical.

That can be quantified.  Your hand is made of matter.  What connects from your hand to your brain is made of matter.  Your brain is made of matter.

[Revenant]

Also, fuck this. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain basic biology to a person whom it is wasted upon. I have better things to do with my time.

Spoken like a true fanatic.

Fuck off. Just because you can't apply anything credible to your babbling pseudo-scientific musings doesn't give you the right to call Kai a fanatic.

No, his statements of "If it is not science, it is useless." and " I'm not wasting my time trying to explain basic biology to a person whom it is wasted upon." Are my basis for stating fanaticism.

If you don't believe me, simply replace science and biology with Christianity or Islam or Star Wars or anything.  It screams fanatic.  I should have realized back when he was using all caps.

[Revenant]

Re:  profit  So which do you find more viable to explain the universe, science or philosophy?

Neither, the universe is too vast to be explained by us.  It is akin to a micro-organism trying to explain humans to each other.

The universe being all-inclusive.

The micro-organism's universe includes the micro-organism.

Let's use something simple, something that our own perceptions go through scientific method to figure out.  "Does fire hurt?"

See "Does fire hurt?" is not the actual question.  We learn from experience that indeed it does.

And that, by definition, is science.

No, that by definition is life, which forms the foundations for philosophy.

[Idem]

Re:  profit  So which do you find more viable to explain the universe, science or philosophy?

Neither, the universe is too vast to be explained by us.  It is akin to a micro-organism trying to explain humans to each other.

The universe being all-inclusive.

The micro-organism's universe includes the micro-organism.

Let's use something simple, something that our own perceptions go through scientific method to figure out.  "Does fire hurt?"

See "Does fire hurt?" is not the actual question.  We learn from experience that indeed it does.

And that, by definition, is science.

No, that by definition is life, which forms the foundations for philosophy.

"We learn from experience that indeed it does."

Did we learn that fire hurts through science or philosophy?